Sophandros
Gulf Coast Elitist
Posts: 7,885
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 62
I Root For: Tulane/Saints
Location: ATL
|
RE: Bush vetoes Stem Cell research
DrTorch Wrote:Sophandros Wrote:Ninerfan1 Wrote:You say now, "well these are embryos that will just be thrown away." But once you start down that road it's not that far til we use aborted fetuses for the research. Then how far until cloning?
Left to the free market, cloning will happen sooner rather than later.
And yes, those embryos ARE being thrown away. Why not make them useful to society instead of rubbish?
Isn't that the same question posed to the results of the holocaust experiments?
Not that I have the answer to that question...but it's worth noting.
The Holocost involved taking people who were already alive and born and performing experiments on them.
Embryonic stem cell research involves taking embryos that failed to attach to the womb during in vitro fertilization and would ordinarily be discarded.
Also, please avoid using Godwin's Law. I mean, unless you want to concede the argument.
(This post was last modified: 06-21-2007 03:48 PM by Sophandros.)
|
|
06-21-2007 03:30 PM |
|
TOGC
Resident genius
Posts: 24,967
Joined: Oct 2006
I Root For: Memphis
Location: constantly changing
|
RE: Bush vetoes Stem Cell research
Sophandros Wrote:DrTorch Wrote:the other Greg Childers Wrote:The fact remains that embryonic stem cell research has nothing to do with "killing babies" regardless of the rhetoric from conservatives.
That's not a "fact", that's an opinion. And not one particularly well established in science.
An embryo that fails to fertilize is discarded. Basically thrown in the garbage. How is that an opinion, and not established in science?
Because conservatives don't believe in science. It contradicts too many of their beliefs.
|
|
06-21-2007 04:05 PM |
|
TOGC
Resident genius
Posts: 24,967
Joined: Oct 2006
I Root For: Memphis
Location: constantly changing
|
RE: Bush vetoes Stem Cell research
Ninerfan1 Wrote:the other Greg Childers Wrote:The fact remains that embryonic stem cell research has nothing to do with "killing babies" regardless of the rhetoric from conservatives.
If it can save lives, I say let's do it.
Human experimenation with new drugs could save lives as well. Decades ahead of the process that's in place now. Do we do it?
It comes down to the philisophical quandry of do the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few?
If you could kill 1000 people to save 100,000,000 is it worth it?
Bush's rhetoric regarding this is ridiculous. What this deals with is the slippery slope of medical research and experimenation. How far is too far when dealing with how to cure disease?
You say now, "well these are embryos that will just be thrown away." But once you start down that road it's not that far til we use aborted fetuses for the research. Then how far until cloning?
That is a "slippery slope" fallacy. It proves nothing.
And it's still not about "killing babies" no matter how much rhetoric gets tossed around.
|
|
06-21-2007 04:07 PM |
|
Sophandros
Gulf Coast Elitist
Posts: 7,885
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 62
I Root For: Tulane/Saints
Location: ATL
|
RE: Bush vetoes Stem Cell research
the other Greg Childers Wrote:Sophandros Wrote:DrTorch Wrote:the other Greg Childers Wrote:The fact remains that embryonic stem cell research has nothing to do with "killing babies" regardless of the rhetoric from conservatives.
That's not a "fact", that's an opinion. And not one particularly well established in science.
An embryo that fails to fertilize is discarded. Basically thrown in the garbage. How is that an opinion, and not established in science?
Because conservatives don't believe in science. It contradicts too many of their beliefs.
I know a lot of conservatives who are also scientists. I wouldn't paint them with such a broad brush.
Just sayin'.
|
|
06-21-2007 04:09 PM |
|
Ninerfan1
Habitual Line Stepper
Posts: 9,871
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 146
I Root For: Charlotte
Location:
|
RE: Bush vetoes Stem Cell research
the other Greg Childers Wrote:Ninerfan1 Wrote:the other Greg Childers Wrote:The fact remains that embryonic stem cell research has nothing to do with "killing babies" regardless of the rhetoric from conservatives.
If it can save lives, I say let's do it.
Human experimenation with new drugs could save lives as well. Decades ahead of the process that's in place now. Do we do it?
It comes down to the philisophical quandry of do the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few?
If you could kill 1000 people to save 100,000,000 is it worth it?
Bush's rhetoric regarding this is ridiculous. What this deals with is the slippery slope of medical research and experimenation. How far is too far when dealing with how to cure disease?
You say now, "well these are embryos that will just be thrown away." But once you start down that road it's not that far til we use aborted fetuses for the research. Then how far until cloning?
That is a "slippery slope" fallacy. It proves nothing.
I wasn't trying to "prove" anything. I was pointing out something that should be considered when dealing with this argument.
There are moral implications to this debate, whether you choose to acknowlege them or not. Your foundation is "if it saves lives, do it." I'm sure you're aware of the issues such a point of view opens for you. That is unless you're all for human experimentation.
(This post was last modified: 06-21-2007 06:30 PM by Ninerfan1.)
|
|
06-21-2007 06:28 PM |
|
TOGC
Resident genius
Posts: 24,967
Joined: Oct 2006
I Root For: Memphis
Location: constantly changing
|
RE: Bush vetoes Stem Cell research
Ninerfan1 Wrote:the other Greg Childers Wrote:Ninerfan1 Wrote:the other Greg Childers Wrote:The fact remains that embryonic stem cell research has nothing to do with "killing babies" regardless of the rhetoric from conservatives.
If it can save lives, I say let's do it.
Human experimenation with new drugs could save lives as well. Decades ahead of the process that's in place now. Do we do it?
It comes down to the philisophical quandry of do the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few?
If you could kill 1000 people to save 100,000,000 is it worth it?
Bush's rhetoric regarding this is ridiculous. What this deals with is the slippery slope of medical research and experimenation. How far is too far when dealing with how to cure disease?
You say now, "well these are embryos that will just be thrown away." But once you start down that road it's not that far til we use aborted fetuses for the research. Then how far until cloning?
That is a "slippery slope" fallacy. It proves nothing.
I wasn't trying to "prove" anything. I was pointing out something that should be considered when dealing with this argument.
There are moral implications to this debate, whether you choose to acknowlege them or not. Your foundation is "if it saves lives, do it." I'm sure you're aware of the issues such a point of view opens for you. That is unless you're all for human experimentation.
There is no correlation. You're grasping at straws.
|
|
06-22-2007 12:00 AM |
|
Ninerfan1
Habitual Line Stepper
Posts: 9,871
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 146
I Root For: Charlotte
Location:
|
RE: Bush vetoes Stem Cell research
the other Greg Childers Wrote:Ninerfan1 Wrote:the other Greg Childers Wrote:Ninerfan1 Wrote:the other Greg Childers Wrote:The fact remains that embryonic stem cell research has nothing to do with "killing babies" regardless of the rhetoric from conservatives.
If it can save lives, I say let's do it.
Human experimenation with new drugs could save lives as well. Decades ahead of the process that's in place now. Do we do it?
It comes down to the philisophical quandry of do the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few?
If you could kill 1000 people to save 100,000,000 is it worth it?
Bush's rhetoric regarding this is ridiculous. What this deals with is the slippery slope of medical research and experimenation. How far is too far when dealing with how to cure disease?
You say now, "well these are embryos that will just be thrown away." But once you start down that road it's not that far til we use aborted fetuses for the research. Then how far until cloning?
That is a "slippery slope" fallacy. It proves nothing.
I wasn't trying to "prove" anything. I was pointing out something that should be considered when dealing with this argument.
There are moral implications to this debate, whether you choose to acknowlege them or not. Your foundation is "if it saves lives, do it." I'm sure you're aware of the issues such a point of view opens for you. That is unless you're all for human experimentation.
There is no correlation. You're grasping at straws.
No, I'm really not. But you go right on thinking that.
|
|
06-22-2007 07:56 AM |
|
EastStang
All American
Posts: 3,201
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 24
I Root For:
Location:
|
RE: Bush vetoes Stem Cell research
Okay embryos burn hot and clean and make great lubricants for vehicles as well.
|
|
06-22-2007 02:17 PM |
|
TOGC
Resident genius
Posts: 24,967
Joined: Oct 2006
I Root For: Memphis
Location: constantly changing
|
RE: Bush vetoes Stem Cell research
Ninerfan1 Wrote:the other Greg Childers Wrote:Ninerfan1 Wrote:the other Greg Childers Wrote:Ninerfan1 Wrote:the other Greg Childers Wrote:The fact remains that embryonic stem cell research has nothing to do with "killing babies" regardless of the rhetoric from conservatives.
If it can save lives, I say let's do it.
Human experimenation with new drugs could save lives as well. Decades ahead of the process that's in place now. Do we do it?
It comes down to the philisophical quandry of do the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few?
If you could kill 1000 people to save 100,000,000 is it worth it?
Bush's rhetoric regarding this is ridiculous. What this deals with is the slippery slope of medical research and experimenation. How far is too far when dealing with how to cure disease?
You say now, "well these are embryos that will just be thrown away." But once you start down that road it's not that far til we use aborted fetuses for the research. Then how far until cloning?
That is a "slippery slope" fallacy. It proves nothing.
I wasn't trying to "prove" anything. I was pointing out something that should be considered when dealing with this argument.
There are moral implications to this debate, whether you choose to acknowlege them or not. Your foundation is "if it saves lives, do it." I'm sure you're aware of the issues such a point of view opens for you. That is unless you're all for human experimentation.
There is no correlation. You're grasping at straws.
No, I'm really not. But you go right on thinking that.
There is no moral argument. They throw them away already. Using them for medical research is a good thing.
Unless, of course, you're against medical research.
|
|
06-22-2007 04:51 PM |
|
RobertN
Legend
Posts: 35,485
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation: 95
I Root For: THE NIU Huskies
Location: Wayne's World
|
RE: Bush vetoes Stem Cell research
GGniner Wrote:they don't want their tax dollars spent on it, they are not pushing for a ban of embroynic research....the free market has already deemed it a meritless research, basically pumping dollars into something that produces nothing, other than getting certain bio-techs rich. This is why there is a push for it politically, they can't get venture capital money anymore so trying to persuade the public emotionally/politically to open up the govt. coffers to them..
You need to stop getting your medical news from Faux. THis form of research(using embryos) has only been around a fairly short time and only recently started getting any attention. It takes a while to develop the money and research to achieve results. It doesn't happen overnight. I said it before and I will say it again, those of you who are against this research(even private), I ask you to not use any of the medicines that come from it.
|
|
06-22-2007 08:29 PM |
|
Ninerfan1
Habitual Line Stepper
Posts: 9,871
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 146
I Root For: Charlotte
Location:
|
RE: Bush vetoes Stem Cell research
the other Greg Childers Wrote:Ninerfan1 Wrote:the other Greg Childers Wrote:Ninerfan1 Wrote:the other Greg Childers Wrote:Ninerfan1 Wrote:the other Greg Childers Wrote:The fact remains that embryonic stem cell research has nothing to do with "killing babies" regardless of the rhetoric from conservatives.
If it can save lives, I say let's do it.
Human experimenation with new drugs could save lives as well. Decades ahead of the process that's in place now. Do we do it?
It comes down to the philisophical quandry of do the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few?
If you could kill 1000 people to save 100,000,000 is it worth it?
Bush's rhetoric regarding this is ridiculous. What this deals with is the slippery slope of medical research and experimenation. How far is too far when dealing with how to cure disease?
You say now, "well these are embryos that will just be thrown away." But once you start down that road it's not that far til we use aborted fetuses for the research. Then how far until cloning?
That is a "slippery slope" fallacy. It proves nothing.
I wasn't trying to "prove" anything. I was pointing out something that should be considered when dealing with this argument.
There are moral implications to this debate, whether you choose to acknowlege them or not. Your foundation is "if it saves lives, do it." I'm sure you're aware of the issues such a point of view opens for you. That is unless you're all for human experimentation.
There is no correlation. You're grasping at straws.
No, I'm really not. But you go right on thinking that.
There is no moral argument. They throw them away already. Using them for medical research is a good thing.
Unless, of course, you're against medical research.
I'm speaking of the broader issue of embryonic stem cell research, not just with fertility clinic embryos. There is very much a moral component to that discussion.
|
|
06-23-2007 06:44 AM |
|
TOGC
Resident genius
Posts: 24,967
Joined: Oct 2006
I Root For: Memphis
Location: constantly changing
|
RE: Bush vetoes Stem Cell research
Ninerfan1 Wrote:the other Greg Childers Wrote:Ninerfan1 Wrote:the other Greg Childers Wrote:Ninerfan1 Wrote:the other Greg Childers Wrote:Ninerfan1 Wrote:the other Greg Childers Wrote:The fact remains that embryonic stem cell research has nothing to do with "killing babies" regardless of the rhetoric from conservatives.
If it can save lives, I say let's do it.
Human experimenation with new drugs could save lives as well. Decades ahead of the process that's in place now. Do we do it?
It comes down to the philisophical quandry of do the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few?
If you could kill 1000 people to save 100,000,000 is it worth it?
Bush's rhetoric regarding this is ridiculous. What this deals with is the slippery slope of medical research and experimenation. How far is too far when dealing with how to cure disease?
You say now, "well these are embryos that will just be thrown away." But once you start down that road it's not that far til we use aborted fetuses for the research. Then how far until cloning?
That is a "slippery slope" fallacy. It proves nothing.
I wasn't trying to "prove" anything. I was pointing out something that should be considered when dealing with this argument.
There are moral implications to this debate, whether you choose to acknowlege them or not. Your foundation is "if it saves lives, do it." I'm sure you're aware of the issues such a point of view opens for you. That is unless you're all for human experimentation.
There is no correlation. You're grasping at straws.
No, I'm really not. But you go right on thinking that.
There is no moral argument. They throw them away already. Using them for medical research is a good thing.
Unless, of course, you're against medical research.
I'm speaking of the broader issue of embryonic stem cell research, not just with fertility clinic embryos. There is very much a moral component to that discussion.
I guess you are against medical research. So sad.
|
|
06-23-2007 10:28 AM |
|
RobertN
Legend
Posts: 35,485
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation: 95
I Root For: THE NIU Huskies
Location: Wayne's World
|
RE: Bush vetoes Stem Cell research
the other Greg Childers Wrote:Ninerfan1 Wrote:the other Greg Childers Wrote:Ninerfan1 Wrote:the other Greg Childers Wrote:The fact remains that embryonic stem cell research has nothing to do with "killing babies" regardless of the rhetoric from conservatives.
If it can save lives, I say let's do it.
Human experimenation with new drugs could save lives as well. Decades ahead of the process that's in place now. Do we do it?
It comes down to the philisophical quandry of do the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few?
If you could kill 1000 people to save 100,000,000 is it worth it?
Bush's rhetoric regarding this is ridiculous. What this deals with is the slippery slope of medical research and experimenation. How far is too far when dealing with how to cure disease?
You say now, "well these are embryos that will just be thrown away." But once you start down that road it's not that far til we use aborted fetuses for the research. Then how far until cloning?
That is a "slippery slope" fallacy. It proves nothing.
I wasn't trying to "prove" anything. I was pointing out something that should be considered when dealing with this argument.
There are moral implications to this debate, whether you choose to acknowlege them or not. Your foundation is "if it saves lives, do it." I'm sure you're aware of the issues such a point of view opens for you. That is unless you're all for human experimentation.
There is no correlation. You're grasping at straws.
You do realize you are arguing against people who believe Creationism is science don't you? You will NEVER win a scientific debate with them.
|
|
06-23-2007 05:36 PM |
|
TOGC
Resident genius
Posts: 24,967
Joined: Oct 2006
I Root For: Memphis
Location: constantly changing
|
RE: Bush vetoes Stem Cell research
RobertN Wrote:the other Greg Childers Wrote:Ninerfan1 Wrote:the other Greg Childers Wrote:Ninerfan1 Wrote:the other Greg Childers Wrote:The fact remains that embryonic stem cell research has nothing to do with "killing babies" regardless of the rhetoric from conservatives.
If it can save lives, I say let's do it.
Human experimenation with new drugs could save lives as well. Decades ahead of the process that's in place now. Do we do it?
It comes down to the philisophical quandry of do the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few?
If you could kill 1000 people to save 100,000,000 is it worth it?
Bush's rhetoric regarding this is ridiculous. What this deals with is the slippery slope of medical research and experimenation. How far is too far when dealing with how to cure disease?
You say now, "well these are embryos that will just be thrown away." But once you start down that road it's not that far til we use aborted fetuses for the research. Then how far until cloning?
That is a "slippery slope" fallacy. It proves nothing.
I wasn't trying to "prove" anything. I was pointing out something that should be considered when dealing with this argument.
There are moral implications to this debate, whether you choose to acknowlege them or not. Your foundation is "if it saves lives, do it." I'm sure you're aware of the issues such a point of view opens for you. That is unless you're all for human experimentation.
There is no correlation. You're grasping at straws.
You do realize you are arguing against people who believe Creationism is science don't you? You will NEVER win a scientific debate with them.
It's not. Faith and science are two different things.
|
|
06-23-2007 07:42 PM |
|
Ninerfan1
Habitual Line Stepper
Posts: 9,871
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 146
I Root For: Charlotte
Location:
|
RE: Bush vetoes Stem Cell research
the other Greg Childers Wrote:Ninerfan1 Wrote:the other Greg Childers Wrote:Ninerfan1 Wrote:the other Greg Childers Wrote:Ninerfan1 Wrote:the other Greg Childers Wrote:Ninerfan1 Wrote:the other Greg Childers Wrote:The fact remains that embryonic stem cell research has nothing to do with "killing babies" regardless of the rhetoric from conservatives.
If it can save lives, I say let's do it.
Human experimenation with new drugs could save lives as well. Decades ahead of the process that's in place now. Do we do it?
It comes down to the philisophical quandry of do the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few?
If you could kill 1000 people to save 100,000,000 is it worth it?
Bush's rhetoric regarding this is ridiculous. What this deals with is the slippery slope of medical research and experimenation. How far is too far when dealing with how to cure disease?
You say now, "well these are embryos that will just be thrown away." But once you start down that road it's not that far til we use aborted fetuses for the research. Then how far until cloning?
That is a "slippery slope" fallacy. It proves nothing.
I wasn't trying to "prove" anything. I was pointing out something that should be considered when dealing with this argument.
There are moral implications to this debate, whether you choose to acknowlege them or not. Your foundation is "if it saves lives, do it." I'm sure you're aware of the issues such a point of view opens for you. That is unless you're all for human experimentation.
There is no correlation. You're grasping at straws.
No, I'm really not. But you go right on thinking that.
There is no moral argument. They throw them away already. Using them for medical research is a good thing.
Unless, of course, you're against medical research.
I'm speaking of the broader issue of embryonic stem cell research, not just with fertility clinic embryos. There is very much a moral component to that discussion.
I guess you are against medical research. So sad.
You ate paint chips as a child didn't you?
(This post was last modified: 06-23-2007 11:56 PM by Ninerfan1.)
|
|
06-23-2007 11:53 PM |
|
TOGC
Resident genius
Posts: 24,967
Joined: Oct 2006
I Root For: Memphis
Location: constantly changing
|
RE: Bush vetoes Stem Cell research
Ninerfan1 Wrote:the other Greg Childers Wrote:Ninerfan1 Wrote:the other Greg Childers Wrote:Ninerfan1 Wrote:the other Greg Childers Wrote:Ninerfan1 Wrote:the other Greg Childers Wrote:Ninerfan1 Wrote:the other Greg Childers Wrote:The fact remains that embryonic stem cell research has nothing to do with "killing babies" regardless of the rhetoric from conservatives.
If it can save lives, I say let's do it.
Human experimenation with new drugs could save lives as well. Decades ahead of the process that's in place now. Do we do it?
It comes down to the philisophical quandry of do the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few?
If you could kill 1000 people to save 100,000,000 is it worth it?
Bush's rhetoric regarding this is ridiculous. What this deals with is the slippery slope of medical research and experimenation. How far is too far when dealing with how to cure disease?
You say now, "well these are embryos that will just be thrown away." But once you start down that road it's not that far til we use aborted fetuses for the research. Then how far until cloning?
That is a "slippery slope" fallacy. It proves nothing.
I wasn't trying to "prove" anything. I was pointing out something that should be considered when dealing with this argument.
There are moral implications to this debate, whether you choose to acknowlege them or not. Your foundation is "if it saves lives, do it." I'm sure you're aware of the issues such a point of view opens for you. That is unless you're all for human experimentation.
There is no correlation. You're grasping at straws.
No, I'm really not. But you go right on thinking that.
There is no moral argument. They throw them away already. Using them for medical research is a good thing.
Unless, of course, you're against medical research.
I'm speaking of the broader issue of embryonic stem cell research, not just with fertility clinic embryos. There is very much a moral component to that discussion.
I guess you are against medical research. So sad.
You ate paint chips as a child didn't you?
You never made the debate team, did you?
|
|
06-24-2007 01:14 AM |
|
RobertN
Legend
Posts: 35,485
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation: 95
I Root For: THE NIU Huskies
Location: Wayne's World
|
RE: Bush vetoes Stem Cell research
the other Greg Childers Wrote:RobertN Wrote:the other Greg Childers Wrote:Ninerfan1 Wrote:the other Greg Childers Wrote:Ninerfan1 Wrote:the other Greg Childers Wrote:The fact remains that embryonic stem cell research has nothing to do with "killing babies" regardless of the rhetoric from conservatives.
If it can save lives, I say let's do it.
Human experimenation with new drugs could save lives as well. Decades ahead of the process that's in place now. Do we do it?
It comes down to the philisophical quandry of do the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few?
If you could kill 1000 people to save 100,000,000 is it worth it?
Bush's rhetoric regarding this is ridiculous. What this deals with is the slippery slope of medical research and experimenation. How far is too far when dealing with how to cure disease?
You say now, "well these are embryos that will just be thrown away." But once you start down that road it's not that far til we use aborted fetuses for the research. Then how far until cloning?
That is a "slippery slope" fallacy. It proves nothing.
I wasn't trying to "prove" anything. I was pointing out something that should be considered when dealing with this argument.
There are moral implications to this debate, whether you choose to acknowlege them or not. Your foundation is "if it saves lives, do it." I'm sure you're aware of the issues such a point of view opens for you. That is unless you're all for human experimentation.
There is no correlation. You're grasping at straws.
You do realize you are arguing against people who believe Creationism is science don't you? You will NEVER win a scientific debate with them.
It's not. Faith and science are two different things.
Yes, I know that. My point was that a large portion on this board DO believe that it is science. The reason for saying that, if they think that Creationism is science, it shows you how much they know about science.
(This post was last modified: 06-24-2007 07:45 AM by RobertN.)
|
|
06-24-2007 07:42 AM |
|
Ninerfan1
Habitual Line Stepper
Posts: 9,871
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 146
I Root For: Charlotte
Location:
|
RE: Bush vetoes Stem Cell research
the other Greg Childers Wrote:Ninerfan1 Wrote:the other Greg Childers Wrote:Ninerfan1 Wrote:the other Greg Childers Wrote:Ninerfan1 Wrote:the other Greg Childers Wrote:Ninerfan1 Wrote:the other Greg Childers Wrote:Ninerfan1 Wrote:the other Greg Childers Wrote:The fact remains that embryonic stem cell research has nothing to do with "killing babies" regardless of the rhetoric from conservatives.
If it can save lives, I say let's do it.
Human experimenation with new drugs could save lives as well. Decades ahead of the process that's in place now. Do we do it?
It comes down to the philisophical quandry of do the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few?
If you could kill 1000 people to save 100,000,000 is it worth it?
Bush's rhetoric regarding this is ridiculous. What this deals with is the slippery slope of medical research and experimenation. How far is too far when dealing with how to cure disease?
You say now, "well these are embryos that will just be thrown away." But once you start down that road it's not that far til we use aborted fetuses for the research. Then how far until cloning?
That is a "slippery slope" fallacy. It proves nothing.
I wasn't trying to "prove" anything. I was pointing out something that should be considered when dealing with this argument.
There are moral implications to this debate, whether you choose to acknowlege them or not. Your foundation is "if it saves lives, do it." I'm sure you're aware of the issues such a point of view opens for you. That is unless you're all for human experimentation.
There is no correlation. You're grasping at straws.
No, I'm really not. But you go right on thinking that.
There is no moral argument. They throw them away already. Using them for medical research is a good thing.
Unless, of course, you're against medical research.
I'm speaking of the broader issue of embryonic stem cell research, not just with fertility clinic embryos. There is very much a moral component to that discussion.
I guess you are against medical research. So sad.
You ate paint chips as a child didn't you?
You never made the debate team, did you?
Anytime you actually want to have a debate instead of offering your "snappy" one liners and flat distortions of others views, you let me know. Personally I don't see it coming, since clearly you have no ability to defend your opinions outside of them. Sad, but funny.
|
|
06-24-2007 10:14 AM |
|
TOGC
Resident genius
Posts: 24,967
Joined: Oct 2006
I Root For: Memphis
Location: constantly changing
|
RE: Bush vetoes Stem Cell research
Ninerfan1 Wrote:Anytime you actually want to have a debate instead of offering your "snappy" one liners and flat distortions of others views, you let me know. Personally I don't see it coming, since clearly you have no ability to defend your opinions outside of them. Sad, but funny.
Whatever.
Embryonic stem cell research still has nothing to do with "killing babies" and any attempt to categorize it otherwise is ridiculous.
|
|
06-24-2007 08:24 PM |
|
Ninerfan1
Habitual Line Stepper
Posts: 9,871
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 146
I Root For: Charlotte
Location:
|
RE: Bush vetoes Stem Cell research
the other Greg Childers Wrote:Ninerfan1 Wrote:Anytime you actually want to have a debate instead of offering your "snappy" one liners and flat distortions of others views, you let me know. Personally I don't see it coming, since clearly you have no ability to defend your opinions outside of them. Sad, but funny.
Whatever.
If that's what it takes to get on the debate team these days then standards have really gone slack.
(This post was last modified: 06-24-2007 09:03 PM by Ninerfan1.)
|
|
06-24-2007 09:03 PM |
|