# Hybrid embryo vote this week



## ADF (May 19, 2008)

This is going to be an important week for the UK; do we lead the world in medical science, or destroy the hopes of thousands this research could potentially help?

People know my views on this from other topics; Bronze Age thinkers who are always eager minded on how to please their god should not have influence over other peopleâ€™s lives. But like the people currently suffering from sexually transmitted diseases a simple contraception would have prevented, they would rather save you morally than physically.

This vote is bigger than just curing diseases; it is the Catholic Church using their influence to manipulate areas they shouldnâ€™t have any say in. If it passes it is a win for progress, if they manage to block it then with their new success do you really think it will stop there? Abortion laws are also being voted on in the next two days, it is deciding whether to cut time till you can reach the decision to have a abortion by two to four weeks, you know they are already involved with this.

If they win this vote they will become braver and go after other issues the church would love to put their nose in, with Catholic MPs eager and willing to vote based on the churches decree they can do allot of damage. I take great pride in the UK being a leader in medical research; only by pushing forward can humanity be uplifted from the mud. This vote must pass to keep dark age mentality out of UK politics.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (May 19, 2008)

I think we know how they'll vote. Of course they'll vote against it. Because of "moral issues". Just like Bush vetoing stem cell research.


----------



## Le_DÃ©mon_Sans_Visage (May 19, 2008)

I'm gonna say destroy the hopes of thousands, since that's what happened here (USA). As you should well know, gawd is more interested in preserving clumps of undifferentiated cells than lessening the suffering of sentient human beings.


----------



## Xipoid (May 19, 2008)

...and all good things come to rest.


----------



## Oni (May 19, 2008)

ADF said:


> This is going to be an important week for the UK; do we lead the world in medical science, or destroy the hopes of thousands this research could potentially help?
> 
> People know my views on this from other topics; Bronze Age thinkers who are always eager minded on how to please their god should not have influence over other peopleâ€™s lives. But like the people currently suffering from sexually transmitted diseases a simple contraception would have prevented, they would rather save you morally than physically.


 *laughs* It is their own fault that they aquired those stds. Having sex to reproduce is one thing, and letting millions of sperm(lifeforms) die so you can have pleasure is another.



			
				adf said:
			
		

> This vote is bigger than just curing diseases; it is the Catholic Church using their influence to manipulate areas they shouldnâ€™t have any say in. If it passes it is a win for progress, if they manage to block it then with their new success do you really think it will stop there? Abortion laws are also being voted on in the next two days, it is deciding whether to cut time till you can reach the decision to have a abortion by two to four weeks, you know they are already involved with this.


 I hope that abortion is made illegal worldwide. Sick mothers who may not be able to take care of their future children can always give them to some sort of adoption agency. A cheetah is not sentient. Is it ok to just slay one because it inconveniences your life for 9 months?




			
				adf said:
			
		

> If they win this vote they will become braver and go after other issues the church would love to put their nose in, with Catholic MPs eager and willing to vote based on the churches decree they can do allot of damage. I take great pride in the UK being a leader in medical research; only by pushing forward can humanity be uplifted from the mud. This vote must pass to keep dark age mentality out of UK politics.


Dark Age mentality? Oh you may mean certain morals which you may not be able to comprehend yet.


----------



## ExTo (May 19, 2008)

*Open can of worms*

Pluck one of your hair out.

OH MY GOD, YOU JUST KILLED A THOUSAND LIFEFORMS!

What now, you're a murderer? Huh, no you aren't.

Stop the bullshit.

Cells are freaking cells. Like bacteria, like rotifers, like the base of your hair. They're nothing yet, just a bunch of genes coated with ectoplasm. Take what we see at the pinacle of evolution (since we're chauvinist bastards) : a human being. It takes around 5 weeks for the *very first* nervous cell to develop, so all this time is is absolutely no better than those loose-fitting cells in our mouths we destroy by THOUSANDS each time we swallow. And even then, how much time does it take for these nervous cells to actually form something that can remind you of a brain? I don't know, but for a long time they're just like the root of your teeth - so each time you get a wisdom tooth removed, you must be killing innocent lifeforms since there are nervous cells that will be damaged down there!

At BEST, an embryo of approximately 5 weeks, even if it developped nervous cells early, is approximately as mentally developped as a fly. When we swat a fly, are we buying a one-way ticket to Hell? Come on...



> A cheetah is not sentient.



You know, there's a slight difference between killing a cheetah and a hundred cells.

A cheetah *IS* sentient, sentience is NOT unique to humanity, NO, our embryos are NOT sentient until a certain point and YES, many, many many full-grown animals are, because we are NOT special and we DO NOT have a monopoly over sentience - again, we are NOT special, our embryos aren't either, they're cells, flies, hair, the root of your teeth, but we prefer to save that over the life of a 14-year old who's going to die from kystic fibrosis and for whom stem cell research (in this case) would represent the best chance of healing, or, at worse, at least a way to prevent the disease in the future.

But NO, of course, we have to save the root of our teeth instead of the MILLIONS of people who are going to die an agonizing, undeserved and atrocious death because we purposefully slow down scientific research because we think we're soooooo special our embryos are OBVIOUSLY already magnificient beings doted with self-consciousness, UNLIKE THE MILLIONS WHO ARE DYING OF HORRIBLE DISEASES.



> *laughs* It is their own fault that they aquired those stds. Having sex to reproduce is one thing, and letting millions of sperm(lifeforms) die so you can have pleasure is another.



Having sex to have a child implies no protection implies risk of STD.

Having sex with a condom implies no child but protection from STDs.

At least TRY to have a SEMBLANCE of logic, okay? Not only are you pitting two misled opinions together, but you're doing so in a way that both fall down to dust at the first moment.



> Dark Age mentality? Oh you may mean certain morals which you may not be able to comprehend yet.



_Don't do it._

_Why?_

_Because God doesn't want you to._

Yeah right, that's really HARD to understand, I obviously must not be capable of comprehending something so complex and that implies so much gray-thinking and difficult decisions!

I'll tell you what immorality is : immorality is relying on outside sources to elude a decision so we don't have to think about the REAL consequences, those we can measure and can be sure of.

Tell me the reason why you're so opposed to research on embryos, and then I'll make my mind. I'll probably disagree, but if it's obvious you put thought in it and are not just trying to find an *excuse* why we shouldn't *because* we are told we shouldn't (I wouldn't have enough of a hundred years to count all those who do that), then at least I'll give your opinion some consideration.

PS : Sorry if I sound harsh in the above post, I'm not actually angry, but highlighting what I mean through emphasis is something I felt was mandatory here.


----------



## Takun (May 19, 2008)

Oni said:


> *laughs* It is their own fault that they aquired those stds. Having sex to reproduce is one thing, and letting millions of sperm(lifeforms) die so you can have pleasure is another.



Rape.



Oni said:


> I hope that abortion is made illegal worldwide. Sick mothers who may not be able to take care of their future children can always give them to some sort of adoption agency. A cheetah is not sentient. Is it ok to just slay one because it inconveniences your life for 9 months?


World has enough people.  We need more abortions in my opinion.




Oni said:


> Dark Age mentality? Oh you may mean certain morals which you may not be able to comprehend yet.



No it's dark age if you think sperm dying is killing lifeforms.  Fuck I killed millions last night.


----------



## Oni (May 19, 2008)

Xipoid said:


> ...and all good things come to rest.


...and all that is evil shall be extinguished.




Takumi_L said:


> Rape.


 Special case scenario, government gets child and trains to to be superchild.


----------



## Takun (May 19, 2008)

Oni said:


> ...and all that is evil shall be extinguished.
> 
> 
> Special case scenario, government gets child and trains to to be superchild.



Cool.  You go to Africa(which you seem to care so much about) and tell all the HIV positive kids there is no hope for them, but that god still loves them.  It's just HIS mysterious way of doing things.  Must be "their time."  He's just "testing" them.


----------



## Oni (May 19, 2008)

Takumi_L said:


> Cool.  You go to Africa(which you seem to care so much about) and tell all the HIV positive kids there is no hope for them, but that god still loves them.  It's just HIS mysterious way of doing things.  Must be "their time."  He's just "testing" them.


Disturbing isn't it? This is when I use the theory that there are evil demi gods. The ultimate good must have used some evil to conquer the shit out of the universe.


----------



## Takun (May 19, 2008)

Oni said:


> Disturbing isn't it? This is when I use the theory that there are evil demi gods. The ultimate good must have used some evil to conquer the shit out of the universe.



You know.  I could say that the leader of an alien race came to earth and told me they helped build the pyramids.  I would be called crazy.

The pope could say god told him in a dream that he built the pyramids for us to study and learn from.  People would believe every word.

Both as unlike, but one has the crazy followers already.  Not to say I probably couldn't raise a cult quickly.  It doesn't seem all that hard.


----------



## Tycho (May 19, 2008)

You know, this is going to sound kind of "out there", but the extreme likelihood of this vote not going the way of medical advancement and instead going the way of moral-compass scare-monger closed-minded fools has reinforced my very grim, very dire view of the religion(s) that give these idiots that much more compulsion to hinder, obstruct and destroy this sort of potential breakthrough.

DOOMSDAY CULT.  That is the religion to which these people subscribe.  Christianity (and Judaism and Islam even, if you think about it) is a DOOMSDAY CULT.  The more "evangelical" (read: fanatical, backwards, insane) branches revel in the idea of "The Rapture" and "The End Of Days".  They impede the progress of medical science, trying to ban, outlaw, and destroy things like stem cell research and hybrid-embryo technology - things that could save lives, make lives better.  We already know how organized religion has made hatred of one another even easier and more justifiable, fostering conflict and prejudice.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not comparing the extreme likelihood that this bill will not pass to war and genocide - it's worse.  War and genocide actively destroy life and profane the human mind, and people can be made to see them for the crimes they are.  What is happening right now with stem cells, hybrid-embryos etc. is more subtle in its murderousness, and easier to portray in an acceptable and even righteous light to the sheep-like masses, the "casual church-going Americhristian average Joe" types, as it gives them some sort of misguided purpose as a part of a whole, a banner to march under and fight the "bad guys" with.

DOOMSDAY CULT.


----------



## ADF (May 19, 2008)

Oni said:


> Dark Age mentality? Oh you may mean certain morals which you may not be able to comprehend yet.


If it involves comprehending why gay stoning and other Catholic 'morality' are perfectly reasonable then I think I will pass.

By the way...

The bill passed

That's one more win for progress and a STFU to one particular religion trying to force their own personal morality on others, even if it kills them, whether they like it or not. A Jehovah's Witness doesn't try to stop people outside of their religion from receiving blood transfusions, a Muslim doesn't try to stop people from eating pork, Catholics shouldn't stop none Catholics getting the best help modern medicine can provide.

They can take their abortion harassing, gay hating, rape victim tormenting, lets make as many babies as we can morality and keep it to themselves.


----------



## Tycho (May 19, 2008)

ADF said:


> By the way...
> 
> The bill passed



Holy Raptor Jesus, I did a triple take on that one.  SCIENCE, FUCK YEAH!


----------



## Oni (May 19, 2008)

Post found on second page,


----------



## Ty Vulpine (May 19, 2008)

ExTo said:


> Cells are freaking cells. Like bacteria, like rotifers, like the base of your hair. They're nothing yet.



We're all cells, basically. So, you're saying we're all "nothing"? Each one of us is made up of billions upon billions of cells.


----------



## Oni (May 19, 2008)

ExTo said:


> *Open can of worms*
> 
> Pluck one of your hair out.
> 
> ...


You forget that those cells have a purpose. They are the beginning of a human being. Each person finds different things to be sacred. 

This is where morality comes into effect.

There are certain things which are beyond our control; loose fitting cells in our throats are one of those elements which tend to die off whether we like it or not.

We can choose whether or not to kill off an embryo for the sake of science and future of mankind. 

The choice of killing something intentionally for undetermined vauge hypothesized results seems wrong and incorrect, especially when you consider what those cells could have been, a human.

Rather than killing that fly, did you ever consider catching it and releasing it outside?

Why walk on grass and kill lifeforms when you can walk on concrete?

Technologies will gradually advance as time passes, and new ways to discover and create cures will be availble by using said technologies without bending human morality.

Aids, stds, and other certain illness can be controlled regarding their communicability. If humanity was a bit more intelligent it could be done.








			
				ExTo said:
			
		

> You know, there's a slight difference between killing a cheetah and a hundred cells.
> 
> A cheetah *IS* sentient, sentience is NOT unique to humanity, NO, our embryos are NOT sentient until a certain point and YES, many, many many full-grown animals are, because we are NOT special and we DO NOT have a monopoly over sentience - again, we are NOT special, our embryos aren't either, they're cells, flies, hair, the root of your teeth, but we prefer to save that over the life of a 14-year old who's going to die from kystic fibrosis and for whom stem cell research (in this case) would represent the best chance of healing, or, at worse, at least a way to prevent the disease in the future.
> 
> But NO, of course, we have to save the root of our teeth instead of the MILLIONS of people who are going to die an agonizing, undeserved and atrocious death because we purposefully slow down scientific research because we think we're soooooo special our embryos are OBVIOUSLY already magnificient beings doted with self-consciousness, UNLIKE THE MILLIONS WHO ARE DYING OF HORRIBLE DISEASES.


 You are correct about a cheetah being sentient; I had an incorrect definition at hand when I earlier wrote those words. Cheetahs are not cognitive. _*(of, relating to, or being conscious intellectual activity (as thinking, reasoning, remembering, imagining, or learning words)*_ Well perhaps they are slightly cognitive. *shrugs*

Morals are what will be changed if certain laws and regulations are passed.  You forget that painkillers exist, and we all do eventually die, some just die sooner than others. This is easy for me to say, as I believe there is life for me after this human body rots away. In the supposed aformementioned afterlife, my program(myself) (my likes, dislikes memories, my cognitive way of thinking) will be preserved and I will be able to be useful to whatever supreme beings there are rather than "rest in peace" which is a phrase that disturbs me. 

I try to modify my programming to be "good" as I live in this current state of utopia.(being able to see, smell, taste, and feel wonderful emotions and pleasures.





			
				ExTo said:
			
		

> Having sex to have a child implies no protection implies risk of STD.
> 
> Having sex with a condom implies no child but protection from STDs.
> 
> ...


You lost me there. -.-


----------



## Tycho (May 19, 2008)

Oni said:


> Rather than killing that fly, did you ever consider catching it and releasing it outside?
> 
> Why walk on grass and kill lifeforms when you can walk on concrete?



DEATH HAPPENS.  For creatures that can propagate like gangbusters, a death or two is NOTHING.  In the grand scheme of things for humans, a death or two is nothing, though somewhat more regrettable and noteworthy, particularly to friends and family of the victim.  Still, DEATH HAPPENS, and the species soldiers on.  Life is not sacred in nature, only in our minds.



			
				Oni said:
			
		

> You are correct about a cheetah being sentient; I had an incorrect definition at hand when I earlier wrote those words. Cheetahs are not cognitive. _*(of, relating to, or being conscious intellectual activity (as thinking, reasoning, remembering, imagining, or learning words)*_ Well perhaps they are slightly cognitive. *shrugs*



The word you're looking for here is SAPIENT.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (May 19, 2008)

"How we deal with death is just as important as how we deal with life."- James Kirk, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan


----------



## ADF (May 19, 2008)

TyVulpine said:


> We're all cells, basically. So, you're saying we're all "nothing"? Each one of us is made up of billions upon billions of cells.


The problem with that sort of thinking is you decide anything that could potentially become a life form, is a life form. Hence you decide a collection of cells in a dish is a person and has all the rights of that person, in fact you have chosen to take offence on behalf of this potential person and fight for their right to live.

This is basically what the Catholics did; even if fighting for the right of a few cells in a dish resulted in the death of living, breathing, feeling people. They also choose to ignore that our body simply discards thousands of these sorts of cells every day, including sperm and ovaries, which could have been put to good use in medical research to cure illnesses.

People cleanly cut it into pro choice and pro life, I'm actually pro life. I'm pro saving lives than watching them needlessly die for the sake of imaginary people that end up at the bottom of our toilets every day anyway.


Oni said:


> Technologies will gradually advance as time passes, and new ways to discover and create cures will be availble by using said technologies.


Technology has already advanced to a point were it has discovered new cures, it is called stem cell research. The difference is it seems you would have use pass by any potential life saving research if it happens to offend some one, wasting the chances to help people along the way.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (May 19, 2008)

ADF said:


> People cleanly cut it into pro choice and pro life, I'm actually pro life.



So am I.


----------



## Oni (May 19, 2008)

ADF said:


> The problem with that sort of thinking is you decide anything that could potentially become a life form, is a life form. Hence you decide a collection of cells in a dish is a person and has all the rights of that person, in fact you have chosen to take offence on behalf of this potential person and fight for their right to live.
> 
> This is basically what the Catholics did; even if fighting for the right of a few cells in a dish resulted in the death of living, breathing, feeling people. They also choose to ignore that our body simply discards thousands of these sorts of cells every day, including sperm and ovaries, which could have been put to good use in medical research to cure illnesses.
> 
> ...


I am one of those people who thinks that we should skip the little stem cell bullshit and advance techologies to the point in which we will not have to kill an embryo for research. Aids, stds, and other communicable diseases can be contained while we advance our technologies.

Cures are not guaranteed with stem cell research. Remember that.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (May 19, 2008)

Oni said:


> I am one of those people who thinks that we should skip the little stem cell bullshit and advance techologies to the point in which we will not have to kill an embryo for research. Aids, stds, and other communicable diseases can be contained while we advance our technologies.



But the thing is, I've always suspected that the companies researching "cures" don't WANT to find cures, because that would put their company out of business and all their employees would find themselves unemployed.


----------



## Tycho (May 19, 2008)

Oni said:


> Aids, stds, and other communicable diseases can be contained while we advance our technologies.



You put far too much stock in the rumor that the human race has a lick of sense.  AIDS keeps spreading, in Asia and PARTICULARLY Africa.  Terrorists are rumored to have obtained biological warfare agents.  We're spreading them even faster than the disease itself would spread.


----------



## Le_DÃ©mon_Sans_Visage (May 19, 2008)

ADF said:


> They can take their abortion harassing, gay hating, rape victim tormenting, lets make as many babies as we can morality and keep it to themselves.



Yay!


----------



## Oni (May 19, 2008)

Tycho The Itinerant said:


> You put far too much stock in the rumor that the human race has a lick of sense.  AIDS keeps spreading, in Asia and PARTICULARLY Africa.  Terrorists are rumored to have obtained biological warfare agents.  We're spreading them even faster than the disease itself would spread.


That is some sick biological warfare. *pays his taxes and hopes that the U.S. Military takes over the world* No mercy to those who have spread death dealing disease purposefully.


----------



## ADF (May 19, 2008)

Oni said:


> I am one of those people who thinks that we should skip the little stem cell bullshit and advance techologies to the point in which we will not have to kill an embryo for research. Aids, stds, and other communicable diseases can be contained while we advance our technologies.



Because we are doing such a good job at containing it now aren't we? Especially with the Catholics running around telling people not to use protection. Don't use condoms, don't masturbate, don't look at porn, only have sex to breed because that is how 'our god' likes it. Just bottle it all inside until it twists you to the point that you do something stupid like rape someone just to find release, then when you break down in tears over the atrocity you have just commit come confess your sins and all is forgiven in 'our gods' eyes.

I don't even understand why you are against this, what do you think this whole Hybrid Embryo issue is about? Thanks to this bill human embryos may never need to be wasted again; they are using animal embryos hallowed out and injected with human DNA, no human embryos are used in this area of stem cell research.







Again let me emphasize 'no human embros are used', the church got its knickers in a twist because they watch too much damn Sci-Fi and thought they were working on furries or something. There is even a time period that the 'animal embryo' is allowed to replicate before the law requires it to be destroyed.


----------



## Tycho (May 19, 2008)

Oni said:


> That is some sick biological warfare. *pays his taxes and hopes that the U.S. Military takes over the world*



The AIDS itself isn't really warfare, just stupidity, lust, hatred, and a dash of superstition.  The bio-terror thing is nihilistic stupidity.  They SUPPOSEDLY plan on using actual people as vectors, walking bio-bombs.  Honestly, the most I've seen as far as bioterror goes is the anthrax envelope incident.  AFAIK, terrorist groups being in possession of or developing biological weapons is still a nebulous subject, as I do not recall any case of bio-terror making the news other than the anthrax envelope bit.  They PROBABLY are, though, and being prepared for them if possible is a good thing anyway.


----------



## Thatch (May 19, 2008)

Oni said:


> You forget that those cells have a purpose. They are the beginning of a human being. Each person finds different things to be sacred.
> 
> This is where morality comes into effect.



Still, as Tycho said, those are... just... cells. They can be something more, but thay don't have to. Someone can use the example 'what if mozart's mother got an abortion', but it's futile. He's not irreplaceble, no one is. We can sleep calmly, no matter how many embroys we kill. Most of them wouldn't even get to live either way. A female can have only so many children.



Oni said:


> There are certain things which are beyond our control; loose fitting cells in our throats are one of those elements which tend to die off whether we like it or not.
> 
> We can choose whether or not to kill off an embryo for the sake of science and future of mankind.
> 
> The choice of killing something intentionally for undetermined vauge hypothesized results seems wrong and incorrect, especially when you consider what those cells could have been, a human.



Undetermined? Vague? That research has a goal. It's a very accurate one. And, as in the topic, this would not be a human, those are animal cells.



Oni said:


> Technologies will gradually advance as time passes, and new ways to discover and create cures will be availble by using said technologies without bending human morality.
> 
> Aids, stds, and other certain illness can be controlled regarding their communicability. If humanity was a bit more intelligent it could be done.



Bit more inteligent? This was an ironic statement? There already are condoms to prevent this, just some narrow minded fools have to aknowledge it.
And think as if thechnology advances by itself. IT DOES NOT! IT NEADS RESEARCH! And the thick skulls of the religious bigots block the research, so we will be stuck in this state for much longer than needed.



Oni said:


> You are correct about a cheetah being sentient; I had an incorrect definition at hand when I earlier wrote those words. Cheetahs are not cognitive. _*(of, relating to, or being conscious intellectual activity (as thinking, reasoning, remembering, imagining, or learning words)*_ Well perhaps they are slightly cognitive. *shrugs*
> 
> Morals are what will be changed if certain laws and regulations are passed.  You forget that painkillers exist, and we all do eventually die, some just die sooner than others. This is easy for me to say, as I believe there is life for me after this human body rots away. In the supposed aformementioned afterlife, my program(myself) (my likes, dislikes memories, my cognitive way of thinking) will be preserved and I will be able to be useful to whatever supreme beings there are rather than "rest in peace" which is a phrase that disturbs me.
> 
> I try to modify my programming to be "good" as I live in this current state of utopia.(being able to see, smell, taste, and feel wonderful emotions and pleasures.



Being moral isn't synonymous with being religious. Just because we are ready to kill a bunch of loose cells doeasn't mean we're immoral, just that we will sacrify one undeveloped creature, which might not even live, to save billions in the future. 
You say you try to be "good", yet state calmly that some just get to live shorter while beaing against methods that can help them live longer. And you do that to get a good place in the afterlife. I'll tell you something, you're not "good", you're egoistic, and egoists go to hell.



Oni said:


> That is some sick biological warfare. *pays his taxes and hopes that the U.S. Military takes over the world* No mercy to those who have spread death dealing disease purposefully.



Seeing as you are the target, due to your military influence around the globe, you know where you can stick that statement...

EDIT:


Tycho The Itinerant said:


> Since an angry terrorist (I'm really starting to hate that word) wouldn't differentiate between Oni (someone who I'm guessing is all for the idea of making a round the world trip with our military and kicking "bad guy" ass), and me (who thinks we need to bring troops home and stay the fuck out of stupid ethno-religious quarrels like in Iraq, and thinks Israel is being kinda heavy handed and has a slight degree of sympathy for the Palestinians etc), when he chooses his targets, that's sort of a pointless statement.  They just hate Americans in general, makes it easier for them to commit wholesale slaughter without any qualms.  Aggressively pursuing them isn't something you do with an open show of military force, also.



I know. Terrorist hate america and americans, because of your goverments 'imperialistic' ambitions. I despise terrorist as anyone, it would be better if they were all dead before they could harm anyone else, but I'm not fond of american influence either.


----------



## Tycho (May 19, 2008)

szopaw said:


> Seeing as you are the target, due to your military influence around the globe, you know where you can stick that statement...



Since an angry terrorist (I'm really starting to hate that word) wouldn't differentiate between Oni (someone who I'm guessing is all for the idea of making a round the world trip with our military and kicking "bad guy" ass), and me (who thinks we need to bring troops home and stay the fuck out of stupid ethno-religious quarrels like in Iraq, and thinks Israel is being kinda heavy handed and has a slight degree of sympathy for the Palestinians etc), when he chooses his targets, that's sort of a pointless statement.  They just hate Americans in general, makes it easier for them to commit wholesale slaughter without any qualms.  Aggressively pursuing them isn't something you do with an open show of military force, also.

K, now to get the fuck back on topic...


----------



## Oni (May 19, 2008)

ADF said:


> Because we are doing such a good job at containing it now aren't we? Especially with the Catholics running around telling people not to use protection. Don't use condoms, don't masturbate, don't look at porn, only have sex to breed because that is how 'our god' likes it. Just bottle it all inside until it twists you to the point that you do something stupid like rape someone just to find release, then when you break down in tears over the atrocity you have just commit come confess your sins and all is forgiven in 'our gods' eyes.
> 
> I don't even understand why you are against this, what do you think this whole Hybrid Embryo issue is about? Thanks to this bill human embryos may never need to be wasted again; they are using animal embryos hallowed out and injected with human DNA, no human embryos are used in this area of stem cell research.
> 
> ...


Hmm, interesting. Regardless, cures are not guaranteed from stem cell research. If I knew more about its possible cure-find success/fail ratio, I could be swayed to support stem cell research.


----------



## Tycho (May 19, 2008)

Oni said:


> Hmm, interesting. Regardless, cures are not guaranteed from stem cell research. If I knew more about its possible cure-find success rate, I could be swayed to support stem cell research.



Nothing is ever a guarantee.  This is a science still in its infancy, and should be allowed to grow some before judgment is passed on it.  It is PROMISING, because we know what stem cells are capable of.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (May 19, 2008)

Tycho The Itinerant said:


> Nothing is ever a guarantee.  This is a science still in its infancy, and should be allowed to grow some before judgment is passed on it.



But you know that ain't goin to happen. Christian groups are probably already starting to condemn it.


----------



## Tycho (May 19, 2008)

TyVulpine said:


> But you know that ain't goin to happen. Christian groups are probably already starting to condemn it.



DOOMSDAY CULTISTS.


----------



## ADF (May 19, 2008)

Oni said:


> Hmm, interesting. Regardless, cures are not guaranteed from stem cell research. If I knew more about its *possible cure-find success/fail ratio, *I could be swayed to support stem cell research.


At the beginning it looks like a way of creating human compatible stem cells without the supply and ethical problems of using human embryos, but discoveries are only made when we actually look for something. This area of research could be a complete dead end, but we won't know until we actually do the research to find out will we?

They wanted to ban the research before it was even looked into to see if it is a viable area to proceed in; simply because they are paranoid about Frankenstein monsters.

Of course this is the same religion who recently decided genetic manipulation, which has already provided many different treatments, is a sin that you will go to hell for.



TyVulpine said:


> But you know that ain't goin to happen. Christian groups are probably already starting to condemn it.



Condemn away, they have every right to their opinion, just don't stop others from having access to it.


----------



## Takun (May 19, 2008)

TyVulpine said:


> But you know that ain't goin to happen. Christian groups are probably already starting to condemn it.



Christian groups condemned Harry Potter. 


HOLY HELL HOGWARTS IN DA HIZZLE.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (May 19, 2008)

ADF said:


> At the beginning it looks like a way of creating human compatible stem cells without the supply and ethical problems of using human embryos, but discoveries are only made when we actually look for something. This area of research could be a complete dead end, but we won't know until we actually do the research to find out will we?
> 
> They wanted to ban the research before it was even looked into to see if it is a viable area to proceed in; simply because they are paranoid about Frankenstein monsters.
> 
> ...



Here in the US, they probably will. Bush is a big anti-stem cell research advocate, and refuses to even consider such a possibility.


----------



## Takun (May 19, 2008)

TyVulpine said:


> Here in the US, they probably will. Bush is a big anti-stem cell research advocate, and refuses to even consider such a possibility.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGrlWOhtj3g

Lighten up and have some lulz.


----------



## ADF (May 19, 2008)

TyVulpine said:


> Here in the US, they probably will. Bush is a big anti-stem cell research advocate, and refuses to even consider such a possibility.


All that matters is at least one country is doing the research, should it result in success countries that previously were against the research may soften up to it.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (May 19, 2008)

Takumi_L said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGrlWOhtj3g
> 
> Lighten up and have some lulz.



I will come Jan 20, 2009 when Bush and Cheney are out of office (FINALLY!).


----------



## Xipoid (May 19, 2008)

TyVulpine said:


> We're all cells, basically. So, you're saying we're all "nothing"? Each one of us is made up of billions upon billions of cells.



Cells individually are nothing. However, to assume that which is made up of cells is also nothing is wrong (known as the composition fallacy). The example here is the one you have stated.

The reverse (the division fallacy) is just as wrong.
Example:
Humans merit human rights.
Humans are made cells.
Therefore, cells merit human rights.





Oni said:


> ...and all that is evil shall be extinguished.


Only in a universe that cares.





Oni said:


> Hmm, interesting. Regardless, cures are not guaranteed from stem cell research. If I knew more about its possible cure-find success/fail ratio, I could be swayed to support stem cell research.



Cures are not guaranteed from any form of medical care. To oppose stem-cell research for this makes no sense, unless you oppose all forms of medical care (though the logic still makes no sense).




I find it both silly and illogical for anyone to champion cells or cell cultures as viable humans that deserve equivalent human treatment. If this were true, I could use the same logic to say that to commit murder would kill off person A and their entire future bloodline, which potentially could be an astronomical number of people. Thus, killing just one person merits anywhere from one to innumerable life sentences.


Not to mention that as ADF pointed out, the human body terminates cells (including sperm) on quite a regular basis.


----------



## Takun (May 19, 2008)

Xipoid said:


> Cells individually are nothing. However, to assume that which is made up of cells is also nothing is wrong (known as the composition fallacy). The example here is the one you have stated.
> 
> The reverse (the division fallacy) is just as wrong.
> Example:
> ...



Indeed.  Down with the death penalty.  You are killing off every potential sperm that the convict has.  Possible children who did NOTHING wrong.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (May 19, 2008)

Takumi_L said:


> Indeed.  Down with the death penalty.  You are killing off every potential sperm that the convict has.  Possible children who did NOTHING wrong.



I've never supported the death penalty. "An eye for an eye leaves a country blind", plus killing someone for murdering another won't bring the dead person back.


----------



## Oni (May 19, 2008)

Xipoid said:


> Cells individually are nothing. However, to assume that which is made up of cells is also nothing is wrong (known as the composition fallacy). The example here is the one you have stated.
> 
> The reverse (the division fallacy) is just as wrong.
> Example:
> ...


 You have no evidence or proof which discloses when exactly a "human" or human mind is present in a developing cell body. A 6 month year old child is not cognitive. It is a lump of cells that does not know right from wrong. Does that make ok to give it illness and study the results?






			
				Xipoid said:
			
		

> Cures are not guaranteed from any form of medical care. To oppose stem-cell research for this makes no sense, unless you oppose all forms of medical care (though the logic still makes no sense).


Your own logic does not make sense. I opposed stem cell research because it breaks moral code. You may have meant "medical research and experimentation" not "medical care".






			
				Xipoid said:
			
		

> Not to mention that as ADF pointed out, the human body terminates cells (including sperm) on quite a regular basis.


You neglect my point. There is a difference between natural termination and pre meditated murder.




			
				Xipoid said:
			
		

> it both silly and illogical for anyone to champion cells or cell cultures as viable humans that deserve equivalent human treatment. If this were true, I could use the same logic to say that to commit murder would kill off person A and their entire future bloodline, which potentially could be an astronomical number of people. Thus, killing just one person merits anywhere from one to innumerable life sentences.


 Good point actually. Murdering a person could terminate their future bloodline descendants. I'd say that should be the cause of lifetime prison sentence or even death.

Young children are not cognitive. They do not know right from wrong; they do not speak. Are they lumps of cell mass that we can test?


----------



## Ty Vulpine (May 19, 2008)

Oni said:


> Good point actually. Murdering a person could terminate their future bloodline descendants. I'd say that should be the cause of lifetime prison sentence or even death.



Then you get into predestination/fate with that line. How do we know if the person was intended to have children or not?


----------



## AlexInsane (May 19, 2008)

TyVulpine said:


> I've never supported the death penalty. "An eye for an eye leaves a country blind", plus killing someone for murdering another won't bring the dead person back.



Of course killing murderers won't solve anything, but they deserve it anyway, just because they're beyond all redemption. I heartily disapprove of the manners of execution they have these days in the US, because they are too private and weak. Lethal injection? That's some fucking pussy bullshit. They need to invent more violent and gruesome manners of killing the condemned. They also need to make executions public events again. 

Also, an eye for an eye means you'll both be missing an eye. You won't be technically be blind.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (May 19, 2008)

I'm still very shocked that the Catholic church would have any influence. I know that the U.S. body of politics is influenced by the many crazy protestant Christian groups but the Catholic church has been 'nill. I had assumed this to be the case of many advanced democracies.


----------



## Oni (May 19, 2008)

ADF said:


> At the beginning it looks like a way of creating human compatible stem cells without the supply and ethical problems of using human embryos, but discoveries are only made when we actually look for something. This area of research could be a complete dead end, but we won't know until we actually do the research to find out will we?
> 
> They wanted to ban the research before it was even looked into to see if it is a viable area to proceed in; simply because they are paranoid about Frankenstein monsters.
> 
> ...


If your government has constituents of the aforementioned opposing religion, then it may be difficult to pass legislation regarding the medical experimentation known as stem cell research which involves human embryos.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (May 19, 2008)

Putting someone to death just gets them out of their punishment, really. Let them sit in solitary confinement for the rest of their lives in a stinkhole with nothing but stale bread and dirty water.


----------



## AlexInsane (May 19, 2008)

TyVulpine said:


> Putting someone to death just gets them out of their punishment, really. Let them sit in solitary confinement for the rest of their lives in a stinkhole with nothing but stale bread and dirty water.



Psychotic murderers who get caught don't care what happens to them; it matters nothing to them whether they sit in jail or are killed for their actions. Besides, it costs more money to keep prisoners locked up than to kill them off. The death penalty is an economic necessity.


----------



## Oni (May 19, 2008)

TyVulpine said:


> Then you get into predestination/fate with that line. How do we know if the person was intended to have children or not?


It would be something that is automatically considered regardless of fate and probability.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (May 19, 2008)

AlexInsane said:


> Psychotic murderers who get caught don't care what happens to them; it matters nothing to them whether they sit in jail or are killed for their actions. Besides, it costs more money to keep prisoners locked up than to kill them off. The death penalty is an economic necessity.



"We're going to kill you for killing someone else." Yeah, sometime someone REALLY needs to explain that logic to me.


----------



## AlexInsane (May 19, 2008)

TyVulpine said:


> "We're going to kill you for killing someone else." Yeah, sometime someone REALLY needs to explain that logic to me.



There is no logic in matters involving killing people. If you kill someone, why you deserve to live? You have committed an act that has, in my opinion, rendered you incapable of being human. 

Besides, people with life sentences live a long time if they don't commit suicide or are killed by other inmates. You can't feed a prisoner substandard food and drink; that's cruel and unusual punishment.

Just kill the bastard and have done with it. Quite the simplest thing to do.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (May 19, 2008)

AlexInsane said:


> There is no logic in matters involving killing people. If you kill someone, why you deserve to live? You have committed an act that has, in my opinion, rendered you incapable of being human.
> 
> Besides, people with life sentences live a long time if they don't commit suicide or are killed by other inmates. You can't feed a prisoner substandard food and drink; that's cruel and unusual punishment.
> 
> Just kill the bastard and have done with it. Quite the simplest thing to do.



Yet, if you kill someone for killing someone else, then you're just as guilty as the murderer, because YOU just killed. How can you possibly justify killing someone? You can't. "Oh, well, she/he killed someone, so it's okay for us to kill him/her, because the law allows us to legally murder a murderer!"


----------



## Takun (May 19, 2008)

TyVulpine said:


> Putting someone to death just gets them out of their punishment, really. Let them sit in solitary confinement for the rest of their lives in a stinkhole with nothing but stale bread and dirty water.



No thanks.  Single bullet.  Fuck rusty knife to the neck.  I'm tired of paying to support them.




TyVulpine said:


> Yet, if you kill someone for killing someone else, then you're just as guilty as the murderer, because YOU just killed. How can you possibly justify killing someone? You can't. "Oh, well, she/he killed someone, so it's okay for us to kill him/her, because the law allows us to legally murder a murderer!"



God is a murderer.  He killed "bad guys."


----------



## Ty Vulpine (May 19, 2008)

Takumi_L said:


> God is a murderer.  He killed "bad guys."



Depends how you term "bad guys". People like bin Laden view Americans as the "bad guys", and vice versa. One man's "bad guy" is another man's freedom fighter.


----------



## Takun (May 19, 2008)

TyVulpine said:


> Depends how you term "bad guys". People like bin Laden view Americans as the "bad guys", and vice versa. One man's "bad guy" is another man's freedom fighter.




Indeed.  Let's just kill everyone.  Planet would be better off anyway.


----------



## Ratte (May 19, 2008)

Tycho The Itinerant said:


> Since an angry terrorist (I'm really starting to hate that word) wouldn't differentiate between Oni (someone who I'm guessing is all for the idea of making a round the world trip with our military and kicking "bad guy" ass), and me (who thinks we need to bring troops home and stay the fuck out of stupid ethno-religious quarrels like in Iraq, and thinks Israel is being kinda heavy handed and has a slight degree of sympathy for the Palestinians etc), when he chooses his targets, that's sort of a pointless statement.  They just hate Americans in general, makes it easier for them to commit wholesale slaughter without any qualms.  Aggressively pursuing them isn't something you do with an open show of military force, also.
> 
> K, now to get the fuck back on topic...



Yay terrorism.

I really don't understand the stem cell thing.  All I know is that they can become any kind of cell in the human body.

That would be cool.  I'd want stem cells from a kitty so I could have ears and a tail =3


----------



## Xipoid (May 19, 2008)

TyVulpine said:


> Yet, if you kill someone for killing someone else, then you're just as guilty as the murderer, because YOU just killed. How can you possibly justify killing someone? You can't. "Oh, well, she/he killed someone, so it's okay for us to kill him/her, because the law allows us to legally murder a murderer!"




Food for thought: Why do I need justification?




Oni said:


> You have no evidence or proof which discloses when exactly a "human" or human mind is present in a developing cell body. A 6 month year old child is not cognitive. It is a lump of cells that does not know right from wrong. Does that make ok to give it illness and study the results?



No one does. It is impossible to assert any conclusion without drawing upon argument from ignorance. However, in this case, the consequences of the "immoral" case remain unseen and unmeasurable. From a purely scientific perspective, acknowledging them would be folly.




Oni said:


> Your own logic does not make sense. I opposed stem cell research because it breaks moral code. You may have meant "medical research and experimentation" not "medical care".



No, I meant medical care. There is no medical care that will cure you of some disease. We have may have high likelihoods and confidence that treatment A will prevent/stop serious condition B, but there is never a guarantee that it will. Complications arise more often than we wish.


In the context you spoke, it appeared as though the reasoning was in fact "unknown results". Moral codes is a subject I will not touch.




Oni said:


> You neglect my point. There is a difference between natural termination and pre meditated murder.



I must disagree on the fact that what nature does is not always good or right. Termination by nature or by man, premeditated or otherwise, ends in the same result. If we examine this from my philosophical view (nihilism), they end up becoming the same.


Regarding this from a different point of view, the only way to validate it is to presume nature has some form of justification for doing so (again, you must avoid the appeal to nature). Which leads me to point back to my response to TyVulpine.





Oni said:


> ...
> Young children are not cognitive. They do not know right from wrong; they do not speak. Are they lumps of cell mass that we can test?




What definition are you using for "young child"?
In fact, what definition are you using for "human"?
And again, on the same thought train as to my reply to TyVulpine, who or what defines right and wrong?


----------



## Ty Vulpine (May 19, 2008)

Xipoid said:


> And again, on the same thought train as to my reply to TyVulpine, who or what defines right and wrong?



Apparently, the "winners". Or those still alive, and can justifible reasons for killing a killer.

Let me pose this to the "pro-death" people. Would you be so quick to get in line to pull the switch/pull the trigger/inject the needle, if the condemned killer was one of your relatives that you dearly loved?


----------



## Tycho (May 19, 2008)

TyVulpine said:


> I've never supported the death penalty. "An eye for an eye leaves a country blind", plus killing someone for murdering another won't bring the dead person back.



No, but it will get the fucker out of the prison system and off the taxpayer's dollar.  He/she has done something REALLY FUCKING BAD.  Why are we keeping these people around? To me it's not about vengeance - being kept alive can be far worse than being killed (in what we have found is the nicest quietest way to do it so far).  Turkish prisons are a shining example of how life imprisonment can be so much worse - watch the movie "Midnight Express".  Imagine a lifetime in THAT.


----------



## Oni (May 19, 2008)

Earlier conversation said:
			
		

> _Originally Posted by TyVulpine
> Yet, if you kill someone for killing someone else, then you're just as guilty as the murderer, because YOU just killed. How can you possibly justify killing someone? You can't. "Oh, well, she/he killed someone, so it's okay for us to kill him/her, because the law allows us to legally murder a murderer!"_
> 
> 
> ...


You need justification or just reason/cause so that you will not be accused of a certain degree of murder. The purpose of law is to keep chaos in order. You are looking for justification to not have justification?




			
				earlier conversation said:
			
		

> Originally Posted by Oni
> You have no evidence or proof which discloses when exactly a "human" or human mind is present in a developing cell body. A 6 month year old child is not cognitive. It is a lump of cells that does not know right from wrong. Does that make ok to give it illness and study the results?
> 
> 
> ...


The consequences of the immoral case are not known. The cures which stem cell research will supposedly yield are also not known. 

We tend to put those people who use purely scientific perspectives in jail these days.







			
				EarlierConversation said:
			
		

> Originally Posted by Oni
> Your own logic does not make sense. I opposed stem cell research because it breaks moral code. You may have meant "medical research and experimentation" not "medical care".
> 
> 
> ...


"Medical Care" can cure Malaria. The subject at hand was and is stem cell research which is not medical care; it is scientific experimentation which deals with human embryos.




			
				Xipoid said:
			
		

> In the context you spoke, it appeared as though the reasoning was in fact "unknown results". Moral codes is a subject I will not touch.


 In the subject at hand, moral code is a major element which is preventing stem cell research. Moral code is a base of law.






			
				earlier conversation said:
			
		

> Originally Posted by Oni
> You neglect my point. There is a difference between natural termination and pre meditated murder.
> 
> 
> ...


 NATURE IS NOT COGNITIVE; IT IS WHAT HAPPENS WITHOUT THE INFLUENCE OF COGNITIVE ACTION AND REASON. ARgargAGRGrgARGRR *makes rude comment that you should re-attend college*







			
				earlier conversation said:
			
		

> Originally Posted by Oni
> ...
> Young children are not cognitive. They do not know right from wrong; they do not speak. Are they lumps of cell mass that we can test?
> 
> ...


Young child in this case will be 6 months of age.  The law defines right and wrong. People define the law. I define right and wrong.


----------



## Takun (May 19, 2008)

Not a person






Not a person




Any questions?


----------



## Xipoid (May 19, 2008)

Oni said:


> You need justification or just reason/cause so that you will not be accused of a certain degree of murder. The purpose of law is to keep chaos in order. You are looking for justification to not have justification?



The point of that question was to illicit some scope of the universe and show that justification is circular. You only need justification because we say you do.





Oni said:


> In the subject at hand, moral code is a major element which is preventing stem cell research. Moral code is a base of law.



It is the basis of these moral codes that the disagreement arises. So, I'll go ahead and merge this response to my other.


Oni said:


> The consequences of the immoral case are not known. The cures which stem cell research will supposedly yield are also not known.
> 
> We tend to put those people who use purely scientific perspectives in jail these days.



The cures from stem cell research will never be known until they arise from research which cannot happen if it is stopped by opposition. I was also unaware that nihilists were jailed.





Oni said:


> "Medical Care" can cure Malaria. The subject at hand was and is stem cell research which is not medical care; it is scientific experimentation which deals with human embryos.



Malaria still affects a small number of people in the United States, even though it was eradicated in the 1950's. Unfortunately, this branch of the discussion is no longer in relation and so must be abandoned, unless you would prefer it not.

The point of my previous comment is that when considered, the potential benefits of stem cell research greatly outweighs its potential consequence in all cases except from a religious view point; however, there is no reason to hold all of humanity to the views of some religion(s).





Oni said:


> NATURE IS NOT COGNITIVE; IT IS WHAT HAPPENS WITHOUT THE INFLUENCE OF COGNITIVE ACTION AND REASON. ARgargAGRGrgARGRR *makes rude comment that you should re-attend college*



I did not say nature was cognitive, nor did I mean for it to be implied. My point was that what is natural is not always right or good. In the context of stem cell research, I am not sure why anyone would pass off anything natural as permissible and yet somehow condemn humans for doing something similar.

Back to the original point would lead to the question "Where do we draw the line at when a collection of cells becomes a human?" (ignoring the obvious problem with that)




Oni said:


> Young child in this case will be 6 months of age.  The law defines right and wrong. People define the law. I define right and wrong.




Would that be six months old from birth or conception?

(I was talking about right and wrong in scope of the universe not human creations)


----------



## ExTo (May 19, 2008)

EDIT : Most. Massive. Post. Ever.

*Disclaimer* : Yeah I know I'll sound angry in this post, but I actually am not.  I just like to put a lot of emphasis, so don't feel harassed, I don't mean it. 

OMG. I love you, United Kingdom. Will you marry me?



TyVulpine said:


> We're all cells, basically. So, you're saying we're all "nothing"? Each one of us is made up of billions upon billions of cells.



(Might as well say each time we conduct a DNA test, we become murderers... not a good argument to have justice take a 100-year backwards step, IMO!)

Well...

To a human level, we are something past a certain point of development in our brain. When we start learning and being somewhat remotely conscious of our environment, even before our long-term memory works properly actually. That's why I personally would say 5 weeks is a good cutoff for abortion - at that point, there's no chance the brain would be more developped than your average nerve, so you're not faced with anything that could be considered a person at this point of development. I'd even dare say I place the cutoff early because it takes many months before you get a semblance of a real brain.

Still...

To the level of the universe...

We are NOTHING. Algorithms, that's what we are. From the very first second of the universe and on, absolutely everything is an algorithm dictated by the laws of physics (*including* those we don't understand). Notably, we don't chose - our choices, our thoughts, everything is just chemical reactions and movement of electricity in our brains. Know all equations, all vectors, all algorithms that govern the *entire* universe (and you MUST know ALL of them for this to work) and you can predict, with absolutely no chance of ever being wrong, the future in with perfect precision. We theoretically COULD predict people's thought this way, for if we know the exact effect of this chemical reaction and that neuronal message, we will know their effect, we will know exactly how the person will react, how that will alter his/her environment, how others will react, etc, always with complete and entire precision. But again, we need to know EVERYTHING at a given moment, for if only one bit of info is lacking, we'll never be able to know what kind of consequence it could have in the long run.

So in hindsight... we are the universe, and the universe is us. Life is an equation and absolutely everything was "planned" from the getgo.

And the most beautiful thing is that... this thing I'm saying here is foolproof, flawless. You can't argue it. It's impossible. I tried, for years. I never could find any way to disprove it other than arguing the supernatural (and even then, what says the supernatural, if it exists, isn't regulated by laws of the universe we still do not understand?), and that's just _wishful thinking_ because it is absolutely impossible to realistically have the slightest proof of such an assertion. And don't even try bringing the "but if we know we know it'll change the future" argument, destroying that argument is about as difficult as saying "Your destiny was to change your destiny, so you followed your destiny".

But since we'll NEVER have *all* the info, we better just keep on living and keep philosophical debates for politics and politics alone - after all, all there is to life is an immense mathematical equation we will never understand even a fraction of.

Basically... we're determined since even before time existed, but since it will never be possible for us to know everything we have to, let's just keep on living and try to better our lives - they are so pointless anyway, we might as well enjoy ourselves, no matter how hard it is. So long as we keep respecting the lives of others, of course.



Oni said:


> You forget that those cells have a purpose. They are the beginning of a human being. Each person finds different things to be sacred.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Oni (May 19, 2008)

Xipoid said:


> The point of that question was to illicit some scope of the universe and show that justification is circular. You only need justification because we say you do.


Justification is a human concept. How can there be circular universal justification?
Justification is reason(that is the cause of something which happens) which explains why something was done in hope of doing good and not recieving negitive consequences for completed actions. 

The justification of the people who support stem cell research seems to be that the supposed results of stem cell research and experimentation will yield cures which can help the suffering of humanity.

Their justification is weak and flawed, as they have no proof that stem cell research will yield results.



The justification of those who oppose stem cell research seems to be that some sort of moral code is broken when we give baby humans disease to study the growth of it *in hopes* of obtaining information which can cure certain disease.

Their justification is also weak and flawed, as we do not know when a human soul and mind is created in a cell mass.







			
				Xipoid said:
			
		

> It is the basis of these moral codes that the disagreement arises. So, I'll go ahead and merge this response to my other.
> 
> 
> The cures from stem cell research will never be known until they arise from research which cannot happen if it is stopped by opposition. I was also unaware that nihilists were jailed.


  I was attempting to make a point which states that inhuman behavior, that is caused by a human's purely scientific perspectives and wants, usually warrants jailtime. (illegal experimentation of humans)

Truthfully there are no cures, only hypotheses which state that there could be cures that are created from stem cell research.







			
				Xipoid said:
			
		

> Malaria still affects a small number of people in the United States, even though it was eradicated in the 1950's. Unfortunately, this branch of the discussion is no longer in relation and so must be abandoned, unless you would prefer it not.
> 
> The point of my previous comment is that when considered, the potential benefits of stem cell research greatly outweighs its potential consequence in all cases except from a religious view point; however, there is no reason to hold all of humanity to the views of some religion(s).


Regardless, "medical care" can cure disease which disproves one of your original statements.

Apparently some religions and organizations have the power to hold back supposed breakthrough research which breaks moral ground. That has yet to be seen. Hopefully ADF will keep us updated.

If I knew that there is a high percaentage to create cures based upon research found in stem cell research, I would support it. unfortunately it is all speculative knowledge.







			
				Xipoid said:
			
		

> I did not say nature was cognitive, nor did I mean for it to be implied. My point was that what is natural is not always right or good. In the context of stem cell research, I am not sure why anyone would pass off anything natural as permissible and yet somehow condemn humans for doing something similar.
> 
> Back to the original point would lead to the question "Where do we draw the line at when a collection of cells becomes a human?" (ignoring the obvious problem with that)


Your words implied that nature is cognitive. 


			
				xipoid said:
			
		

> ... Regarding this from a different point of view, the only way to validate it is to presume nature has some form of justification for doing so ...



Nature does not make logical cognitive decisions when it terminates something. Mankind does. We have base morals that influence the creation of causes of action.







			
				Xipoid said:
			
		

> Would that be six months old from birth or conception?
> 
> (I was talking about right and wrong in scope of the universe not human creations)


6 months from birth.  

The Universe does not have morals as we do... morals have right and wrong embedded into them.


----------



## Monak (May 20, 2008)

Hybrid Genetics are not to be taken lightly , though man will find they hold the key to many advancements , in the end they will set them to starting a race war , making bio weapons targeted at the colors and religions they do not agree with. The question really is how far are we willing to go before we put all the differences aside.


----------



## Day of Wind (May 20, 2008)

huh i just read up about that, i hadn't heard it before..  i hope they allow it. just because one religion has an issue doesn't mean we should stop


----------



## ADF (May 20, 2008)

I read the article on the vote in todayâ€™s newspaper and they actually allowed some pro life idiot to do a rant in there. Donâ€™t get me wrong, if the bill didnâ€™t pass I would be ranting, but I wouldnâ€™t be pulling bull out of my backside in a sad effort to get people to join my point of view.

â€œThe ignoramuses have voted to waste money that will achieve nothingâ€

The scientific community is just completely ignorant compared to some twat ranting and raving in front of an abortion clinic every week arenâ€™t they? They are throwing money down a hole for no particular reason but to get on the nerves of moral superiors such as yourself huh?

Where does he think he is coming from to declare an area of research a waste of time and money â€˜before it is even doneâ€™? Does he have a crystal ball? Is god telling him the results of the research before the â€˜ignorant scientistsâ€™ figure it out themselves?

â€œThe research may lead to the creation of genetically modified babiesâ€

Excuse me? They are not separating the DNA into identifiable parts, they are not mixing and tweaking the genetic code of these embryos, it is a freaking cut and paste! DNA design and filtering is a completely different area of research that doesnâ€™t even enter into this one.

â€œIt is Frankenstein science and playing with the sanctity of lifeâ€

According to Catholics such as yourself ALL genetic research is evil, the moment you do something â€˜unaturalâ€™ with genetic material you are going straight to hell. Lets forget all the lives that gene therapy and other such genetic research has saved, lets just ban everything that happens to offend â€˜youâ€™ regardless of its consequences on other peoples lives.

Frankenstein scienceâ€¦ this just backs up my opinion that you watch too much fiction, you watched some horror movie and now when you hear about animal embryos and human DNA you freak out. It isnâ€™t even a human animal hybrid, these embryos are human animal hybrids in the same way that a women wearing a fur coat is a cross breed, the DNA is still 100% human only the outer embryo is animal.

These people get me so worked up some times; the best arguments they can come up with involve crystal ball gazing, misinformation and praying on peoples fears of what â€˜couldâ€™ happen. They can stay offended; better quality of life for current and future generations means so much more in the scope of things than them being all butt hurt, and if by chance the research achieves nothing better we actually find that out ourselves than abandon it to please selfish pricks such as yourself.


----------



## ExTo (May 20, 2008)

DOOMSDAY CULT

Religion is destroying humanity outright.


----------



## Hybrid Project Alpha (May 20, 2008)

The entire point of these hybrid embryos is so we don't have to destroy human ones. Science _has_ developed so that potential life is spared. These embryos are artificially created specifically for stem cells, and they're guaranteed not to survive more than two weeks. In no way shape or form are they potential people or animals.


----------



## M. LeRenard (May 20, 2008)

Morality arguments never get anywhere.  You can find a moral case against anything.  For example:
Case 1: Sacrificing a couple of zygotes is nothing in comparison to all the lives said sacrifice could save.  The zygotes become martyrs for the betterment of the race.
Case 2: Curing diseases with the aid of said medical research could lead to even greater growth in population, leading to higher demands on already severely limited resources.  This, in turn, would lead to a lower standard of living and great suffering for everyone on the planet, including wars, famine, blackouts, and a stagnation in technological advancement.

So what are you supposed to think if curing diseases might even be immoral?  Me... I throw my hands up in the air on this issue.


----------



## Thatch (May 20, 2008)

M. Le Renard said:


> Morality arguments never get anywhere.  You can
> Case 2: Curing diseases with the aid of said medical research could lead to even greater growth in population, leading to higher demands on already severely limited resources.  This, in turn, would lead to a lower standard of living and great suffering for everyone on the planet, including wars, famine, blackouts, and a stagnation in technological advancement.



That's a fine statement, but that's why people also research alternate energy sources and bioengeneered food. But this is also blocked either by oil potentates or by more 'moral crusaders'. The whole way to a better world full of obstacles in the form of greedy, short-sighted idiots and religious fanatics


----------



## Ty Vulpine (May 20, 2008)

szopaw said:


> That's a fine statement, but that's why people also research alternate energy sources and bioengeneered food. But this is also blocked either by oil potentates or by more 'moral crusaders'. The whole way to a better world full of obstacles in the form of greedy, short-sighted idiots and religious fanatics



In other words, everyone in the US Government.


----------



## Aurali (May 20, 2008)

My solution to all this is simple.. DESTROY ALL HUMANS! 

frickin apes..


----------



## Ratte (May 20, 2008)

Eli said:


> My solution to all this is simple.. DESTROY ALL HUMANS!
> 
> frickin apes..



Would that include furries? o.0?


----------



## M. LeRenard (May 20, 2008)

> bioengeneered food


has its own dossier full of problems, though.  Though I do like this idea of growing cow parts through cloning processes; it's vegan-safe meat!  No animals are killed, because none are created.
But yes, people are opposing that idea, too.  I'm not sure what they think will happen, because all they can seem to come up with is 'it's not right to play God'.  Will God smash us with his mighty finger?  Spread pestilence and flood the world?  Start the war to end all wars?  No one knows: it's just not right to play God.
Same reason they're opposing this embryo research, as well.  No particular reason it's bad; it just IS.  I wish the Church would stop treating us like children and let us make our own mistakes.  If something goes horribly wrong, won't enough people be miffed anyway that changes will take place to correct the mistake?  Or does the Church not think us capable of correcting mistakes?
It's complicated, all this.


----------



## Aurali (May 20, 2008)

xXxKirai_KainashixXx said:


> Would that include furries? o.0?



depends... do you consider yourself human?


----------



## Tycho (May 20, 2008)

ExTo said:


> DOOMSDAY CULT
> 
> Religion is destroying humanity outright.



Damn right it is.

The fact that the bill passed gives me some hope that enough people have enough brains to see the importance of this kind of medical research and advancement.  And I don't do much "hoping", so that's saying something.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (May 20, 2008)

Destroying? How? 6+ billion and growing. And religion has been around for thousands of years, yet humanity is still thriving.


----------



## Aurali (May 20, 2008)

and will only grow bigger til we reach the point we cannot feed ourselves... then crumble.


----------



## Tycho (May 20, 2008)

TyVulpine said:


> Destroying? How? 6+ billion and growing. And religion has been around for thousands of years, yet humanity is still thriving.



Humanity "thrives" in spite of religion IMO, not because of it.


----------



## ADF (May 20, 2008)

TyVulpine said:


> Destroying? How? 6+ billion and growing. And religion has been around for thousands of years, yet humanity is still thriving.


I wouldn't say it is 'destroying' humanity; but it is most certainly hurting civilisation. You yourself have commented against the actions of these overly religious minded individuals to stop this bill, you have also said you do not believe this bill could pass in America because of religious opposition.

These sort of anti progress activities can eventually result in the downfall of everything humanity has built; just look at Islam, they were once world leaders in almost every area until religion completely took over.

Personal spirituality is harmless; but combined with the numbers and strength of religion it is dangerous to everything we have achieved.



Eli said:


> and will only grow bigger til we reach the point we cannot feed ourselves... then crumble.


Imagine if we didn't have the agricultural and water purification technology we have now, we would already be starving to death. New ways of feeding the world are always being researched; learning to colonize previously inaccessible areas will also help with increasing populations, at least until we can figure out how to live on other planets.

This is why pushing forward is crucial for humanities survival.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (May 20, 2008)

ADF said:


> I wouldn't say it is 'destroying' humanity; but it is most certainly hurting civilisation. You yourself have commented against the actions of these overly religious minded individuals to stop this bill, you have also said you do not believe this bill could pass in America because of religious opposition.
> 
> These sort of anti progress activities can eventually result in the downfall of everything humanity has built; just look at Islam, they were once world leaders in almost every area until religion completely took over.
> 
> Personal spirituality is harmless; but combined with the numbers and strength of religion it is dangerous to everything we have achieved.



Well, it's the extreme-right religious groups, not all religious people, that oppose the bill. I'm a Moderate, so while I see the negative effects, I also see the benefits.


----------



## Aurali (May 20, 2008)

ADF said:


> Imagine if we didn't have the agricultural and water purification technology we have now, we would already be starving to death. New ways of feeding the world are always being researched; learning to colonize previously inaccessible areas will also help with increasing populations, at least until we can figure out how to live on other planets.
> 
> This is why pushing forward is crucial for humanities survival.



Exactly, and no matter what we do, there is a limit to how many humans this ball of water and dirt can support.


----------



## ADF (May 20, 2008)

TyVulpine said:


> Well, it's the extreme-right religious groups, not all religious people, that oppose the bill. I'm a Moderate, so while I see the negative effects, I also see the benefits.


People who believe in the rapture and that we will all be better off the sooner it happens have their finger on the button.

September the 11th, it only takes a handful of fanatics to change the world.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (May 20, 2008)

ADF said:


> Imagine if we didn't have the agricultural and water purification technology we have now, we would already be starving to death. New ways of feeding the world are always being researched; learning to colonize previously inaccessible areas will also help with increasing populations, at least until we can figure out how to live on other planets.
> 
> This is why pushing forward is crucial for humanities survival.



Then tell NASA to stop acting like they own space, and to start actually doing work towards colonizing other planets.


----------



## ExTo (May 20, 2008)

TyVulpine said:


> Destroying? How? 6+ billion and growing. And religion has been around for thousands of years, yet humanity is still thriving.



Diseases, natural disasters and predators have been around for millions of years, yet humanity is still thriving.

It's not because we can stand it that it's a good thing... and though this is purely hypothetical, if some religious extremist groups were to get their hands on extreme firepower (ie weapons of mass destruction), it could be the end of everything really. A state with them is less dangerous, for at least the chances are low the person with the finger on the button could be someone who expects his death will bring him straight to a wonderful paradise. But yeah, that's all "what if's", so I still ought to take that with a grain of salt here...



Tycho The Itinerant said:


> Humanity "thrives" in spite of religion IMO, not because of it.



QFT.



> I wouldn't say it is 'destroying' humanity; but it is most certainly hurting civilisation.



"Destroying humanity" may be saying a lot indeed, but then again... nothing said destruction can't be on a somewhat lesser scale.



> Well, it's the extreme-right religious groups, not all religious people, that oppose the bill. I'm a Moderate, so while I see the negative effects, I also see the benefits.



And that's what's unfortunate - being a moderate doesn't seem to be the natural tendency for humans. People don't like gray thinking. It's too difficult - they want easy, us-against-them pre-made answers, and we have many examples that the extremists do hold enough power to alter the fate of the entire world.

Religion in itself is actually a good thing, especially considering how all religions seem to prone respect of others... but organized religion leads to disaster.

I revise what I said earlier... religion isn't destroying humanity.

_Organized religion_ is destroying humanity.



> Then tell NASA to stop acting like they own space, and to start actually doing work towards colonizing other planets.



In an ideal world we'd be putting much more efforts in this, but the problem's that we're so far away we hardly see the light at the end of the tunnel.

Then again, we DO have to start somewhere, and it's true we'd better get cracking! At least we invest a minimum of money in other worthwhile problems - we're not totally wretched. Close (to pick one example, cigarette companies making hundred billions yearly - is there something more pointless?), but not entirely.


----------



## Ratte (May 20, 2008)

Eli said:


> depends... do you consider yourself human?



mebbe...=>.>=  =<.<=  =o.o=

FUCK.

But not wholly =D


----------



## Hybrid Project Alpha (May 20, 2008)

TyVulpine said:


> Then tell NASA to stop acting like they own space, and to start actually doing work towards colonizing other planets.


Saying that could take awhile would be a colossal understatement. NASA honestly doesn't have much money, and it'd take hundreds of years to terraform a planet.


----------



## Aurali (May 20, 2008)

Hybrid Project Alpha said:


> Saying that could take awhile would be a colossal understatement. NASA honestly doesn't have much money, and it'd take hundreds of years to terraform a planet.



and that.. my friend.. is being hopeful.


----------



## Hybrid Project Alpha (May 21, 2008)

They'd get a hell of a lot more money if they were developing weapons >_>


----------



## ADF (May 21, 2008)

Not a good week for Catholics.

The bill to reduce time allowance for abortion decisions from 24 to 20-12 weeks did not pass, it was also decided that lesbians wanting to have children would not be discriminated against based on the claim that a healthy upbringing is reliant on traditional man/women parents.

Some people whined it was discrimination against men to even suggest a child could be raised without a father figure, that it was insulting to suggest men are redundant in the family model. Do they actually think all the women are going to turn lesbian based on this ruling or something?


----------



## Thatch (May 21, 2008)

Hybrid Project Alpha said:


> Saying that could take awhile would be a colossal understatement. NASA honestly doesn't have much money, and it'd take hundreds of years to terraform a planet.



NASA wastes money all the time. The X Prize Foundation showed that. You can travel into space cheaper then NASA does, but national agencies are monopolists in that sector, either is it USA, Europe or Asia, so one would think they are underfounded.
And who's talking about terraforming? Settlement and terraforming are two separate things, thou influencing one another. We can't terraform the moon, but we have the technology and goal to colonizing it. It would make going further into space easier.


----------



## M. LeRenard (May 21, 2008)

> NASA wastes money all the time.


*cough*International Space Station*cough*


----------



## Aurali (May 21, 2008)

ADF said:


> it was also decided that lesbians wanting to have children would not be discriminated against based on the claim that a healthy upbringing is reliant on traditional man/women parents.
> 
> Some people whined it was discrimination against men to even suggest a child could be raised without a father figure, that it was insulting to suggest men are redundant in the family model. Do they actually think all the women are going to turn lesbian based on this ruling or something?



XD being a lesbian myself, and wanting a child. I loled :3


----------



## Thatch (May 21, 2008)

M. Le Renard said:


> *cough*International Space Station*cough*



It's already FAR behind shedule and costs much more than it originally was meant to. And all because of bad funds management and flawed organisation. It wouldn't get like that if all of those space agencies had competition in the form of private space agencies. My statement stands.



ADF said:


> Some people whined it was discrimination against men to even suggest a child could be raised without a father figure, that it was insulting to suggest men are redundant in the family model. Do they actually think all the women are going to turn lesbian based on this ruling or something?


You know, we have a film about it  Men died out, women took over the world  Scary to me, as I'm male myself, but shit, that's actually possible!


----------



## ADF (May 21, 2008)

szopaw said:


> You know, we have a film about it  Men died out, women took over the world  Scary to me, as I'm male myself, but shit, that's actually possible!



In the one I saw lesbians created a viral weapon called the Y Bomb, wiped out 99% of men and used genetic research/cloning to reproduce only female babies.

The remaining men were cast out of soceity, they used abandoned football stadiums as bases.


----------



## Aurali (May 21, 2008)

that's gotta be the most sexist movie ever XD


----------



## M. LeRenard (May 21, 2008)

> It's already FAR behind shedule and costs much more than it originally was meant to. And all because of bad funds management and flawed organisation. It wouldn't get like that if all of those space agencies had competition in the form of private space agencies. My statement stands.


I am aware.  That was the point of my post.  It's just a political maneuver, which is ridiculous when it comes to scientific progress.


> In the one I saw lesbians created a viral weapon called the Y Bomb, wiped out 99% of men and used genetic research/cloning to reproduce only female babies.


I saw that... though I think it was just _women_ who invented that bomb in the movie, and not just lesbians.  As I recall, it ended with the main character getting pregnant naturally, with a boy.
It's an interesting thought, but I don't think it's a legitimate concern.  Unless women really are that vindicative.  Maybe that's what the Church is afraid of: revenge.


----------



## ADF (May 21, 2008)

M. Le Renard said:


> I saw that... though I think it was just _women_ who invented that bomb in the movie, and not just lesbians.  As I recall, it ended with the main character getting pregnant naturally, with a boy.
> It's an interesting thought, but I don't think it's a legitimate concern.  Unless women really are that vindicative.  Maybe that's what the Church is afraid of: revenge.


Could have sworn they were all lesbians, then again with no men what else would the do? Holo men :lol:


----------



## Tycho (May 21, 2008)

ADF said:


> then again with no men what else would the do?



Dildoes.

Also: In the highly unlikely event that men were actually dying out on a large scale, remember that in nature one male can fertilize many times his number in females.  Theoretically, women wouldn't NEED too terribly many of us.  Just enough to ensure the gene pool is diverse and strong.

That being said, in the event of women seizing power on a worldwide scale: don't get any ideas, ladies. ):<


----------



## Ty Vulpine (May 21, 2008)

szopaw said:


> It's already FAR behind shedule and costs much more than it originally was meant to. And all because of bad funds management and flawed organisation. It wouldn't get like that if all of those space agencies had competition in the form of private space agencies. My statement stands.



It's behind schedule because of the Columbia disaster.


----------



## Thatch (May 22, 2008)

Tycho The Itinerant said:


> Dildoes.
> 
> Also: In the highly unlikely event that men were actually dying out on a large scale, remember that in nature one male can fertilize many times his number in females.  Theoretically, women wouldn't NEED too terribly many of us.  Just enough to ensure the gene pool is diverse and strong.
> 
> That being said, in the event of women seizing power on a worldwide scale: don't get any ideas, ladies. ):<



Shhhh, your giving them ideas!  But that wasn't the movie I had in mind, thou seems quite close in plot 



TyVulpine said:


> It's behind schedule because of the Columbia disaster.



Also... Only it's not a year behind shedule, but three years and it's still far from being completed. And it was deemed to cost more than predicted even before the Columbia disaster. It was just one of many drawbacks.


----------

