Archmonarch Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 My point is that embryos are not the only possible source of stem cells. There are stem cells in fat tissue. There are stem cells in umbilical cords. There has been some success at harvesting stem cells from these sources. At present, it is not clear if these sources are just as useful (from a technical point of view) as embryos. And you're right, we can't make a decision for these embryos. If they could talk, some would want stem cell research done on them, some wouldn't. That's the real dilemma. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually, its quite clear. Only embryonic stem cells possess the pluripotentiality necessary for current research to continue. All others are lacking in one way or another. And you are right, they can't talk. In fact, they have no thought whatsoever. As such, can they truly be considered independent beings? Or life at all, for that matter. In my opinion, life begins the moment one becomes aware. Im sure this happens at some point within the womb, and that the memories are blocked out so as not to traumatize us. That said, most of the embryos used for stem cell research would never have reached that threshold, being stored continuously until used for research or disposed. There was never the chance for life, because development was halted. How can you object to an embryo that would not have the opportunity for life being used to save the existence of others? Even if you believe they have souls (which you seem not to), would not being used in such a way honor them? After all, is not helping another the highest achievement? And I find it kind of funny I find it kind of sad The dreams in which I'm dying Are the best I've ever had
metadigital Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 1. It may not have a soul yet, but it is still life, is it not? ... My point is that embryos are not the only possible source of stem cells. There are stem cells in fat tissue. There are stem cells in umbilical cords. There has been some success at harvesting stem cells from these sources. At present, it is not clear if these sources are just as useful (from a technical point of view) as embryos. And you're right, we can't make a decision for these embryos. If they could talk, some would want stem cell research done on them, some wouldn't. That's the real dilemma. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, that is a very commendable theory, but I can quote Buddhist scripture and suggest that all life, even earthworms and bacteria are sacred life (strict Buddhists do not take medications for common infections!). I have a more utilitarian approach, but I wouldn't classify myself as mercenary. I was under the impression that the only viable stem cells were from embryos (although cord blood and prepuce from circumcision might prove useful as well). Remember that cloning technology, once it is matured, should allow us to use very few precious ingredients. And I would also trust that we will soon be able to create stem cells. (The advances are pretty amazing at the moment; dentists are almost at the commercial stage of growing custom teeth replacements!) Well, we have to make a decision, because even not making a decision is in fact a decision (to condemn the embryos to oblivion and the sufferers to wait for alternatives). I choose the most good: the least worst outcome. OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT
11XHooah Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 My point is that embryos are not the only possible source of stem cells. There are stem cells in fat tissue. There are stem cells in umbilical cords. There has been some success at harvesting stem cells from these sources. At present, it is not clear if these sources are just as useful (from a technical point of view) as embryos. And you're right, we can't make a decision for these embryos. If they could talk, some would want stem cell research done on them, some wouldn't. That's the real dilemma. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually, its quite clear. Only embryonic stem cells possess the pluripotentiality necessary for current research to continue. All others are lacking in one way or another. And you are right, they can't talk. In fact, they have no thought whatsoever. As such, can they truly be considered independent beings? Or life at all, for that matter. In my opinion, life begins the moment one becomes aware. Im sure this happens at some point within the womb, and that the memories are blocked out so as not to traumatize us. That said, most of the embryos used for stem cell research would never have reached that threshold, being stored continuously until used for research or disposed. There was never the chance for life, because development was halted. How can you object to an embryo that would not have the opportunity for life being used to save the existence of others? Even if you believe they have souls (which you seem not to), would not being used in such a way honor them? After all, is not helping another the highest achievement? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> 1. It may not have a soul yet, but it is still life, is it not? ... My point is that embryos are not the only possible source of stem cells. There are stem cells in fat tissue. There are stem cells in umbilical cords. There has been some success at harvesting stem cells from these sources. At present, it is not clear if these sources are just as useful (from a technical point of view) as embryos. And you're right, we can't make a decision for these embryos. If they could talk, some would want stem cell research done on them, some wouldn't. That's the real dilemma. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, that is a very commendable theory, but I can quote Buddhist scripture and suggest that all life, even earthworms and bacteria are sacred life (strict Buddhists do not take medications for common infections!). I have a more utilitarian approach, but I wouldn't classify myself as mercenary. I was under the impression that the only viable stem cells were from embryos (although cord blood and prepuce from circumcision might prove useful as well). Remember that cloning technology, once it is matured, should allow us to use very few precious ingredients. And I would also trust that we will soon be able to create stem cells. (The advances are pretty amazing at the moment; dentists are almost at the commercial stage of growing custom teeth replacements!) Well, we have to make a decision, because even not making a decision is in fact a decision (to condemn the embryos to oblivion and the sufferers to wait for alternatives). I choose the most good: the least worst outcome. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, I must say that you both have brought up some very good points, and I'm actually starting to agree with you on some of them :D And you are right Metaldigital, we will have to make a decision at some point. No doubt stem cell research will be approved, but lets just hope it leads to better medical technology like we predict. War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. --John Stewart Mill-- "Victory was for those willing to fight and die. Intellectuals could theorize until they sucked their thumbs right off their hands, but in the real world, power still flowed from the barrel of a gun.....you could send in your bleeding-heart do-gooders, you could hold hands and pray and sing hootenanny songs and invoke the great gods CNN and BBC, but the only way to finally open the roads to the big-eyed babies was to show up with more guns." --Black Hawk Down-- MySpace: http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fusea...iendid=44500195
metadigital Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 And let's hope the SETI programme is successful at finding extraterrestrial intelligent life, because there's bugger all down here. OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT
11XHooah Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 And let's hope the SETI programme is successful at finding extraterrestrial intelligent life, because there's bugger all down here. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Let's just hope they come in peace War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. --John Stewart Mill-- "Victory was for those willing to fight and die. Intellectuals could theorize until they sucked their thumbs right off their hands, but in the real world, power still flowed from the barrel of a gun.....you could send in your bleeding-heart do-gooders, you could hold hands and pray and sing hootenanny songs and invoke the great gods CNN and BBC, but the only way to finally open the roads to the big-eyed babies was to show up with more guns." --Black Hawk Down-- MySpace: http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fusea...iendid=44500195
metadigital Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 Of course you know that the Qur OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT
Atomic Space Vixen Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 Now that this seems to be slowing down, let's throw this out there... Clicky! My blog. - My photography.
metadigital Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 Incredible. Really unbelievable. This Domestic Relations Counseling Bureau sounds like the Ministry for Information. "... There is a discrepancy between Ms. Jones and Mr. Jones' lifestyle and the belief system adhered to by the parochial [Roman Catholic] school. . . . Ms. Jones and Mr. Jones display little insight into the confusion these divergent belief systems will have upon (the boy) as he ages," the bureau said in its report. But Jones ... attended Bishop Chatard High School in Indianapolis as a non-Christian. ... ... "This was done without either of us requesting it and at the judge's whim," said Jones ... "It is upsetting to our son that he cannot celebrate holidays with us, including Yule, which is winter solstice, and Ostara, which is the spring equinox." ... ...There are lots of cases where a mom and dad are of different faiths, and they're having a tug of war over the kids," Falk said. "This is different: Their dispute is with the judge. ... ...During the divorce, he told a court official that Wiccans are not devil worshippers.... Why was this necessary? And finally: ..."The federal government has given Wiccans protection under the First Amendment," Snyder said. "Unless this judge has some very specific information about activities involving the child that are harmful, the law is not on his side."... ..."When they read the order to me, I said, 'You've got to be kidding,' " said Alisa G. Cohen, an Indianapolis attorney representing Jones. "Didn't the judge get the memo that it's not up to him what constitutes a valid religion?"... OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT
the khanster Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 the khansterCan anyone really intrepret the bible correctly? its been revised about 7 times now. metaphors lost in different languages. the writers even misintreprted the birth of jesus, because there are 2 very different versions. also the whole book is pretty vague. The intrepretations change over time also. wasnt rapture suppose to happen on the millienium, 1000 AD? God save us from your followers. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The Bible never states when exactly the rapture is going to happen. I don't know where you got the idea that it was supposed to occur on the millenium. Also, elaborate on the "two very different versions" of the birth of Jesus. As far as interpreting the Bible correctly, It's up to the Spirit to speak to one through the Word. And when exactly has it been revised? Maybe somethings maybe lost translation, but wouldn't you know that they have hebrew and greek tranlations from which you can glean whatever is "lost". When you say "the whole book is pretty vague" I return to my point about how it is up to the Spirit to speak to you thru the Word, no matter how vauge it is. How can you say "the whole book is pretty vauge" when you probably haven't even read the Book in its entirety. Or have you? I don't expect you to understand or believe what Im saying, because it takes faith to do that. Thats all I have to say, as I am not called to argue with the likes of you. I do hope you answer my questions, and don't be surprised if don't post in response, as It is not my place to argue with you. I don't mean to come across as arrogant or "holier-than-thou", and if I do, I'm am terribly sorry. Sry to stray from the pagan teachings discussion.
Nartwak Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 [quote][/quote] [QUOTE][/quote] [/quote][/quote] Wow, sorry. I screwed up the quoting system. Can't get it to work. Too many end tags.
Fionavar Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 Thats all I have to say, as I am not called to argue with the likes of you. Hmmm think I'll use a similar rationale as we put this one to rest in the Sandbox ,,, The universe is change; your life is what our thoughts make it - Marcus Aurelius (161)
Recommended Posts