Stem cells nurture damaged spine: study

[palerider]

Why should I keep that in mind? A personal attack is a personal attack.

And that constitutes a "personal attack" in your mind? Everyone should be so polite.

 

[palerider]

I stated I am neither pro nor con. If you truely read my posts you would know that. I think even Cheshire Cat will support me on this.

My personal feelings on my personal choices are one thing.

Forcing those choices on another person quite another.

So you would favor abolishing murder and manslaugher laws because such laws make you feel like you are forcing your preference not to be killed on the street on others?

 

[palerider]

On the topic of one liners. Christ all bloody mighty your a hypocrite arn't you. Sorry, I'll stop with the one liners anyway.

If you are going to bloviate, at least make it coherent. What exactly was hypocritical in what I said?

 

[palerider]

Coyote,

Maybe my question got lost in the noise of all the posts. Let me ask again.

Can you offer or provide any credible proof that unborns at any stage of develpment are not human beings?

 

[Abraxis Axis]

I stated I am neither pro nor con. If you truely read my posts you would know that. I think even Cheshire Cat will support me on this.

My personal feelings on my personal choices are one thing.

Forcing those choices on another person quite another.

Dont allow this to bother you . This is his tactics he NEVER reads all of your posts he skims a line or two,and then begins his vain attempts to prove how he is right and your wrong. he dose this to everybody here from what i am seeing. It dosent matter what the subject is he is right and your Not.

he will NEVER read what you write Only the words he is interested in. you will never get a fair and balanced response and about 80% of what i see he will spin you off in another direction

i have noticed that others are beginning to see this thin veil now too.your doing fine dont stoop you dont need to

 

[palerider]

Dont allow this to bother you . This is his tactics he NEVER reads all of your posts he skims a line or two,and then begins his vain attempts to prove how he is right and your wrong. he dose this to everybody here from what i am seeing. It dosent matter what the subject is he is right and your Not.

he will NEVER read what you write Only the words he is interested in. you will never get a fair and balanced response and about 80% of what i see he will spin you off in another direction

i have noticed that others are beginning to see this thin veil now too.your doing fine dont stoop you dont need to

Impotent sniping from the sidelines. Is this something that you do in all your guises? Can you join the conversation or not? Do you have anyhing to add or is this subject completely over your head. Coyote may not have a complete grasp of the subject, but, unlike you, he is prepared to discuss and attempt to defend his ideas head on. An attribute that you might consider working on.

 

[palerider]

Read further.

I read further. It went on to speak of early successes in bone marrow transplants. That does not constitute stem cell research.

 

[ArmChair General]

More sniping? Feel free to jump in if you care to try me. And do tell, what is a human being if not any member of species homo sapiens sapiens?

And what is funny is that you have been reduced to impotent mewling from the sidelines since you know as well as I that you really aren't up to this sort of discussion. Let me change that. It isn't funny, it is damned sad.

No not sniping its the truth. The definition of what a human being is has been posted already. You just keep ignoring it. That makes me laugh.



--
Humans, or human beings, are bipedal primates belonging to the mammalian species Homo sapiens (Latin: "wise man" or "knowing man") in the family Hominidae (the great apes).[1][2] Humans have a highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language, and introspection. This mental capability, combined with an erect body carriage that frees their upper limbs for manipulating objects, has allowed humans to make far greater use of tools than any other species. Humans originated in Africa about 200,000 years ago, but now they inhabit every continent, with a total population of over 6.5 billion as of 2007.

Like most primates, humans are social by nature; however, humans are particularly adept at utilizing systems of communication for self-expression, the exchange of ideas, and organization. Humans create complex social structures composed of cooperating and competing groups, ranging in scale from small families and partnerships to species-wide political, scientific and economic unions. Social interactions between humans have also established an extremely wide variety of traditions, rituals, ethics, values, social norms, and laws which form the basis of human society. Humans also have a marked appreciation for beauty and aesthetics which, combined with the human desire for self-expression, has led to cultural innovations such as art, literature and music.

Humans are also noted for their desire to understand and influence the world around them, seeking to explain and manipulate natural phenomena through science, philosophy, mythology and religion. This natural curiosity has led to the development of advanced tools and skills; humans are the only known species to build fires, cook their food, clothe themselves, and use numerous other technologies.

 

[palerider]

No not sniping its the truth. The definition of what a human being is has been posted already. You just keep ignoring it. That makes me laugh.

OK. And for all of that, how exactly do you beleive you have disqualified unborns from being human beings. Because they are bipedals? Newborns can't walk. Because they are capable of abstract reasoning, language, and introspection? Newborns are not capable of any of those. Newborns are capable of none of the attributes that you claim one must posess in order to be a human being. Are you arguing that newborns are not human beings either? At what age do we become human beings armchair? At what age do you suppose a human being posesses all of the attributes your cut and paste lists? Suppose someone doesn't posess all of them. Is that person not a human being? How many must one posess to be a human being?

 

[Equityshiz]

OK. And for all of that, how exactly do you beleive you have disqualified unborns from being human beings. Because they are bipedals? Newborns can't walk. Because they are capable of abstract reasoning, language, and introspection? Newborns are not capable of any of those. Newborns are capable of none of the attributes that you claim one must posess in order to be a human being. Are you arguing that newborns are not human beings either? At what age do we become human beings armchair? At what age do you suppose a human being posesses all of the attributes your cut and paste lists? Suppose someone doesn't posess all of them. Is that person not a human being? How many must one posess to be a human being?

Damn good points. here's another: fetuses are meant to become babies just like babies are meant to become adults. you can stop it from forming using contraceptives but once its there its there and its alive. killing it is wrong.

 

[palerider]

Damn good points. here's another: fetuses are meant to become babies just like babies are meant to become adults. you can stop it from forming using contraceptives but once its there its there and its alive. killing it is wrong.

Once a life has begun, it lives until it dies of natural causes, or something or someone kills it.

 

[ArmChair General]

OK. And for all of that, how exactly do you beleive you have disqualified unborns from being human beings. Because they are bipedals? Newborns can't walk. Because they are capable of abstract reasoning, language, and introspection? Newborns are not capable of any of those. Newborns are capable of none of the attributes that you claim one must posess in order to be a human being. Are you arguing that newborns are not human beings either? At what age do we become human beings armchair? At what age do you suppose a human being posesses all of the attributes your cut and paste lists? Suppose someone doesn't posess all of them. Is that person not a human being? How many must one posess to be a human being?

Well According to the law, one of the best tests of personhood or when a human life is a human being, is viability, upon which Roe vs. Wade was based.

Viability is defined as the ability to live outside the womb. It is based upon the broader logic that "a person is as a person does." In other words, people normally breathe on their own, circulate blood on their own, fight off most germs on their own and sustain normal cellular activity on their own.

A fetus is able to achieve these functions once it reaches a weight of about 5 pounds. This usually occurs between the 7th and 8th month of pregnancy, coincidentally, about the time that the baby has finished its brain and central nervous system.

So perhaps you should be trying to change the law and the defintion of a human being then?

 

[palerider]

Well According to the law, one of the best tests of personhood or when a human life is a human being, is viability, upon which Roe vs. Wade was based.

Have you read the roe decision. Justice blackmond acknowledges that using the science of the day, an argument could be made that unborns were not, in fact, human beings and that should such a time ever come when that argument could no longer be made, the framework of roe woud collapse because the unborn would then be entitled to the protections of the 14th amendment. Justice Oconnor acknowledged this in a case about a decade later when she said that roe was on a collision with itself because its validity was subject to the state of scientific knowledge at the time of any future challenges.

The more we learn, the more undeniable it becomes that the offspring of two human beings can be noting but a human being, at whatever stage of development he or she is at. And viability is not a requirement to be a human being. Viability is no more than a requirement to live in the atmosphere.

 

[ArmChair General]

Have you read the roe decision. Justice blackmond acknowledges that using the science of the day, an argument could be made that unborns were not, in fact, human beings and that should such a time ever come when that argument could no longer be made, the framework of roe woud collapse because the unborn would then be entitled to the protections of the 14th amendment. Justice Oconnor acknowledged this in a case about a decade later when she said that roe was on a collision with itself because its validity was subject to the state of scientific knowledge at the time of any future challenges.

The more we learn, the more undeniable it becomes that the offspring of two human beings can be noting but a human being, at whatever stage of development he or she is at. And viability is not a requirement to be a human being. Viability is no more than a requirement to live in the atmosphere.

Well like I said, perhaps you should be trying to change the law and the definition of a human being.

Because right now, you are wrong.

 

[palerider]

Well like I said, perhaps you should be trying to change the law and the definition of a human being.

Because right now, you are wrong.

I am still waiting for you to explain how anyting you have posted disqualifies an unborn from being a human being. I have provided credible science that states explicitly that we are human beings from the time fertilization is complete. A ruling by 9 judges, none of which have any training in medicine or science made 35years ago is the best you can do to prove your point?

I can show you rulings by the supreme court that said that blacks were not human beings. So much for their credibility on deciding what is and isn't a human being.