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

[james1010 0]

" Who outside of that family stood to be harmed in any way? "
No one in that situation, except ofcourse the other fourteen embryos. Awful touchy subject right now, I'm just concerned that no lines will be drawn . . .Ah, technology, you gotta love it! (i think)
James

[FallingMarc 0]

Quote

While I, personally, have a big problem with creating embryos for the purpose of using their parts, I'm not willing to impose my belief in this area, no matter how strong it may be, on the rest of society.... I value liberty as well, and I am not so presumptuous to think that my values are more valid than the person next to me who disagrees with what I think....

See, I can't even think of it that way. Like you said, I value liberty, in the sense that those embryos should be free to have a chance to survive. Once there is a life growing, it ceases to be a matter of "the family's freedom" or the "woman's choice about her own body". At that point it becomes a matter of that baby's freedom to live.
Pro-choice people like to think that pro-lifers are actually "anti-choice". But I don't care what some woman does to her own body. It's just not her body alone anymore, once conception happens. Along the same lines, it's wrong to take away an embryo's chance to live, just to use its cells. Nobody has a right to make that choice.
Oops, did I bring up abortion? Sorry... these issues overlap so much...
Marc

[jfields 0]

James,
That all gets back to the issues of when life begins, and the ultimitate definitions of things like "thought", "soul" and "self". I don't pretend to have all those answers.
Would I do what that family did? I don't know. I don't think anyone would until they've been in that situation. Similarly, I don't think some people that are anti-abortion would honestly birth and raise a child if they were raped, yet they oppose the rights of others to have an abortion in those circumstances. Abortion is tied closely to cloning by the similar questioning of the circumstances of life and human rights.
I object to arbitrary rules being placed on people and their personal choices. One rebuttal might be, "What about the embryo's choice?". I don't know. Do they have one? Are they alive in the sense of having enough thought process to answer, even if they did have the means to answer?
I don't think an outright ban will work, nor do I think we should have a cloning free-for-all. We can't stop the progress being made in this area. If we manage to slow it in our country, it will still proceed around our little island of denial. We would drive our scientists overseas, and cut ourselves off from the potential medical benefits of this research.
One way or another, we will have cloning. It doesn't matter what you, I, or George Bush think. There will be failures and things morally objectionable to some. There will also be lives saved, quality of life restored to the crippled, and hope given to the hopeless. Our job isn't to refuse the inevitable future, but to try minimze the negative repercussions while maximizing the impact of the beneficial aspects of progress.
Justin

[kmcguffee 0]

I've got a question. How can someone support abortion (the killing of an unborn innocent child) and be against capital punishment (the killing of a convicted killer)? I see this stance often amond liberals, especially the Hollywood "Elite".

[Lindsey 0]

That's the big debate, isn't it.....whether there's actually a life there once there's conception. Sure, there's potential for life, but is it actually human life. And why is it, exactly, that we hold human life in such high regard? (I'm not saying I don't....it's just food for thought....) I just wonder what the central issue is. I really believe that it's because we have it innately within us (kind of like a collective unconscious thing) as a means of survival of the species.... Why do we regard human life so highly that many of us are appalled at destroying something (a little bit of tissue, actually) that has the potential for becoming human life, when we put other animals through very torturous existence in order to tender up their carcasses so that they'll taste yummier..... I see a very logical argument in that, myself. I don't know when life begins, but I do know that it's some time before an embryo is capable of suffering......
Eve was framed!
http://home.earthlink.net/~linzwalley

[james1010 0]

" Oops, did I bring up abortion? Sorry... these issues overlap so much..."
Don't be sorry, Marc, it has to be brought up. Abortionists biggest argument is when life begins . . the only and I mean ONLY good thing about the embryonic stem cell debate is that it proves life DOES begin at conception. Abortion advocates hate that part, cause now more than ever the morality and right to life issue has to be reevaluated.
James

[Lindsey 0]

Likewise, how can one be anti-abortion, but for the death penalty.....I see that much more among the conservative part of our population.....
Eve was framed!
http://home.earthlink.net/~linzwalley

[jfields 0]

kmcguffee,
Sure. Although it isn't my position or my beliefs, I can see how people might justify that seeming contradiction to themselves. Perhaps they don't believe the baby is yet really alive, but the adult criminal is, regardless of their criminality.
Not my train of thought, but it is one possibility.
Justin

[jfields 0]

Quote

the only and I mean ONLY good thing about the embryonic stem cell debate is that it proves life DOES begin at conception.

James,
I don't see this as a logical conclusion that can be reached from the issue of stem cells.
If we can agree that neither a sperm nor an egg are themselves complete human beings, what is the instantaneous metamorphosis that happens at the second they meet to turn it into a human? What is a "human"? I'll agree with you that sometime during pregnancy the change occurs, but I don't know when to pin it down. It is a pretty gradual transition from a couple of genetic blobs to a miniature person.
Justin

[favaks 0]

Quote

...life begins at conception.

When does conception begin? When the sperm enters the egg?
favaks

[Lindsey 0]

.....and it's not as though we have just learned about stem cells this decade.....this is knowledge we've had as long as we've known about embryological development.... Everything comes from those first few cells.....those are the most undifferentiated we have, but even as adults, we have stem cells.....they're just more differentiated.....
So....the stem cell debate has certainly not answered the question of when life begins....
Eve was framed!
http://home.earthlink.net/~linzwalley

[JDBoston 0]

That's a very important point. I think life technically begins at conception, yet I'm 100% pro-choice, because I think bringing an unwanted child into the world is horrendously irresponsible. There are way too many unwanted kids around as it is, and unwanted kids that have very difficult childhoods often end up creating lots of problems in society as adults. Does that make me worse than other pro-choice people, because I think it's killing and I still support it? Or better, because I'm more honest with myself and I don't have to do any mental gymnastics to justify it? Who knows. And frankly, I don't know enough about human development to know when brain waves begin, when physical pain can be felt, etc. Those things might influence my beliefs on when "life" begins.
I feel much the same way about the death penalty, in theory at least. Sure, it's killing, but there are a lot of people who need to be killed. To me, it's mostly about saving taxpayer money (not having to pay for 60-year prison stays) and about making sure certain people never ever walk the streets again, not about deterrence or any bullshit like that. But the problem there is that it's still improperly & disproportionately applied in a lot of cases.... like to black people guilty of crimes against whites.
Death is all over the place. I think that as humans, we're inclined to be really squeamish about it, like little kids who won't step on ants. But sometimes it can be a good thing for most everyone concerned (except, of course, the one who dies...). C'mon, if you really believe in Heaven, the sooner people get there the better, right???
Anyway. Done being provocative for now.
Joe

[james1010 0]

Justin,
The insights provided by cloning technology destroy the scientific and legal basis of distinguishing a preembryo from an embryo, the popular distinction made at 14 days after conception. This is significant because this distinction determines the handling and treatment of human life LESS THAN 14 days old, which is so basic to all ESCR.
In short, our understanding of embryonic development as provided by cloning technology could force not only those who participate in ESCR specifically, but also those who participate in in-vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures generally, to recognize there is no real preembryo—embryo distinction and that all human life begins at conception. Therefore, as a nation, we should rightly adjust the moral and legal treatment and status of all embryos to people not property from the point of conception.
BTW, thanks Quade for opening this killer thread, debate is a healthy thing.
James

[christopherm 0]

I think life has a chance when I ejaculate. All those little hard working fellows have a chance to produce life. C'mon guys, that makes since right. I'm just glad the pro-choice movement hasn't gone so far that they start aborting my balls. I mean that would be the next logical step right. "It is our body and we have no responsibility if we get pregnent or not, it is always some one elses fault like that nasty... what do you call them... oh yeah, male, that I just rode for 15 minutes". Gentleman, hide your balls, they will be next.
-So, how hard is the ground?!

[AggieDave 6]

Here's a question to ponder:
How could someone consider abortion when there are so many very loving couples in America (and the world) that are trying so very hard to have a child but can't so they put their names on an adoption waiting list? Why not give the kid a chance and make some loving couple into a caring and loving family?
"Are they short-shorts?" T.B.

[james1010 0]

That idea has always plagued me, I just don't understand it, either.
James

[PhreeZone 20]

Look at all the kids in foster care currently. A problem is that adoptive parents can pick and choose what type of kid they want. Oh... want one thats no older then 6 months... no problem, want a boy.. .that can be aranged, don't want a physically challenged child.. thats no problem either. I've seen some people that were even able to specify they did'nt want a child of a miniority or one that had medical issues or what ever. The problem comes in what to do with all the childern that are in foster care and don't fit a couples criteria. What do you do about the girl that has MS and is 12? Or the little boy that is blind? None of these childern are in a high adoption percentage. Its a shame... but its true....
"Hey.. Its my camera, and my remote... I'll rewind if I want to!" ~ Goat #2

[AggieDave 6]

But if a mother goes to an adoption agency and says she is pregnant and wants to give her child up for adoption, the agency will more then likely find a home for that child, thus saving that child from an abortion.
"Are they short-shorts?" T.B.

[JDBoston 0]

Maybe. After a few months, or years, or whatever, after the child's intellectual and emotional growth have already been severely stunted by not having a consistent parent or parents around. Call me a cynic maybe. There is actually a VAST oversupply of kids needing families. People are usually on the waiting list because they're so picky about the kind of kid they want, like a cute little newborn baby from Russia or India or something, and they perceive older kids (often correctly) as "damaged goods." There are a ton of kids of all ages in the system right here in the US waiting for someone to take an interest in them. Most of them were taken away from their parents at a young age, as opposed to being put up for adoption when they were born. Only 30% of kids waiting for adoption were <1 year old when separated from their birth mother.
I'm all for egg donors, surrogate mothers, etc. People who have trouble conceiving have every right in the world to try and get a son or daughter another way, and they certainly have every right to decide who the father and mother of that child should be. But I do not buy the idea that a woman would be doing anyone a favor by having an unwanted baby and abandoning it to the already crowded foster care system.
Joe

[skybytch 273]

I tried really hard to stay out of this one... really I did...

Quote

"It is our body and we have no responsibility if we get pregnent or not, it is always some one elses fault like that nasty... what do you call them... oh yeah, male, that I just rode for 15 minutes". Gentleman, hide your balls, they will be next.

I believe it takes two people for a woman to get pregnant - a male and a female. Why should it be the responsibility of only the female to prevent a pregnancy if one is not wanted? I've heard plenty of guys say that it wasn't their fault the woman they had sex with got pregnant.... even though they made no effort to prevent that pregnancy through the use of a condom. Men and women both need to accept that if you have sex, there's a chance the woman will get pregnant... kinda like skydivers accepting the fact that if you jump out of airplanes there's a chance you might die.

Quote

How could someone consider abortion when there are so many very loving couples in America (and the world) that are trying so very hard to have a child but can't so they put their names on an adoption waiting list?

Speaking as someone who got pregnant at age 17, didn't have an abortion, planned right up until two days after my son was born to put him up for adoption - the adoptive family already had plane tickets to come get him.... you have no idea what it is like to carry a child and then give it away. No idea at all. And, imho, unless you've done it, you have no right to tell someone else that they should. Period.
pull & flare,
lisa

[JDBoston 0]

Dave, not to sound combative about this stuff, I realize my post might have come off that way a bit. Your heart is clearly in the right place, but like Phree says too, there are a lot of kids out there already that need parents. If a woman (like Lisa) decides while she's pregnant that she wants someone else to adopt the kid, and takes steps to make it happen, well, either way it turns out, someone's gonna be taking care of the kid from day one, and that's all the kid needs.
Unfortunately, it isn't usually like that and the mothers aren't usually that responsible. Usually the woman keeps the kid that she doesn't want or can't care for, and at some point social services comes in and takes the kid and puts it in foster care, when Mom beats the kid or gets arrested for drugs or something. Anyway, if you know a bit about what goes on even in a lot of foster homes, you wouldn't wish that path on anyone, trust me. There are some angels out there, but there are also people who like the $500 a month subsidy they get for taking in foster kids.
Joe

[TheMarshMan1 0]

Quote

Anyway, if you know a bit about what goes on even in a lot of foster homes, you wouldn't wish that path on anyone, trust me.

I'm not so sure about that. I think bad foster homes are the exception, rather than the rule in most cases.
"If I could be like that, I would give anything, just to live one day, in those shoes..."

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Unfortunately, it isn't usually like that and the mothers aren't usually that responsible. Usually the woman keeps the kid that she doesn't want or can't care for, and at some point social services comes in and takes the kid and puts it in foster care, when Mom beats the kid or gets arrested for drugs or something. Anyway, if you know a bit about what goes on even in a lot of foster homes, you wouldn't wish that path on anyone, trust me. There are some angels out there, but there are also people who like the $500 a month subsidy they get for taking in foster kids.

Yeah, I know, that sucks big time. Not much that I can do about it. [sad]
I love children (strange for a 22 yr old college guy, huh?) and I hate seeing that. Oh-well, atleast in my own little world everything is perfect. "Are they short-shorts?" T.B.

[billvon 3,090]

>Don't be sorry, Marc, it has to be brought up. Abortionists biggest argument is
> when life begins . . the only and I mean ONLY good thing about the embryonic
> stem cell debate is that it proves life DOES begin at conception.
I don't think there's any doubt about that. A fertilized egg is alive, and has at least a 40% chance to create a human being in a healthy woman. (Of course, before fertilization, an egg isn't dead, so that isn't a notably wise thing to conclude.)
The question is - is killing the fertilized egg/blastocyst/embryo/fetus the same as murder, or at least morally the same as killing a human being? To answer that, look at other cases where we consider killing to be OK.
If someone is involved in a horrendous accident near a hospital, and his head is blown off, there is no attempt made to revive him - even though the rest of his body may be OK. At that point he may go on life support to preserve his organs for transplant, but he is considered dead. Similarly, if someone in a hospital is brain dead, the family (in most places) is allowed to decide whether to discontinue life support - even if there is a tiny chance he will recover (there have been at least a few miracles where people with no EEG have recovered.) Is that killing? Of course it is. It stops a beating heart and all that. But it is not murder or even homicide, because a human being is not killed - just a body is.
Take that same horrendous accident, and have someone arrive in a trauma bay with his legs, arms, and part of his torso blown away. They put him on life support, and he regains consciousness. There is no question at all that this person is still alive, and is 100% entitled to all the rights of anyone else - even though most of his body is missing.
What's the difference between the first and the second case? How come it's OK to kill someone who looks human, and whose heart is beating, but it's not OK to kill someone who looks distinctly sub-human? It's because we define humanity as a body that possesses a human mind. It is a person's mind, and not any aspect of his physical body, that makes him human in the true sense of the word.
How does this apply to abortion? A fertilized egg is insensate. It has no brain, no mind, none of the characteristics that make one human. It has potential, but that potential is not at all realized. It may never even implant, and if that happens, a human has not died - a blastocyst has just missed its target. A 20 week old fetus can feel pain, react to light, be comforted, and move about. There is no question in these two cases - the egg cell is not human, the 20 week old fetus is.
So when do we pass the line into humanity? The first synapses, the first nervous system connections begin to form around the 8-12 week period. If you made an argument that humanity begins anywhere around that time, you'd have a leg to stand on.
>Abortion advocates hate that part, cause now more than ever the morality and
>right to life issue has to be reevaluated.
True, but I think that part bugs anti-choice advocates just as much.
-bill von

[TheMarshMan1 0]

I think a lot of what goes on in foster homes has a lot to do with the child's trouble adjusting. My mother went through at least 5 growing up, that I know of, and she never talked bad about any of them. Yes, she had a hard time, but that was because she was put up for adoption by her parents at an age where she could remember them.
"If I could be like that, I would give anything, just to live one day, in those shoes..."