Embryonic stem cell research
-
I already understand your position and, as I said elsewhere, it has been discredited by history. Your numerous examples of the tyranny of the majority include such travesties as the outlawing of drinking on Sunday (but apparently you're fine with dry counties). The left's argument is a farce and is the same one used by every single dictator who has usurped their government since the beginning of time...that people need to be protected from themselves. Our Founding Fathers largely dismissed Mill, and instead placed faith in the American people along with certain protections for fundamental political rights. The greatest fear (besides disproportionate representation) with the American democratic experiment during the Continental Congress was that the people would act in their own interests and essentially vote themselves all the money in the treasury (among other things). This has not happened. The provisions in the constitution that prevent tyranny (little things...like tax-free municipal bonds) have ensured us a bright and stable democracy. If you'll take note, this thread was not about my desire to force federally funded embryonic stem cell research on an unwilling public (as you would demand if you were in my position). I'm perfectly fine with California putting up $3 billion in research money and if Bush had not vetoed it, I would not have claimed tyranny, though I be in the minority. You're changing the subject to something completely unrelated to my initial comments which, as usual, is nonsensical. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
espeir wrote:
if Bush had not vetoed it, I would not have claimed tyranny, though I be in the minority.
I guess we'll never know now, but I suspect that if Dub hadn't vetoed the bill, you'd be whining about it anyhow. The evolution of the human genome is too important to be left to chance.
-
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
Isn't that why it is called "research"?
I don't get all excited over the idea that implanting poop in your veins will cure heart disease. But compare the actual results to adult stem cell research which has been going on for the same amount of time. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Thanks for proving my point. They wait until they become embryos to f*** them over rather than (as you said) cut them up at an earlier stage. Which proves that you are wrong in the fact that they aren't blastocysts when it happens. Which you suggested.
They removed the inner cell mass from the embryo at four to five days, and culture those cells. At that point, they are growing stem cells, not an embryo.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Just becuase a website says that you believe that will always be the case? That's naive. But, let's pretend it will be the case. If I have a girlfriend that's ok with me abusing her, does that make it right?
Abuse? You're an idiot. No nervous system, questionable viability, not a person yet, there is no abuse. If, as I'm guessing is the case, you're mother smoked crack while she was carrying you, that would be abuse. A five-day-old lump of cells? Not to me.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
You keep on talking about blastocysts when they are in fact embryos. Thus I said what I said, and I'll say it again - keep your facts straight. If you cannot comprehend this, then I submit to you, that's the real problem.
You seem to have exactly the same reading comprehension difficulties that he does. Go back and read the page again.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Why, your link just proved to me you were wrong on the front they are blastocysts. Oh sure, they may harvest them at that point, but they are waiting and nuture them until they are embryos. This is no different than raising cows for slaughter.
I rest my case. You are as big an idiot as e. Maybe bigger. He's at least an articulate and sometimes entertaining douchebag, in a dancing monkey kind of way. You're just wrong.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
They removed the inner cell mass from the embryo at four to five days, and culture those cells. At that point, they are growing stem cells, not an embryo.
If you cut the skin off an apple, it's still an apple. Which is being done here. No difference. The whole damn point is you're stopping a kid from developing. The stem cells are still growing, they are just not given the proper environment to grow in. You conveniently call it a "cell mass" to cloak the fact you just fucked up a kid's chance to fully develop. And notice the little point you skipped over (probably on purpose). You article didn't mention anything about the embryos being discarded, just donated. You can't argue the point they would've been positively discarded otherwise. And if assumption is the basis if your logic, you're dumber than I originally took you for.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Abuse? You're an idiot. No nervous system, questionable viability, not a person yet, there is no abuse.
Wow, you can't make the correlation, big surprise there. It's not whether or not YOU think it's wrong. It's whether or not you think it's ok because she doesn't. Do I have to pull out the crayons to explain the rest of it?
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
If, as I'm guessing is the case, you're mother smoked crack while she was carrying you, that would be abuse.
That's one thing I can't stand about the Internet. Sissy boys like yourself act tougher on it. Instead of the stupid insults, try reasoning.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
A five-day-old lump of cells? Not to me.
You're just a few thousand days old lump of millions of cells. What's the difference, you can see and talk? You sure as hell can't listen, so we can't count that. I'm willing to give you up for science.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I rest my case. You are as big an idiot as e. Maybe bigger. He's at least an articulate and sometimes entertaining douchebag, in a dancing monkey kind of way. You're just wrong.
Unga bunga, let's play like stupid caveman crap cause my wittle feelwings got hurt. Really grow up. Jeremy Falcon
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
They removed the inner cell mass from the embryo at four to five days, and culture those cells. At that point, they are growing stem cells, not an embryo.
If you cut the skin off an apple, it's still an apple. Which is being done here. No difference. The whole damn point is you're stopping a kid from developing. The stem cells are still growing, they are just not given the proper environment to grow in. You conveniently call it a "cell mass" to cloak the fact you just fucked up a kid's chance to fully develop. And notice the little point you skipped over (probably on purpose). You article didn't mention anything about the embryos being discarded, just donated. You can't argue the point they would've been positively discarded otherwise. And if assumption is the basis if your logic, you're dumber than I originally took you for.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Abuse? You're an idiot. No nervous system, questionable viability, not a person yet, there is no abuse.
Wow, you can't make the correlation, big surprise there. It's not whether or not YOU think it's wrong. It's whether or not you think it's ok because she doesn't. Do I have to pull out the crayons to explain the rest of it?
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
If, as I'm guessing is the case, you're mother smoked crack while she was carrying you, that would be abuse.
That's one thing I can't stand about the Internet. Sissy boys like yourself act tougher on it. Instead of the stupid insults, try reasoning.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
A five-day-old lump of cells? Not to me.
You're just a few thousand days old lump of millions of cells. What's the difference, you can see and talk? You sure as hell can't listen, so we can't count that. I'm willing to give you up for science.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I rest my case. You are as big an idiot as e. Maybe bigger. He's at least an articulate and sometimes entertaining douchebag, in a dancing monkey kind of way. You're just wrong.
Unga bunga, let's play like stupid caveman crap cause my wittle feelwings got hurt. Really grow up. Jeremy Falcon
Okay, I personally am for the research, but I'm not going to get in a huge debate. The one thing I wonder is how those who are against stem cell feel about those embryos that are never used. yes, they have the "potential" to become a full fledged human being. So, if we don't implant them and give them every opportunity to grow, isn't that a violation of constitutional rights? Restricting their right to life, liberty, and such? I am curious...just a thought. but then again, I'm drinking. don't worry, not vodka.:-D
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
And people get killed every day in car wrecks also, so why not just arbitrarily kill adult humans?
huh? WTF are talking about? You're comparing things that aren't comparable, Mr. Strawman.
Silence is the voice of complicity. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. -- monty python Might I suggest that the universe was always the size of the cosmos. It is just that at one point the cosmos was the size of a marble. -- Colin Angus Mackay
I did some what misread your response, so sorry that my own was not as coherent as it could have been. The point I was trying to make is that you cannot justify the research on the basis that pregnancies sometimes fail of their own accord. All pregnancies ultimately "fail" for one reason or another, but we don't legitimize scientific research on adult humans because of that. In any case, what is to stop a clinic from purposefully producing far more fertilized eggs than they will actually need for pregnancy in order to supply the stem cell research? Who would possibly know? "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
-
Richard Stringer wrote:
It has the POTENTIAL of becoming a human.
How do you explain the current crop of world leaders then, or even Link2006?
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
Okay, I personally am for the research, but I'm not going to get in a huge debate. The one thing I wonder is how those who are against stem cell feel about those embryos that are never used. yes, they have the "potential" to become a full fledged human being. So, if we don't implant them and give them every opportunity to grow, isn't that a violation of constitutional rights? Restricting their right to life, liberty, and such? I am curious...just a thought. but then again, I'm drinking. don't worry, not vodka.:-D
leckey wrote:
The one thing I wonder is how those who are against stem cell feel about those embryos that are never used.
Never used for what? And how did they get the embryos and under what pretense? Also, two wrongs don't make a right.
leckey wrote:
So, if we don't implant them and give them every opportunity to grow, isn't that a violation of constitutional rights? Restricting their right to life, liberty, and such?
That's a good question. IMO if it was grown inside an human being first, then yes we are because we took it out and messed up it's chances for life. If it wasn't, then it's not human. Of course, that brings to the plate the cloning issue. But, my personal definition of human involves starting off inside a human - no matter the development stage.
leckey wrote:
I'm drinking. don't worry, not vodka
As long as it's not hand cleaner. :laugh: BTW, you have a looooong way to go before I put you in the same category as that other idiot. So, don't think I'm gonna bite your head off. ;P Jeremy Falcon
-
espeir wrote:
I'm just applying your view of our government.
Perhaps I have been unclear, at times, in articulating my views; but I think, at least in part, your lack of willingness to even academically entertain thoughts that might conflict with your preconceptions severely limits your understanding of others. Mill articulates it well. Read "On Liberty". Try to understand what he meant by "tyranny of the majority", wrap your head around the "harm principle". Then you can disagree all you want, but at least you might actually understand my position, and that of other liberals.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Mill articulates it well.
At your recommendation, I've been reading up a little on Mills, and I think I understand a little better now why Europe became so entirely fucked up. Thanks "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson -- modified at 21:45 Thursday 20th July, 2006
-
You equate bacteria to human beings? "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
It was ihoecken who did that. Steve
-
thealj wrote:
am still waiting for you to provide me with a definition that distinguishes how a bacteria is different from a 5 day old embryonic stem cell.
Allow me to interject a personal opinion here. A fetus can be proven to be alive by subjective standards. In function at that stage it is no different than any mulicelluar life form with one outstanding difference. It has the POTENTIAL of becoming a human. It is the only object in the universe that does have that property. It is unique and as such should be viewed in perspective of its potential outcome. Richard Suppose you were an idiot... And suppose you were a member of Congress... But I repeat myself. --Mark Twain
By that logic you could also make a case for outlawing masterbation: that sperm you just wasted could have become a human life. Steve
-
espeir wrote:
Personally, I oppose it because I find it absolutely immoral and a bit sci-fi bizarre to kill one person
The embryo is extracted when it's 2-3 weeks old, correct? Would a 3 week embryo be alive? I think it'd just be like a body part - even the brain may not have formed yet! Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. Also visit the Ultimate Toolbox blog (New)Ignore this. Just posted it for reference in a post I'm making in the "Suggestions" forum. Steve
-
By that logic you could also make a case for outlawing masterbation: that sperm you just wasted could have become a human life. Steve
-
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
make a case for outlawing masterbation
Isnt that called Catholosism? Objects in mirror are closer than they appear
So it is. Steve
-
leckey wrote:
The one thing I wonder is how those who are against stem cell feel about those embryos that are never used.
Never used for what? And how did they get the embryos and under what pretense? Also, two wrongs don't make a right.
leckey wrote:
So, if we don't implant them and give them every opportunity to grow, isn't that a violation of constitutional rights? Restricting their right to life, liberty, and such?
That's a good question. IMO if it was grown inside an human being first, then yes we are because we took it out and messed up it's chances for life. If it wasn't, then it's not human. Of course, that brings to the plate the cloning issue. But, my personal definition of human involves starting off inside a human - no matter the development stage.
leckey wrote:
I'm drinking. don't worry, not vodka
As long as it's not hand cleaner. :laugh: BTW, you have a looooong way to go before I put you in the same category as that other idiot. So, don't think I'm gonna bite your head off. ;P Jeremy Falcon
I guess I'm thinking of embryos created for invitro (spelling?). A lot of times they make lots of embroyos in a petri dish and only implant a certain number. If it's successful, then the other embroys just stay in dry ice for a certain number of years. If the "owners" (parents) don't claim them after that time, then they can be donated for science. ..at least that's what I saw on Law and Order.:cool: I'm sure every state is different. ..and thanks for not biting my head off!:-D I'm drinking these new drinks called "peels" which are in the regular beer section. the cranberry/peach ones are quite scrumptious!
-
espeir wrote:
Then explain where I am failing to understand your position, because I have interpreted it exactly as expressed by Mill. You believe in a government contrary to our own wherein the people are stripped of their powers to legislate by a government that is ironically overbearing in this capability.
Looks like you're also failing to understand Mill. Government should keep people from harming each other's person or property. Period. Nothing more. Is that stripping the people of their powers to legislate? Legislate indiscriminately and oppressively, maybe.
espeir wrote:
You are also hypocritical in that you state that people should be prevented from displaying the 10 commandments on public property, even though this directly contradicts the "harm principle".
No hypocrisy at all, just more misunderstanding on your part. A display of the ten commandments on government property -- especially at a courthouse -- is a statement of intent by the government to violate the harm principle. It would indicate that the government considers it to be wrong for me to covet my neighbor's ass, or take the name of the Lord, their God in vain, when neither action harms anyone.
espeir wrote:
Libertarianism (especially your corrupted version) is compatible with human only until someone decides to make his front lawn a garbage dump.
Exactly how does my neighbor making his lawn a garbage dump not harm me? Strict libertarianism is only slightly more practical than Communism; in fact, pretty much any pure system or ideology has flaws that make it impractical and impracticable in the real world, including pure democracy, hence, our representative republic. Those flaws are usually qualities of the people who are subject to the system. That said, the closer we can get to the libertarian ideal while maintaining social order, the better. Hard to do with a complex system, and compromise is necessary along the way, but minimal government -- at all levels -- should be the ideal. As an individual, don't you find it difficult to argue against individual liberty.
espeir wrote:
I'm dumb. I think I reversed him with someone else (thinking he had died in the 1770s). Well I guess that proves my point on his influence over the founding fathers!
You're not dumb. You can be an egotistical
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
You're not dumb. You can be an egotistical, annoying, obtuse, trolling douchebag, but not dumb.
No, he is dumb as well. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Mill articulates it well.
At your recommendation, I've been reading up a little on Mills, and I think I understand a little better now why Europe became so entirely fucked up. Thanks "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson -- modified at 21:45 Thursday 20th July, 2006
Stan Shannon wrote:
At your recommendation, I've been reading up a little on Mills, and I think I understand a little better now why Europe became so entirely fucked up. Thanks
You should read On Liberty in full (it is a short book). One of the classics of Western civilization. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
-
Jason Henderson wrote:
How do I know where they are coming from if this research takes off? Will they start harvesting clones?
You can't be morally opposed to a possibility. It's possible I could snap tomorrow and end up in a clock tower with a high powered rifle but I doubt anyone would be morally opposed to me living my life simply due to the possibility. "The trouble with jogging is that the ice falls out of your glass." - Martin Mull
Mike Mullikin wrote:
You can't be morally opposed to a possibility. It's possible I could snap tomorrow and end up in a clock tower with a high powered rifle but I doubt anyone would be morally opposed to me living my life simply due to the possibility.
The calm voice of reason. How refreshing. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
-
Let me begin by saying that I know nothing technical whatsoever about this subject. Personally, I oppose it because I find it absolutely immoral and a bit sci-fi bizarre to kill one person to medically benefit another (it's like soul-sucking or something). But there is something I else that I find quite politically bizarre, and that's the left's unwavering support for federal tax dollars (which basically only benefit big pharmaceutical businesses) for something that is really very unproven. This morning I was stuck in traffic for an hour and wound up listening to a conservative radio show (not Rush Limbaugh...and believe it or not I don't typically listen to right-wing radio) and they had called an MIT professor of molecular biology to discuss the topic. He said that he was once enthusiastic about embryonic stem cell research, but had changed his position a few years ago because embryonic stem cells always result in tumors when applied to adults. Apparently adult stem cell research has the same benefits without this problem. More interestingly, he said that numerous successful treatments have come from adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells have to date yielded no results. Pharmaceutical companies are also investing heavily in adult stem cell research, but not embryonic stem cell research. This professor's assertion (which may be in dispute...as I'm no expert I can't say) supports a suspicion that I've held for some time. I think the left has irrationally attached itself to embryonic stem cell research not because of the potential but because of its association to abortion. In other words, by attaching the concept of "life" to abortion, it confuses the issue to where abortion is no longer merely justified by "personal choice", but implies that those who oppose abortion are actually anti-life (thereby reversing the political position on the issue). In other words, the current "pro-choice" crowd would become the "pro-life" crowd and the current "pro-life" crowd would become the "pro-disease" crowd. That's my crazy theory for the day. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
espeir wrote:
Let me begin by saying that I know nothing technical whatsoever about this subject
Then learn about it before commenting otherwise you're just repeating heresay and not adding anything valuable. Please say: I've read some papers on the subject and I'm in favour/not in favour because... Then we can have a discussion. cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
They removed the inner cell mass from the embryo at four to five days, and culture those cells. At that point, they are growing stem cells, not an embryo.
If you cut the skin off an apple, it's still an apple. Which is being done here. No difference. The whole damn point is you're stopping a kid from developing. The stem cells are still growing, they are just not given the proper environment to grow in. You conveniently call it a "cell mass" to cloak the fact you just fucked up a kid's chance to fully develop. And notice the little point you skipped over (probably on purpose). You article didn't mention anything about the embryos being discarded, just donated. You can't argue the point they would've been positively discarded otherwise. And if assumption is the basis if your logic, you're dumber than I originally took you for.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Abuse? You're an idiot. No nervous system, questionable viability, not a person yet, there is no abuse.
Wow, you can't make the correlation, big surprise there. It's not whether or not YOU think it's wrong. It's whether or not you think it's ok because she doesn't. Do I have to pull out the crayons to explain the rest of it?
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
If, as I'm guessing is the case, you're mother smoked crack while she was carrying you, that would be abuse.
That's one thing I can't stand about the Internet. Sissy boys like yourself act tougher on it. Instead of the stupid insults, try reasoning.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
A five-day-old lump of cells? Not to me.
You're just a few thousand days old lump of millions of cells. What's the difference, you can see and talk? You sure as hell can't listen, so we can't count that. I'm willing to give you up for science.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I rest my case. You are as big an idiot as e. Maybe bigger. He's at least an articulate and sometimes entertaining douchebag, in a dancing monkey kind of way. You're just wrong.
Unga bunga, let's play like stupid caveman crap cause my wittle feelwings got hurt. Really grow up. Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
If you cut the skin off an apple, it's still an apple. Which is being done here. No difference.The whole damn point is you're stopping a kid from developing. The stem cells are still growing, they are just not given the proper environment to grow in.
No, the whole damn point is that you think it's stopping a "kid" from developing, and I don't.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
You conveniently call it a "cell mass" to cloak the fact you just fucked up a kid's chance to fully develop.
You keep calling it a kid. I think you're wrong.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Wow, you can't make the correlation, big surprise there. It's not whether or not YOU think it's wrong. It's whether or not you think it's ok because she doesn't. Do I have to pull out the crayons to explain the rest of it?
The point is that, regardless of whether or not she thinks it is okay, you would be causing her harm. Although the purist in me would say that if she wants to kill herself, that's fine.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
That's one thing I can't stand about the Internet. Sissy boys like yourself act tougher on it. Instead of the stupid insults, try reasoning.
"Sissy boys"? It was an analogy. Just trying to point out that, in my opinion, it's not abuse until somewhat after that five day limit.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
You're just a few thousand days old lump of millions of cells. What's the difference, you can see and talk? You sure as hell can't listen, so we can't count that. I'm willing to give you up for science.
Really got your panties puckered over this one, huh? The difference is there's a difference. My cells differentiated, I was carried to term, and so on. I get the feeling that you won't be happy until each and every conception ends in a full-term pregnancy and a happy, healthy child with two loving and heterosexual parents.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Unga bunga, let's play like stupid caveman crap cause my wittle feelwings got hurt. Really grow up.
"Unga bunga". Well said! Unga bunga, indeed. Wow. You really nailed me with that one. One can only hope that all the little future Falcons will display the same rapier wit, deep and abiding love of five-day-old embryos, and dis
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
You can't be morally opposed to a possibility. It's possible I could snap tomorrow and end up in a clock tower with a high powered rifle but I doubt anyone would be morally opposed to me living my life simply due to the possibility.
The calm voice of reason. How refreshing. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
John Carson wrote:
The calm voice of reason. How refreshing.
Just presenting another "possibility" that the "moral majority" needs to address to "save" us from ourselves. :rolleyes: In hindsight, I might have pointed out that the internet itself is used every single day for criminal and immoral behavior (child porn, pedophilia, adultry, identity theft, etc...) yet here we all are... discussing stem cell research on an internet forum. Blasphemy! "The trouble with jogging is that the ice falls out of your glass." - Martin Mull -- modified at 22:35 Thursday 20th July, 2006
