Learn More - Click Here!

Page 5 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Thread Options
#604553 - 08/24/06 11:38 PM Re: FDA Approval
Anonymous
Unregistered

Quote:

Quote:

once again, it does not affect the fertilized egg. it affects embedding with the uterus.




Nice distinction - I didn't starve my newborn, I just affected it's access to nutrition.



did you move out of your parents' house? i'm assuming that you have since you are married. we all see the extremes work, so there.

people, we allow the pro-creation of life to happen. very God-like to me. there are lines to be drawn everywhere. i'm just not sure why ruining her in-being life as an experience, a cognitive experience, should be disallowed. that is the basis for argument in us/we(gr?) living beings anyway.

it's just a line but it is fair. this is a society. you have to find me a secularly-held argument to disagree. the indians had their "tangible" religious interests sacrificed. THAT is a pretty heavy precedent against governmental obligation to refrain from a freedom.

Return to Top
Chat! - BOL Watercooler
#604554 - 08/25/06 01:24 AM Re: FDA Approval
straw Offline
Power Poster
straw
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,121
Quote:

Quote:

So the gangle of cells in an egg do not deserve any rights, but the gaggle of cells in a Zygote deserve protection. Both, given the right circumstances (sprem and time for one, time for the other) will grow into human beings. Why not protect the rights of the egg?




Both are not human beings - an egg is simply a woman's reproductive cell, no different in classification from a sperm cell. Once fertilized, however, it is a separate, distinct, and complete human being in its earliest stage of development.

Straw, you know this. I hope that you are asking so that others can read and understand, not simply to be argumentative.




Would I do that?

Return to Top
#604555 - 08/25/06 03:19 AM Re: FDA Approval
Anonymous
Unregistered

A baby is only a baby if it is cared for, otherwise it is just a small corpse.

Return to Top
#604556 - 08/25/06 01:07 PM Re: FDA Approval
Jokerman Offline
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
It becomes a human being when it is viable??? So, as medical technology advances (right now, pre-term babies can survive births as early as 20-21 weeks; that number gets smaller all the time), the pre-born "become a human being" at earlier and earlier points in time?

Good grief.

Return to Top
#604557 - 08/25/06 01:09 PM Re: FDA Approval
Jokerman Offline
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

once again, it does not affect the fertilized egg. it affects embedding with the uterus.




Nice distinction - I didn't starve my newborn, I just affected it's access to nutrition.



did you move out of your parents' house? i'm assuming that you have since you are married. we all see the extremes work, so there.

people, we allow the pro-creation of life to happen. very God-like to me. there are lines to be drawn everywhere. i'm just not sure why ruining her in-being life as an experience, a cognitive experience, should be disallowed. that is the basis for argument in us/we(gr?) living beings anyway.

it's just a line but it is fair. this is a society. you have to find me a secularly-held argument to disagree. the indians had their "tangible" religious interests sacrificed. THAT is a pretty heavy precedent against governmental obligation to refrain from a freedom.




Does ANYONE but post-happy-hour Ron understand this?

Return to Top
#604558 - 08/25/06 01:17 PM Re: FDA Approval
Anonymous
Unregistered

Quote:

It becomes a human being when it is viable??? So, as medical technology advances (right now, pre-term babies can survive births as early as 20-21 weeks; that number gets smaller all the time), the pre-born "become a human being" at earlier and earlier points in time?

Good grief.



and as we near that technological asymptote, we have to rely on technology derived from bio-engineered means like stem cells. yes, quite a conundrum indeed.

Return to Top
#604559 - 08/25/06 01:18 PM Re: FDA Approval
Anonymous
Unregistered

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

once again, it does not affect the fertilized egg. it affects embedding with the uterus.




Nice distinction - I didn't starve my newborn, I just affected it's access to nutrition.



did you move out of your parents' house? i'm assuming that you have since you are married. we all see the extremes work, so there.

people, we allow the pro-creation of life to happen. very God-like to me. there are lines to be drawn everywhere. i'm just not sure why ruining her in-being life as an experience, a cognitive experience, should be disallowed. that is the basis for argument in us/we(gr?) living beings anyway.

it's just a line but it is fair. this is a society. you have to find me a secularly-held argument to disagree. the indians had their "tangible" religious interests sacrificed. THAT is a pretty heavy precedent against governmental obligation to refrain from a freedom.




Does ANYONE but post-happy-hour Ron understand this?



i wasn't at happy hour. what in this did you not understand?

Return to Top
#604560 - 08/25/06 01:22 PM Re: FDA Approval
Jokerman Offline
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
Quote:

and as we near that technological asymptote, we have to rely on technology derived from bio-engineered means like stem cells. yes, quite a conundrum indeed.




No, we don't. And, I've never heard anyone complain about the use of stem cells generally. It is the destroying of embryos in order to obtain a particular type of stem cell.

Return to Top
#604561 - 08/25/06 01:26 PM Re: FDA Approval
Anonymous
Unregistered

Quote:

Quote:

and as we near that technological asymptote, we have to rely on technology derived from bio-engineered means like stem cells. yes, quite a conundrum indeed.




No, we don't. And, I've never heard anyone complain about the use of stem cells generally. It is the destroying of embryos in order to obtain a particular type of stem cell.



why don't we? supporting this burgeoning life is going to be ton entirely mechanically?

what about CREATING embryoes, mr it's-ok-to-play-God-in-THAT-instance? is the actual embryonic stem cell process as anathema to your senses as your stance indicates?

Return to Top
#604562 - 08/25/06 01:32 PM Re: FDA Approval
Jokerman Offline
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
Quote:

what in this did you not understand?




(a) How is moving out of my parents' house relevant to a parent's duty to a child that cannot care for itself?

(b) How does the fact that we pro-create authorize us to terminate?

(c) I have no idea what this means: "i'm just not sure why ruining her in-being life as an experience, a cognitive experience, should be disallowed. that is the basis for argument in us/we(gr?) living beings anyway."

(d) "you have to find me a secularly-held argument to disagree." I'm not sure why I would only be allowed to disagree on a secular basis. At any rate, secular individuals valued human life in the past. I guess as the belief that we're all just a glob of cells kind of detracts from that value.

(e) "the indians had their "tangible" religious interests sacrificed. THAT is a pretty heavy precedent against governmental obligation to refrain from a freedom." I have no idea what you are talking about or how it could possibly be relevant to this discussion.

Return to Top
#604563 - 08/25/06 01:36 PM Re: FDA Approval
Jokerman Offline
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
Quote:

why don't we? supporting this burgeoning life is going to be ton entirely mechanically?




Ron, the point at which pre-term babies are viable has moved dramatically in the last 60 years. It has done so without one advance provided by embryonic stem cells. I see no reason why that advance will not continue without the use of embryonic stem cells.

Quote:

what about CREATING embryoes, mr it's-ok-to-play-God-in-THAT-instance?




Embryos have been created since the beginning of the human race. I have no idea why doing so would be "playing God".

Quote:

is the actual embryonic stem cell process as anathema to your senses as your stance indicates?




Again, this question is too unclear to answer.

Return to Top
#604564 - 08/25/06 02:16 PM Re: FDA Approval
Anonymous
Unregistered

Quote:

Ron, the point at which pre-term babies are viable has moved dramatically in the last 60 years. It has done so without one advance provided by embryonic stem cells. I see no reason why that advance will not continue without the use of embryonic stem cells.



oh, so there is no limit to what the inorganic can do?

Quote:

Embryos have been created since the beginning of the human race. I have no idea why doing so would be "playing God".



oh, i didn't realize they were doing in-vitro, etc since the dawn of time. my bad.

would we be "killing" as many embryoes for stem cells as you think we would be?

Return to Top
#604565 - 08/25/06 02:38 PM Re: FDA Approval
Anonymous
Unregistered

Quote:

(a) How is moving out of my parents' house relevant to a parent's duty to a child that cannot care for itself?



this is about drawing lines, j. why 18 for legal emancipation? why are we giving living being protections for a cluster of cells? why does the life of the actual living person not matter?


Quote:

(b) How does the fact that we pro-create authorize us to terminate?



both "play God"

Quote:

(c) I have no idea what this means: "i'm just not sure why ruining her in-being life as an experience, a cognitive experience, should be disallowed. that is the basis for argument in us/we(gr?) living beings anyway."



"i think, therefore i am". get it now?

Quote:

(d) "you have to find me a secularly-held argument to disagree." I'm not sure why I would only be allowed to disagree on a secular basis. At any rate, secular individuals valued human life in the past. I guess as the belief that we're all just a glob of cells kind of detracts from that value.



the female's existing human life get's no consideration? she has an obligation to possibly have a child because she had sex? shall we criminalize out-of-wedlock sex? sounds biblical to me. i think we are a bit more than just a blob of cells. we think. we are autonomous.


Quote:

(e) "the indians had their "tangible" religious interests sacrificed. THAT is a pretty heavy precedent against governmental obligation to refrain from a freedom." I have no idea what you are talking about or how it could possibly be relevant to this discussion.



you would have it be made illegal destroy something you are giving living-being significance to. therefore, you are telling females that they MUST refrain from doing something; you are obligated by the state to do something. in other words, the state is telling individuals they MUST view their bodies in a specific way. the indians respected certain creatures and the land. we had no regard for their religious sensibilities. majority religious views are NOT relevant.

what secular rationale do you have? sanctity of life? sorry, that's religious. i see no correlation between the roe line of logic and a disrespect for existing life. i see POSITIVE effects for human life. i'm having trouble with the opposite.

Return to Top
#604566 - 08/25/06 03:24 PM Re: FDA Approval
Jokerman Offline
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
Quote:

so there is no limit to what the inorganic can do?




Ron, you said that we would have to rely on stem cells. I said I saw no reason why we would have to rely on one form of research in order for medical advances to continue for pre-term babies. Stop intentionally muddying the issue.

Quote:

oh, i didn't realize they were doing in-vitro, etc since the dawn of time. my bad.




Again, intentional muddying of the issue. In-vitro is an advance of a process that happens naturally. If you want to call it "playing God," that is your right. Most people don't agree. You'll have to explain it in simple terms if I'm going to understand how the fact that we are able to help people have children using this technology means that it is then ok to do anything we want to pre-born humans.

Quote:

would we be "killing" as many embryoes for stem cells as you think we would be?




Did you forget an "if" in this question? It makes no sense to me.

Quote:

this is about drawing lines, j. why 18 for legal emancipation? why are we giving living being protections for a cluster of cells?




Sure it is about drawing lines. My line says it is not morally acceptable to starve a newborn, it's not morally acceptable to puncture the skull of an eight-month-old fetus and suck its brains out, and it's not acceptable to terminate the life of a pre-born human for convenience. Your line is apparently willing to accept some of those.

Quote:

why does the life of the actual living person not matter?




(I suppose that you mean the life of the mother, since both mother and child are living?) I've never said that termination is not a morally acceptable option if the mother's life is in danger.

Quote:

both "play God"




If you don't see a difference, that is your issue. I guess having sex plays God, taking chlomid plays God, wearing boxers instead of briefs plays God...

Quote:

"i think, therefore i am". get it now?...i think we are a bit more than just a blob of cells. we think. we are autonomous.





I guess your point is that only "intelligent" humans deserve protection. Your favorite supreme court decision is in trouble, then.

Quote:

the female's existing human life get's no consideration? she has an obligation to possibly have a child because she had sex? shall we criminalize out-of-wedlock sex?




We've been over this. You think no responsibility should attach to sexual activity. The pill has largely accomplished that. I believe that taking life to avoid that responsibility is immoral. You are free to disagree.

Quote:

sounds biblical to me.




Ron, this is your argument? Something sounds moral - better be against it!

Quote:

you would have it be made illegal destroy something you are giving living-being significance to. therefore, you are telling females that they MUST refrain from doing something; you are obligated by the state to do something. in other words, the state is telling individuals they MUST view their bodies in a specific way. the indians respected certain creatures and the land. we had no regard for their religious sensibilities. majority religious views are NOT relevant.




I give you a 0.2, and that's only for degree of difficulty.

Quote:

sanctity of life? sorry, that's religious.




That's sad. We'll have to overturn our murder statutes, too.

Return to Top
#604567 - 08/25/06 03:31 PM Re: FDA Approval
Anonymous
Unregistered

Quote:

If you want to call it "playing God," that is your right.



thanks. that was all i needed.

if you want to call a cluster of cells a human being, that is your right.

Return to Top
#604568 - 08/25/06 03:38 PM Re: FDA Approval
Anonymous
Unregistered

Quote:

My line says it is not morally acceptable to starve a newborn, it's not morally acceptable to puncture the skull of an eight-month-old fetus and suck its brains out, and it's not acceptable to terminate the life of a pre-born human for convenience. Your line is apparently willing to accept some of those



i sort of accept only one of those. i am willing to impede the chemical processes of a cluster of cells that happen to contain human DNA.

Return to Top
#604569 - 08/25/06 03:40 PM Re: FDA Approval
Anonymous
Unregistered

i don't see how allowing abortions for rape victims respects the sanctity of life. an exception to the rule? is this a line you drew?

Return to Top
#604570 - 08/25/06 04:19 PM Re: FDA Approval
Jokerman Offline
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
Quote:

i don't see how allowing abortions for rape victims respects the sanctity of life. an exception to the rule? is this a line you drew?




When did I say that it was moral to abort a child conceived due to a rape? At any rate, this accounts for less than 1% of US abortions.

Return to Top
#604571 - 08/25/06 04:21 PM Re: FDA Approval
Jokerman Offline
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
Quote:

i am willing to impede the chemical processes of a cluster of cells that happen to contain human DNA.




Look into your soul, Ron. You know that these beliefs are empty - they are broken cisterns that cannot hold water. You are placing pleasure before responsibility, excitement before commitment.

The word of the LORD came to me, saying,
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I set you apart
..."

"Do what is just and right.
Rescue from the hand of his oppressor the one who has been robbed.
Do no wrong or violence to the alien, the fatherless or the widow,
and do not shed innocent blood in this place."

Return to Top
#604572 - 08/25/06 05:04 PM Re: FDA Approval
Anonymous
Unregistered

Quote:

Quote:

i don't see how allowing abortions for rape victims respects the sanctity of life. an exception to the rule? is this a line you drew?




When did I say that it was moral to abort a child conceived due to a rape? At any rate, this accounts for less than 1% of US abortions.



was a line drawn? wasn't this line a compromise? should the % matter?

Return to Top
#604573 - 08/25/06 05:09 PM Re: FDA Approval
Anonymous
Unregistered

Quote:

Quote:

i am willing to impede the chemical processes of a cluster of cells that happen to contain human DNA.




Look into your soul, Ron. You know that these beliefs are empty - they are broken cisterns that cannot hold water. You are placing pleasure before responsibility, excitement before commitment.

The word of the LORD came to me, saying,
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I set you apart
..."

"Do what is just and right.
Rescue from the hand of his oppressor the one who has been robbed.
Do no wrong or violence to the alien, the fatherless or the widow,
and do not shed innocent blood in this place."



what is in your or my soul doesn't matter here.

metaphysics is a prohibited class of government regulation.

(btw, what blood is being shed, literalist?)

Return to Top
#604574 - 08/25/06 05:55 PM Re: FDA Approval
Jokerman Offline
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
Quote:

was a line drawn? wasn't this line a compromise?




By whom?

Quote:

should the % matter?




Only when setting the priority with which you deal with the problem. Our #1 problem is abortion for birth control, not instances rape, or incest, or when the life of the mother is endangered.

Return to Top
#604575 - 08/25/06 05:58 PM Re: FDA Approval
Jokerman Offline
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
Quote:

what is in your or my soul doesn't matter here.




It may not matter to you now. I pray that you will, soon.

Quote:

metaphysics is a prohibited class of government regulation.




?

Quote:

(btw, what blood is being shed, literalist?)




I have never opposed the use of metaphors. If you can't understand them, it is your failing.

Return to Top
#604576 - 08/25/06 06:01 PM Re: FDA Approval
Anonymous
Unregistered

Quote:

Quote:

was a line drawn? wasn't this line a compromise?




By whom?

Quote:

should the % matter?




Only when setting the priority with which you deal with the problem. Our #1 problem is abortion for birth control, not instances rape, or incest, or when the life of the mother is endangered.



does it matter whom it was drawn by? this is political, no?

but your justification, within the issue, is sanctity of life. are you calling for a "take back" on the exception?

Return to Top
#604577 - 08/25/06 06:06 PM Re: FDA Approval
Jokerman Offline
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
Quote:

does it matter whom it was drawn by? this is political, no?

but your justification, within the issue, is sanctity of life. are you calling for a "take back" on the exception?




What are you talking about, Ron? I said that it was not moral to abort a child because they were conceived during a rape. Who compromised? Who is taking anything back?

At the same time, I said that this wasn't the most pressing question. You like to draw attention to it, fine. But it is not the big issue.

Return to Top
Page 5 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6