Couples Cull Embryos to Halt Heritage of Cancer

NY Times ^ | 09.03.06 | AMY HARMON

[orionblamblam]

> I missed the post where someone suggested doing that.

See post 210: "IVF, embryonic stem cell research, cloning, and human genetic engineering all need to be banned outright for the long term good of our species."

Clearly, medical science is Evil.

[freedumb2003]

Allowing does not equal forcing. And just how would you propose to do that anyway?

There are 2 possible final end-states for a fertilized egg: Made into a Human Being or Destruction.

Those who say that such an egg is morally equivalent to a completed human being cannot allow the destruction. Thus the only way to fulfill the moral imperative is full Humanhood for every one.

[orionblamblam]

> What does the DNA tell you?

That they are identical to a skin cells.

[freedumb2003]

See post 210: "IVF, embryonic stem cell research, cloning, and human genetic engineering all need to be banned outright for the long term good of our species." Clearly, medical science is Evil.

Toss it onto the stack with the rest of the Life Sciences.

[orionblamblam]

> Anybody claiming that an embryo is not viable life is practicing alchemy.

Wow. Redefining words to mean what you want them to mean, rathe rthan what they *actually* mean. Interesting.

> Your dandruff isn't viable but an embryo certainly is.

An embryo in a test tube is viable *only* if some fairly advanced (as in Not Possible Before The 20th Century) medical technology is applied. "Dandruff," or soem other adulty cell, would probably also be viable if sufficiently advanced medical technology was applied. Thus, since both require advanced medtech... both are equally viable, and botha re thus equally deservign of protection.

According to your logic, that is.

[jas3]

See post 210: "IVF, embryonic stem cell research, cloning, and human genetic engineering all need to be banned outright for the long term good of our species."

Clearly, medical science is Evil.

Toss it onto the stack with the rest of the Life Sciences.

I suspect that many posters actually do genuinely feel what you have typed in jest: that science must be stopped, both at the research level and in applied sciences. And I further supsect that may apply to more than just the Life Sciences. Cosmology and Astronomy have presented direct challenges to various power structures througout the centuries, and continue to challenge current dogma.

jas3

[orionblamblam]

> Would you discount them solely because of their age?

There was this one book I heard about... claims to be made up of books and letters and epistles from apostles and such, written no later than about 1900 years ago. Clearly out of date.

[freedumb2003]

I suspect that many posters actually do genuinely feel what you have typed in jest: that science must be stopped, both at the research level and in applied sciences. And I further supsect that may apply to more than just the Life Sciences. Cosmology and Astronomy have presented direct challenges to various power structures througout the centuries, and continue to challenge current dogma.

And thus we get painted with the same brush as the YECers. I have yet to have them tell me where Adam's daughters in law came from (a simple question) if Adam and Eve were the parents of all humanity. Much less explain why there are so many Christian sects if the Bible must be taken literally (if that was true there would be only one and there would be no Judaism).

And those are the THEOLOGICAL steps they can't climb.

[freedumb2003]

Thus, since both require advanced medtech... both are equally viable, and botha re thus equally deservign of protection.

See what happens if people don't watch "Starman?" ;)

[Wonder Warthog]

"In the first post you state that abortion is murder. In the second you state that capital punishment is not murder because it is legally done. By your logic abortion which is "lawfully done" is not murder."

In one case (capital punishment) there is a legal process for assessing guilt or innocence. In abortion, there is no such process.

The victim is innocent.

[jas3]

There was this one book I heard about... claims to be made up of books and letters and epistles from apostles and such, written no later than about 1900 years ago. Clearly out of date.

Yes, my point is that reviewing thirty pages which contradict hundreds of years and tens of thousands of pages of scholarship is not that likely to change my opinion, but to dismiss the work I suggested because it is a 19th century work does not strike me as well reasoned.

jas3

[Wonder Warthog]

"Warthog, I wonder if you consider the age of a work to be the defining characteristic of its value. Works like "The Wealth of Nations" and "The Fall and Decline of the Roman Empire" are far older that the book I suggested you read. Would you discount them solely because of their age?"

When new validated research shows the older position to be erroneous, then yes. I'm sure that "The Wealth of Nations" doesn't tell the whole story of economics, nor "The Decline and Fall (NOT "Fall and Decline") of the Roman Empire" tell the whole story of the Roman Empire.

[jas3]

Now you're being a dumbass. What makes you think that the people who "destroyed" Archimedes work even had any idea what it was??

Either the church intentionally destroyed the work knowing what it was, or more likely the church which you claim was such a warm place for science was too ignorant to recognize the value of the work. Either way the church doesn't come out looking like such a warm place for science any more.

jas3

[Wonder Warthog]

"An acorn is not an oak."

But it will be.

Here's the science. At conception, a biochemical reaction starts that aggregates elements from the environment around itself, forming a distinct human individual. That biochemical process continues until, for whatever reason, the unique individual in question can no longer sustain the process (i.e. death). There are only two distinct "end-points" in that process. You can piss and moan all you want about "clumps of cells" not being human, but that doesn't change the science. Those two points are the only ones that can be uniquely identified.

[jas3]

In one case (capital punishment) there is a legal process for assessing guilt or innocence. In abortion, there is no such process.

The victim is innocent.

And that is entirely irrelevant to your post on the definition of murder, or do you now withdraw your dictionary definiton of murder?

One is also tempted to remind you that the Soviets and Nazis were very good about creating legal processes prior to slaughering millions. Having a legal process in place does not ensure justice.

My suggestion is that you admit your your dictionary definition of what constitutes murder was not well reasoned, you withdraw that definition (which contradicts your subsequent and prior posts), and then we can return to the discussion about some religions defining capital punishment as murder, which you avoided by temporarily pretending to only accept the dictionary definition of murder.

jas3

[jas3]

When new validated research shows the older position to be erroneous, then yes. I'm sure that "The Wealth of Nations" doesn't tell the whole story of economics, nor "The Decline and Fall (NOT "Fall and Decline") of the Roman Empire" tell the whole story of the Roman Empire

So what new research do you claim has shown the book which you have not read to be erroneous, and what do you claim has validated that research? So far you've got thirty pages from a book that came out this year.

Of course "The Wealth of Nations" does not pretend to be a comprehensive treatise on economics. Nor does the "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" (thanks your your correction) pose as a complete history.

So by your definition, neither of these works are worth reading?

jas3

[Wonder Warthog]

"One is also tempted to remind you that the Soviets and Nazis were very good about creating legal processes prior to slaughering millions. Having a legal process in place does not ensure justice."

Yup, and folks like you who justify abortion are right up there with the Soviets and Nazis. After all, YOU are the one selling abortion as a legal and therefore justified process.

[jas3]

An acorn is not an oak.

But it will be.

Actually it is quite unlikely that any acorn will become an oak tree.

On average a single oak tree will produce well over 100,000 acorns over its life. And on average only one acorn will mature into a tree given that the oak tree population is roughly stable.

Here's the science. At conception, a biochemical reaction starts that aggregates elements from the environment around itself, forming a distinct human individual. That biochemical process continues until, for whatever reason, the unique individual in question can no longer sustain the process (i.e. death).

That is horrendously poor explanation for what happens at and after conception. "...aggregates elements from the environment around itself..." ??? Really? By elements, do you mean compounds? Or does the blastosphere actually "aggregate elements"? I suspect your claims to understand the biochemical processes at conception are highly exagerated. Can you explain the thermodynamics of cell division? Do you know what the source of a blastosphere's energy is? Can you explain how cell differentiation functions?

There are only two distinct "end-points" in that process. You can piss and moan all you want about "clumps of cells" not being human, but that doesn't change the science. Those two points are the only ones that can be uniquely identified.

Huh? I would ask you to detail your science background at this point. Do you have any relevant coursework in biochemistry? What texts did you use? Where did you study? I don't think you have even the most rudimentary understanding of cellular metabolic pathways or genetics.

I'm not moaning at all, but I am asking people who have a fundamentalist view to explain their reasoning. So far your attempts to hide behind science include one statement in which belies your ability to even distinguish between an element and a compound.

jas3

[jas3]

"One is also tempted to remind you that the Soviets and Nazis were very good about creating legal processes prior to slaughering millions. Having a legal process in place does not ensure justice."

Yup, and folks like you who justify abortion are right up there with the Soviets and Nazis. After all, YOU are the one selling abortion as a legal and therefore justified process.

Folks like me who justify abortion rights? Huh? I guess you've not read my postings in which I state that I am opposed to abortion. I am not selling abortion as legal at all. It is you who stated by your dictionary definition that abortion is not murder because it is legal. Then when I pointed that out to you, you modified your definition. Then when I pointed out that your definition failed again, you accused me of being in favor of abortion.

I am beginning to understand how you came to your strongly held conclusions on what moral and legal protections a blastosphere deserves.

jas3