George Bush vetoes stem cell bill

[9sublime]

Just one Drink of Whiskey will harm you? What part of body does it damage?

Sorry? Apart from being irrelevant, one drink of whisky doesnt harm your body. Small amounts of alcohol are good for you.

 

[steveox]

Sorry? Apart from being irrelevant, one drink of whisky doesnt harm your body. Small amounts of alcohol are good for you.

Even for Diabetes?

 

[9sublime]

Not everyone has diabetes, its like saying nuts should be banned from adverts in case you have a nut allergy.

 

[rmbarron]

A zygote, the immediate result when a male sperm and female ovum unite is unquestionably biologically alive as it fulfills the four criteria necessary:
(1) metabolism
(2) growth
(3) reaction to stimuli
(4) reproduction [cell reproduction called “twinning” – asexual]

Those criteria also apply to every cell in my body. That doesn't endow them with the rights of a human.

From the eighteenth day after conception,....clearly show that an individual human life is developing, as it would after birth, from infant to child to adolescent to adult.
[/QUOTE]

That was all extremely fascinating, but what we're talking about is an embryo not a fetus. An embryo is a cluster of cells that have yet to specialize into all those wonderful organs you listed. I still haven't heard a rationale for what makes it human.

 

[palerider]

Wow. Your inherent wrongness is quite astounding. After all that writing you still haven't made the faintest attempt to explain what makes a ball of cells a human. Does your DNA make you human? Is that all that seperates you from animals?

I asked you to provide some credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings is ever anyting but a human being. The fact that you haven't really hamstring's your argument.

An embryo is not the offspring of two human beings. It is what turns into the offspring, but it is not the offspring itself. Why don't you provide "a a single piece of credible science" that suggests otherwise?

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=offspring

offspring - n. - the product of the reproductive processes of an animal or plant

Since you did not come "from" an embryo but were an embryo, it is clear that you and the embryo that you were are one in the same. Therefore you did not "turn into" anything. You just matured.

There is no, I repeat no evidence that a fertilized embryo in any way constitutes a human being. If you disagree (and I know you do) than prove it. And please, with something more substantial than, "you're wrong."

OK.

"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings."
John C. Fletcher, Mark I. Evans, "Maternal Bonding in Early Fetal Ultrasound Examinations," New England Journal of Medicine, February 17, 1983.


"The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."
M. Allen et. al., "The Limits of Viability." New England Journal of Medicine. 11/25/93: Vol. 329, No. 22, p. 1597


Not only is it a life, but, “by its intrinsic biological nature,” it is a human life from the moment of conception, for “it can be nothing else.”
THE BEGINNING OF HUMAN LIFE, E. BLECHSCHMIDT, ]16–17 (1977).


"an unborn child is a human being from conception is “supported by standard textbooks on embryology or human biology”
T.W. SADLER, LANGMAN’S MEDICAL EMBRYOLOGY (John N. Gardner ed., 6th ed. 1990;

"This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."
Keith L. Moore & T.V.N. Persaud. The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th Edition, 1998


Are respected, peer reviewed medical journals and medical textbooks enough for you? I can provide more.

Now it is your turn. Provide some credible science that states that the unborn of two human beings is EVER anything but a human being.

 

[rmbarron]

I asked you to provide some credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings is ever anyting but a ...

Nice work. I still don't believe you, but since you obviously take this forum much more seriously than I, I'll have to yeild ground to you on this. I'm not prepared to do the research neccessary to prove my point. Neither am I willing to say your wrong without backing it up. Ergo, I loose.

 

[palerider]

Nice work. I still don't believe you, but since you obviously take this forum much more seriously than I, I'll have to yeild ground to you on this. I'm not prepared to do the research neccessary to prove my point. Neither am I willing to say your wrong without backing it up. Ergo, I loose.

Mighty caucasian of you.

By the way, I am not asking for you to believe me. That is why I wen't to the trouble of finding impeccable scientific sources. I didn't always believe that unborns were human beings myself. The perponderance of the evidence, however, put me in a place where I either held a position that I, intellectually, knew was a lie, or adjusted my postion so that it was in line with what I found to be the truth.

By the way, you couldn't prove your point even if you visited every medical library, and researched all the reference material for human developmental biology on the face of the earth. The argument that the offspring of two human beings is at some point something other than a human being is simply not true and there isn't a shred of credible evidence to support it.

 

[Pidgey]

The argument that the offspring of two human beings is at some point something other than a human being is simply not true and there isn't a shred of credible evidence to support it.

It would seem that folks differ more on the relative... value (for lack of a better word) of the unborn, than the actual definition of one. To someone who does not believe in the concept of a "soul", why would there be any such value to merit any special codified protection? And to the person who does, how could there be anything less? Do you ever get the idea that some people seem to believe that a growing fetus is just a car and the driver only steps in at some later point, perhaps at birth?

 

[palerider]

It would seem that folks differ more on the relative... value (for lack of a better word) of the unborn, than the actual definition of one. To someone who does not believe in the concept of a "soul", why would there be any such value to merit any special codified protection? And to the person who does, how could there be anything less? Do you ever get the idea that some people seem to believe that a growing fetus is just a car and the driver only steps in at some later point, perhaps at birth?

I am not sure how souls have a bearing on the issue. I would wager that most people who don't believe in souls but are pro choice accept that the law protects the lives of infants and have no problem with that. If they don't believe in souls, then it wouldn't matter if the child is 1 hour old, or 1 century old, the soul would have no bearing on their acceptance of the protection of the law.

Personally, I try not to bring souls, or religion, or the verbage of soothsayers, necromancers, or gypsys into the conversation. Such things only serve to obscure the facts, not clarify them and as such are really of no value.

I get the feeling that people "believe" all sorts of things. In fact, those who are on the pro choice side of the discussion tend to disregard what they know in favor of what they believe in order to maintain their position. Or in some cases have terribly distored misunderstandings of biological mechanics and base their positions upon this completely wrong information.

 

[Pidgey]

I am not sure how souls have a bearing on the issue.

I get the feeling that people "believe" all sorts of things. In fact, those who are on the pro choice side of the discussion tend to disregard what they know in favor of what they believe in order to maintain their position. Or in some cases have terribly distored misunderstandings of biological mechanics and base their positions upon this completely wrong information.

"A rose by any other name... " Maybe some would rather steer to the concept of "self awareness". Perhaps some folks base the entire argument on some more visceral perception of their own with its beginnings in their own memories. I, for instance, have a few vague memories from when I was two years old, but nothing before that, really. So, in simplified terms, that might be the point that I define as when my life actually started. That's not my personal belief, but I think it's a possibility that others might proceed from that basis when asked to get down to the dirty business of codifying definitions. With that as a start, some people might respond when asked "how would YOU feel if YOU were aborted?" ..."well, I guess I wouldn't have cared... "

That said, how do you "know" for sure just what it is that other people "know"?

 

[palerider]

"A rose by any other name... " Maybe some would rather steer to the concept of "self awareness".

Infants are not self aware and research suggests strongly that we (human beings) do not achieve self awareness until we are as much as 18 months old and yet, post natals from 0-18 months enjoy the protection of the law.

That said, how do you "know" for sure just what it is that other people "know"?

We "know" that we do not come from blastocysts but were, at one time, a blastocyst. We "know" that we did not come from embryos but were, at one time, an embryo. We know that the only difference between us (post natals) and them (pre natals) is time and growth.

When arguing this topic one either knows and accepts the truth, knows and disregards the truth in favor of what they choose to believe, or is ignorant. Very few admit to being ignorant. After facts have been presented, then the ignorant know and at that time either join the group who know the truth and accept it or join those who know the truth and disregard it in favor of what they believe.

rmbarron above is a fine example of the latter. I presented him with credible scientific evidence that we are indeed human beings from the time fertilization is completed and his answer was that he chooses not to believe me and not to do any actual research which would just further reinforce the facts that I have already given hiim. His choice is to disregard what he now knows in favor of what he wishes to believe. My bet is that should either of us encounter him on this subject again in the future, he will still be arguing that unborns are not human beings.

 

[Pidgey]

Well, I've known a lot of registered voters who could neither define "blastocyst", spell "blastocyst" nor even comprehend "blastocyst" if the entry was read to them out of a children's encyclopaedia. And, being so challenged, could not draw the line from that point to this one in their lives and see the continuity as it relates to this discussion. You can pound them over the head all year long and it's just not going to compute.

I'm just trying to figure out the disconnect between your side of the debate and this person's:

Those criteria also apply to every cell in my body. That doesn't endow them with the rights of a human.

From the eighteenth day after conception,....clearly show that an individual human life is developing, as it would after birth, from infant to child to adolescent to adult.

That was all extremely fascinating, but what we're talking about is an embryo not a fetus. An embryo is a cluster of cells that have yet to specialize into all those wonderful organs you listed. I still haven't heard a rationale for what makes it human.

While you can verbally club someone over the head until they're just plain tired of talking with you and therefore "give up" the discourse, that's not the same thing as actually convincing someone or making a convert. There are, apparently, millions of people out there (registered voters) who, for whatever reason, share this person's opinion, misunderstanding, or whatever you'd like to label it. So, there's some fundamental blockage of communication that's not being addressed. Find that, and you'll have a more convincing case.

 

[palerider]

... So, there's some fundamental blockage of communication that's not being addressed. Find that, and you'll have a more convincing case.

rmbarron clearly knows what a blastocyst is and is conversant in other aspects of biology. When shown information that clearly showed him he was wrong, he chose to ignore it. He has made a choice to disregard what he knows in favor of what he believes.

I don't accept that there is any blockage of communication with this sort of person and doubt that he can ever be convinced. Not because he doesn't understand the material, but because he does not want to be convinced. He offers up an opportunity to convince others though. By bludgenoning him, and those like him with an incessant barrage of fact, others who may be, in reality, sitting on the fence see his argument fail.

I have argued this topic for quite some time face to face and in a large number of forums and can count the number of people who actively engaged me on the subject and have changed from the pro choice to the pro life side of the argument without running out of fingers.

The number who have entered the discussion as it nears its end however, and have stated that they have learned things that they did not know, or realized that they have been misinformed, and as a result have, or are seriously considering coming off the fence to the pro life side of the argument is considerably larger.

Do I expect someone like rmbarron to ever change his position? No. They aren't interested in fact or what is and what isn't, their only interest in fact is how it might be tortured into supporting their opinion or how twisting the truth might result in tricking someone who really has no real grasp of biology into agreeing with them.

 

[Pidgey]

Well, let's try it this way then...

rmbarron,

At what chronological point (beginning from conception) and for what reason do you believe (know, think, consider... choose whatever word works for you) that a human being merits the protection of law?