Bush proves he's not the brightest -- again.

[FreeflyGoat 0]

He'll sign the bill if theres an amendment to tear down the rain forest, drill and deplete the earth while banning alternatives, and ban abortion.
Bush is a FUCK.
Goat aka Dereck aka SuperFreak
AD A#292

[kallend 2,146]

<<<(I'm trying to hold back and be subtle on this one, but it's really, really difficult.)
Bush calls for a ban on all types of human cloning -- stem cell research included.>>>
Don't be hard on Bush - he was fairly elected President by a minority of the voters.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

. Does everybody here NOT agree that killing one life to help another is generally a bad thing?

well that's what you do when you eat.
but my point in my earlier post was that these cells were from embryos that would have died anyway.
Littl side note...Over 50% of conceptions are spontaneously aborted by the woman's body, usually during the first month. Quite often it can happen within the first week or two, and the woman often never knows she was ever pregnant. This happens all the time. If it is really true that you have a full-fledged human at the time of conception, and if you believe that a full-fledged human is entitled to a proper funeral , then shouldn't we be building coffins for tampons & having a proper service during which we bury them, instead of just tossing them in the wastebasket?
Speed Racer
"Fill your hand, you son-of-a-bitch!"

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

Over 50% of conceptions are spontaneously aborted by the woman's body

As a single male I can say....WHEEEEEWWWW!!!! "It's OK because I like the abuse!"-Offspring

[lazerq3 0]

Quote

Does everybody here NOT agree that killing one life to help another is generally a bad thing?

Thats actually a pretty broad statement....There are a lot of circumstances and situations where killing one life to save another is nessesary and does happen. if it is for a medical reason that can be justified than I am for it.......I mean I can go as far as saying a mother that is having delivery problems there are times when the baby has to be terminated to save the mother.......or the mother is killed delivering the baby...either way its one form of taking a life for another......I'm just saying its too broad of statement to say whether it is right or not....Its sad when it happens but the truth is it does!
jason

[quade 4]

Quote

Does everybody here NOT agree that killing one life to help another is generally a bad thing?

I think we might conditionally agree to that. What we seem to have an issue with is the definition of life and what is a person.
Are YOU a person. Well, we might all agree to that.
Are a few cells (maybe spinal material no bigger than a drop) from your body a separate person? Is it a life? Eh . . . I'm thinkin' no to both questions.
What if I use those few cells to grown an entirely viable human being capable of breathing and surviving on its own (let's call that the third trimester of development)? Well, yes, then I'd definitely call that another life.
But let's get back to the few cells we can generally agree are NOT life. What if I take ONE of the cells and remove its genetic material and put it in a completely different cell, an egg cell. Is THAT life? I'm still thinking no. It wasn't life a minute ago and its still not life.
So, the question really is, where does life begin? Can you see how this gets tied up with the abortion issue? I'm certain GW can see it.

Quote

And frankly, what does this have to do with Bush's intelligence?

Because he's taking the easy way out and not thinking of a solution that would make him comparable to Solomon. There simply must be a way to deal with this issue that is ethical, intelligent and would still allow scientific progress to be made.
quade
http://futurecam.com

[Billy 0]

Ya know,, I'm impressed with SpeedRacers' grasp on this shit,, Now what would Gore do if he were the Pres??
Don't read this,,,

[lazerq3 0]

Quote

There simply must be a way to deal with this issue that is ethical, intelligent and would still allow scientific progress to be made

I GOT IT!!! lets all turn into Hethens!!!!
(I'm kding people)....Actually it isnt that bad...get to drink, smoke (well not any more...that shit will kill ya , have sex, sleep in late on sundays!!
jason
head hethen

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

Now what would Gore do if he were the Pres??

It wouldn't matter....we would have all been killed by now if he was President.
"It's OK because I like the abuse!"-Offspring

[Sebazz1 2]

Quote

smoke (well not any more...that shit will kill ya

Not if I had an extra pair of lungs
SEBAZZ.......

[ChromeBoy 0]

I think it would be pretty cool to me cloned. (applause) Have any of you ever seen the movie with Michael Keaton when he cloned himself, his clone cloned himself, and his clone cloned himself? (laughter) I would have two of them work for me to earn money so I could skydive, and the one who rides the shortbus would stay on dz.com all day and give you updates on my skydiving. (laughter) (applause)

[TheMarshMan1 0]

Quote

So, the question really is, where does life begin?

Thats where the biggest debate is going to be. Where to draw the line between a living thing, and a wad of cells...I agree that Bush is a fuck. Why ban something when theres definite potential for it?
"If I could be like that, I would give anything, just to live one day, in those shoes..."

[SpeedRacer 1]

Hehheh....Any other molecular biologists on this forum?? No??? ...MUAHAHAHAHAHA!! Well then screw the government, I'm not waiting...I'm gonna clone me up another freaksister & a Freeflyplaymate...and maybe a few others if they're not careful & leave their DNA laying around!!! MUAHAHAHAHA!!
Speed Racer
"Fill your hand, you son-of-a-bitch!"

[quade 4]

Quote

Why does this have to be a religious issue?

Uh, because GW says it is?
GW fired the first shot.
Read THIS and tell me he wasn't making it a religious and abortion issue from the git go.
quade
http://futurecam.com

[Sinkster 0]

I applaud Bush for his decision to preserve human dignity and re-affirm the unconditional worth of each and every human being.
I'm sure most people feel the same way about the worth of a human and that when we argue it is over whether or not an embryo is really a human or not.
After all, this is the same thing with abortion. No one (sane) will agree that killing an innocent person is right, yet the argument is not over that principle but rather over the particulars of whether or not a fetus is really a person.
Yet, when one carefully and rationally weighs the point at which someone becomes a 'person' it seems clear that abortion or the growing of embryos is wrong. You see, how can you call something that has a heart at 18 days, and its own eyes, spinal cord, nervous system, liver and stomach in 4 weeks a group of underdeveloped cells? Furthermore, according to Monnica Terwillager, a counselor at a pregnancy resource center in Los Angeles, the EARLIEST abortions are done at her clinic at six weeks! How can it be possible for it to be morally right to destroy something which at this point has all the internal organs of an adult, an determinable sex, registers measurable brain waves, and has formed fingers, feet, and toes?!
Ok, obviously this thread is not about abortion alone, but the issue came up because it is very closely related to the cloning issue.
All I can say is think again about at which point you want to draw the line between a "bunch of underdeveloped cells" and a human being.
I know some of you will say that it's right because of the likely greater benefit of lives saved. Yet, consider the possibility that some scientists decide that they can kill you and use the parts to save 6 other people. Does the greater life benefit make the murder right? Of course not.
Remember, morality is more than about just what benefits us and society as a whole. If this was the case there would be no reason to affirm individual God given rights as in the Declaration of Independence because the meaning of justice would be reduced to nothing more than a mere calculation of maximal benefit to the state.
-Sinkster
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

I'm not waiting...I'm gonna clone me up another freaksister & a Freeflyplaymate

I'll take 2 of each to go please......."It's OK because I like the abuse!"-Offspring

[quade 4]

Quote

You see, how can you call something that has a heart at 18 days, and its own eyes, spinal cord, nervous system, liver and stomach in 4 weeks a group of underdeveloped cells?

Is that how we're defining life?
Simply having biological functions isn't normally how we define death. Why would we use that same criteria for defining life?
quade
http://futurecam.com

[ramon 0]

his brother Neal convinced the Argentinan government that the Bush (SR) administration would appreciate it if the privatized natural gas line was sold to "Enron" at lower cost than the legal bidders.
the're all fucks

[lazerq3 0]

Quote

I'll take 2 of each to go please.......

Uhhh..you want fries with that?
jason

[Frogger 0]

Hehheh....Any other molecular biologists on this forum?? No-
Yup.
I think you guys are all around the ethical dilemma. I agree that pluripotent stem cells from C. Reeves OWN body would be an appropriate source of material for THERAPEUTIC cloning.
However, stem cells from an EMBRYO has unique DNA. This is how we identify people! The DNA from an embryo constitutes the potential for a genetically unique human being. We ALL start life this way. This is the dividing line between life and not. Germ cells from males and females (egg, sperm) contain only half the necessary genetic material, thus unfertilized ova which are shed are not equivalent to the EMBRYOs in question. Don't waste time talking about that.
Spontaneous abortions are just that, spontaneous. The elderly also die spontaneously every day. Does that mean then that it would be OK to kill them if it would help out somebody else? Of course not.
If our society does not diligently protect human life, no matter how helpless, then we will truly have stepped onto the "slippery slope."
Soylent Green, anyone?

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Simply having biological functions isn't normally how we define death. Why would we use that same criteria for defining life?

Well I'm alive and I have biological functions! Sometimes right there in the jump plane!
sorry but I can't be serious anymore
Speed Racer
"Fill your hand, you son-of-a-bitch!"

[Sebazz1 2]

I have a brain, eyes, arms, legs, hair, feet, fingers, a pee pee, have bodily functions.
But guess what? I am not a life, I am a waste of life, I know theres more of me out there. Hahahahahahaha
SEBAZZ.......

[lazerq3 0]

,

Quote

I am a waste of life

*holding up a glass of beer* CHEERS*holding up a glass of beer*
jason

[MrHixxx 0]

Yeah, I was kinda shocked that went so strongly against medical cloning, considering that the ethical issues are so less compelling, and over 55% of the american population support it.
Isn't that the same percentage of the population that voted against him...
-Hixxx
"Sous ma tub, Dr. Suess ma tub"

[quade 4]

Quote

Well I'm alive and I have biological functions!

Yep. Right you are. Your brain seems to be working right along with everything else.
However, were your brain cease to function, it's entirely possible that we could keep all the rest of your biological functions listed in the previous post working just fine.
However, I still think you'd be pretty dead at that point.
Doesn't mean you'd be useless, lots of your parts could still work just fine and would be able to be used for human transplants. Now, here's the stupid part, we can't use them until the rest of your body stops functioning -- which by the way, may make certain parts a lot more difficult to use.
Damn moral dilemma, eh?
quade
http://futurecam.com