Embryonic Stem Cells Get a Boost

[Achilles]

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

No, a toenail does not have that capability on its own via natural means to become self-aware. Egg cells and sperm cells by themselves lack some of the chromosomes needed to create new life.

Your argument seems to stem from the concept of "potential life". All of these things (and more) are "potential life". If you would like to argue from a position of actual living things, that's fine (actually it's my preference), however blastocysts are not included. The good news is that this means we can both move on.

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

Once you have cell division, that it, left on it's own you can end up having a baby with a fully functioning nervous system.

"Can" is what I've been discussing for the last several posts. You seem to want to have it both ways.

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

If they were making stem cells out of unfertalized eggs or straight sperm cells, there wouldn't be that big of an issue, but once we see the egg be fertalized that's it we're talking about a life that is seperate from the mother's.

Really? Then help me understand why that whole "gestation" thing seems important?

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

Not according to people like Planned Parenthood and Barack Obama.

Source please?

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

My point is that it seems the Catholics have it right. You shouldn't allow abortions, fertility clinics, etc. because there wouldn't be this moral calamity.

There isn't any "moral calamity" now. There's a religious values calamity, but I have yet to be presented with a genuine moral argument re: any of these topics. As always, you're welcome to enlighten me, however I suspect that we will continue to see the arguments from dogma that I predicted several posts ago.

[GarfieldJL]

Originally Posted by Achilles

Your argument seems to stem from the concept of "potential life". All of these things (and more) are "potential life". If you would like to argue from a position of actual living things, that's fine (actually it's my preference), however blastocysts are not included. The good news is that this means we can both move on.

There is cellular function isn't there, the cells take in nutrients and expell waste, they grow and divide, that sounds like life to me.

Originally Posted by Achilles

"Can" is what I've been discussing for the last several posts. You seem to want to have it both ways.

Actually I don't, that's why I think the Catholics are correct on this topic.

Originally Posted by Achilles

Really? Then help me understand why that whole "gestation" thing seems important?

No, it's more of I don't really care, in my views life begins at conception.

Originally Posted by Achilles

Source please?

I posted it months ago in Kavar's Corner, I'm not going to waste my time looking for it again, because you said that someone that testified under oath, a transcript from the Illinois State Senate, etc. weren't valid sources so quite frankly I'm not going to waste my time.

Originally Posted by Achilles

There isn't any "moral calamity" now. There's a religious values calamity, but I have yet to be presented with a genuine moral argument re: any of these topics. As always, you're welcome to enlighten me, however I suspect that we will continue to see the arguments from dogma that I predicted several posts ago.

No, there is a moral calamity, where the problem is the fact that some people think you can compromise what you know to be right and wrong is for conveinence. That's what's wrong.

[Achilles]

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

There is cellular function isn't there, the cells take in nutrients and expell waste, they grow and divide, that sounds like life to me.

Nutrients provided by the mother.

And even if your point was valid, that wouldn't constitute personhood.

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

Actually I don't, that's why I think the Catholics are correct on this topic.

Actually you do which is why you're changing the subject here instead of addressing the point.

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

No, it's more of I don't really care, in my views life begins at conception.

Okay, then your simply here to troll then (since you aren't here to debate). Your view is an opinion based on dogma and will not hold up in serious discussion. I think you and I are both aware of this.

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

I posted it months ago in Kavar's Corner, I'm not going to waste my time looking for it again, because you said that someone that testified under oath, a transcript from the Illinois State Senate, etc. weren't valid sources so quite frankly I'm not going to waste my time.

Okay, so then you're done with the thread then. kthxbai.

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

No, there is a moral calamity, where the problem is the fact that some people think you can compromise what you know to be right and wrong is for conveinence. That's what's wrong.

Please present your argument or move along. Insisting that there is a moral argument is not the same thing as presenting one. This isn't a sandbox and you don't get to have your way just because you can throw a tantrum really loud.

[PastramiX]

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

There is cellular function isn't there, the cells take in nutrients and expell waste, they grow and divide, that sounds like life to me.

A biological process, through a dynamic interaction of advanced molecules due to fundamental laws of physics, thermodynamics, and other forces of nature. To be brief; complex mysteries of science do not need to be explained with metaphysics. For example, many years ago, people believed that rain was directly caused by God, and fell from heaven. We now know that is caused by fundamentals of physics, chemistry, thermodynamics in the petri dish that is our Earth. This is the same idea; Taking a currently unexplained, or not thoroughly understood, scientific phenomenon, and associating a metaphysical attribute to it.

Actually I don't, that's why I think the Catholics are correct on this topic.

There's a reason why I left the Catholic church when I did; It has become so vehemently anti-abortion that it never fails to mention the subject when it deals with almost every aspect of Catholicism and the present, including politics, which is why I was unofficially excommunicated from the church when I spoke out against it. They have become obsessed with the subject, to the point where they regularly organize "fasts" and "prayer services" at planned parenthood clinics with school children enrolled at their schools.

[True_Avery]

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

The instance you're giving happens extremely rarely, most of the time a woman wants an abortion because she decides to get laid then doesn't want to get saddled with the inconvience having a baby would cause her.

Nice try:

Every year, 100 million induced abortions occur globally (IPAS); and according to the 2000 estimates (WHO), 19 million unsafe abortions take place each year. According to WHO, approximately 68,000 women die annually as a result of complications of unsafe abortion; and between two million and seven million women each year survive unsafe abortion but sustain long-term damage or disease (incomplete abortion, infection (sepsis), haemorrhage, and injury to the internal organs, such as puncturing or tearing of the uterus).(IPAS) According to WHO statistics, the risk rate for unsafe abortion is 1/270; according to other sources, unsafe abortion is responsible for one in eight maternal deaths.

Nour NM. "An Introduction to Maternal Mortality". Reviews in Ob Gyn (2008) 1:77-81.

A 2007 study published in the The Lancet found that, although the global rate of abortion declined from 45.6 million in 1995 to 41.6 million in 2003, unsafe procedures still accounted for 48% of all abortions performed in 2003. It also concluded that, while the overall incidence of abortion in both developed and developing countries is approximately equal, unsafe abortion occurs more often in less-developed nations.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/la...1575X/fulltext

Oh, right, statistics are all lies.

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

And then we have planned parenthood not reporting to the police or prosecutors when an underage girl comes in whom had sex with an adult and got pregnent (which was statuatory rape), seriously there is problems with your solution too.

What does that have to do with anything?

So, you are admitting it is a problem for these girls to get raped?

Should a 13 year old girl who is raped by a family member be allowed an abortion, or are you just going to say "no"?

[GarfieldJL]

Originally Posted by Achilles

Nutrients provided by the mother.

And even if your point was valid, that wouldn't constitute personhood.

Nutrients are provided by the mother if an infant is breast fed.

Originally Posted by Achilles

Actually you do which is why you're changing the subject here instead of addressing the point.

Actually I am addressing the point, I'm pointing out that like Catholics, I find a lot of the arguments for fertility clinics, abortions, and stem cell research to be immoral. In that stance, I'm not contradicting myself on the subject.

Originally Posted by Achilles

Okay, then your simply here to troll then (since you aren't here to debate). Your view is an opinion based on dogma and will not hold up in serious discussion. I think you and I are both aware of this.

Originally Posted by Achilles

Okay, so then you're done with the thread then. kthxbai.

If you're going to quote me, kindly quote me in context please.

Originally Posted by Achilles

Please present your argument or move along. Insisting that there is a moral argument is not the same thing as presenting one. This isn't a sandbox and you don't get to have your way just because you can throw a tantrum really loud.

It's a moral issue because we're talking about human life, at what point do you define it as something like this to be unethical. That's the problem with trying to play God, what is being done devalues human life. That's the moral problem.

[SkinWalker]

If he was "playing God," then murder, infanticide, and even rape and torture become okay and moral. Are you sure you want to play that card?

[GarfieldJL]

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

If he was "playing God," then murder, infanticide, and even rape and torture become okay and moral. Are you sure you want to play that card?

I've pointed out before that some of these Abortion Clinics have essentially committed infantcide, covered up incidents of statuatory rape, etc.

[SkinWalker]

So, you're acknowledging that the Christian god is an amoral murderous being, who sees no moral issue with taking the lives of infants, children, etc.

[Achilles]

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

Nutrients are provided by the mother if an infant is breast fed.

Correct, but I was referring to when the baby is still inside the mother. Even in cases of artificial insemination, the fertilized egg must be successfully implanted in the mother if the embryo is to develop. You seem to be forgetting this for the sake of your point.

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

Actually I am addressing the point, I'm pointing out that like Catholics, I find a lot of the arguments for fertility clinics, abortions, and stem cell research to be immoral. In that stance, I'm not contradicting myself on the subject.

The discussion was all the things that can qualify as potential human beings. You changed the subject when cornered on that (post 83)

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

How's it doing so far?

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

If you're going to quote me, kindly quote me in context please.

Non sequitur much?

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

It's a moral issue because we're talking about human life,

No, we are not. We are talking about a potential human life and lots of things fit under that umbrella. A casual examination of that list will show most reasonable people that this argument is untenable.

To recap: no human life, no moral issue.

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

at what point do you define it as something like this to be unethical.

???

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

That's the problem with trying to play God,

False premise #1

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

what is being done devalues human life.

False premise #2

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

That's the moral problem.

Faulty conclusion = failed argument.

[kipperthefrog]

I have autism and a super high metabolism. That means I don't gain weight as easy. and some girls want to loose weight. Would stem cell research cure autism? Would it be able to boost peoples metabolism to be like mine and help girls loose weight?

[Achilles]

Originally Posted by kipperthefrog

Would stem cell research cure autism?

We're not even sure what causes autism, therefore it's too soon to tell. Possibly, yes. My understanding is that the brunt of ESTR is going toward degenerative diseases/disorders (Parkinson's, etc) and/or "replacement parts" (i.e. how to build new skin/nerve cells for burn victims).

Originally Posted by kipperthefrog

Would it be able to boost peoples metabolism to be like mine and help girls loose weight?

It's certainly possible, however I think we would be much better off watching all the research that came out of the human genome project.

A quick google search turned up this article.

[Jae Onasi]

Originally Posted by kipperthefrog

I have autism and a super high metabolism. That means I don't gain weight as easy. and some girls want to loose weight. Would stem cell research cure autism? Would it be able to boost peoples metabolism to be like mine and help girls loose weight?

We have to find out what causes autism before we can work on a cure. So far it doesn't seem to be a problem with bad tissue so much as how the brain processes information. There's still so much to learn about this condition.

Current weight loss research is focusing on some of the hormones that control hunger (e.g. leptin) and calorie absorption in the gastrointestinal tract. For those who truly do have a slow metabolism due to thyroid, that gets treated with thyroid medication. You can't boost metabolism artificially (e.g. with extra thyroid hormones) because it makes the heart overwork and drives blood pressure up. It is more likely that treatments for obesity will focus on medication to target the specific hormones rather than using stem cells, besides the obvious 'eat fewer calories, higher quality food, and exercise more'.

[kipperthefrog]

I found http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30825449...72813#31714673

It reads "should we tanper with nature?"

We already have been doing that since we discovered fire. Of course science is good.

[Achilles]

Originally Posted by kipperthefrog

I found http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30825449...72813#31714673

It reads "should we tanper with nature?"

We already have been doing that since we discovered fire. Of course science is good.

Off-topic: Shouldn't organ transplant be a new thread?

On-topic: Quite right. We tamper with nature all the time and have been for ages. The argument that something with bad because it "tampers with nature" is also known as Appeal to Nature fallacy (aka "naturalistic fallacy", although this is arguably incorrect usage).

[kipperthefrog]

Originally Posted by Achilles

Off-topic: Shouldn't organ transplant be a new thread?

On-topic: Quite right. We tamper with nature all the time and have been for ages. The argument that something with bad because it "tampers with nature" is also known as Appeal to Nature fallacy (aka "naturalistic fallacy", although this is arguably incorrect usage).

They did mention stem cells in this and stem cells are considered by some, "tampering with nature".