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:
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.
Given your obvious misunderstanding of my position, I've owned up to the possibility that I didn't articulate it well, and gave you an avenue of clarification. You have consistently refused, instead choosing to selectively quote isolated examples, out of context, extrapolating from them incorrectly, claiming that this supports your point. It doesn't. People don't need to be protected from themselves. Individual liberty needs to be protected from governmental control. Since you refuse to read, allow me to furnish a quote from Chapter One of On Liberty. It has become known as the "harm principle", and is fundamental to both true liberalism and libertarianism today: "The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."
espeir wrote:
Our Founding Fathers largely dismissed Mill
Must have been an interestingly pre-emptive dismissal, considering Mill wasn't born until 1803, and wrote "On Liberty" in 1859. For the record, Jefferson died in 1826, and Washington in 1799.
espeir wrote:
If you'll take note, this thread was not about my desire to force federally funded embryonic stem cell research on an un
-
No one is arguing their value. My point is that if an embryo -- a blastocyst, actually -- is to be discarded anyway, it would be better used to further the cause of medicine than to further the volume of medical waste. For the record, actual trumps potential in my book. I would certainly not trade the life of a loved one for a five-day-old, questionably viable cell grouping.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
a blastocyst, actually
You don't know much about the process. It's an embryo 2 weeks after ovulation. Half the time of the 30 day mark I was talking about.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
is to be discarded anyway
You can't prove every last embryo used was going to be discarded anyway. Thus, it's impossible for this to be a valid point.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I would certainly not trade the life of a loved one for a five-day-old, questionably viable cell grouping.
An embryo is older than five days. Keep your facts straight. And before you continue on showing you don't know much about the process I suggest you read on it a little bit. Jeremy Falcon
-
How do I know where they are coming from if this research takes off? Will they start harvesting clones? I'd rather not pay for that with my tax money.
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blogJason 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
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
a blastocyst, actually
You don't know much about the process. It's an embryo 2 weeks after ovulation. Half the time of the 30 day mark I was talking about.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
is to be discarded anyway
You can't prove every last embryo used was going to be discarded anyway. Thus, it's impossible for this to be a valid point.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I would certainly not trade the life of a loved one for a five-day-old, questionably viable cell grouping.
An embryo is older than five days. Keep your facts straight. And before you continue on showing you don't know much about the process I suggest you read on it a little bit. Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
You don't know much about the process. It's an embryo 2 weeks after ovulation. Half the time of the 30 day mark I was talking about.
From the National Institute of Health:
The embryos from which human embryonic stem cells are derived are typically four or five days old and are a hollow microscopic ball of cells called the blastocyst.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
You can't prove every last embryo used was going to be discarded anyway. Thus, it's impossible for this to be a valid point.
Again, the NIH says:
Embryonic stem cells, as their name suggests, are derived from embryos. Specifically, embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro—in an in vitro fertilization clinic—and then donated for research purposes with informed consent of the donors. They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman's body.
Note the words "informed consent". The donors are, in fact, "discarding" the embryos, albeit for good cause.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
An embryo is older than five days. Keep your facts straight. And before you continue on showing you don't know much about the process I suggest you read on it a little bit.
"Keep your facts straight"? I feel like I'm still talking to espeir. Anyway, I refer you to the first quote. The page I visited is here[^]. There's also a link at the bottom of the page that will allow you to contact the National Institute of Health and help them get their facts straight.
-
espeir wrote:
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.
Given your obvious misunderstanding of my position, I've owned up to the possibility that I didn't articulate it well, and gave you an avenue of clarification. You have consistently refused, instead choosing to selectively quote isolated examples, out of context, extrapolating from them incorrectly, claiming that this supports your point. It doesn't. People don't need to be protected from themselves. Individual liberty needs to be protected from governmental control. Since you refuse to read, allow me to furnish a quote from Chapter One of On Liberty. It has become known as the "harm principle", and is fundamental to both true liberalism and libertarianism today: "The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."
espeir wrote:
Our Founding Fathers largely dismissed Mill
Must have been an interestingly pre-emptive dismissal, considering Mill wasn't born until 1803, and wrote "On Liberty" in 1859. For the record, Jefferson died in 1826, and Washington in 1799.
espeir wrote:
If you'll take note, this thread was not about my desire to force federally funded embryonic stem cell research on an un
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Given your obvious misunderstanding of my position, I've owned up to the possibility that I didn't articulate it well, and gave you an avenue of clarification. You have consistently refused, instead choosing to selectively quote isolated examples, out of context, extrapolating from them incorrectly, claiming that this supports your point. It doesn't. People don't need to be protected from themselves. Individual liberty needs to be protected from governmental control. Since you refuse to read, allow me to furnish a quote from Chapter One of On Liberty. It has become known as the "harm principle", and is fundamental to both true liberalism and libertarianism today: "The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."
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. 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". So you are, in fact, attempting to present a libertarian viewpoint (insomuch as legislative powers are stripped from the people) while simultaneously advocating restictive powers granted only to yourself. The end result is a totalitarian regime headed by none other than yourself. How convenient. Libertarianism (especially your corrupted version) is compatible with human only until someone decides to make his front lawn a garbage dump.
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
You don't know much about the process. It's an embryo 2 weeks after ovulation. Half the time of the 30 day mark I was talking about.
From the National Institute of Health:
The embryos from which human embryonic stem cells are derived are typically four or five days old and are a hollow microscopic ball of cells called the blastocyst.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
You can't prove every last embryo used was going to be discarded anyway. Thus, it's impossible for this to be a valid point.
Again, the NIH says:
Embryonic stem cells, as their name suggests, are derived from embryos. Specifically, embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro—in an in vitro fertilization clinic—and then donated for research purposes with informed consent of the donors. They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman's body.
Note the words "informed consent". The donors are, in fact, "discarding" the embryos, albeit for good cause.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
An embryo is older than five days. Keep your facts straight. And before you continue on showing you don't know much about the process I suggest you read on it a little bit.
"Keep your facts straight"? I feel like I'm still talking to espeir. Anyway, I refer you to the first quote. The page I visited is here[^]. There's also a link at the bottom of the page that will allow you to contact the National Institute of Health and help them get their facts straight.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
are derived from embryos.
Thanks for proving my point. They wait until they become embryos to fuck 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.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Note the words "informed consent". The donors are, in fact, "discarding" the embryos, albeit for good cause.
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?
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
"Keep your facts straight"? I feel like I'm still talking to espeir.
So you're full of shit when you talk to him too? :laugh: 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.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
There's also a link at the bottom of the page that will allow you to contact the National Institute of Health and help them get their facts straight.
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. Anything else you'd like to use to make you look wrong, feel free. Jeremy Falcon
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Given your obvious misunderstanding of my position, I've owned up to the possibility that I didn't articulate it well, and gave you an avenue of clarification. You have consistently refused, instead choosing to selectively quote isolated examples, out of context, extrapolating from them incorrectly, claiming that this supports your point. It doesn't. People don't need to be protected from themselves. Individual liberty needs to be protected from governmental control. Since you refuse to read, allow me to furnish a quote from Chapter One of On Liberty. It has become known as the "harm principle", and is fundamental to both true liberalism and libertarianism today: "The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."
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. 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". So you are, in fact, attempting to present a libertarian viewpoint (insomuch as legislative powers are stripped from the people) while simultaneously advocating restictive powers granted only to yourself. The end result is a totalitarian regime headed by none other than yourself. How convenient. Libertarianism (especially your corrupted version) is compatible with human only until someone decides to make his front lawn a garbage dump.
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:
are derived from embryos.
Thanks for proving my point. They wait until they become embryos to fuck 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.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Note the words "informed consent". The donors are, in fact, "discarding" the embryos, albeit for good cause.
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?
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
"Keep your facts straight"? I feel like I'm still talking to espeir.
So you're full of shit when you talk to him too? :laugh: 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.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
There's also a link at the bottom of the page that will allow you to contact the National Institute of Health and help them get their facts straight.
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. Anything else you'd like to use to make you look wrong, feel free. Jeremy Falcon
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.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
That he would agree to be part of such a forum makes him highly suspect.
Why? Are scientists supposed to discriminate against conservatives now? "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
Right wing talk radio isn't exactly known to be a hot forum for the intellectual discussion of new scientific ideas. If fact, I'd go so far as to say it was totally devoid of any intellectual content. The evolution of the human genome is too important to be left to chance.
-
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:
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.
The problem you're encountering with me is that I understand both the ceoncept behind Mill, and the fact that they are contrary to both human nature and our successful government. Your philosophy is basically this: The people should be stripped of the power to legislate anything unless it passes my personal opinion of what is harmful. In other words, only the laws you approve of can be passed.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
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.
It is entirely hypocritical and this is the major flaw of this philosophy. A display of the 10 commandments does not cause any physical, psychological or other form of harm to anybody. However, you personally believe that it's harmful and therefore the government must restrict its display, regardless of democratic preference. Your personal view of what is "harmful" therefore trumps the will of the people and effectively creates a despotic regime.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
You've grossly oversimplified my position at every turn, most recently regarding my views on both democracy and religion. When I tell you you're wrong, and clarify, you just repeat yourself. I haven't given you a single example, I've given you dozens.
I still believe that I understand your position completely and I can understand a desire for "harmless" laws. However, political philosophy is unique in that it is purely pragmatic. There is no room for abstract theory because it's purpose is real-life application. A political theory has to be considered against human nature, and not an abstract concept. If a political theory conflicts with human nature, then it will fail (communism/socialism being a prime example). I therefore contend that your political theory is flawed for the
-
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 -
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
-
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
-
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
