Old 30th June 2004, 05:17   #81
billyvnilly
Forum King, M.D.
 
billyvnilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Detroit burbs
Posts: 3,379
Send a message via ICQ to billyvnilly Send a message via AIM to billyvnilly
lol....
billyvnilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th June 2004, 11:43   #82
CaboWaboAddict
Forum Sot
(Major Dude)
 
CaboWaboAddict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Marietta, Ga. U.S.A.
Posts: 3,915
Quote:
Originally posted by aFfLiCtEd
Is this it??




[Image]


Never fear ... modern medicine can remove this growth from your hand for you. Granted the healing process entails withdraw symptoms ranging from nausea, delerium, to loss of sexual desire, caused by you missing the unsightly growth on your hand, your determination to overcome it's absence can prevail.
Actually, it appears to be a recently developed growth. Since I believe in natural healing, I will resist the urge to have it surgucally removed. It appears I have it under control, as it is not growing any larger. I am treating it with a steady dose of salsa and chips, buffalo wings, and cheese fries.

Mas Tequila!

Idiot's Advocate
My site (under construction)
CaboWaboAddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th June 2004, 13:39   #83
aFfLiCtEd
Major Dude
 
aFfLiCtEd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Over Here
Posts: 876
Quote:
Originally posted by CaboWaboAddict
Actually, it appears to be a recently developed growth. Since I believe in natural healing, I will resist the urge to have it surgucally removed. It appears I have it under control, as it is not growing any larger. I am treating it with a steady dose of salsa and chips, buffalo wings, and cheese fries.

Mas Tequila!
LOL ... Hey, whatever it takes!
Salsa, chips, buffalo wings and cheese fries has to be the most "natural healing" elements for that type of aFfLiCtIoN.
aFfLiCtEd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd July 2004, 06:10   #84
mikeflca
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: san diego, california.
Posts: 623
wow, i've been gone for a while, i see i missed a lot....

A general observation: Cabo, you really should stop comparing this to abortion. It is getting rediculous.

thanks to discoleo for some of those clarifications, those were helpful.

So, where do i draw the line?

I'd say, at least in the case of these embryos/fetuses, when the brain is created is a good place to fraw the line. how can you call a (literally) brainless group of cells with no potential to grow, intelligent human life? you really can't.

i might post a longer post later on, but cabo, i have a question: in your opinion, what seperates humans from the rest of animals?
mikeflca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd July 2004, 11:46   #85
CaboWaboAddict
Forum Sot
(Major Dude)
 
CaboWaboAddict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Marietta, Ga. U.S.A.
Posts: 3,915
religious belief mainly

\edit:
Quote:
Originally posted by mikeflca
A general observation: Cabo, you really should stop comparing this to abortion. It is getting rediculous.
As far as the comparison, I stated my opinion, people attacked it. No one has logically refuted it, they just stated their opinion. So don't say my opinion is ridiculous.

Idiot's Advocate
My site (under construction)
CaboWaboAddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd July 2004, 18:32   #86
billyvnilly
Forum King, M.D.
 
billyvnilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Detroit burbs
Posts: 3,379
Send a message via ICQ to billyvnilly Send a message via AIM to billyvnilly
how does one "logically" refute a religous belief...? I dont think you can (and at least convince the other person you are right)

(I) have not attacked your opinions...unless you are gonna say expressing my own personal opinion attacks you...and have only questioned you so i can expand my opinion of your opinion.

and yes this is not about abortion persay, accept the fact that the abortion/miscarrage has already happened!!! NOW we are focusing on the "fetus"



more reading on clonging / stem cells

http://www.genome.gov/10004765
http://www4.nationalacademies.org/onpi/we******.nsf/
billyvnilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd July 2004, 19:03   #87
CaboWaboAddict
Forum Sot
(Major Dude)
 
CaboWaboAddict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Marietta, Ga. U.S.A.
Posts: 3,915
No one said anything about refuting a religous belief. I was asked a direct question about what seperates us from animals. Did I bring religion into the abortion/cloning/whatever issue? No.

The definition of life is what? It doesn't mean movement, rational thought or any of that shit. I asked a direct question about where do you draw the line on when human life starts. I say life begins at conception. That is my opinion. I asked several times of the people that disagreed: "where do you draw the line?" No one has been able to pose a rational argument that it starts at some time other than conception. The only thing I have seen is opinion. Until that is proven to me, I will believe life begins at conception. PERIOD.

Now as to the abortion issue, I will state it again for those that may have missed or ignored it...
I believe human life begins at conception.
It follows then, that I believe abortion is morally wrong.

Now on to the cloning issue...
Currently the only way to get cells to experiment with is through abortion. I'm sorry, but the end does not justify the means. You can not kill someone to simply improve another person's quality of life.

Idiot's Advocate
My site (under construction)
CaboWaboAddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd July 2004, 19:35   #88
billyvnilly
Forum King, M.D.
 
billyvnilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Detroit burbs
Posts: 3,379
Send a message via ICQ to billyvnilly Send a message via AIM to billyvnilly
miscarrages? already dead.


ok about the religous thing...u never brought it up. u said moral instead.
billyvnilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd July 2004, 20:39   #89
CaboWaboAddict
Forum Sot
(Major Dude)
 
CaboWaboAddict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Marietta, Ga. U.S.A.
Posts: 3,915
Yeah, religous and moral are not the same thing.

Idiot's Advocate
My site (under construction)
CaboWaboAddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd July 2004, 01:19   #90
mikeflca
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: san diego, california.
Posts: 623
so, religious belief is what seperates us from animals?

is that your answer?

edit: and you are okay with killing animals?
mikeflca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd July 2004, 17:58   #91
CaboWaboAddict
Forum Sot
(Major Dude)
 
CaboWaboAddict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Marietta, Ga. U.S.A.
Posts: 3,915
I believe you may have misunderstood - looking back I see what I posted was not clear.

The difference is not because we are capable of religeous belief. My belief is that humans have an eternal soul and that differentiates us from lower life forms. Yes, the humane killing of animals for food is Ok in my book.

That is all I'm going to say on a those topics in this thread, as I have been chastized for not staying on topic.

Idiot's Advocate
My site (under construction)
CaboWaboAddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd July 2004, 20:58   #92
mikeflca
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: san diego, california.
Posts: 623
and those aren't my beliefs, making this a pointless discussion.....
mikeflca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd July 2004, 21:30   #93
will
Nullsoft Newbie (Moderator)
 
will's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Sheffield, England
Posts: 5,569
Quote:
Originally posted by CaboWaboAddict
My belief is that humans have an eternal soul and that differentiates us from lower life forms.
Lots of people I know share this belief, but what I'd like to know is, at which stage in our evolution did we aquire this soul?

If we did not evolve, how else were we created?

I don't want an argument, I'm genuinly interested.

DO NOT PM ME WITH TECH SUPPORT QUESTIONS
will is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd July 2004, 22:14   #94
ElChevelle
Moderator Alumni
 
ElChevelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: the MANCANNON!
Posts: 22,436
Look around at all other life on this planet.
I don't know about you but I feel like we're really out of place.
We are the only life who contemplates suicide, murders others for the sheer pleasure of it and the only ones capable of destroying ourselves outright. There are many major differences that can be explored.

We were placed here.
By who and why, I have no idea but I'm sure that there rest of the living beings on this rock can't wait for us to leave.
ElChevelle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd July 2004, 22:15   #95
CaboWaboAddict
Forum Sot
(Major Dude)
 
CaboWaboAddict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Marietta, Ga. U.S.A.
Posts: 3,915
Please start a new thread if you want to talk religion.

Idiot's Advocate
My site (under construction)
CaboWaboAddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd July 2004, 22:26   #96
ElChevelle
Moderator Alumni
 
ElChevelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: the MANCANNON!
Posts: 22,436
Maybe we will.....
















.........NAH!
ElChevelle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd July 2004, 23:18   #97
mikeflca
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: san diego, california.
Posts: 623
I believe that there is something that seperates us from (at least most) "lower" life forms but that it comes from the brain.
mikeflca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th July 2004, 23:42   #98
mikeflca
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: san diego, california.
Posts: 623
I'm making the assumption that you (cabo)believe the soul lives on after death....am i wrong?

You say we cannot use stem cells because they hav a soul. But, isn't the idea of the soul that the soul continues to live after death? in fact, given that, it is more of a crime to kill an animal than a human because while our souls live on, they don't have souls and thus we are killing them "permanantly"?

The point remains that if there is a choice between discarding stem cells and using them to save (yes SAVE, not just IMPROVE) lives, there is little debate as far as i can see. these groups of cells are incapable of thinking, doing or feeling anything whatsoever, which is, to say the least, something that most people who are considered people, have. And before I hear any 'how can you be sure?'s', please note that they have no nervous system.

A while back you said that you believed they were alive from a scientific viewpoint, and tried to refute my ant example by saying that an ant had neither human DNA nor the potential to become a human. Then, you said that religious belief is what mainly seperates humans from other animals. When you saw that i would win if you stuck to that argument, you quickly "reformed" your argument against me to include the human soul. It's funny how you never included the soul argument when we discussed the ant, isn't it? it used to be DNA and Human potential, and now it's a soul?

conclusion: you used the human soul argument to 'CYA' (cover your ass), but it has taken a lot away from your previous arguments.

and, as for the ants, they don't have human DNA? so what? DNA is important, yes, but is only a sequence of adenine-thymine and guanine-cytosine, nothing more, nothing less. An ovum, too, has human DNA. I don't seem to hear anyone calling those life, though.

Now (or rather, than, if you went back to your scientific approach), you will say "but an ovum doesn't have the potential to grow up." and neither do these embryos. In either case (that is, in the in-vitro clinics or the cloned ones), they aren't in the uterus, hence they will not grow up. An ovum and these stem cells have an equal potential to grow up. Only the stem cells, however, have the potential to save and improve lives.

So, i know i beat around the bush, but the conclusion is that the ant still is more human. I doubt an ant's brain even has anywhere close to the capability to have intelligence like ours, but it HAS a brain, while these stem cells have nothing.

Now, i'm gonna start chucking around numbers which probably aren't extremely accurate but also should give us an idea of how much stem-cell research+treatment could help people. (these are in the US). except for the cancer deaths statistic, these are totals of people who have them:

4.5 mil=alzheimers, growing (http://www.alz.org/AboutAD/statistics.asp)
18mil=diabetes and its conplications (some of which wouold go into others of these catagories)
(http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pub...cs/index.htm#7)
~4mil=parkinsons(http://cureresearch.com/p/parkinsons_disease/stats.htm)
60milheart disease, largest killer in the US. At first I thought these numbers had to be wrong..(http://www.americanheart.org/downloa...REV3-19-04.pdf)
4.8mil-stroke (http://www.americanheart.org/downloa...REV3-19-04.pdf)
cancer-I had a hard time finding total number of people with it, as i did with the ones above, but i found:
16mil diagnosed with it from 1990-2001
555,000 died from it in 2002 )http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/...ures2002TM.pdf)

so....lets added up, that's 107.3million people in the US, and most of thos figures are with 2001 or 2002 figures. that would be little over a third of the population which would have disorders that are currently somewhat treatable, but not curable, that could be cured with stem cel research. However, there might be some over lapping etc, so, let's take off a tenth....that's still almost 100millin. Given that nearly all of these would have families, it shouldn't take you too long to deduce that nearly the whole population would be helped by stem cell research, either by helping those with the said disorders or because helping them would make health familiy members happier. After all, I dunno about you, but most people generally like it when their relatives are alive, not dead.

So, while those may not be the greatest, most accurate numbers you will find, it should give us all a good idea of what a great thing stem-cell research is.....or, should be. It should not be turned away from because some people get cold feet because they "believe" it has a soul (the quotations being there because most who believe this were told this by the Bible or church, rather than actually figuring it out.)

now I asked you this way back: Would you rather discard stem cells or use them to save lives? You replied that you would hope that such a decision would never have to be made, or something like that. Well, it's time for a decision. What's yours going to be?

"I would like to ask all the people who argued against me a couple of questions...
Have you held you're own newborn child and looked deep into its eyes and realized how much that babe is dependant on you?
Have you realized how much love you have for it that didn't just start when it was born?" I never had kids. However if you are implying that embryos love back, that's impossible given that they can't even have emotions-no brain remember?

Also, whenever you said that since abortion is wrong, you disagree with the cloning from the dead fetus, I thought it was funny. like billyvnilly said, its dead, you should use it for something once its dead. Unless abortion at that stage is made illegal, stepping in after the fetus is dead to.....protect it while letting others (ie those with diseases) die, is in my opinion utter stupidity.

edit: another place where cabo seems to be flopping around:

page 2:

"quote:Originally posted by billyvnilly
"question: if there was a woman who miscarried, would you bury fetus, or use fetus in research?"

(cabo: )Already answered this... I haven't formed an opinion yet."

while on page 1:
Cabo "The only case that I would feel would be acceptable, would be in the case of a natural miscarriage."

maybe i missed something, but aren't these kinda a bit contradictory?

Last edited by mikeflca; 7th July 2004 at 00:07.
mikeflca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th July 2004, 00:45   #99
ElChevelle
Moderator Alumni
 
ElChevelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: the MANCANNON!
Posts: 22,436
Abort all aliens.
ElChevelle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th July 2004, 02:05   #100
CaboWaboAddict
Forum Sot
(Major Dude)
 
CaboWaboAddict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Marietta, Ga. U.S.A.
Posts: 3,915
Quote:
Originally posted by mikeflca
I'm making the assumption that you (cabo)believe the soul lives on after death....am i wrong?
Good assumption since I said I believe in mankind's immortal soul.

Quote:
Originally posted by mikeflca
You say we cannot use stem cells because they hav a soul. But, isn't the idea of the soul that the soul continues to live after death? in fact, given that, it is more of a crime to kill an animal than a human because while our souls live on, they don't have souls and thus we are killing them "permanantly"?
Come on now, I believe your more intelligent than that! Why is it a crime to kill someone? Maybe because you deprive them of the opportunity of life on earth???

Quote:
Originally posted by mikeflca
The point remains that if there is a choice between discarding stem cells and using them to save (yes SAVE, not just IMPROVE) lives, there is little debate as far as i can see. these groups of cells are incapable of thinking, doing or feeling anything whatsoever, which is, to say the least, something that most people who are considered people, have. And before I hear any 'how can you be sure?'s', please note that they have no nervous system.
Human life is not defined by thought, doing anything, or feeling anything. Why do you think that it would be a crime to go in a hospital and kill off the 'vegetable of choice' as I stated before?

Quote:
Originally posted by mikeflca
A while back you said that you believed they were alive from a scientific viewpoint, and tried to refute my ant example by saying that an ant had neither human DNA nor the potential to become a human. Then, you said that religious belief is what mainly seperates humans from other animals. When you saw that i would win if you stuck to that argument, you quickly "reformed" your argument against me to include the human soul. It's funny how you never included the soul argument when we discussed the ant, isn't it? it used to be DNA and Human potential, and now it's a soul?
So my argument can't have more than one dimension? A lot of people posed a lot of different arguments - I was responding in kind. It wouldn't make much sense to argue religious beliefs when someone poses a scientific argument. And, excuse me, I never said that religious belief seperated humans from animals, I said that it is my religious belief that we are separate. I even tried to clarify that later.

Quote:
Originally posted by mikeflca
conclusion: you used the human soul argument to 'CYA' (cover your ass), but it has taken a lot away from your previous arguments.
Why? I don't appear that way to me.

Quote:
Originally posted by mikeflca

and, as for the ants, they don't have human DNA? so what? DNA is important, yes, but is only a sequence of adenine-thymine and guanine-cytosine, nothing more, nothing less. An ovum, too, has human DNA. I don't seem to hear anyone calling those life, though.
Again, just having human DNA doesn't define life. You won't hear that from me either. What's your point?

Quote:
Originally posted by mikeflca
Now (or rather, than, if you went back to your scientific approach), you will say "but an ovum doesn't have the potential to grow up." and neither do these embryos. In either case (that is, in the in-vitro clinics or the cloned ones), they aren't in the uterus, hence they will not grow up. An ovum and these stem cells have an equal potential to grow up. Only the stem cells, however, have the potential to save and improve lives.
An embryo, living in the womb, has human life. Again, my argument is that its not ok to kill the embryo, so if you don't do that, then you have nothing to experiment on. Right?

Quote:
Originally posted by mikeflca
So, i know i beat around the bush, but the conclusion is that the ant still is more human. I doubt an ant's brain even has anywhere close to the capability to have intelligence like ours, but it HAS a brain, while these stem cells have nothing.
I simply don't follow that logic. Just because something has a brain and life does not make it human life. That's like saying one apple plus one apple makes three oranges. It don't add up.

Quote:
Originally posted by mikeflca
Now, i'm gonna start chucking around numbers

...

So, while those may not be the greatest, most accurate numbers you will find, it should give us all a good idea of what a great thing stem-cell research is.....or, should be. It should not be turned away from because some people get cold feet because they "believe" it has a soul (the quotations being there because most who believe this were told this by the Bible or church, rather than actually figuring it out.)
Sounds like a lot of people could be helped. But I can't agree that the end justifies the means. How did you find out it doesn't have human life or a soul? Is this an assumption -or- did someone tell you -or- did you ask God? Maybe you can see souls or you can detect life in some manner that no one else has thought of? I feel that is a worthless argument, because even to the greatest minds in the world, some things have to be taken on faith. In my simple mind, I see two people making life. SOmewhere along the line a life is created. No one has presented a rational argument that life is created at any later point than conception.

Quote:
Originally posted by mikeflca
now I asked you this way back: Would you rather discard stem cells or use them to save lives? You replied that you would hope that such a decision would never have to be made, or something like that. Well, it's time for a decision. What's yours going to be?
My decision is that until such time as no life is slaughtered to provide material for this research, I will oppose it.

Quote:
Originally posted by mikeflca
"I would like to ask all the people who argued against me a couple of questions...
Have you held you're own newborn child and looked deep into its eyes and realized how much that babe is dependant on you?
Have you realized how much love you have for it that didn't just start when it was born?" I never had kids. However if you are implying that embryos love back, that's impossible given that they can't even have emotions-no brain remember?
Again, emotions are not a requirement for human life.

Quote:
Originally posted by mikeflca
Also, whenever you said that since abortion is wrong, you disagree with the cloning from the dead fetus, I thought it was funny. like billyvnilly said, its dead, you should use it for something once its dead. Unless abortion at that stage is made illegal, stepping in after the fetus is dead to.....protect it while letting others (ie those with diseases) die, is in my opinion utter stupidity.
I never said anything about stepping in to protect an aborted fetus. I said it was immoral, and I will do what I can to convince people of that.

Quote:
Originally posted by mikeflca
edit: another place where cabo seems to be flopping around:

page 2:

"quote:Originally posted by billyvnilly
"question: if there was a woman who miscarried, would you bury fetus, or use fetus in research?"

(cabo: )Already answered this... I haven't formed an opinion yet."

while on page 1:
Cabo "The only case that I would feel would be acceptable, would be in the case of a natural miscarriage."

maybe i missed something, but aren't these kinda a bit contradictory?
No, the first answer I gave was in response without lengthy consideration. I hadn't really thought it that much because it isn't the topic we were talking about. My later answer in its full context is:
Quote:
The question is irrelevant because there should not be a dead fetus to begin with. I can not condone it because I can not condone abortion. Don't tell me I'm wrong about the cloning part and here's why: If the researchers could clone new cells they would do that instead of depending on aborted fetus'. So my argument still is valid - there are two ways to get the living human to experiment on - abort a fetus or create a new life in the lab. They just haven't done the second one - yet.

Now if your talking about a natural miscarriage, then it may be a different story. I haven't really thought about that one yet.
Notice I say "may be a different story". And I haven't yet reached a conclusion, but my first thoughts on the matter are as I stated.

Idiot's Advocate
My site (under construction)
CaboWaboAddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th July 2004, 03:34   #101
mikeflca
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: san diego, california.
Posts: 623
Quote:
Good assumption since I said I believe in mankind's immortal soul.
hence the "it has a soul" argument is pointless because it states that the soul continues to live on, regardless of what happens to the embryo.

Quote:
Come on now, I believe your more intelligent than that! Why is it a crime to kill someone? Maybe because you deprive them of the opportunity of life on earth???
I am. However, no matter how many times I repeat myself, you appear to be completely incapable of realizing that these embryos will not have that opportunity.

Quote:
Human life is not defined by thought, doing anything, or feeling anything. Why do you think that it would be a crime to go in a hospital and kill off the 'vegetable of choice' as I stated before?
Because the eveges have the body parts necessary to act human, and people have woken up from comas before, and hence they might still have a chance; we really cannot tell. However, stem-cells have no chance at all.

Quote:
So my argument can't have more than one dimension?
of course you can. However, when you keep trying to come up with new reasons to suport your argument because your other reasons are being refuted, at least to me, it shows a bit of losing ground. ex: When certain reasons no longer work, George Bush can come up with new ones about why we REALLY invaded Iraq, and how that REALLY hlpes the U.S., but it starts to loose its credibility after a while.

Quote:
And, excuse me, I never said that religious belief seperated humans from animals, I said that it is my religious belief that we are separate. I even tried to clarify that later.
hence my quoted word "reformed". Also, i asked:
Quote:
but cabo, i have a question: in your opinion, what seperates humans from the rest of animals?
to which you replied:
Quote:
religious belief mainly
then afterward you changed that to the souls argument, saying you had been unclear. However, the point remains that you said "religious belief mainly" is what seperates us from animals. only later did you "clarify" this mistake, as you call it.

Quote:
Again, just having human DNA doesn't define life.
i agree. however, when refuting the ant example, you cited two (2) reasons that made it unrelated/inconclusive:
Quote:
I feel the ant analogy is pointless because it does not have human DNA or a human life potential.
you have just refuted your own first argument. I have constantly refuted your second throughout the thread in noting that these stem-cells would otherwise die.

Quote:
An embryo, living in the womb, has human life. Again, my argument is that its not ok to kill the embryo, so if you don't do that, then you have nothing to experiment on. Right?
I honestly didn't get that one. Inside the womb? what are you talking about? In any case, aborting like that is still legal anyway, although I fail to see how this relates to the discussion. Also, why isn't it ok? In the womb, it has a possibility of becoming a life but in vitro ones in question, or the cloned ones do not. So we revert back to the argument that it will hurt the immortal soul.

Quote:
I simply don't follow that logic. Just because something has a brain and life does not make it human life. That's like saying one apple plus one apple makes three oranges. It don't add up.
what are you smoking!? or perhaps drinking...... i never said it did. I DID say that because ants have brains while stem-cells do not, they are more human than stem cells in an important way.

Quote:
Is this an assumption -or- did someone tell you -or- did you ask God?
i'm sorry, but I like to look at the human race and try to figure out, for myself, how we differ from animals (other than in form obviously). I would never come up with the soul if i did so. However, let's say that you are the chuch and need to inspire fear in a lot of people so they will obey you. well, hell seems like a good place to start, doesn't it? problem is, when we die, our bodies stay here physically 100%, which would create problems in convincing the masses that people do in fact go to hell. so, the eternal soul is perfect: Nobody can disprove its existence, and it lasts forever, therefore giving them the ability to convince people that they really would burn in hell for eternity if the people did not do what they were told. I don't need to go over with you the way the church made lots of money off peasents and the like who were told that they had to pay the church (or whoever was at the local church, whatever) or their soul would burn in hell for eternity....et cetera et cetera.....

how did you arrive at the conclusion of the human immortal soul?

Sorry, but I'd take my analysis of the human body over the soul anyday.

Quote:
No one has presented a rational argument that life is created at any later point than conception.
hold on.....you go on about the immortal soul, apparently your main argument now against stem cell research, and then talk about how nobody has presented a rational argument for something.

Hold on, please excuse me while i puke my guts out in the bathroom.


....
*pukes*
*flushes*
*there's so much puke that it clogs the toilet*
*plunges it*
*crawls back to the computer after having some water*
....


alright, here we go...

One thing i find funny is that you often say that life is created at conception while rarely saying *human* life is created at conception. So, if you say human life is made at conception, you are saying that the soul appears at conception, and that stands as being the winer because nobody can refute it.

Quote:
My decision is that until such time as no life is slaughtered to provide material for this research, I will oppose it.
unless this is another feeble question dodging, what this translates to is that you would rather discard stem cells than use them to save lives. so, answer me, is this true?

yes

or

no

just one word, i will repeat the two(2) available answers because your answers generally wander:

yes

or

no

that shouldn't be too hard.

Quote:
Again, emotions are not a requirement for human life.
agreed. I was only trying to point out that embryos have no brain or, therefore, any of its functions, in the slim chance that you were trying to imply otherise.

Quote:
I never said anything about stepping in to protect an aborted fetus. I said it was immoral, and I will do what I can to convince people of that.
its immoral? why? ITS DEAD, but it CAN STILL SAVE LIVES. I really don't see how someone can be against using an already dead thing to save other's lives. In this case killing the ant is literally more of a crime becasue they are still alive while the fetus is dead.

sorry cabo, but your position is really starting to sound like anything that has the possibility to save and improve the lives of millions of other (or even billions, on a world scale) is immoral. I know that that is not in fact your position, put it sure is coming across as such, at certain times.

Quote:
No, the first answer I gave was in response without lengthy consideration.
actually, the first one made sense.

Quote:
Notice I say "may be a different story". And I haven't yet reached a conclusion, but my first thoughts on the matter are as I stated.
well, that proved my point: contradictory statements.

I cannot see how anyone can be against using a fetus that died in a natural miscarriage for the betterment (that can't be a word can it ) of others.

I would like to note that cabo's arguments seem to be running thin now. the way i see it, we aren't killing the soul given that it is immortal. In addition we aren't taking the future away because it has none. also, (yes i know cabo you never used this) We aren't hurting it because it cannot feel pain.
now i can include the human DNA argument but you refuted that one yourself.

also, if anyone is gonna whine about the stem cells' theoretical soul going to hell, seriously, I doubt our caring and loving god that many religions portray would let that happen.
mikeflca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th July 2004, 04:05   #102
billyvnilly
Forum King, M.D.
 
billyvnilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Detroit burbs
Posts: 3,379
Send a message via ICQ to billyvnilly Send a message via AIM to billyvnilly
Quote:
unless this is another feeble question dodging, what this translates to is that you would rather discard stem cells than use them to save lives. so, answer me, is this true?

yes

or

no

just one word, i will repeat the two(2) available answers because your answers generally wander:

yes

or

no

that shouldn't be too hard.
Oh i dunno...i asked four times in a row...
billyvnilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th July 2004, 12:11   #103
CaboWaboAddict
Forum Sot
(Major Dude)
 
CaboWaboAddict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Marietta, Ga. U.S.A.
Posts: 3,915
Fuck that. You (collectively) have twisted everything I said into something else. Simply stated, my position is this:

1. Cloning is the creation of a seperate new life.
2. Regardless of the means of conception, each new human life should be given the opportunity to develop to its potential.
3. If you interrupt process #2, it is morally wrong.
4. in this case, the end does not justify the means.

I hope that is clear enought for you. Take that how you want. If you believe me to be short sighted, ignorant, dumbass, hick, whatever. IDGAF OK?
Nothing you have said has come close to demonstrating that HUMAN life begins at some other time besides conception. So I stand by my position. This bullshit is getting very boring. That's all I'm going to say on the matter, unless someone comes up with something valid to say.

Idiot's Advocate
My site (under construction)
CaboWaboAddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th July 2004, 12:19   #104
will
Nullsoft Newbie (Moderator)
 
will's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Sheffield, England
Posts: 5,569
What about the 107 Million people cabo?
What if you, your parents, your children were amonst them?
Would your opinion change then, just like Nancy Reagans opinion?

DO NOT PM ME WITH TECH SUPPORT QUESTIONS
will is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th July 2004, 13:10   #105
CaboWaboAddict
Forum Sot
(Major Dude)
 
CaboWaboAddict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Marietta, Ga. U.S.A.
Posts: 3,915
I had an aunt that died after 7 years of alzheimer's. Do you think that was fun? No, and it didn't change my opinion.

As far as "Answer my question!" You know, some questions can be worded in such a way that they sound like the have a yes or a no answer, but realy can't be answered at all. For example:
"Do you believe in things you can't see? YES or NO"
Give a Yes and you get: Oh, like little green men?
Give a No and you get: You don't believe in radiation?
So, some answers have to be qualified. My answer to the yes or no question was: "Your premise is wrong." To me the question is invalid and not able to be answered.

Idiot's Advocate
My site (under construction)
CaboWaboAddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th July 2004, 16:36   #106
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by CaboWaboAddict
1. Cloning is the creation of a seperate new life.
Not true, however. It just means to copy. I wouldn't class these small clones to be new life any more than I would flakes of my skin.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th July 2004, 18:24   #107
CaboWaboAddict
Forum Sot
(Major Dude)
 
CaboWaboAddict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Marietta, Ga. U.S.A.
Posts: 3,915
Quote:
Originally posted by zootm
Not true, however. It just means to copy.
Identical twins are basically the same as clones of each other. Would you say they are not individuals?

Idiot's Advocate
My site (under construction)
CaboWaboAddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th July 2004, 20:02   #108
mikeflca
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: san diego, california.
Posts: 623
Quote:
3. If you interrupt process #2, it is morally wrong.
sorry to inform you, but the process is already interrupted.

Quote:
Nothing you have said has come close to demonstrating that HUMAN life begins at some other time besides conception.
actually, i did. I guess you didn't read what i said about the human soul? As a matter of fact, you should prove its existence before asking me to refute the existence thereof. the existence of many who need to be cured of diseases is a far more sure number.

Quote:
unless this is another feeble question dodging, what this translates to is that you would rather discard stem cells than use them to save lives. so, answer me, is this true?

yes

or

no

just one word, i will repeat the two(2) available answers because your answers generally wander:

yes

or

no

that shouldn't be too hard.
good point billyvnilly, you got to it first. I figured there wasn't any harm in asking.

i guess this is something that i have 'twisted'? ROFL. I summed up what appeared to be your position on the issue and asked for you to confirm it and then you scream about me twisting your words?

Quote:
"Do you believe in things you can't see? YES or NO"
this is a horible counterexample, because there is no concrete idea of what things you can't see are. my question was simply and to the point. If you can't answer it, quite frankly, you don't belong in this discussion.

On a side note, cabo's reply gives new meaning to dodging a question.

Quote:
1. Cloning is the creation of a seperate new life.
without getting into the mudfighting about what a new life is, can you then tell me what is wrong with using the ones that are about to be discarded? (well......this is the one i already asked before, but, i guess i'm asking again...... )

Quote:
2. Regardless of the means of conception, each new human life should be given the opportunity to develop to its potential.
good idea. i say we take all the in-vitro ones and lay them out on a nice warm table to see how long they live

Quote:
That's all I'm going to say on the matter, unless someone comes up with something valid to say.
i figured this time would come. Once i refuted your main arguments, you say you are done. Kinda makes me think of how sometimes people hope that closing their eyes and hoping something isn't true makes it that way. Well, it doesn't work.

Quote:
This bullshit is getting very boring.
i was on the verge of saying the same thing about your arguments, to be perfectly honest. edit: you might want to note that calling everyone else's arguments BS when your main (or only, i'm not sure which)argument is that they have a human soul, is simply rediculous.

but, i'll pose to you the same(more or less) question i did earlier.

if you have stem cells that are about to be discarded, would you:
A)discard them
B)try to save them from being doscarded by having them frozen forever because you think it is immoral to do otherwise. after all, there's nothing more moral than keeping a someone's soul locked up for eternity is there?
C)use them to save lives.

edit again: you asked me how i know the soul doesn't exist. cabo: how do you know the soul does exist? I think i asked before but here's a more direct question. i would go further but that's fine for now.
mikeflca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th July 2004, 20:49   #109
CaboWaboAddict
Forum Sot
(Major Dude)
 
CaboWaboAddict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Marietta, Ga. U.S.A.
Posts: 3,915
I am not going to be baited into a religious discussion. There are far too many viewpoints that are considered right by their proponents. I already stated my case, call it bullshit or whatever. Say I'm dodging the question. I don't care. I feel the premise to your question is wrong so the question is invalid.

You feel my case is invalid too. So where do we go from here? I already said this is getting boring, so if you want the last word, have it now and be done, cause I'm done now.

Idiot's Advocate
My site (under construction)
CaboWaboAddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th July 2004, 21:54   #110
mikeflca
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: san diego, california.
Posts: 623
Quote:
I don't care. I feel the premise to your question is wrong so the question is invalid.
honestly,

So what?

maybe you think that anything that doesn't support your argument has a bad premise? it doesn't matter. The premise is also wrong for flying because people were never meant to fly, right?

if you can't answer the question we've all been asking you many times, quite frankly, you shouldn't waste your time discussing this topic.

Quote:
I am not going to be baited into a religious discussion.
i'm not sure why you say i was doing so. You questioned my beliefs and i answered honestly, but when i question yours, you complain i was baiting you into a religious discussion? or are you talking about a different thing?

realistically, you proved my own points.i I might as well add that i cannot really refute that human life begins at conception because you have not yet proven that, which you should do because otherwise you are trying to deny medical treatment to millions. in other words, it is the anti-stem-cell research people who need to prove their case, not the other way around, because they are the ones who would in effect be killing people. I don't need to waste my time debating if your case doesn't hold water.

but, enough of that. I figured you would give up anyway, most people do when they are outnumbered. keep in mind, though, that if your argument held water, numbers wouldn't matter.

Quote:
Say I'm dodging the question. I don't care.
just as a final note, the answer to that question could, as i've said before, save millions of lives. I'd say it matters to a lot of people. What's funny is, you were the one saying others needed more respect for human life (i think it was directed at billyvnilly?), but now it looks like you don't care how many people die simply because you refuse to answer a question.
mikeflca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th July 2004, 04:14   #111
Phyltre
Forum King
 
Phyltre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Freefall
Posts: 2,751
Send a message via AIM to Phyltre Send a message via Yahoo to Phyltre
It is my goal to somehow remain neutral in this discussion, and offer objective things I notice in particular:

1. It is very simple for an argument that holds water to get drowned out by the force of numbers, regardless of validity. History is full of this (though I'm not necessarily saying that any argument is valid, merely that popular approval isn't proof.)

2. If it were possibly to prove the human soul tangibly with current technology, it would have been done already. Lack of proof, however, is not proof of nonexistence; in fact, if you know much about the human brain, you know it's not capable of truly cold (objective, selfless) logic, and therefore beliefs are often based on assumptions that are no greater leaps than those made by religion.

3. Just about everyone here is presenting a straw-man fallacy argument. If you don't know what that means, then...

4. Debates, arguments, and even flame-wars tend to go better if you don't get sidetracked with entire belief systems. You're not going to make progress with any line of reasoning if one person debates the meaning of life, another the meaning of cloning, a third the value of religion, a fourth the existence and theoretical origins of the human soul, and a fifth-through-twentieth discussing all four thinking it's the same thing.
Phyltre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th July 2004, 12:16   #112
CaboWaboAddict
Forum Sot
(Major Dude)
 
CaboWaboAddict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Marietta, Ga. U.S.A.
Posts: 3,915
Quote:
Originally posted by mikeflca
but now it looks like you don't care how many people die simply because you refuse to answer a question.
Gee, you almost scored some points until you said that silly thing.

Idiot's Advocate
My site (under construction)
CaboWaboAddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th July 2004, 12:21   #113
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by CaboWaboAddict
Identical twins are basically the same as clones of each other. Would you say they are not individuals?
That analogy is not relevant to what I said in any way.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th July 2004, 12:23   #114
Germ
rules all things
 
Germ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,148
Quote:
Originally posted by CaboWaboAddict
Gee, you almost scored some points until you said that silly thing.
No I still think he scored points regardless. I know you like to ignore good points and concentrate on weak ones, but we all know that you're wrong so it doesn't matter
Germ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th July 2004, 13:26   #115
CaboWaboAddict
Forum Sot
(Major Dude)
 
CaboWaboAddict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Marietta, Ga. U.S.A.
Posts: 3,915

Idiot's Advocate
My site (under construction)
CaboWaboAddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th July 2004, 19:44   #116
mikeflca
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: san diego, california.
Posts: 623
LOL

why thank you germ
mikeflca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th August 2004, 23:17   #117
will
Nullsoft Newbie (Moderator)
 
will's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Sheffield, England
Posts: 5,569
Quote:
Originally posted by CaboWaboAddict
I had an aunt that died after 7 years of alzheimer's. Do you think that was fun? No, and it didn't change my opinion.
My grandmother has contracted alzhimers.

To you and those who are anti-science, anti-research, anti-patient and above all anti-humanity, I say this:

I officially hate you.

DO NOT PM ME WITH TECH SUPPORT QUESTIONS
will is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th August 2004, 05:11   #118
billyvnilly
Forum King, M.D.
 
billyvnilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Detroit burbs
Posts: 3,379
Send a message via ICQ to billyvnilly Send a message via AIM to billyvnilly
Sorry to hear that...
billyvnilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th August 2004, 20:29   #119
CaboWaboAddict
Forum Sot
(Major Dude)
 
CaboWaboAddict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Marietta, Ga. U.S.A.
Posts: 3,915
Quote:
Originally posted by will
My grandmother has contracted alzhimers.

To you and those who are anti-science, anti-research, anti-patient and above all anti-humanity, I say this:

I officially hate you.
Fuckin' hate me then. Like I had something to do with your misfortune. Like I'm really gonna

Edit: BTW. I am sorry to hear about your grandmother.

Idiot's Advocate
My site (under construction)
CaboWaboAddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th August 2004, 20:34   #120
will
Nullsoft Newbie (Moderator)
 
will's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Sheffield, England
Posts: 5,569
Quote:
Originally posted by CaboWaboAddict
Fuckin' hate me then. Like I had something to do with your misfortune. Like I'm really gonna

Edit: BTW. I am sorry to hear about your grandmother.
You had nothing to do with the misforutune. However, you are standing in the way of treatments for it.

DO NOT PM ME WITH TECH SUPPORT QUESTIONS
will is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Community Center > Breaking News

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump