Welcome to Gaia! ::

While it is not a fact that an embryro/fetus does nto have a soul, it IS scientific fact that the nerves needed to feel pain aren't developed until the third trimester.



It cannot feel pain, at least at the stage scientists wish to harvest it at.



Science.



I have no intentions of drawing a line ANYWHERE.



Not definitively, since science has no way of verifying soul existence whatsoever.




That wasn't the question. Would you prefer to go to a time where we couldn't save people's lives if we WANTED to? Where we tell time by the sun and read by candlelight? Where we are ruled by an all-powerful HUMAN monarch, elected by the nobles or by his own force? (It would be a male ruler; demographics and physical build would insist on that, in the dark ages)

Do you want to live in a time when ANYTHING can be denied to ANYONE, simply on the basis of "Well, I think the Bible says so"?



Well, since adults don't produce the kind of stem cells needed for these experiments, I CAN say exactly that.

Yes.Yes.Yes.Yes.Yes.Yes.Yes.Yes.

Any organism that assumes control of all or a part of its enviroment is playing God.


Can you show me ANYTHING not religious in nature that says a fetus has a soul, and that aborting/harvesting it is murder? If your only justification for banning stem cell research is the bible, you have NO business making that law in a secular country.

Well, God is the one who chooses who lives and who dies. And besides almost all of the medicines we have made were not from stem cell research, that includes antibiotics and vaccines. So, your question turns right back at you. Maybe you should rethink that argument. Because people in countries like the Netherlands euthanize the patients for no other reason, other than they ran out of beds. And these guys are living human beings. So, good question: Who are you to play God? Just so you know when it comes to the difference between life and death, it is wrong to play God.

Because the existence of a soul at all is a religious concept, while America is a secular country, and does not create laws based on any religion.

If you cannot justify your position with science, you have no business making law.

Even though the country isn't run under an official religion, the people that run it are persuaded by their religion. If their are enough Christians in the country, it is possible to have many laws with Christian values.

It is true however, that the Christian majority is dwindling in American society. Therefore the laws are being influenced from non Christian view points as well. That is why there is much debate of these subjects. From a practical stand point: stem cell research and abortion can be beneficial, from a moral stand point: these actions are terrible. Which action we take depends on where we stand morally.

Yeah, so 1+1=2 and murdering a person in cold blood is only wrong to some people. Like I said before, if you kill someone in the name of science is it okay, no matter what the issue is?

No you just said something extremly vague and can be translated into many diffrent ideas. I'm still in question whether or not you think lines should be drawn.


So you wouldn't care either way if you or your family ever existed. You wouldn't care if your best friend was ever born or the person you care the most never came about. I see my best friend and then have the thought of them being killed before they could ever be born and it frightens me. I look at my little sister and wonder about the fact that she could have be aborted and it angers me. Yeah maybe it seems just fine to you, but hell the thought scares me.

I was talking about looking into the eyes of your friends not their embryos.

Note the words "Use to" and that was the south, not the majority.

Yeah, but things weren't being killed by this theory, and again note use to.

So what is logical is what is right? But people have different ideas of right.

It may mean nothing to you, but to me it's still another human. Just in it's most basic form. And the idea of it having no bearing on the universe is the same as killing a baby who has done nothing except you know being waited on by it;s parents.

But are we capable of using them for anything. Can we cure diseases with them? Is it a proven fact yet or still a theory? Will Micheal J. Fox still be twitching when they end this research or will he beable to return to the screen? Will HIV finally be cured. Will promises be delivered or are we just throwing away potential lives.

Yet we aren't the rulers of our universes or things will always go are way. We aren't all powerful, which is somthing you need to be in order to be God.

No we still have instict. A woman taking a bullet for her child is called a mothers instict. Logic comes with a persons idea of living. A health nut will eat healthy. See logic and instinct. He's eating to survive, but he's eating to be healthier. While my logic is to eat what i enjoy. See logic and instict. I eat food because I'm hungry, I eat my steak medium rare because I love it that way. I know I'll die sooner than the health nut, but atleast I have a say with it unlike these embryos being harvested.

Your going with that idea that if it isn't aware of things then it's not human. But hell it's not dead, and it's not a piece of tissue. It's a developing human being.

Your telling me that I'm using a logical flaw while your comparing human life for a piece of metal. Ok a person can be a great writer if given the chance, a person can be a great lawyer if given the chance. They are not thos things until they achive them, but these embryos aren't even given that chance. To say, "It can be a human, but let's kill it anyway because it's in the name of science." Has no logic behind it. Just science running wild. What soon I'll have to protect my mom from being killed because she's to old? Because is some peoples logic she'll just be taking up space because she's to old to do anything. And that's right? That's logical. My morals of protecting my mother are overthrown my scientist logic?

So in other words you can't proove to me that it isn;t murder, but just because the law okays it it's murder. What about a man charged for two counts of murder for killing a pregnet woman? Theirs your proof. The law cannot just make exceptions.

Yeah, 1+1 always equals two. But the acts behind science should rely on individual values. Science is nothing but the truth. If you shoot sombody in the head, they'll die. Proven fact of science right? You keep saying science is objective and based on logic, but all science is, is just facts. It's the acts that are done in the name of science I have a problem with. Am I being illogical in this way of thinking? Am i foolish to be afraid of how far things will go in the name of science?

Exactly. The question is, given that murder affects another person, should we prevent the murder of the second person? In the end, since morals are all subjective, you can only really expect them to govern YOU. Therefore, the government has a moral obligation to prevent people from being affected by other people's morals.



Depends. If the person consents, then yes, it is okay. If the person does not consent, then it is not okay.

You may say "but embryos can't consent!", but that's not actually true. The right to consent is given to the mother, as the embryo is part of her body.



I give up trying to explain my personal moral code to you. Just ignore it.



I would not care if I had been aborted, because I would not then have the drive for survival nor the memories of life that I have in this flow of time.

I would not care if my sister or friend had been aborted, because if they had, they would not have been my sister or friend. I would have no memories of them and they would have no memories of life or sentience to extinguish.



But at that time they truly BELIEVED they were correct. Did that make them correct? No. majority =/= right.



Things aren't being killed by stem cell research, either. Things are being harvested. 8 cells does not count as an independent living being.



Only one of those ideas are logical, though.



It has still been waited on. It has become sentient. It has formed an emotional connection with its parents. All these things have bearing on the universe.

A skin cell is human at its most basic form. ONG LET'S ALL WEAR BODYSUITS TO SAVE TEH CELLZORZ.



They will still not have been thrown away, even if the line of research yields nothing. We will still have the knowledge, and that knowledge will inevitably become useful in other lines of research.



PLAYING. I didn't say we WERE God, I said we were PLAYING God. Also, only the Abrahamic God is all-powerful. I'm referring to God as "most powerful".



What?



8 cells is a piece of tissue. Embryos are usually harvested around this stage, before the stem cells begin to differentiate.



Comparing an embryo to a piece of metal is not logically flawed, given the nature of the comparison.



A person can be Hitler if given the chance. Given the chance means nothing.



We're not killing something in the name of science. We're harvesting 8 stem cells from a woman to potentially lengthen lives that have already proven themselves worthy of lengthening.



No, that's not logical. Your mother, however old she may be, still affects the world through the people she meets each day, where she goes, her emotional connections, etc. She is also a sentient being, with a definite soul. From both a scientific and a moral perspective, killing your mother would be wrong.




Back to subjective morals. While the murderer may not believe that a fetus was a person, if the mother believed that fetus was a person, then by killing her you have ended the TWO persons she believed she was in charge of.



Never said they shouldn't. In fact, I keep insisting that they should.



Right. Facts are what now? Say it with me slowly; Objective and Logical.



Yes and Yes.

From http://www.rcrc.org/pdf/RCRC_EdSeries_Fetus.pdf:

Long before the abortion debate, scholars of the Old Testament agreed that the most important word describing a human being was nephesh, a word that occurs 755 times in the Hebrew Bible. As E. Jacob puts it, nephesh is "the usual term for man's total nature," and the defing characteristic of a nephesh is breath. In fact, Jacob argues that the etymology of nephesh goes back to a root word that means "to breathe".
The classic text is Genesis 2:7: " the LORD God formed the earth creature of dusyt from the earth and breathed into its nostrils the breath of life, and the earth creature became a living nephesh. The language suggests a potter molding a vessel of clay- the form is made from the dust of the earth. But not until the form breathes is it a nephesh- as Hans Walter Wolff puts it, "a living being, a living person, a living individual."
Another text that makes clear the relationship between nephesh and breathing is the story of the son of the widow from Zarephath (Kings 17:17-24). The son became ill and we are told that "there was not breath in him" (v. 17). The widow accused Elijah of bringing about her son's death (v. 1 cool , whereupon Elijah prayed to Yahweh God, asking why He had slain her son (v. 20). Elijah beseeched, "let this child's nephesh return to his inward parts" (v. 21). The prayer was answered; "the nephesh of the child returned to his inward parts and he lived" (v. 22). As Wolff comments, "Living creatures are in this way exactly defined in Hebrew language as creatures that breathe."
It is this interconnection between nephesh as the living person and as breath that informs the miraculous vision of Ezekiel- the vision of the dry bones: "And as I looked, there were sinews on them, and flesh had come upon them, and skin had covered them; but there was no breath in them" (Ezekiel 37: cool . Ezekiel calls for breath to come, and we are told that "the breath came into them, and they lived..." (Ezek. 37:10).

When it comes to LAWS that affect OTHER PEOPLE, no, we cannot just "accept other's opinions". We have to look at two things; scientific facts and their remifications, and the people the law will affect. We must look at these with the absence of all our morals, because there's no guarantee that ALL the people the law will affect will share the same morals as us. Most Christians are against abortion for two reasons; they believe the fetus has a soul and needs a chance to accept God, and they believe sex is wrong and women should be "punished" for it. The first reason is completely religious and moralistic, and the second is not only religious and moralistic but also extremely repressive and sexist.