Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Global PokédeX Plus Forums _ Debates _ Stem cell reaserch

Posted by: nebz5 Apr 13 2009, 02:30 PM

Should stem cell research be allowed. Personally I think it should be. Whether it be an aborted fetus, or a miscarriage, the fetus would just go to waste and as for religious points i can understand that you don't think it should be allowed. But if god didn't want it to happen he wouldn't let it. And as for why we could use stem cells to help people who are paralyzed to be able to walk, those who have lost limbs could have them back, damaged skin could be replaced, etc.etc.

Posted by: Chrona Apr 13 2009, 02:35 PM

Whether or not you're against abortion, you have to accept that the stem cells will be there either way. There will always be fetuses, either from miscarriages or abortions. Denying using them is like denying organ donors - Sure, the death might be tragic, but we might as well use it for good.

Posted by: Nathan Graves Apr 13 2009, 03:29 PM

Yeah I'm for stem cell research as long as they have permission to use said fetus.

Posted by: Saya Apr 13 2009, 05:32 PM

I'm all for it, as long as all parties involved agree. There are so many benefits that could come from stem-cell research that I can't see any reason not to continue.

Posted by: Dys Tuvai Apr 13 2009, 06:26 PM

And guess what, they don't even really have to use fetuses for it anymore. They supposedly found a way to reset skin cells to stem cell status.

I don't see what's the big controversy about it anymore. And even when the only origin for stem cells was fetuses - most stem cells can be produced from fetuses that haven't even reached the point where they're organisms of their own right, so there's not too much of an argument beyond claiming human beings are superspecialawesome and other organisms aren't. Which to me is simply being full of oneself. XD

Posted by: nebz5 Apr 19 2009, 10:13 AM

to dys i think i saw something like that on oprah >.> not that i watch it or anything <.<

Posted by: JabbaScript Apr 19 2009, 11:02 AM

I think they should.

As for the cells just going to waste, that only applies to miscarriages and abortions.

About the god thing, I suppose that means he wants rapists and murderers to do those horrible things and get away with it?
(ps you only adressed christianity, not all religions.)

Those are all great accomplishments in the making, but the biggest reason for stem cell research is to find a cure for cancer.


@Dys: Yeah, I heard about that a while back when my mom did a report on stem cell research. It was about a year ago, but I've never heard anything since. I guess it's not a good a source as fetuses are...

That's another contoversial topic. At what point is the fetus considered a "organism of their own right"? Some say the moment of conception, while others say it's not until after a few months. Most think it's whenever it develops a working brain (though nobody remembers anything till about a year after they're born).

Posted by: Hitomi Apr 19 2009, 11:15 AM

I totally agree. It would not only help people like my aunt. But it will help us advance into new and better technology.

http://gpxplus.net/ZGNkAGV4http://gpxplus.net/BGx2ZwZhttp://gpxplus.net/ZGNjBQN2http://gpxplus.net/ZGNjAQt1http://gpxplus.net/BGx4BGxhttp://gpxplus.net/BGx3AQDhttp://dragcave.net/view/PVv2http://dragcave.net/view/2BMshttp://dragcave.net/view/sbG4http://dragcave.net/view/4CVy
Please click my dragon eggs so they do not die.

Posted by: JabbaScript Apr 19 2009, 11:22 AM

I advise you edit your post before commander wymsy or the epic douche lord raven see it.

Posted by: Lord Raven Apr 19 2009, 12:02 PM

Why only us in particular? There's a good 7 people that can catch it and warn him/suspend him (which I just did hur hur ha!!!). Is it because we're the "scariest"? Congrats on breaking like two rules there, though. Calling me an epic douche with no grounds and mini-modding, the former being the only one that really matters. Enjoy a 10% warn.

QUOTE
About the god thing, I suppose that means he wants rapists and murderers to do those horrible things and get away with it?
About the God thing, not everyone believes in him.

Posted by: Harlyn Apr 19 2009, 03:32 PM

As long as it was a miscarriage (I'm against any and all abortions) and the parents consent, I think stem cell research should be allowed.

Posted by: JabbaScript Apr 19 2009, 03:49 PM

QUOTE(Lord Raven @ Apr 19 2009, 01:02 PM) *
Why only us in particular? There's a good 7 people that can catch it and warn him/suspend him (which I just did hur hur ha!!!). Is it because we're the "scariest"? Congrats on breaking like two rules there, though. Calling me an epic douche with no grounds and mini-modding, the former being the only one that really matters. Enjoy a 10% warn.

QUOTE
About the god thing, I suppose that means he wants rapists and murderers to do those horrible things and get away with it?
About the God thing, not everyone believes in him.

Because you two are the only ones I know of. No, not the scariest, wymsy sounds pretty cool. What's mini-modding? I was just telling him to hurry up and delete it before he gets banned. Nothing wrong with that. I will. I was expecting that anyway. happy.gif

Posted by: Lord Raven Apr 19 2009, 04:55 PM

That's technically mini-modding, but the way you said it made it seem like a genuine thing of advice more than mini-modding which is why I let you off for it. But this is not the place to discuss that.

Posted by: Swordsalmon Apr 20 2009, 05:54 PM

QUOTE(Dys Tuvai @ Apr 13 2009, 04:26 PM) *
And guess what, they don't even really have to use fetuses for it anymore. They supposedly found a way to reset skin cells to stem cell status.


Indeed, to an extent. I need to fine the articles, but scientists have found a way for adult stem cells and testicular cells to behave similarly to embryotic stem cells. In addition, cells found in the umbilical cord also have similar properties, so there's a number of sources for ethical stem cells. I'll go look for the articles and edit this post immediately.

EDIT: http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/winter01/stem_cell.html
QUOTE
According to latest reports, however, this dogma of developmental biology does not hold. Evidently, tissue-specific stem cells have the ability–as has been impressively demonstrated in experiments with animals–to "transdifferentiate" themselves when in a different environment–that is, to take on the cell functions of the new tissue. Thus, neuronal stem cells of mice have transformed themselves into blood stem cells and produced blood cells. Indeed, there are indications of another capability of adult stem cells: Apparently they have the potential to be "reprogrammed." Not only can they adjust to the specific conditions of a new tissue environment, but they can even assume more generalized, earlier levels of development, so that it even appears possible that they become totipotent again.


Anyways, I'm in favour or stem cell research. I do believe it is unethical to concieve and then abort an embryo for the sole purpose of extracting the cells, as the embyro has unique DNA and is will become a unique individual. However, using stem cells from miscarriages and unused embryos from fertility clinics would be a better alternative. This is mainly because the embyro in question will most likely die after implantation, and a moral question of lesser evils to me.

I am very excited about the advancements to improve adult cells and replace embryotic stem cells. Then we can better find cures to various ailments while avoiding a possible moral issue. ^_^.gif

Posted by: dark thunder Apr 20 2009, 06:08 PM

im a bit torn, although im mostly biased toward allowing it. i mean it will help/cure many different diseases/ disabilities, but i think the big thing is that some people purposfully just sell them so they can get money, not for any other reason. i just hope(like said a few times before) that the alternate method works, then practically everyone will be with it.

Posted by: Failure Apr 21 2009, 02:57 AM

Go for it. If it helps my grandfather recover from Alzheimers and cures my brother's diabetes, then I'm all for it.

Posted by: Airotia Apr 23 2009, 07:00 PM

I don't see a problem with it. =3 It's kind of like recycling... Why not use fetus cells for good, especially if the fetus has no chance? (Miscarriage or abortion, obviously.)

Posted by: Bluecrow Apr 28 2009, 01:14 PM

I'm for it. I had a friend that might have benefited from it if it hadn't been blocked sad.gif

Posted by: Raitozaki Jun 13 2009, 07:38 PM

QUOTE(Chrona @ Apr 13 2009, 03:35 PM) *
Whether or not you're against abortion, you have to accept that the stem cells will be there either way. There will always be fetuses, either from miscarriages or abortions. Denying using them is like denying organ donors - Sure, the death might be tragic, but we might as well use it for good.


woot.gif
And again I agree with you.

Posted by: Zelda Girl Jun 13 2009, 07:48 PM

It think it should be allowed because if the person gets all sad they might commit suicide or become emo.

Posted by: Vicky Chai Tea Jun 13 2009, 08:44 PM

I am absolutely all for it, so long as they have permission to take the cells. I am against abortion in most circumstances, but so long as the cells are there, might as well take them.

Posted by: McCurly Jun 14 2009, 10:27 PM

I'm for it!
My whole family's getting cancer and if there's a way to put an end to it, why not? The fetuses are already dead, aborted, whatever, so there shouldn't be a problem with it.
I might be immoral, though

Posted by: Illithian Jun 15 2009, 01:42 AM

I'm all for it, as long as the donor is entirely in agreement to it and is in a fine mental state. If any of that isn't true, then its immoral, but otherwise, allow it.

Posted by: Sarge Jun 15 2009, 01:59 AM

I don't care how you feel about abortions. This research can help people, and if it isn't performed then the stem cells just go to waste. What's the point in that?

Posted by: austin42 Aug 3 2009, 02:12 PM

I agree that stem cell research should be done.

Stem cells have amazing potential in the field of medicine. Letting them go to waste is throwing away many lives. People who are pro-life fail to take into account the positive effects of stem cells and the number of lives that will be saved by these amazing cells. I'm sorry, but I can't agree with people who would rather have one unborn fetus instead of one hundred people.

Posted by: King Calamity Aug 4 2009, 06:05 PM

i wouldnt be against it if scientists would show more promising results that it works. i may be behind the ball game here, but the last i heard about two years ago, theres NEVER been a successful human test done with the cells of a dead fetus. there have been successful results of using some type of stem cells from this part of the chest from some of the elderly, but as for fetuses, im against.

Posted by: Reyo Aug 4 2009, 10:15 PM

I say yes. This science has way too much potential to be shot down with the argument "hurr, I believe in something that not everyone else believes in which says "It's bad" so STOP IT!"

Besides, genetic research, which is actually something that I genuinely hope to take part in, is still an advancing science. It was only recently that it was discovered that your DNA is what makes you capable of doing certain things, like what makes certain bacteria deadly.

I don't want to reveal too much now since people might steal the idea (f-ing moochers) but it could be possible to use cloning to aid in stem cell research......but it's only a thought. (MY thought, so BACK OFF!)

PS, I'm getting some massive deja vu. Has there been a topic on this before?

Posted by: Black Ice Aug 5 2009, 01:47 PM

Chances are if you've thought of it, hundreds of other scientists have also. I also doubt it would work, since you don't really know everything about how genetics work yet. Nobody does.

I'm really pro-choice on this. If a mom has an abortion, why let the fetus go to waste? If the mom wants the child to be used for scientific purposes, why stop her? It's her dead baby, she should get to choose what happens to it.

Posted by: Reyo Aug 5 2009, 03:20 PM

QUOTE(Black Ice @ Aug 5 2009, 01:47 PM) *
Chances are if you've thought of it, hundreds of other scientists have also. I also doubt it would work, since you don't really know everything about how genetics work yet. Nobody does.


You think I don't know that? I'm just being optimistic. And how does something "not work" just because the one doing the experiment has limited understanding of it? Benjamin Franklin didn't know everything about electricity, and yet HIS experiment worked. Science isn't based on the scientists knowledge of the subject before the conduction of the experiment, it's based on the knowledge LEARNED on the subject AFTER the conduction of the experiment through trial and error.

Posted by: HitomiNoRyu Aug 5 2009, 08:01 PM

I support stem cell research. Why waste good cells in a pteri dish where they're not going to be used for in vitro fertilization anytime soon?

Posted by: Black Ice Aug 6 2009, 01:05 AM

QUOTE(Reyo @ Aug 5 2009, 03:20 PM) *
QUOTE(Black Ice @ Aug 5 2009, 01:47 PM) *
Chances are if you've thought of it, hundreds of other scientists have also. I also doubt it would work, since you don't really know everything about how genetics work yet. Nobody does.


You think I don't know that? I'm just being optimistic. And how does something "not work" just because the one doing the experiment has limited understanding of it? Benjamin Franklin didn't know everything about electricity, and yet HIS experiment worked. Science isn't based on the scientists knowledge of the subject before the conduction of the experiment, it's based on the knowledge LEARNED on the subject AFTER the conduction of the experiment through trial and error.


Yay for two examples. What about everyone else who failed? I said I doubt it, not that it wasn't possible.

Posted by: Reyo Aug 6 2009, 11:42 AM

QUOTE(Black Ice @ Aug 6 2009, 01:05 AM) *
QUOTE(Reyo @ Aug 5 2009, 03:20 PM) *
QUOTE(Black Ice @ Aug 5 2009, 01:47 PM) *
Chances are if you've thought of it, hundreds of other scientists have also. I also doubt it would work, since you don't really know everything about how genetics work yet. Nobody does.


You think I don't know that? I'm just being optimistic. And how does something "not work" just because the one doing the experiment has limited understanding of it? Benjamin Franklin didn't know everything about electricity, and yet HIS experiment worked. Science isn't based on the scientists knowledge of the subject before the conduction of the experiment, it's based on the knowledge LEARNED on the subject AFTER the conduction of the experiment through trial and error.


Yay for two examples. What about everyone else who failed? I said I doubt it, not that it wasn't possible.


ok, I'm REALLY not going to get in a debate about the scientific method in a thread about Stem Cell research with a mod. This has "bad" written all over it. Though I will leave you with this. If all scientific experiments conducted by scientists who knew very little about the subject were doomed to fail, then how would we learn so much about the subject? If the scientist already knew everything about the subject before doing the experiment for the first time, why would he even bother doing the experiment? To prove a hypothesis? A hypothesis is an educated guess which can be proven wrong. A scientist who knew everything on the subject wouldn't be making Hypothesis...es, he'd me making laws, which is something that can't be said about Evolution, Cell theory, Germ theory, and Gene theory.

Any further questions can be dealt with via PM, but I don't feel like wasting anymore of nebz's post.

PS, 2 examples > 0 examples.

PPS, I'm still for Stem Cell research.

Posted by: Iconox Oct 4 2009, 06:31 PM

The Japanese have created a similar process to that of embryonic stem cells that does not invole fetuses, so embryonic stem cell research is slaughtering children, plain and simple.

Posted by: Reyo Oct 4 2009, 07:27 PM

QUOTE(Iconox @ Oct 4 2009, 06:31 PM) *
The Japanese have created a similar process to that of embryonic stem cells that does not invole fetuses, so embryonic stem cell research is slaughtering children, plain and simple.


The word "slaughter" is an emotionally charged term, and using it makes you come off as someone who doesn't know how to conduct himself properly in a debate.

Posted by: Iconox Oct 5 2009, 07:37 AM

QUOTE(Reyo @ Oct 4 2009, 08:27 PM) *
QUOTE(Iconox @ Oct 4 2009, 06:31 PM) *
The Japanese have created a similar process to that of embryonic stem cells that does not invole fetuses, so embryonic stem cell research is slaughtering children, plain and simple.


The word "slaughter" is an emotionally charged term, and using it makes you come off as someone who doesn't know how to conduct himself properly in a debate.


Definition of Slaughter from the American Herritage Dictionary:

TRANSITIVE VERB:
slaughˇtered , slaughˇterˇing , slaughˇters

1)To kill (animals) especially for food; butcher.

2) a. To kill (people) in large numbers; massacre.
b. To kill in a violent or brutal manner.

For one, that has NOTHING to do with my post, so you're just trying to look smart by ridiculing my word choice, very tolerant of you. Secondly, tens of millions of babies are killed by meathods of abortion and stem cell research, and they are killed by various painful procedures, looks like the exact definition of slaughter to me, huh?

Posted by: Chrona Oct 5 2009, 09:11 AM

Umm...but it's not slaughtering or killing the fetuses in the first place. Abortion is a *completely* separate topic from this, but while abortions happen the stem cells WILL be there. I think it's best to use them, instead of just tossing the fetuses (Who are going to die whether or not you like it) into the garbage

Posted by: Iconox Oct 5 2009, 09:49 AM

What do you mean? Are you saying that fetuses are born DEAD? It's still killing. I'm starting to get annoyed that nobody really replies to my debate posts and just say random things instead.

Posted by: Chrona Oct 5 2009, 11:36 AM

You're saying that it's bad to kill fetuses, which means you're against abortion. However, the dead fetuses are still out there, why not use them for the best? It's not like the ones who are already dead will disappear, they're waiting in the freezers to be tested. Would you rather use them for research, or throw them into the trash

Posted by: Iconox Oct 5 2009, 01:20 PM

You could do that, but there's no reason to kill more due to the promising alternatives.

Posted by: Reyo Oct 5 2009, 01:58 PM

QUOTE(Iconox @ Oct 5 2009, 07:37 AM) *
QUOTE(Reyo @ Oct 4 2009, 08:27 PM) *
QUOTE(Iconox @ Oct 4 2009, 06:31 PM) *
The Japanese have created a similar process to that of embryonic stem cells that does not invole fetuses, so embryonic stem cell research is slaughtering children, plain and simple.


The word "slaughter" is an emotionally charged term, and using it makes you come off as someone who doesn't know how to conduct himself properly in a debate.


Definition of Slaughter from the American Herritage Dictionary:

TRANSITIVE VERB:
slaughˇtered , slaughˇterˇing , slaughˇters

1)To kill (animals) especially for food; butcher.

2) a. To kill (people) in large numbers; massacre.
b. To kill in a violent or brutal manner.

For one, that has NOTHING to do with my post, so you're just trying to look smart by ridiculing my word choice, very tolerant of you. Secondly, tens of millions of babies are killed by meathods of abortion and stem cell research, and they are killed by various painful procedures, looks like the exact definition of slaughter to me, huh?


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/charged

QUOTE
2.charged - fraught with great emotion; "an atmosphere charged with excitement"; "an emotionally charged speech" http://www.thefreedictionary.com/superchargedhttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/emotional - of more than usual emotion; "his behavior was highly emotional"


You could have said "kill" instead of slaughter, which is incorrect anyway, but that's not what I'm getting at. When you said "slaughter" instead of kill, you used a term that is meant to spark emotion instead of intelligent debate. It's like specifying 9/11 in a speech about a current disaster. 9/11 has nothing to do with today's society. It had alot to do with society 8 years ago, but bringing it up now only serves to bring people to your side with the use iof emotions and not fact.

Tell me, which sounds better.
"He killed the intruder."
"He mutilated the intruder."

Don't answer out loud because I know which one you'll say. You'll say the first one despite the fact that the second one is emotionally charged just to spite me. If slaughter means kill, then why say slaughter? Why not just say "kill"? I know that it's "true" by definition, so it's also true with the word "kill."

And to be honest, I don't have to try this hard to prove how smart I am.

Posted by: Iconox Oct 5 2009, 03:01 PM

QUOTE(Reyo @ Oct 5 2009, 02:58 PM) *
QUOTE(Iconox @ Oct 5 2009, 07:37 AM) *
QUOTE(Reyo @ Oct 4 2009, 08:27 PM) *
QUOTE(Iconox @ Oct 4 2009, 06:31 PM) *
The Japanese have created a similar process to that of embryonic stem cells that does not invole fetuses, so embryonic stem cell research is slaughtering children, plain and simple.


The word "slaughter" is an emotionally charged term, and using it makes you come off as someone who doesn't know how to conduct himself properly in a debate.


Definition of Slaughter from the American Herritage Dictionary:

TRANSITIVE VERB:
slaughˇtered , slaughˇterˇing , slaughˇters

1)To kill (animals) especially for food; butcher.

2) a. To kill (people) in large numbers; massacre.
b. To kill in a violent or brutal manner.

For one, that has NOTHING to do with my post, so you're just trying to look smart by ridiculing my word choice, very tolerant of you. Secondly, tens of millions of babies are killed by meathods of abortion and stem cell research, and they are killed by various painful procedures, looks like the exact definition of slaughter to me, huh?


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/charged

QUOTE
2.charged - fraught with great emotion; "an atmosphere charged with excitement"; "an emotionally charged speech" http://www.thefreedictionary.com/superchargedhttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/emotional - of more than usual emotion; "his behavior was highly emotional"


You could have said "kill" instead of slaughter, which is incorrect anyway, but that's not what I'm getting at. When you said "slaughter" instead of kill, you used a term that is meant to spark emotion instead of intelligent debate. It's like specifying 9/11 in a speech about a current disaster. 9/11 has nothing to do with today's society. It had alot to do with society 8 years ago, but bringing it up now only serves to bring people to your side with the use iof emotions and not fact.

Tell me, which sounds better.
"He killed the intruder."
"He mutilated the intruder."

Don't answer out loud because I know which one you'll say. You'll say the first one despite the fact that the second one is emotionally charged just to spite me. If slaughter means kill, then why say slaughter? Why not just say "kill"? I know that it's "true" by definition, so it's also true with the word "kill."

And to be honest, I don't have to try this hard to prove how smart I am.


You're saying that you're smart while randomly correcting my word choice instead of ACTUALLY PAYING ATTENTION TO MY POST. Wow.

Posted by: Reyo Oct 5 2009, 04:56 PM

QUOTE(Iconox @ Oct 5 2009, 03:01 PM) *
QUOTE(Reyo @ Oct 5 2009, 02:58 PM) *
QUOTE(Iconox @ Oct 5 2009, 07:37 AM) *
QUOTE(Reyo @ Oct 4 2009, 08:27 PM) *
QUOTE(Iconox @ Oct 4 2009, 06:31 PM) *
The Japanese have created a similar process to that of embryonic stem cells that does not invole fetuses, so embryonic stem cell research is slaughtering children, plain and simple.


The word "slaughter" is an emotionally charged term, and using it makes you come off as someone who doesn't know how to conduct himself properly in a debate.


Definition of Slaughter from the American Herritage Dictionary:

TRANSITIVE VERB:
slaughˇtered , slaughˇterˇing , slaughˇters

1)To kill (animals) especially for food; butcher.

2) a. To kill (people) in large numbers; massacre.
b. To kill in a violent or brutal manner.

For one, that has NOTHING to do with my post, so you're just trying to look smart by ridiculing my word choice, very tolerant of you. Secondly, tens of millions of babies are killed by meathods of abortion and stem cell research, and they are killed by various painful procedures, looks like the exact definition of slaughter to me, huh?


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/charged

QUOTE
2.charged - fraught with great emotion; "an atmosphere charged with excitement"; "an emotionally charged speech" http://www.thefreedictionary.com/superchargedhttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/emotional - of more than usual emotion; "his behavior was highly emotional"


You could have said "kill" instead of slaughter, which is incorrect anyway, but that's not what I'm getting at. When you said "slaughter" instead of kill, you used a term that is meant to spark emotion instead of intelligent debate. It's like specifying 9/11 in a speech about a current disaster. 9/11 has nothing to do with today's society. It had alot to do with society 8 years ago, but bringing it up now only serves to bring people to your side with the use iof emotions and not fact.

Tell me, which sounds better.
"He killed the intruder."
"He mutilated the intruder."

Don't answer out loud because I know which one you'll say. You'll say the first one despite the fact that the second one is emotionally charged just to spite me. If slaughter means kill, then why say slaughter? Why not just say "kill"? I know that it's "true" by definition, so it's also true with the word "kill."

And to be honest, I don't have to try this hard to prove how smart I am.


You're saying that you're smart while randomly correcting my word choice instead of ACTUALLY PAYING ATTENTION TO MY POST. Wow.



1. It's not random.
2. Word choice is just as important as the underlining point.
3. Chrona did a good enough job explaining the problem with your post...yet you decided to pay attention to me and only me. The issue here isn't my decision to criticize your word choice, its your choice to ignore the more important argument made by Chrona and focus soley on MY reply, which could've been solved in a matter of 3 comments.

Posted by: Iconox Oct 5 2009, 06:42 PM

QUOTE("Iconox")
You could do that, but there's no reason to kill more due to the promising alternatives.


1) Umm, I replied directly to Chrona right after she posted.
2) Saying "slaughter" rather than "kill" leaves the same underlying point, no matter how big a deal you want to make of it.

Posted by: Reyo Oct 5 2009, 07:57 PM

QUOTE(Iconox @ Oct 5 2009, 06:42 PM) *
QUOTE("Iconox")
You could do that, but there's no reason to kill more due to the promising alternatives.


1) Umm, I replied directly to Chrona right after she posted.
2) Saying "slaughter" rather than "kill" leaves the same underlying point, no matter how big a deal you want to make of it.


1) One sentence v. 5 comments? Yeah...seems like you did your best to fend that one off.
2) Yes...while being emotionally charged. Not only does the word "kill" say the exact same thing...but it's easier to type. 4 letters v. 9...your logic is flawed.

Posted by: Iconox Oct 6 2009, 03:29 PM

QUOTE(Reyo @ Oct 5 2009, 08:57 PM) *
QUOTE(Iconox @ Oct 5 2009, 06:42 PM) *
QUOTE("Iconox")
You could do that, but there's no reason to kill more due to the promising alternatives.


1) Umm, I replied directly to Chrona right after she posted.
2) Saying "slaughter" rather than "kill" leaves the same underlying point, no matter how big a deal you want to make of it.


1) One sentence v. 5 comments? Yeah...seems like you did your best to fend that one off.
2) Yes...while being emotionally charged. Not only does the word "kill" say the exact same thing...but it's easier to type. 4 letters v. 9...your logic is flawed.


How is my logic flawed? If the baby's already dead, than I guess you can use it for stem cells, just don't keep killing them when their are better alternatives. Now just reply to that without finding some word to criticize.

Posted by: Reyo Oct 6 2009, 03:36 PM

QUOTE(Iconox @ Oct 6 2009, 03:29 PM) *
QUOTE(Reyo @ Oct 5 2009, 08:57 PM) *
QUOTE(Iconox @ Oct 5 2009, 06:42 PM) *
QUOTE("Iconox")
You could do that, but there's no reason to kill more due to the promising alternatives.


1) Umm, I replied directly to Chrona right after she posted.
2) Saying "slaughter" rather than "kill" leaves the same underlying point, no matter how big a deal you want to make of it.


1) One sentence v. 5 comments? Yeah...seems like you did your best to fend that one off.
2) Yes...while being emotionally charged. Not only does the word "kill" say the exact same thing...but it's easier to type. 4 letters v. 9...your logic is flawed.


How is my logic flawed? If the baby's already dead, than I guess you can use it for stem cells, just don't keep killing them when their are better alternatives. Now just reply to that without finding some word to criticize.


Not your logic on stem cell research, the logic in using the word slaughter instead of kill.

Posted by: Iconox Oct 6 2009, 05:14 PM

QUOTE(Reyo @ Oct 6 2009, 04:36 PM) *
QUOTE(Iconox @ Oct 6 2009, 03:29 PM) *
QUOTE(Reyo @ Oct 5 2009, 08:57 PM) *
QUOTE(Iconox @ Oct 5 2009, 06:42 PM) *
QUOTE("Iconox")
You could do that, but there's no reason to kill more due to the promising alternatives.


1) Umm, I replied directly to Chrona right after she posted.
2) Saying "slaughter" rather than "kill" leaves the same underlying point, no matter how big a deal you want to make of it.


1) One sentence v. 5 comments? Yeah...seems like you did your best to fend that one off.
2) Yes...while being emotionally charged. Not only does the word "kill" say the exact same thing...but it's easier to type. 4 letters v. 9...your logic is flawed.


How is my logic flawed? If the baby's already dead, than I guess you can use it for stem cells, just don't keep killing them when their are better alternatives. Now just reply to that without finding some word to criticize.


Not your logic on stem cell research, the logic in using the word slaughter instead of kill.


It wasn't intentional I swear, but I still got my point through. Forgive me for mini-modding, but this is getting off-topic.

Posted by: Reyo Oct 6 2009, 05:26 PM

QUOTE(Iconox @ Oct 6 2009, 05:14 PM) *
QUOTE(Reyo @ Oct 6 2009, 04:36 PM) *
QUOTE(Iconox @ Oct 6 2009, 03:29 PM) *
QUOTE(Reyo @ Oct 5 2009, 08:57 PM) *
QUOTE(Iconox @ Oct 5 2009, 06:42 PM) *
QUOTE("Iconox")
You could do that, but there's no reason to kill more due to the promising alternatives.


1) Umm, I replied directly to Chrona right after she posted.
2) Saying "slaughter" rather than "kill" leaves the same underlying point, no matter how big a deal you want to make of it.


1) One sentence v. 5 comments? Yeah...seems like you did your best to fend that one off.
2) Yes...while being emotionally charged. Not only does the word "kill" say the exact same thing...but it's easier to type. 4 letters v. 9...your logic is flawed.


How is my logic flawed? If the baby's already dead, than I guess you can use it for stem cells, just don't keep killing them when their are better alternatives. Now just reply to that without finding some word to criticize.


Not your logic on stem cell research, the logic in using the word slaughter instead of kill.


It wasn't intentional I swear, but I still got my point through. Forgive me for mini-modding, but this is getting off-topic.


...ok, but I'm watching you *does "points fingers at eyes and then at other person" motion thing*. It's not exactly against any sort of "law", but doing such things makes it seem like you rely more on emotions than logic to debate...which isn't a good thing.

And I agree. /discussion

Posted by: Cloud Nine Dec 5 2011, 11:56 AM

I really do not agree in Stem Cell research. I won't go into anything major about abortion because it's not what this topic is asking.
However I do accept that Stem cells will be used for a long time for research, and research on them will continue no matter how they get their hands on them, so I try to just preach my feelings whenever asked, but never go crazy. I accept that things I don't agree with go on. But I'm still against them.

Posted by: Fading Like The Lilac Dec 6 2011, 06:05 AM

QUOTE(Iconox @ Oct 4 2009, 11:31 PM) *
The Japanese have created a similar process to that of embryonic stem cells that does not invole fetuses, so embryonic stem cell research is slaughtering children, plain and simple.

My problem is that your post makes it sound as if they're killed specifically for stem cell research, not that foetuses that happened to die of other causes-which of course in untrue, since that would be both illegal and hideously unethical. This might not be how you meant it to sound, but that's how it came across to me.

Posted by: galateawoodson Apr 25 2018, 05:28 AM

We can circumscribe the uses for stem cells through law. We allow doctors to prescribe morphine, which is a controlled substance, so we already allow the medical community to ease human suffering in ways that are otherwise subject to legal constraints.

_________________________________
http://domyhomeworkonline.net/ -
get help

Posted by: carolspencer Aug 6 2019, 05:05 AM

Thanks for posting this. I'm the only beginner in your game but I already have some successful results. To add to it, I need more free time because every day I have many important deals. -link removed- and I'll have more time for playing this exciting game.

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)