Conventions

A place to show your less than three for Obama.

Re: Conventions

Postby Alex » Mon Sep 15, 2008 11:40 am

raymeaux wrote:So, why the debate that we have to "kill" embryos that have the possibility to become a human child, if given the chance? It's not the only way to achieve the same goals...so who's being stubborn?


This is just nonsensical. If you really believe there are scientists stubbornly refusing to do any research on stem cells because they really want to kill some embryos to get them, then show me some evidence, because I find that impossible to believe.

As Duck's article earlier showed, people on the pro-stem cell side are spending a lot of time and money trying to develop these other sources of stem cells, but the fact remains that they're not as useful as embryonic stem cells and won't be anytime in the near future.

And it's not just the idea of "creating embyos for the sole purpose of harvesting them" that the Republicans oppose. Embryos are created every day for women attempting in vitro fertilization that are never used. There are hundreds of thousands of these embryos - which have already been created and will never grow into a human - sitting in freezers of fertility clinics around the country. These could also be used for stem cells, if the government didn't bar funding on embryonic stem cell research.
User avatar
Alex
 
Posts: 965
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2006 11:28 am
Location: 20.19692°, 12.966855°

Re: Conventions

Postby Alex » Mon Sep 15, 2008 11:45 am

Ren wrote:Imagine if Hitler's embryo were used for stem cells how much better the world would be....


Dude, if that happened, just image how many people there might be walking around with Hitler's DNA in their heart or liver or endochrine system!
User avatar
Alex
 
Posts: 965
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2006 11:28 am
Location: 20.19692°, 12.966855°

Re: Conventions

Postby raymeaux » Mon Sep 15, 2008 12:26 pm

Alex wrote:As Duck's article earlier showed, people on the pro-stem cell side are spending a lot of time and money trying to develop these other sources of stem cells, but the fact remains that they're not as useful as embryonic stem cells and won't be anytime in the near future.

And it's not just the idea of "creating embyos for the sole purpose of harvesting them" that the Republicans oppose. Embryos are created every day for women attempting in vitro fertilization that are never used. There are hundreds of thousands of these embryos - which have already been created and will never grow into a human - sitting in freezers of fertility clinics around the country. These could also be used for stem cells, if the government didn't bar funding on embryonic stem cell research.


1. You have to back off of that first statement. You're stating that embryonic stem cells are more useful...show me that "fact". I have read that pluripotent stem cells MAY have more POSSIBLE uses. But, that's the point of the research isn't it? Stated that as fact is a little bit over reaching. The actual fact is that there are more practical uses for the other type of stem cells, right now. And granted, that is due to the "head start" that this type of research has gotten. But, the only thing anyone can point to when talking about pluripotent stem cells is the "possibilities". And, as I've already stated, there are numerous ways to get pluripotent stem cells to do research that doesn't involve destroying a living embryo to do that.

2. I was wondering when y'all would get around to the in vitro "leftovers", because I oppose this also. It's unnecessary and wasteful. But, besides that...
a) You cannot say for a certainty that these embryos will never grow into humans, you can say that it is unlikely that they will be allowed to mature. But, there is a reason that those embryos are "banked" and some of those banked embryos ARE used for in vitro fertilization,

From emedicinehealth:

"Embryo donation: Receiving a donor embryo (usually from a frozen embryo created in the laboratory from another couple) is the earliest form of adoption. The donor couple must sign an advance directive regarding embryo ownership and disposition. Those directives should include statements regarding (1) embryo donation to another couple, (2) donation of the embryos for research, or (3) disposition of the embryos after thawing."

I know somebody will say something about point (2)...so I'll beat you to it. Couple that with the statement about "earliest form of adoption" and you have to admit that it just isn't right. That would be like dropping your kid off at an orphanage and saying "I don't think anyone is going to want him...he can be used for medical testing".
raymeaux
 
Posts: 610
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:01 pm

Re: Conventions

Postby raymeaux » Mon Sep 15, 2008 12:46 pm

Alex wrote:This is just nonsensical. If you really believe there are scientists stubbornly refusing to do any research on stem cells because they really want to kill some embryos to get them, then show me some evidence, because I find that impossible to believe.


My argument has nothing to do with the scientists. The whole argument was about the "political" debate on how research could be conducted. Show me some evidence that scientists AREN'T doing research on pluripotent stem cells. I'll save you the time, you won't find any. The fact remains that scientists can conduct the same research without destroying living embryos...this is fact. So, the "stubborness" that I'm talking about is the insistence to use viable embryos to conduct the testing.

It's just "easier" to destroy viable embryos to get pluripotent stem cells. Easier is not always right.

I've stated before...I'm 100% pro stem cell research and I'm 100% opposed to destroying viable embryos to conduct the research. It's stubborn to want to have your embryo and kill it, too. The research is happening, so why the insistence of destroying viable embryos? That is "stubborn". I'm being subborn, also. But my stubborness is based on giving a living organism the chance to mature into a human. We were all embryos once.
raymeaux
 
Posts: 610
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:01 pm

Re: Conventions

Postby raymeaux » Mon Sep 15, 2008 1:13 pm

Here's the ultimate botom line.

There are kids walking around today that started out as an embryo in a fertility clinic or laboratory, could you seriously walk up to one of those kids and say "you would have been more useful being used for stem cell research".

There are many embryos and fetuses that unfortunately never get the chance to be born, not because of anything we did to prevent it from happening. Just because they don't make it and I don't have a problem with using their cells for research.

But, I couldn't go up to anyone...no matter how good or bad...and say that stem cell research is more important than you. Living embryos have a CHANCE to become a living human and I'm not going to be the one to say we should remove any chance that could happen. It doesn't even matter if they have "long odds"...if a living embryo is used for stem cell research, it has to odds at all.
raymeaux
 
Posts: 610
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:01 pm

Re: Conventions

Postby Ren » Mon Sep 15, 2008 1:55 pm

raymeaux wrote:Here's the ultimate botom line.

There are kids walking around today that started out as an embryo in a fertility clinic or laboratory, could you seriously walk up to one of those kids and say "you would have been more useful being used for stem cell research".

There are many embryos and fetuses that unfortunately never get the chance to be born, not because of anything we did to prevent it from happening. Just because they don't make it and I don't have a problem with using their cells for research.

But, I couldn't go up to anyone...no matter how good or bad...and say that stem cell research is more important than you. Living embryos have a CHANCE to become a living human and I'm not going to be the one to say we should remove any chance that could happen. It doesn't even matter if they have "long odds"...if a living embryo is used for stem cell research, it has to odds at all.


you would have been more useful being used for stem cell research.
User avatar
Ren
Dirty Mexican
 
Posts: 3575
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:20 am
Location: the internet

Re: Conventions

Postby Kenny Powers » Mon Sep 15, 2008 2:14 pm

raymeaux wrote:Here's the ultimate botom line.

There are kids walking around today that started out as an embryo in a fertility clinic or laboratory, could you seriously walk up to one of those kids and say "you would have been more useful being used for stem cell research".

There are many embryos and fetuses that unfortunately never get the chance to be born, not because of anything we did to prevent it from happening. Just because they don't make it and I don't have a problem with using their cells for research.

But, I couldn't go up to anyone...no matter how good or bad...and say that stem cell research is more important than you. Living embryos have a CHANCE to become a living human and I'm not going to be the one to say we should remove any chance that could happen. It doesn't even matter if they have "long odds"...if a living embryo is used for stem cell research, it has to odds at all.


That's not the ultimate bottom line. Just your misguided opinion.
A lot of people ask me, "Kenny Powers, you're a giant superstar. You can get any woman. Have you ever paid for sex?' And the answer is yes, I have. Several times, in fact. And it's actually kinda cool. You can negotiate practically anything and sometimes, even just kind of do stuff in the moment that you never agreed to pay for and it goes by without much argument.
User avatar
Kenny Powers
The Mole
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 12:05 pm

Re: Conventions

Postby raymeaux » Mon Sep 15, 2008 3:15 pm

Ren wrote:
raymeaux wrote:Here's the ultimate botom line.

There are kids walking around today that started out as an embryo in a fertility clinic or laboratory, could you seriously walk up to one of those kids and say "you would have been more useful being used for stem cell research".

There are many embryos and fetuses that unfortunately never get the chance to be born, not because of anything we did to prevent it from happening. Just because they don't make it and I don't have a problem with using their cells for research.

But, I couldn't go up to anyone...no matter how good or bad...and say that stem cell research is more important than you. Living embryos have a CHANCE to become a living human and I'm not going to be the one to say we should remove any chance that could happen. It doesn't even matter if they have "long odds"...if a living embryo is used for stem cell research, it has to odds at all.


you would have been more useful being used for stem cell research.


Then this is the point where I no longer acknowledge your posts...You're entitled to your opinions and if that opinion is that I would be better off dead...then dead to you I am.
raymeaux
 
Posts: 610
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:01 pm

Re: Conventions

Postby raymeaux » Mon Sep 15, 2008 3:23 pm

Killface wrote:
raymeaux wrote:Here's the ultimate botom line.

There are kids walking around today that started out as an embryo in a fertility clinic or laboratory, could you seriously walk up to one of those kids and say "you would have been more useful being used for stem cell research".

There are many embryos and fetuses that unfortunately never get the chance to be born, not because of anything we did to prevent it from happening. Just because they don't make it and I don't have a problem with using their cells for research.

But, I couldn't go up to anyone...no matter how good or bad...and say that stem cell research is more important than you. Living embryos have a CHANCE to become a living human and I'm not going to be the one to say we should remove any chance that could happen. It doesn't even matter if they have "long odds"...if a living embryo is used for stem cell research, it has to odds at all.


That's not the ultimate bottom line. Just your misguided opinion.


I can state it as my ultimate bottom line. It doesn't have to be YOUR ultimate bottom line.

But, there are kids walking around that started out in a laboratory as an embryo...that's not an enlightened opinion or a misguided opinion, it's a fact. You don't have to agree with the way that I choose to view this fact in regards to my belief that living embryos shouldn't be destroyed, but you can't dispute this fact.
raymeaux
 
Posts: 610
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:01 pm

Re: Conventions

Postby Kenny Powers » Mon Sep 15, 2008 4:30 pm

raymeaux wrote:
Killface wrote:
raymeaux wrote:Here's the ultimate botom line.

There are kids walking around today that started out as an embryo in a fertility clinic or laboratory, could you seriously walk up to one of those kids and say "you would have been more useful being used for stem cell research".

There are many embryos and fetuses that unfortunately never get the chance to be born, not because of anything we did to prevent it from happening. Just because they don't make it and I don't have a problem with using their cells for research.

But, I couldn't go up to anyone...no matter how good or bad...and say that stem cell research is more important than you. Living embryos have a CHANCE to become a living human and I'm not going to be the one to say we should remove any chance that could happen. It doesn't even matter if they have "long odds"...if a living embryo is used for stem cell research, it has to odds at all.


That's not the ultimate bottom line. Just your misguided opinion.


I can state it as my ultimate bottom line. It doesn't have to be YOUR ultimate bottom line.

But, there are kids walking around that started out in a laboratory as an embryo...that's not an enlightened opinion or a misguided opinion, it's a fact. You don't have to agree with the way that I choose to view this fact in regards to my belief that living embryos shouldn't be destroyed, but you can't dispute this fact.


I don't need to dispute it. I simply disregard it as irrelevant.

The "life" of something that has no heartbeat, intelligence, or personality is meaningless to me compared to how that thing could be used to improve the lives of actual real people. The people currently walking this earth (or lying bed-ridden on it) are far more important than something that may or may not ever actually live.
A lot of people ask me, "Kenny Powers, you're a giant superstar. You can get any woman. Have you ever paid for sex?' And the answer is yes, I have. Several times, in fact. And it's actually kinda cool. You can negotiate practically anything and sometimes, even just kind of do stuff in the moment that you never agreed to pay for and it goes by without much argument.
User avatar
Kenny Powers
The Mole
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 12:05 pm

Re: Conventions

Postby raymeaux » Mon Sep 15, 2008 4:43 pm

Killface wrote:
raymeaux wrote:
Killface wrote:
raymeaux wrote:Here's the ultimate botom line.

There are kids walking around today that started out as an embryo in a fertility clinic or laboratory, could you seriously walk up to one of those kids and say "you would have been more useful being used for stem cell research".

There are many embryos and fetuses that unfortunately never get the chance to be born, not because of anything we did to prevent it from happening. Just because they don't make it and I don't have a problem with using their cells for research.

But, I couldn't go up to anyone...no matter how good or bad...and say that stem cell research is more important than you. Living embryos have a CHANCE to become a living human and I'm not going to be the one to say we should remove any chance that could happen. It doesn't even matter if they have "long odds"...if a living embryo is used for stem cell research, it has to odds at all.


That's not the ultimate bottom line. Just your misguided opinion.


I can state it as my ultimate bottom line. It doesn't have to be YOUR ultimate bottom line.

But, there are kids walking around that started out in a laboratory as an embryo...that's not an enlightened opinion or a misguided opinion, it's a fact. You don't have to agree with the way that I choose to view this fact in regards to my belief that living embryos shouldn't be destroyed, but you can't dispute this fact.


I don't need to dispute it. I simply disregard it as irrelevant.

The "life" of something that has no heartbeat, intelligence, or personality is meaningless to me compared to how that thing could be used to improve the lives of actual real people. The people currently walking this earth (or lying bed-ridden on it) are far more important than something that may or may not ever actually live.


It's a good thing then, that we don't have to make that choice. There are other alternatives. It's not an "either or" proposition. These "things" don't have to die for the bedridden to live. So, the view of "fuck em...let's kill em anyway" doesn't accomplish anything except making damn sure that these "things" never become human. What a victory.
raymeaux
 
Posts: 610
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:01 pm

Re: Conventions

Postby Ren » Mon Sep 15, 2008 4:46 pm

raymeaux wrote:
Ren wrote:
raymeaux wrote:Here's the ultimate botom line.

There are kids walking around today that started out as an embryo in a fertility clinic or laboratory, could you seriously walk up to one of those kids and say "you would have been more useful being used for stem cell research".

There are many embryos and fetuses that unfortunately never get the chance to be born, not because of anything we did to prevent it from happening. Just because they don't make it and I don't have a problem with using their cells for research.

But, I couldn't go up to anyone...no matter how good or bad...and say that stem cell research is more important than you. Living embryos have a CHANCE to become a living human and I'm not going to be the one to say we should remove any chance that could happen. It doesn't even matter if they have "long odds"...if a living embryo is used for stem cell research, it has to odds at all.


you would have been more useful being used for stem cell research.


Then this is the point where I no longer acknowledge your posts...You're entitled to your opinions and if that opinion is that I would be better off dead...then dead to you I am.


I just liked the irony of quoting you with your own rhetorical statement..
User avatar
Ren
Dirty Mexican
 
Posts: 3575
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:20 am
Location: the internet

Re: Conventions

Postby Kenny Powers » Mon Sep 15, 2008 4:55 pm

raymeaux wrote:
Killface wrote:
raymeaux wrote:
Killface wrote:
raymeaux wrote:Here's the ultimate botom line.

There are kids walking around today that started out as an embryo in a fertility clinic or laboratory, could you seriously walk up to one of those kids and say "you would have been more useful being used for stem cell research".

There are many embryos and fetuses that unfortunately never get the chance to be born, not because of anything we did to prevent it from happening. Just because they don't make it and I don't have a problem with using their cells for research.

But, I couldn't go up to anyone...no matter how good or bad...and say that stem cell research is more important than you. Living embryos have a CHANCE to become a living human and I'm not going to be the one to say we should remove any chance that could happen. It doesn't even matter if they have "long odds"...if a living embryo is used for stem cell research, it has to odds at all.


That's not the ultimate bottom line. Just your misguided opinion.


I can state it as my ultimate bottom line. It doesn't have to be YOUR ultimate bottom line.

But, there are kids walking around that started out in a laboratory as an embryo...that's not an enlightened opinion or a misguided opinion, it's a fact. You don't have to agree with the way that I choose to view this fact in regards to my belief that living embryos shouldn't be destroyed, but you can't dispute this fact.


I don't need to dispute it. I simply disregard it as irrelevant.

The "life" of something that has no heartbeat, intelligence, or personality is meaningless to me compared to how that thing could be used to improve the lives of actual real people. The people currently walking this earth (or lying bed-ridden on it) are far more important than something that may or may not ever actually live.


It's a good thing then, that we don't have to make that choice. There are other alternatives. It's not an "either or" proposition. These "things" don't have to die for the bedridden to live. So, the view of "fuck em...let's kill em anyway" doesn't accomplish anything except making damn sure that these "things" never become human. What a victory.


There's no killing involved, because you can't kill something that isn't alive.

Maybe you didn't read that whole article I posted earlier. While reprogramming adult cells has been shown to be possible, they still don't know exact what the effect of that procedure are or how much differently they will react compared to the real deal. It could very well be an "either or" thing.
A lot of people ask me, "Kenny Powers, you're a giant superstar. You can get any woman. Have you ever paid for sex?' And the answer is yes, I have. Several times, in fact. And it's actually kinda cool. You can negotiate practically anything and sometimes, even just kind of do stuff in the moment that you never agreed to pay for and it goes by without much argument.
User avatar
Kenny Powers
The Mole
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 12:05 pm

Re: Conventions

Postby Alex » Mon Sep 15, 2008 5:12 pm

raymeaux wrote:The fact remains that scientists can conduct the same research without destroying living embryos...this is fact.


X

This just isn't true, no matter how many times you say it.

Why do you think so many researchers are now going overseas to do stem cell research? Do you think they get some sort of perverse joy out of killing little baby embryos? Or could it maybe, just maybe, be because embryonic stem cells hold more potential for medical breakthroughs than placental or adult stem cells?

You keep dismissing embryonic stem cell reasearch because it only has "possiblities" but no guarentees, but then you bring up these other methods as though they were proven to have the same potential. They don't.
User avatar
Alex
 
Posts: 965
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2006 11:28 am
Location: 20.19692°, 12.966855°

Re: Conventions

Postby raymeaux » Mon Sep 15, 2008 5:15 pm

Alex wrote:And it's not just the idea of "creating embyos for the sole purpose of harvesting them" that the Republicans oppose. Embryos are created every day for women attempting in vitro fertilization that are never used. There are hundreds of thousands of these embryos - which have already been created and will never grow into a human - sitting in freezers of fertility clinics around the country. These could also be used for stem cells, if the government didn't bar funding on embryonic stem cell research.


I've already said that I'm opposed to scientists using "extra" in vitro emryos for stem cell research. Is it legal? Yes, it is. Should I have to PAY for something I'm morally opposed to? I've never said that scientists CAN'T use living embryos for stem cell research, just that I don't believe they should.

If this is something that you guys believe in so strongly...then come out of your pockets. But, it's wrong to expect people that are opposed to an idea to foot any of the bill.

What kind of uproar would there by from you guys if their was a bill to federally fund "Bible Colleges". I'm assuming there would be some opposition and lots of diatribes about separation of church and state, blah, blah, blah. But, that doesn't make Bible colleges illegal. They just have to be privately funded.

This topic has went a little of course, but that's ok. But, to avoid any wrong thinking...the government is not barring stem cell research, the government is barring the use of federal funds for the research (at least in certain instances).
raymeaux
 
Posts: 610
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:01 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Church and State

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron