E.S.C.R. debate with Gamers

[Cup_o_Joe]

here’s a discussion I had on a website:
gamer1:

Apparently, making you feel “warm and fuzzy inside” justifies stopping scientific advancements because it’s “immoral!” (ie stem cell research),

Cup o Joe:

Adult stem cell research has done a lot and I agree with it because it’s natural and very useful (and someone has cloned her own lung to heal herself from cancer using her own stem cells). it’s embryonic that has done nothing because as it kills the human embryo in the process, if you think murder of a human zygote is justifiable for scientific means then you’re discriminatory against the age of that human. What if one of those frozen zygotes could have been someone who would change the world for the better like an other Tesla, or an other Edison or a Thomas Aquinas? We’ll never know because some of those kinds of people might be created under IVF and are under the microscope not allowed to grow as a result of this so called “scientific research” called “embryonic stem cell research” which is essentially selective breeding.

Adult Stem cell research on the other hand is the best, it’s natural and has done very well. I mean with the proper nutrition given to the stem cells which are produced in the small intestine people can clone their own organs in a lab, it doesn’t get much better than that. Adult stem cells can turn into any one of the 200 types of cells your body needs.

gamer2:

Stem cell research has nothing to do with the killing of human zygotes that were destined for anything else other than the trashcan.

Adult stem cells may be adequate for some purposes, but I think its a bit naive to say that one is a complete replacement for the other; depriving scientists the opportunity to fully explore the field means that any potential gains are automatically lost, and your theory becomes self-serving (since embryonic stem cells never get to do anything because nobody is allowed to research them, whereas adult stem cells are developed far beyond what embryonic stem cells can achieve).

“embryonic stem cell research” and IVF is selective breeding.

Every human zygote that is produced are human lives, it’s a very basic universal and scientific truth.
Think about this in IVF about 20 eggs are fertilized, that means 20 human beings are given life and at the exact moment of conception they are starting to grow. Doctors decide out of those twenty who is “fit to live”. you know what that is? it’s eugenics.

Prenatal eugenics is going and deciding who is fit to live before a human being has a chance to even think for himself or herself. Embryonic stem cell research is intrinsically anti life, IVF the way it is done right now is immoral but if the method is changed it can become moral and always productive if it is done like this: Only one egg should be fertilized at a time and without cutting through the membrane. Think about this, doctors cut the egg open to make it easier for the one sperm to get through. That’s not the way it’s supposed to be, the sperm are supposed to be allowed to do their part. For the sperm it’s supposed to be the survival of the fittest to get through to the egg. If it’s not survival of the fittest for the sperm, the person can be born with many disabilities because of a damaged sperm that got through to the egg to create him or her. The only way that IVF will be universally accepted is if it’s one egg that is fertilized at a time without cutting it open; the sperm MUST be allowed to do their part in the creative process that is life.

Now for Embryonic stem cell research. The egg is fertilized specifically to be destroyed by doctors to collect cells that everyone produces in their own bodies everyday. There is no reason to kill a new human life. Stem cells can and do turn into any cell that the body needs. It can also be instructed to change into Neurons. It’s only a matter of time before doctors find a way to tweak an adult stem cell that is produced in the small intestine to instruct them to turn into which ever cell the body needs. If a woman can clone her own lung using a few stem cells and a piece of her clean lung, it’s only a matter if time before they can figure out a way to instruct the stem cells to reattach the spinal cord. There’s no need to kill humans for stem cells. They can be found in the umbilical cord of every new born child, they are produced in the small intestines from the 6th week of pregnancy until death and it flows in the blood to change into which ever cell the body needs.

gamer3:

I reckon its a faulty premise to say that human life has an innate value. The value comes from the thoughts and experience and feelings that are unique to each of us. An embryo is incapable of these things. The embryo could potentially become a unique and valuable human but it’s a ****** deal to trade something that definitely exists for the uncertain possibility of something of equal value in the future.

Cup o Joe:

You say that without thinking about the uniqueness of every single human being on the planet. In every single cell of your body, there is a 6 billion character code that describes the way you will look. This was determined at conception. The shape of your nose, the colour of you hair, skin and eyes, how tall you are. Every person IS unique from conception until death. Using peoples’ bodies for something your own cells can do is not the same value in the future. Every single person in the world has stem cells in them, there is no justifiable reason to kill humans because of emotional philosophy, science already indicates that at conception a human being’s shape and hight is predetermined and already forming.

 

[Cup_o_Joe]

Cup o Joe:

Oh and with your philosophy would a person in a coma stop being human because they lost the capability of thinking and having emotions for a period of time? Would you say that their organs are equal value that of their lives? If so your priorities are mixed up. Human life is indispensable and has more value than material goods.

gamer3:

The thing is tho, the argument against this stuff assumes the existence of something like an immortal soul. which means you got another religious debate on yer hands and its goin nowhere. ya cant have a meaningful debate between people living in fundamentally different universes

Cup o Joe:

Nice try but many atheist doctors are pro life because of science and the common sense behind it. a Human being’s life starts at conception, it’s a universally known fact which some people ignore to further eugenics or to not feel bothered that 42,000,000 human beings are being killed each year through I.V.F., E.S.C.R. and abortion.

gamer1:

Look, there are people that could benefit extremely from Stem Cell research. Your petty morals are holding these people back from having normal lives again.

gamer4:

An embryo is not a human being. It is an embryo. Only after a certain amount of time can it be considered a human being, which is well after the stage where they’d use it for stem cell research, I believe.

Cup o Joe:

According to political philosophy not biological science. Science shows that a human being starts at conception, you should be able to remember 7th grade hygiene class right? It’s that simple. Human life starts at conception and SHOULD end at a NATURAL death, there’s no question about it. If you don’t know go see a prenatal development video to jaunt your memory.

gamer5:

Sperm cells don’t live amazingly long and they are produced all the time by men, so you should be spending every second of your day mourning the loss of countless trillions of potential people.

Cup o Joe:

Sperm have 23 chromosomes, Eggs have 23 chromosomes therefore are not human. It is when they are joined together they form a human. It’s the most basic biology, I don’t understand how some people can ignore that. Person hood should start at conception because 3 weeks after conception there is a heart beat, 6 weeks after conception, brainwaves can be measured. at 8 weeks the bab can feel, at 11 weeks the baby can jump around in his or her amniotic sac. If you look at ultrasounds and videos of pregnancy you would realize that human life definitely starts at conception. Life is beautiful.

and like GamerProLife said:
Quote: As soon as an egg is fertilized, it becomes a living being. And as I’ve said, life is precious.

gamer6:

At conception, it is a cell. A bit later it’s two cells, then four cells, etc.
In early stages, an embryo resembles a fish more than it does a human being. A bit later it resembles a sheep more than it does a human.

Cup o Joe:

Their age doesn’t make the person any less of a human being, their physical description are predetermined at conception. No matter the age, a human is a human no matter how small.
Oh and: youtube.com/user/ehdvideos#p/u/0/VjhFNEV6shY

I already said that they can use it from umbilical cords in the first post. It’s not embryonic stem cells. The umbilical cord is attached to the small intestines where adult stem cells are produced and circulated around the placenta and umbilical cord. So pretty much my point is that stem cell research is good as long as the baby is not killed in the process. We all know now that stem cells are produced in the small intestine so why use a child at the time they are small zygotes? We don’t need to because we’ve have all we need in our bodies. I am sure that doctors will figure out a way to control how a stem cell is used. I mean if someone can clone their own lung and place it inside their body to heal themselves from Cancer, it’s only a matter of time before they figure out a way to use it to repair someone’s spinal cord.

gamer7:

Actually, they’re not a human being until they’re born.

Cup o Joe:

Only someone who ignores prenatal science would say that. A philosophical opinion out of touch with reality doesn’t change the universal scientific truth that Human life starts at conception.

gamer8:

Human embryo ≠ Human being

Cup o Joe:

http://vitaro.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/embryo.jpg
Looking away from the facts won’t change the fact that you were once as young as this human here. Apathy won’t get you anywhere.

 

[Cup_o_Joe]

gamer9:

Cup o Joe you’re ridiculous. The entire thread you use morals to argue your side, yet when it is presented that millions of eggs and billions of sperm die every day you quickly step to the side of science to defend yourself. You are so quick to draw a line but I am curious as to why, so let’s take a look.

Cup o Joe:

I already addressed that with science, sperm are not human, it has 23 chromosomes.

gamer9:

You argue that a zygote or fetus is a human being because of its potential, not because of what it has right now.

Cup o Joe:

It’s not about the potential, it is human. you sound like southerners 150 years ago: “You argue that a colored person is a human being because of its potential, not because of what it has right now.” Your philosophy is the exact same as the prochoicers 150 years ago.

Gamer9:

I am basically saying the same thing Soup said a page or 2 back, but evidently you must have “overlooked” that post because I see no rebuttal towards that statement. If you support every potential life, you support the billions of sperm that are being ejaculated into the toilet right now from guys masturbating.

Cup o Joe:

Again, sperm are not human beings but their function should be respected as a seed to create life.

gamer9:

You also support the thousands of eggs being flushed from women’s systems all throughout the world currently.

Cup o Joe:

Periods are completely irrelevent to this topic and again, eggs are not human but should be respected as a carrier to create life.

gamer9:

In fact, to say you don’t implies you don’t always care for the potential of human life. So, I am left wondering what the hell you are doing on these forums when you should be at your local chapel/mosque/whatever praying for those billions of lives being lost every second?

Cup o Joe:

Sperm and Eggs are not human. It’s at the moment that the sperm joins with the egg and the egg hardens its membrane that they’re human. At that point it’s a HUMAN zygote aka blastocyst.

Your quick switch from morals to science makes it quite obvious you want nothing more than to be right. When proven wrong you resort to your last hope, even if it is on the opposite end of the thinking spectrum to do so (morality is based on instinct, science on rationality, the two opposite sides of humanity).
Cup o Joe:

No, Science comes from Latin and is the study of knowledge which after every single discovery confirm the need for morals.

gamer9:

You can continue to argue all day long, but the truth is your argument is inherently flawed because it is based on the idea that science counts when it suits your moral perspective and morality applies everywhere else.

Cup o Joe:

Morals and Science go hand in hand, otherwise we’d all be dead from the cold war.

gamer9:

The fact of the matter is you can stick by your morals and we can’t debate it (because there is nothing rational about morals), but when you abandon your morals to a scientific outlook (which can be applied precisely the same to your other moral views), you are swapping from side to side. You aren’t fighting against wrong or fighting for justice, you’re fighting to be right, which isn’t very moral of you honestly.

Cup o Joe:

Morals and science go hand in hand. If you ignore that basic fact then you might as well be an advocate for WWIII and assisted suicide.

(he posted a photo of sperm) Looking away from the facts won’t change the fact that you were once as young as this human here. No matter how hard you believe in something, it won’t make it true.

Cup o Joe:

Yes half of my genes came from my father and half of my genes came from my mother I can’t ignore that but I wouldn’t exist if they hadn’t joined together. each on their own doesn’t make me human, it’s when they’re joined together (conception) that I’m human until death.

BTW i’ve said the same thing since the first post, it’s at conception that someone is created. It’s a basic scientific fact. Even a 5th grader understands that.

 

[Cup_o_Joe]

gamer2:

So eggs and sperm (separately) aren’t life because they require each other to survive. Okay, then why is a zygote alive even though it requires a womb to incubate in? Apply the same logic of the first statement to the second one.

Cup o Joe:

According to you, because a human being needs his or her mother they’re considered a parasite until they’re about 4 years of age? You are sick.

gamer2:

And even if a zygote is ‘alive’, then why is it wrong to use it in some useful scientific research rather than just dump it out with the trash?

Cup o Joe:

Because THEY ARE HUMAN. Are actually suggesting that you treat every human being other than yourself like an obstacle?

gamer2:

Huh? There were precious few morals in the Cold War. It was mainly driven by people’s selfish desire to survive. It was extremely methodical and scientific; there were no obtuse morals in any states’ decision making processes.

Cup o Joe:

Lets see, after the Tsar bomb, America and the Soviet Union stopped trying to make a bigger nuke. If they would have they would have destroyed an entire continent. That is moral with science right there. If there were no morals involved in the decision, billions of people would have died.

gamer2:

What he’s saying is that you’re being virtually schizophrenic in your use of defenses. You’re trying to have the best of both worlds, but I think you’re rapidly ceding the high ground here. Your arbitrary lines between life and mere cells are warped and fuzzy, and it means your case is rapidly turning into an incoherent mess.

Cup o Joe:

How about you actually start reading what I wrote. Here it is in one sentence: Human life starts at conception!

gamer2:

And on that note, you know what else every 5th grader understands? That not researching a potential cure to a disease is stupid.

Cup o Joe:

If they murder someone to save someone else in the process it’s not potential at all. It’s degrading to men and women, using their children as property for testing. Embryonic stem cell research kills the child. Using the umbilical cord or the placenta is NOT embryonic stem cell research.

gamer2:

One thing you have conveniently ignored from my post on the previous page is my question to you about the morality of not researching potentially viable cures to diseases. Your ‘scientific’ point about adult stem cells being sufficient seems to conveniently ignore the point that there are people suffering from conditions right now that could be cured with the use of embryonic stem cells. How exactly do you reconcile that with your point about morals?

Cup o Joe:

It’s the same type cells than in the umbilical cord and the ones that are produced in the small intestine only younger!!! Murdering someone who is at the moment a blastocyst or a zygote for a “potential cure for a disease” isn’t justifiable PERIOD. That would be like going up to someone who has 2 delta 32 genes in his cells and telling him: “oh we have to take your body to potentially find a cure for AIDS.” Seriously you don’t need to use human blastocysts or zygotes to cure anything. Adult and umbilical stem cells are what the scientific community should be focusing on, not the use of peoples’ bodies at the most early stages of life for your own personal gain.

gamer7:

Skin cells have 46 chromosomes and yet you slough them off with abandon every single day.

gamer2:

Life beginning at conception is not a scientific fact. If it was, there wouldn’t BE a debate on stem cell or embyonic research.

Cup o Joe:

You know as well as I do that a blastocyst is completely different from skin cells because in a blastocyst, it has the instructions to develop into an adult human being like yourself. It is one of the most early stages of life and you actually have the audacity to compare it to skin. It is fact, there is a debate because some people don’t know and other people lie about life to justify murder. If you want to debate, be honest and accept the fact that life starts at conception. Doctors KNOW life begins at conception.

Any other comments will probably result in copy pasting because of people’s ignorance and materialistic view towards life, so there’s no point in continuing this thread.

gamergirl:

What I find truly fascinating is the fact that there are so many other options and means to take this type of research to the next level that makes this argument so petty. This whole thing originated from pro-choice folks choosing to hold this up on their shoulders as a means to insist the pro-lifers are inhibiting science. If the real argument was truly to FURTHER stem research, the focus would be less on embryonic tissue and more on adult stem cells.

Cup o Joe:

gamergirl you’re absolutely correct. Adult Stem cells have cloned a lung, what has embryonic stem cells done? It develops into a baby just like it’s supposed to if it’s allowed to do what it’s designed to do. Let the blastocysts do their function and develop into an adult. Stem cells are produced in our small intestines and THAT’S where they should be collected for research. The digestive track in the small intestine is a production line for stem cells to replace cells all over the body, why not use those for research? They’ve already proven themselves.

 

[corinne333]

thank you so much for taking the time and putting up with these nonsense (i mean trying to argue with the other side, i hate it when ever i get into a debate like this at school!)

did you tell them that to date (12/14/09 @ 11:47 am) no person has ever been cured using embroyonic stem cells, but already hundreds of people have been healed from adult stem cells. in fact when you use emb. stem cells, they do more damage then good ( Dr.Oz said it on Oprah and am pretty sure they have the video on u tube.)

if you use adult stem cells, often gained from the person themself, the body does not reject them unlike emb. stem cells.

the whole skin cell thing, ask them: did your mother decide one day to have a beautiful child as yourself, so just put on an itch sweater and flaked off skin cells, until POOF! wonderful you were created? all a zygote needs is time, nutriention, and oxgen to devolp (just what a skin cell needs) however it deveolpes into something totally different (there is sothing diff. between a human and skin cell, right?)

also, ask if they are christian. john the bapist recongize Jesus as GOD when mary and elizabeth met. Jesus was only ten days old then. at ten days scientist take the stem cells from the blotaclast of the emb., killing it.

sorry if you made some of these arguments previously. am in school and did not have time to read the whole post.

i forgot, Joseph Mengele (research him), cheif doctor at auswitz. he did research on people ( decieting them alive, and puting them into boling water, killing them becuase they were jews) and made TONS of important findings and discoveres in sceince (especially in gentics and twins) was it worthy it/ right though?

 

[corinne333]

PS if he says there is not a difference between a skin cell and a human ask him why is only arrested by the fashion police every time he wears that awful green itchy sweater, and not taken down to the county jail and charged with murder by the police for killing his skin cells.

St.Philomena, pray for us that purity of mind and heart which leads to perfect love of GOD!

 

[fix]

                Originally Posted by **gamer9**                                      
            The fact of the matter is you can stick by your morals and we can't debate it (because there is nothing rational about morals

This is just one example that shows your opponents do not understand morals, logic, or science. They jumble it all up.

 

[Cup_o_Joe]

thank you so much for taking the time and putting up with these nonsense.

Ask if they are christian. john the bapist recongize Jesus as GOD when mary and elizabeth met. Jesus was only ten days old then. at ten days scientist take the stem cells from the blotaclast of the emb., killing it.

I can’t get into religion with this bunch or I would be instantly banned from their forum. It has to stay at morals and science but thanks for the suggestion.

 

[Cup_o_Joe]

Here is the continuation of the debate.
gamer9:

You ever going to answer my posts?

Cup o Joe:

Gamer9, your first post I answered already, the stem cell research I’m talking about and am against is the one that humans are created specifically to use their bodies as research material. Which Obama legalized a day after the march for life.

I already answered your fast crack about sperm.

And take a look at a video of prenatal development since you’re so interested about this. Science now has a window to the womb. Saying “he or she is not human till it’s born” is a lie. From the way you’re writing I can’t tell if you would even care if a woman would have a miscarriage after the child can see hear, taste, smell, dream, think and touch. According to you their lives are a moot point, just an argument, some cellular matter to be researched, a mass of cells… and all your apathetic anti human terms.

gamer10:

The actual argument is whether an embryo can be considered a human being BEFORE it has developed the faculties to think or have perceptions.

Cup o Joe:

It has since the beginning of time, why would it be different now? If someone would break open a 5 day fertilized egg from a chicken, animal rights people would be all over it. But when it’s a human they say “it’s not human until it’s born or able to think on its own.” It has all the DNA of a human, it’s designed to grow into a fully independent human and within THREE weeks it already has a heart beat, therefore they are human, that’s all.

The only time there is debate is when someone doesn’t know the science behind it. Don’t bring philosophy into it. This is strictly about morals and science, not a philosophy that is discriminatory towards people who are too young to have developed the bodily functions to be able to think. EVERY single human body was a human blastocyst at one point in their lives, there’s no way around that fact.

Gamergirl2:

How dare you judge him so harshly? Who are you to say how he would be? He’s the only person I know who really gave a DARN about my sister when she miscarried so who are you to decide otherwise?

He cares about the greater good like any normal person does, apparently forcing your morals is more important to you than using them for yourself.

Everything you say is nonsense. My sister was incredibly ill during one of her pregnancies and by your logic, it would of been wrong for her doctor to intervene and terminate the pregnancy, effectively saving her life. And we’re not talking about one death saving one life, we’re talking about millions of people potentially being saved, who are you to deny them that? You disgust me.

Cup o Joe:

It’s different if the baby died in the womb. Saved by letting a abortionist murder her child? Honestly that doctor if he recommended murder is completely anti-life. If the child was over 24 weeks old it could have survived outside of the womb! Honestly some doctors betray their hypocritical oath to care for EVERY patient from conception to natural death. If the doctor cared for both patients he would have tried to save both patients and given a C-section to save the lives of the baby and of your sister. These days there’s no excuse to save one life but abandon the other. Abortion is always intrinsically wrong.

Gamer10:

You’re full of ****, as most people in this thread have already figured out.

A human blastocyst is a human blastocyst, it is not a human being. It’s impossible for something to be a human being until it is subjectively being. At what point a fetus becomes subjectively self-conscious is up for debate - science doesn’t have an answer for that - but most literate people agree that certain organs such as a “brain” are necessary, and before they are present consciousness is impossible. If a collection of cells is conscious of itself, then it’s wrong to experiment with it - whether it’s a lab rat, a monkey, or a human. But if it has no faculty for consciousness then who exactly are you defending when you say “they” can be murdered?

Cup o Joe:

Here you go again, you’re discriminating against the age of a human being because they aren’t old enough to have a conscience and therefore you’re ignoring their life because of philosophy and you’re ignoring prenatal development.

gamer10:

Here you go again, you’re discriminating against millions of sick and dying human beings who’s suffering could be alleviated by stem cell research because of a religious philosophy and you’re ignoring prenatal development that precludes the possibility of stem cells being individuals.

See how this works?

Religion IS philosophy, it just conveniently ignores intellectual justifications in favor of the more convenient appeal to “absolute truth.”

Again, if a group of cells isn’t “old enough” to be subjectively, then its impossible to consider it a human being. When you say I’m ignoring “their life,” who’s life are you talking about? The cells can’t possess anything, there is no individual who exists to do the possessing.

Also, I just want to make sure you understand that “a conscience” is irrelevant to what I’m talking about - I can’t tell if you’re fully grasping what I’m saying about self-awareness and just accidentally used the wrong word, or if you are unaware of the distinction between “a conscience” and “consciousness.”

Cup o Joe:

You already know that adult stem cells are better because it’s from the person therefore the body cannot reject it no matter which type of cell it turns into because it has his or her own DNA. Stem Cells are NOT individuals, it’s human blastocysts who are individuals and grow to be independent like you and me. Stop ignoring the knowledge we have already. Adult stem cells have cured people from Cancer, embryonic has done NOTHING because the body REJECTS THE CELLS!

 

[Cup_o_Joe]

gamer9:

Cup o Joe, you’re really starting to get on my nerves. Read the rebuttals to your statements before you reply and for god’s sake, don’t go changing your argument half way through a discussion.

I’m not going to highlight all the ******** in your posts as other people have already done that admirably well, but I am just going to ask that you show me which post it was exactly that responded to mine, because I ain’t seen 'em.

Cup o Joe:

I’ve already addressed it, I guess I should have quoted you in it then.
forums.blackmesasource.com/sh…3&postcount=93

gamer9:

Sure, everything changes after sex, but why does sex magically make all science disappear?

Cup o Joe:

What exactly makes you think science disappears when a person is created at conception? Seriously go read a book. You’re getting too emotional and sarcastic to make a concise statement.

gamer9:

Wouldn’t they want us to forsake science sooner by having sex so we could all move into this morally enlightened world in which you exist?

Cup o Joe:

Marriage is a life long commitment and for a family to be correct there must be a mother and a father who will teach their children how to act. You don’t go create a child and just wing it. That’s irresponsible.

gamer9:

But wait, science can specifically prove that embryos in fact do not retain any semblance of self awareness or consciousness. Well darn, it looks like you’re just pulling **** out of your *** in a pathetic attempt to save your baseless argument.

Cup o Joe:

Again you’re discriminating against someone’s age. You can whine all you want about not wanting to submit to universal Truths it won’t change the irrefutable fact that human life starts at conception.

Seriously there’s no point in continuing, we’re going in circles. I will NEVER dumb down the truth about the start of human life to be accepted and many of you are so complacent towards this subject that you won’t even try to learn about it.

Gamer11:

I appreciate I’m late to the party, but I’d like to inject a note of reason and experience here, being as I am a father of two and therefore know a bit from a personal and “technical” perspective.

Whilst it’s absolutely true that a foetus has a functioning brain and heart from about 6-8 weeks (indeed, it is this time that an embryo becomes a foetus), the foetus is only considered “viable” (that is, able to live, maybe with intensive life-support, outside of the mother’s womb) from 18-20 weeks.

Cup o Joe:

To correct this, it’s at 3 weeks that the heart starts beating and it’s at 6 to 8 weeks that the nervous system starts its twitching to develops the baby’s little muscles.

gamer11:

In the UK, terminations (or “murders” as Cup o Joe would have them) only really occur after this date when there is significant risk to the mother if the pregnancy continues AND the chances of foetal survival in a post-natal environment are minimal (i.e. do nothing = mother & baby die, do something = mother lives, baby likely dies; this isn’t murder, it’s triage, and to call it murder is irresponsible and highly emotive). Often, the foetus is delivered and placed on life-support anyway, where possible, as medical science is getting ever better at supporting very small babies. While pre-term post-natal survival rates are improving, it’s still a VERY dicey proposition.

Cup o Joe:

Here in Canada, it is abortion on demand at any stage of pregancy for whatever the reason and it’s funded through the provincial government. If only there would be pro life laws like you mentioned here.

gamer11:

Anyhow, is a 6 week old foetus human? Unless your partner’s been indulging in some exciting carnal relationships, of course it is. Will it definitely become a human being? Maybe.

Cup o Joe:

It is a unique human individual worthy of respect from conception.

gamer11:

Now don’t get me wrong that’s no excuse to terminate pregnancies for no reason, but an awful lot has to happen, and happen correctly, between 6 weeks and 13 weeks (the end of the 1st trimester, or thereabouts) before you can start to allow yourself to believe that you’re going to have a child. As much has to happen between 13 weeks and 26 weeks (the end of the 2nd trimester) before the foetus has ANY chance of surviving outside the womb AT ALL. In honesty bacon, this is a bit of a facecious argument whilst there may not be much functional difference between a newborn human and a newborn dog, for instance, would you actually move to kill either of them for science? As an additional thought, a 2 week old puppy is significantly further advanced than a 2 month old baby in almost all respects, being able to feed itself, walk, communicate desire with parent and so on.

…Actually, since you seem to appreciate pedantry, half your genes came from your paternal grandparents and the other half came from your maternal grandparents, but nevermind! I would personally correct you there, at conception a HUMAN is created, only once that human survives matriculation can they start to become SOMEONE. The argument isn’t irrelevant, but it is a moral/ethical one, rather than a practical/technical one; sure the embryos are only used in research, but they are potential human beings. Of course, the whole umbilical cord thing renders this entirely moot, so I’ll stop right there

Cup o Joe, I agree with you, but only to a point. The reason why PETA are all over people who eat 5-day fertilized eggs is because they have already shown significant signs of development - a 5 day fertilised egg would be equivalent to a 10 week old foetus. Equally a 5 day embryo is roughly equivalent to a chicken’s egg 9 hours after insemination… You’d probably have to don rubber gloves to get at it.

 

[Cup_o_Joe]

Cup o Joe:

My point is that I don’t understand why people who are animal rights activists think more about a Balut (fertilized chicken) than someone from our own species. I’ll respond to the rest tomorrow, I have to go to bed, thanks for the response ijgs.

gamer2:

Who on EARTH is murdering anyone? These are discarded zygotes. They have been thrown out. Ditched. Trashed. They now serve no purpose than to become part of the next trash collection. If you give them a purpose, then that is the opposite of degrading to human life, so you might actually, you know, save a life.

As I’ve said before if a sperm isn’t human because it needs an egg, then surely a zygote isn’t a human because it needs a womb. Once an fetus surpasses the need for a womb, THEN it is truly alive. You’re missing is that these zygotes are never going to become humans. Ever. Ever ever ever ever ever.

The reason they stopped making arms is because they realised that diplomatic negotiation and cooperation was more productive that antagonistic opposition. The Cold War ended because the two sides decided that working together was more productive than not doing so; a decision which had nothing to do with morals.

Joe said "doctors know life begins at conception"

Uhh yeahno. In fact, there’s pretty much scientific consensus of the total opposite. A fetus is only truly considered alive after a specific time during the pregnancy, which is most definitely not conception.

Joe said "They wouldn’t be fertilized in the first place if they would do IVF properly, 1 fertilization at a time."

Yeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh no. I just can’t quite fathom why you would do it this way? Zygotes aren’t alive. Period. They can’t think, feel, smell, touch, etc.

gamer12:

cup of joe, just give up. The whole world is against you.

gamer8:

Has anyone else noticed that Cup o Joe continually ignores the posts he get’s systematically owned in?

Nitpicking FTW

gamer7:

I motion that all moral viewpoints be discarded from here on. Then we’ll see how the argument goes.

gamer13:

Cup o Joe said:"in natural circumstances I’m talking about, excluding things like accidents, tattoos, personal choices… I’m talking about the basic appearance is determined at conception, the colour of their hair, their sex, their shape of their face, nose, ears, their height, things like that."

Wrong. I don’t know about hair and eye color. but gender (and assumedly the other related features) is determined by certain chemical changes produced by the mother. Therefore it is actually possible (albiet unlikely and difficult) to choose the gender of your child simply by your dietary choices, research is still being done to determine exactly what kinds of foods contribute to it. This discovery actually came about after it was noted some communities had a severe difference in male/female births. One community had 80% of all births male. That is not coincidence concidering the community went for 60% female births to 20% in less then 25 years. Starting with the opening of a chemical plant.

Can someone PLEASE help me with these ignorant materialistic people who look at life like an object to be owned? If you’re willing to go into debate with these gamers please private message me and I will give you the link to which website it is. (do not mention catholic.com though if you plan to get into the debate)

 

[prettylarge]

Wait, can someone just clarify this for me? The stem cell research is done on aborted fetuses? And the church doesn’t agree with this, even though these fetuses are going to die anyway and can help people out? Is that the church stance?

 

[Cup_o_Joe]

Cup o Joe said: "To correct this, it’s at 3 weeks that the heart starts beating and it’s at 6 to 8 weeks that the nervous system starts its twitching to develops the baby’s little muscles."

I’ll start by clarifying your terms for you. That “3 weeks” is the so-called “foetal” age, NOT the gestational age - which is 5 weeks. There is some measure of uncertainty about the precise age of a foetus, usually +/- 7-10 days, given the vagaries of human conception, which is why everyone in the midwifery profession says “6-8 weeks is when the embryo becomes a foetus”; they’re quoting gestation age (and I shall do so for any future reference).

Now to your point, let’s make no mistake, the heart of a 5-week old embryo is not the splendid example of evolved muscle that we all carry around with us once we’re more mature. A 3-week old foetus’ heart is basically a tube; it’s a very primitive structure and the fledgling muscular walls of this tube may begin to spontaneously contract in a regular rhythm at 5 weeks (may because of the aforementioned uncertainty of developmental age).

At this stage, the embryo’s heart is significantly less complex than its originating sperm’s flagellum that spontaneously flails to move it towards the egg and yet you’re quite happy that a sperm is not a human (you’re quite right, it’s merely half the infomation). Just because some muscle structures are exhibiting a spontaneous rhythmic tic (and there are plenty of examples of this happening throughout the amoeba-level natural world) this collection of cells is arguably less “alive” than many amoeboid creatures, since it will certainly die as soon as it is removed from its life-giving mother. Functionally speaking, at this stage of the pregnancy the embryo is little more than a cancer and there’s a 2 in 3 likelihood that the mother’s immune system will respond to it as such.

Cup o Joe said:"Here in Canada, it is abortion on demand at any stage of pregancy for whatever the reason and it’s funded through the provincial government. If only there would be pro life laws like you mentioned here."

I don’t believe I mentioned any pro-life laws. I mentioned triage, which is a fundamental medical principle that was formalised during WWI, though likely existed almost as long as humans have had a notion of medical aid. At its most simplistic, triage divides patients into 3 categories (hence the “tri” bit, I guess):

1. Those who will likely live, regardless of medical aid
2. Those who will likely die, regardless of medical aid
3. Those for whom immediate medical aid might make a positive outcome.
   In an emergency situation, these groups are ordered as follows: 3, 2, 1.

Triage has little to do with being “pro-life” and everything to do with blunt practicality; what’s the point of trying to save someone who’s probably going to die anyway IF that diverts effort away from someone who may live if they receive immediate attention?

Cup o Joe said: "It is a unique human individual worthy of respect from conception."

No, AT THIS STAGE OF GESTATION it is not a unique human individual. The word “individual” tells us all we need to know here. Pedant that you are, you should know that individual comes from the latin “individuus” meaning indivisible. If you were to “divide” the mother & embryo at this stage, you would have a perfectly healthy mother and a collection of dead cells. NOT a perfectly healthy mother and a unique human individual.

When the foetus becomes self-supporting (as I said, at the very earliest 20-22 weeks gestation age) then it has the chance of becoming a unique human individual (premature death notwithstanding). Up until that point it is potential, nothing more. Which isn’t to say that it shouldn’t be respected, but we do need to get a little perspective. From the immune system’s point of view, the embryo/foetus represents a significant threat to be dealt with from the word go, right up to matriculation. As far as our own biology is concerned it’s nothing special at all. You can draw your own conclusions from that (I don’t believe there are any conclusions to be drawn personally, but it is interesting!).

Cup o Joe said: "My point is that I don’t understand why people who are animal rights activists think more about a Balut (fertilized chicken) than someone from our own species. I’ll respond to the rest tomorrow, I have to go to bed, thanks for the response ijgs"

I absolutely agree with you

Surely, if we think it is ethical to quickly and painlessly end the suffering of a terminally injured/sick animal, we should have no issue with quickly and painlessly ending the suffering of a terminally injured/sick human. Yet the pro-life mentality demands that we prolong that human’s suffering for as long as humanly possible, bringing them back from the dead, if necessary, to make sure we wring them and their family emotionally and physically dry. You know what that’s called? Torture. Not very human of you is it?

[edit]Oh, and don’t go thanking me as if I’m the only person who’s responded to you in this thread. It smacks of arrogance - to say nothing of being patronising to the other forum members in the extreme - and singles me out as some kind of special “fellow intellect”, which is something I’m really not keen on.

 

[prettylarge]

That is messed up about getting full term abortions in Canada. If you have gone that long, why not give it to someone that can’t have a child…because there are many of them out there.

I am personally pro choice because I think that making abortions illegal would cause a lot more harm than good. There would be all sorts of dangerous back alley abortion clinics killing women all over the place. Also, there would be tons of children that have horrible, HORRIBLE parents that don’t care about them at all.

 

[Cup_o_Joe]

Wait, can someone just clarify this for me? The stem cell research is done on aborted fetuses? And the church doesn’t agree with this, even though these fetuses are going to die anyway and can help people out? Is that the church stance?

The Church’s stance is this:
Paragraph 2270 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.

That means that I.V.F. and embryonic stem cell research is intrinsically evil. I.V.F. is when doctors give drugs to a woman to let go of about 20 eggs. They fertilize each one and choose which will be “viable” and they kill the rest. That means that most of the time about 17 out of the 20 new human beings each time a I.V.F. is done are killed. And embryonic stem cell research is to create human beings just so that they can live about 5 days to collect their cells and then kill them.

 

[prettylarge]

The Church’s stance is this:

That means that I.V.F. and embryonic stem cell research is intrinsically evil. I.V.F. is when doctors give drugs to a woman to let go of about 20 eggs. They fertilize each one and choose which will be “viable” and they kill the rest. That means that most of the time about 17 out of the 20 new human beings each time a I.V.F. is done are killed. And embryonic stem cell research is to create human beings just so that they can live about 5 days to collect their cells and then kill them.

Oh, that is pretty messed up. I thought that they used aborted fetuses…that would make more sense.

 

[Cup_o_Joe]

I am personally pro choice because I think that making abortions illegal would cause a lot more harm than good. There would be all sorts of dangerous back alley abortion clinics killing women all over the place. Also, there would be tons of children that have horrible, HORRIBLE parents that don’t care about them at all.

You don’t actually believe that with all of the sanitary practices around these days that women would be killed while their child is being tortured and decapitated in their own uterus do you? Yes there would be illegal abortions, there have been illegal abortions from 1961 to 1988 in Canada and in over 99 percent of them the women survived. But honestly, research shows that the baby can feel pain at 8 weeks EIGHT weeks. Please see the video the silent scream, after that video you will know whether you’re pro life or not.

Oh and here is when they murder the new person for “science” to take their stem cells, when they’re blastocysts. Even when a baby is the size of the point of a pin you can still see the shape, look at the “inner cell mass”.

 

[prettylarge]

You don’t actually believe that with all of the sanitary practices around these days that women would be killed while their child is being tortured and decapitated in their own uterus do you? Yes there would be illegal abortions, there have been illegal abortions from 1961 to 1988 in Canada and in over 99 percent of them the women survived. But honestly, research shows that the baby can feel pain at 8 weeks EIGHT weeks. Please see the video the silent scream, after that video you will know whether you’re pro life or not.

I don’t want anyone to get abortions really. But then again I am very close to someone who was raped her freshman year of college and got pregnant. She had an abortion. I don’t have any problem with that and I don’t think anyone that hasn’t gone through the same thing should tell her she is in the wrong. I don’t want people to ban abortions, but I don’t think it would be good to just make the whole process illegal either.

 

[Cup_o_Joe]

I don’t want anyone to get abortions really. But then again I am very close to someone who was raped her freshman year of college and got pregnant. She had an abortion. I don’t have any problem with that and I don’t think anyone that hasn’t gone through the same thing should tell her she is in the wrong. I don’t want people to ban abortions, but I don’t think it would be good to just make the whole process illegal either.

Do you know what happens to the child?
take a look:
youtube.com/watch?v=QBOAPleF1t0

 

[prettylarge]

Do you know what happens to the child?
take a look:
youtube.com/watch?v=QBOAPleF1t0

Until I am raped and get pregnant (I am a man by the way) I will not think what she did was wrong. Nor will I think what other people in the same situation did was wrong. I also don’t think that anyone can understand what goes in on your mind when you get raped and get pregnant.