A sad day for science

[sgreger1]

That doesn't answer how rights become assigned, something growing is not "alive" and on the path to fulfilling potential?

And perhaps carbon molecules should be treated as alive as well, and they should recieve legal protection from being damaged. As they are on the path to someday becoming part of something that is alive, right?

I mean i'm not pro abortion in ANY way, but I see a big difference between a 3 day old lump of cells and a little baby floating around in the uterus. We have to draw the line somewhere. Are my balls now a protected group, since they will someday become a living thing?

[NonServiam]

WickedKitchen: So now that this thread is completely hijacked we should recognize that just about everyone agrees with the initial premise...Stem Cell Research is good and the aborted whatever-stage parasites should be used for science rather than discarded.

We should probably all just call stale-mate, but that won't happen.

Religion, politics, abortion, the ShayTards on Youtube, these are all personal issues that people will hold stong, nearly immovable convictions on.

I came to the realization a while back that we live in a very cruel world full of misfortune, tragedy, and sorrow. We strive to make it a perfect world, but that is unachievable, as it should be. For if we did succeed in achieving a perfect world, we would grow restless and probably destroy ourselves.

Occasionally you will find a sprinkle of hope, happiness, and satisfaction just long enough to numb yourself from our painful reality. It's just the nature of our existence, and one day we and everything around us will become dust condemned to this big rock. Or at least until some large object crashes into us sending us hurling and tumbling through space in a million different directions. So grab you a drink and some tobaccy!

[sgreger1]

I totally agree that it should not be the states right to dictate weather or not a woman has the right to choose, but what about the men? Have we no rights in this whatsoever? What happens when a couple decides to create a child and then a few months into it the woman goes berzerk and doesn't want the kid anymore...or the man? Is it right to take that away from him?

I agree, I am amazed to see that no one has ever proposed legislation (that I am aware of) that would require the consent of both the father AND the mother before an abortion can occur. It seems unfair to me that it takes a man and a woman to make a child, but from the moment the egg is fertilized it becomes the sole property of the female. She may choose to kill it, or not, and if you get divorced, she always has first dibs. It makes no sense, and it is a spit in the face of the equal rights movement. How can women lobby to be equal, yet ask for special protection? They don't want to have to cook or clean or stay home, they want to be able to work and own land and vote, but yet they don't want men to have a say in the single most improtant matter in regards to a family; childbirth?

It's unfair and unjust on all accounts.

[truthwolf1]

In a different world I would be pro-life.

[NonServiam]

I agree, I am amazed to see that no one has ever proposed legislation (that I am aware of) that would require the consent of both the father AND the mother before an abortion can occur. It seems unfair to me that it takes a man and a woman to make a child, but from the moment the egg is fertilized it becomes the sole property of the female. She may choose to kill it, or not, and if you get divorced, she always has first dibs. It makes no sense, and it is a spit in the face of the equal rights movement. How can women lobby to be equal, yet ask for special protection? They don't want to have to cook or clean or stay home, they want to be able to work and own land and vote, but yet they don't want men to have a say in the single most improtant matter in regards to a family; childbirth?

It's unfair and unjust on all accounts.

I was fairly certain I had nothing left to add to this thread, but your post reminded me of something I was thinking of earlier. I'm not trying to instigate further argument here in the thread. I'm just merely stating a thought I had that was somewhat perplexing.

If a man came home from work and found that his pregnant wife had used a turkey baster or a coat hanger to remove their child from her womb, I'm fairly certain that the husband would flip smooth out. Then, what kind of media attention would that attract and public outrage against the mother. Yet, when the same procedure is performed in a medical setting, it is not near as condemned. Sure it's done in a sterile environment by a licensed medical professional, but that still doesn't change the mechanics of the procedure or the end result.

Science has determined this much: Brain function starts at about the 6th week of gestation, followed by a heartbeat soon after in the 6th week.

To me, anything with brain function and a beating heart is a living being. Some would call that opinion, but even medical/science terms, those two functions will always indisputably signify life. That's a fact.

I think the interpretation varies due to the fetus still being inside the womb and has yet to take it's first breath. Doesn't change the status of "living" for me, but it does for others.

So for victim's of rape and incest to have an abortion within the first 5 weeks is acceptable to me.

[texastorm]

We live in a world that completely over values life. As one of the few rational humans (read by some as emotionless) I say a few less of us would be a good thing.

So I am split. If we prolong productive life by use of stem cell research we also run the risk of a worsening over population problem, but if we don't use the stem cells and make no advances, we are still a plague on the globe. I am hoping something in 2012 happens and reduces our population by at least half. Otherwise there is no hope of a future for mankind anyway. We will expand until we can no longer support the colony with the resources available, then we will implode and die off.

Am I wrong to have such a calloused view of life in the interest of preserving life?

I dont hunt myself, but having lived in a place without population control and watching deer starve themselves to death because they over populated, I am for conservation through hunting. My mind applies that to humanity, although there is no true hunter of man on the planet to control the population, and we are doing a sad job of it ourselves when we over value our lives and those of our loved ones. When people place a value on a "life" that is life by vague definition of brain waves, I cringe on the inside. Not one of you has a memory before age 1... so when does your life really start? But that's an argument for another thread I suppose.

[sgreger1]

I was fairly certain I had nothing left to add to this thread, but your post reminded me of something I was thinking of earlier. I'm not trying to instigate further argument here in the thread. I'm just merely stating a thought I had that was somewhat perplexing.

If a man came home from work and found that his pregnant wife had used a turkey baster or a coat hanger to remove their child from her womb, I'm fairly certain that the husband would flip smooth out. Then, what kind of media attention would that attract and public outrage against the mother. Yet, when the same procedure is performed in a medical setting, it is not near as condemned. Sure it's done in a sterile environment by a licensed medical professional, but that still doesn't change the mechanics of the procedure or the end result.

Science has determined this much: Brain function starts at about the 6th week of gestation, followed by a heartbeat soon after in the 6th week.

To me, anything with brain function and a beating heart is a living being. Some would call that opinion, but even medical/science terms, those two functions will always indisputably signify life. That's a fact.

I think the interpretation varies due to the fetus still being inside the womb and has yet to take it's first breath. Doesn't change the status of "living" for me, but it does for others.

So for victim's of rape and incest to have an abortion within the first 5 weeks is acceptable to me.

I agree that the 5 week mark is the absolute latest for it to be anythign but murder. If it's got a pulse and a working, thinking brain, that constitutes alive for me.


And think about certain ADD drugs. All they've done is taken meth and put it into pill form. Or pain killers like Oxycontin, all they've done is taken heroin (an opiate) and put it in pill form. It's just that when it's prescribed or performed by a Dr, one assumes that it is at least being done in a safe and medically necessary way and therefore is more acceptable in society.


Like the Euthenasia debate. Is a Dr killing you at your request any different than suicide? And is it for him anything less than murder? If I shot my wife, and then showed up to court with a document with her signature on it saying "I want you to kill me, you have permission", do you think I would get away with it?

[sgreger1]

Otherwise there is no hope of a future for mankind anyway. We will expand until we can no longer support the colony with the resources available, then we will implode and die off.

Am I wrong to have such a calloused view of life in the interest of preserving life?

there is no true hunter of man on the planet to control the population,

Viruses and diseas are the ultimate hunter of man, and we cannot escape them. As soon as we find a cure, a new strain comes along. they evolve faster than our cures do, therefore they will always be at the top of the food chain.


And I think you are massively underestimating human enginuity. Within the next few hundred years (if we can make it that long), man will find a way to colonize a new frontier, space. It's not even remotely out of the question and is entirely doable, but we (as always) will wait untill the very last second to beging thinking of ways to fix our current situation, instead of researching them beforehand.


If resources got low enough, we wouldn't have enough plastic or medical equipment or ingredients for cures and people would soon start dying due to lack of medical treatment. When the food starts running out, starvation will cull the numbers of those our crops cannot sustain. When the potable water dries up, the remaining water will only sustain as much as it can and the rest will die off. This is all part of the natural checks and balances and we don't need to intervene, it will happen on it's own.


Wait till superaids comes around! lol

[truthwolf1]

Educated people on average have less children and that is how we will get a hold on overpopulation and dwindling resources. If you also throw in feminism and the internet then you will stagnate any country.

[texastorm]

Viruses and diseas are the ultimate hunter of man, and we cannot escape them. As soon as we find a cure, a new strain comes along. they evolve faster than our cures do, therefore they will always be at the top of the food chain.


And I think you are massively underestimating human enginuity. Within the next few hundred years (if we can make it that long), man will find a way to colonize a new frontier, space. It's not even remotely out of the question and is entirely doable, but we (as always) will wait untill the very last second to beging thinking of ways to fix our current situation, instead of researching them beforehand.


If resources got low enough, we wouldn't have enough plastic or medical equipment or ingredients for cures and people would soon start dying due to lack of medical treatment. When the food starts running out, starvation will cull the numbers of those our crops cannot sustain. When the potable water dries up, the remaining water will only sustain as much as it can and the rest will die off. This is all part of the natural checks and balances and we don't need to intervene, it will happen on it's own.


Wait till superaids comes around! lol

No I dont think I am underestimating our ingenuity on the grounds that we have already extended our life cycles by at least 20 years in the last 1000 years. In the last 200 years we accelerated our knowledge of the world, and in the last 100 especially more changes have been made to our way of life than in any other 100 year time period I can think of. I bow to any ancient historian here if I am wrong in this though.

What if in the next 100 years we found a way to double our productive lives?

I believe we (if we survive any impending doom of course) will do that eventually. But will we end up like china trying desperately to control a population explosion? Will we push ourselves to the brink of starvation? Will my great great great grandchildren look back on these times in history and wonder why we never did anything to prevent such a disaster?

We all worry so much about keeping our carbon footprints low, but we dont seem to put any thought to the fact that there may just be too many feet to begin with.

[tom502]

More welfare checks for more babies keeps the overbreeding of the less able to continue on, till the able is overtaken.

[sgreger1]

No I dont think I am underestimating our ingenuity on the grounds that we have already extended our life cycles by at least 20 years in the last 1000 years. In the last 200 years we accelerated our knowledge of the world, and in the last 100 especially more changes have been made to our way of life than in any other 100 year time period I can think of. I bow to any ancient historian here if I am wrong in this though.

What if in the next 100 years we found a way to double our productive lives?

I believe we (if we survive any impending doom of course) will do that eventually. But will we end up like china trying desperately to control a population explosion? Will we push ourselves to the brink of starvation? Will my great great great grandchildren look back on these times in history and wonder why we never did anything to prevent such a disaster?

We all worry so much about keeping our carbon footprints low, but we dont seem to put any thought to the fact that there may just be too many feet to begin with.

Amen to that. I am not big on eugenics, one child policies, or intentional population reduction plans, but I agree something needs to be done before we all start looking like China. I still say that if we start investing more into space today, with a focus on future colonization, we should be able to accomplish it pretty quickly. Prospects of a new gold rush will draw settlers there by the millions. We don't even have to go far, mars isn't THAT long of a trip and with improvements to technology it could become shorter. And there is so much land there we wouldn't have to worry about it for another thousand years.



I really wish scientists would figure out a quick way of terraforming a planet. I mean mars has everything there we need, even water, if we could just jumpstart the atmosphere it would be like a second earth. There must be a way. Come on America, where's the "show them damn soviets" attitude we used to have. Why don't we spend all of our time trying to one-up everyone anymore? That seemed to be our most successfull period.

[tom502]

Mars is teeming with life and water, but if "we" went there to habitate it, we'd just destroy it.

[sgreger1]

Mars is teeming with life and water, but if "we" went there to habitate it, we'd just destroy it.

Tom, that is clearly not vegetation, it only looks sort of that way because of the color (lack of color and other editing) used in the camera. If you look at real color pics of mars, it is quite obvious that there is nothing there. A forest of trees would be spotted froma mile away but there is no evidence for any of that anywhere on mars. I can take a picture of the cement and do a negative flip on the colors and make it look like plants.

[tom502]

That's obviously a forest of trees. And has giant lakes, with forests surrounding them.