Thread: Cloning.
View Single Post
Old 18th June 2004, 14:07   #26
Forum Sot
(Major Dude)
CaboWaboAddict's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Marietta, Ga. U.S.A.
Posts: 3,915
Let me answer each point...

Originally posted by zootm
Not true. A more rational point would be where the phoetus began to learn, or feel.
Does that mean that someone that can't learn has no right to life? I guarantee you, if you went to a hospital and killed off the irreversable comatose vegetable of your choice, you would be charged with murder. Why, if there is nothing wrong with it?

Originally posted by billyvnilly
CaboWabo would rather "save" some rotting dead fetus than SAVE another that sounds morally just.
@CaboWabo....actually the "fetus" (if you would like to call it that) is not distinct until it reaches a cluster of 32-50 cells. STEM CELLS are the cells up to this point basically.
And dont use words like "only" and "rational", it is a horrible arguement when you have to use words like these. Absolutes have no place in arguements.
Now would you consider the "fetus" a fetus instantly at conception, or would you give it the few hours a sperm needs to disolve and let its DNA mix with the cell? OR would it be after the first meiosis, where the cells start forming with both sets of DNA?
I can use those words because it is my opinion. It doesn't matter to me what you call the cluster of cells. To me life begins at conception. In my opinion, conception occurs when the egg absorbs the sperm cell and then prevents other sperm from entering.

Originally posted by Semantics
i do not agree with you Cabo. Perhaps the line should be drawn at where life is actually life...not just something feeding off something. An embryo is not "life" anymore than all the "life" in my arm. And why put humans in such a special catagory? I believe in god and souls, and all that, but life is life, any way you slice it...just because humans can think better than a cow or pig, does not make it, unless your a vegan and against all animal testing (which has saved lives), your point could be considered moot.
So, by your reasoning, a breastfeeding baby is not a human life? I have not brought theological ideas to the table , you have. It sounds like my beliefs differ from yours in that area too, but that is for another thread. I am not a vegan - far from it. Why exactly does that invalidate my opinion? If your arm is not human life as you suggest, then someone could easily present a case for legalized cannibalism. That's how little water your argument holds.

Originally posted by mikeflca
@cabo: i was being sarcastic (yeah, i already know i have a lame sense of humor). the decreased size stuff was more of a note to anyone who read it. anyway.....
When someone compares abortion to stem-cell research i get the impression that they know little on the subject.
Ok, I accept that.

Originally posted by mikeflca
comparing abortion to stem-cell research is a lame argument, and here's why.
in abortion, the life/fetus/thing/whatever-you-want-to-call-it would otherwise have a future and that is being stopped. Here, we are talking about a small cluster of cells that has no future or life at all. Given that they would otherwise be discarded if not used, the argument against stem-cell research is basically:
"no, we can't help others by killing them, we should kill them without helping anyone." in other words, abortion is "we are going to stop a life", while stem cell research is "there is no life to stop." pretty simple really.
Where we disagree, is that I feel the abortion part of the eqation is morally wrong also. The cells come from somewhere. If they are from an abortion, I feel that is wrong. If they are conceived in the lab, with no hope of ever developing into an adult, I feel that is basically the same. It is denying a life from reaching its potential. The only case that I would feel would be acceptable, would be in the case of a natural miscarriage.

Originally posted by mikeflca
I don't think anyone is "killing them" because at that stage there is not living organism, only living cells. I'm sure you know the difference there.
I feel you're wrong as I stated before. I believe life begins at conception - so in any case, it would be killing the cells.

Originally posted by mikeflca
I hope you aren't serious....
I was using a dramatic example to demonstrate my point.

Originally posted by mikeflca
I feel like saying that same thing, given that some people want to "protect a human life" by throwing it into a trash can instead of saving lives with it.
I feel it should never reach the point of being thrown in the trash. It should not have been conceived in the first place.

Originally posted by mikeflca
you said it yourself. The problem with your argument now is that stem cells have no potential because they would be discarded anyway. at least, the ones in the in vitro clinics. would you be happier if only those were used instead?
If you agree with my statement, how can you say that they have no potential? At conception, each embryo has the potential to become an adult human. Aborting that life in any manner is wrong. In my opinion, conceiving a life in a lab with no possibility of development, is the same as an abortion.

Originally posted by mikeflca
WHY is it morally wrong?
As I stated elsewhere, this is my beliefs based on my research. You are free to develop your own. If you want a theological discussion, start a new thread - that I may or may not participate in.

Idiot's Advocate
My site (under construction)
CaboWaboAddict is offline   Reply With Quote