Political Crossfire Forums

[psholtz]

Flashbang88 wrote: I am a Christian and I have never understood people against stem cell research. Stems cells are not human beings and they will not necessarily develop into them. They have no feelings or emotions. They are random collections of organic material. Yet here we are worried about whether we offend them. Offend what? Disrespect the sanctity of what? I would much rather respect the sanctity of actual human beings who are dying from diseases that maybe, just maybe, could be treated if we could research stem cells. Why don't we protect living people? Why don't we protect our mothers and brothers and loved ones instead of a cell? Remember these cells will be thrown out anyway. Thrown away! How is throwing them away protecting their sanctity? Please. People need to stop being ignorant and start thinking about reality. Everyone else in the world is researching stem cells. We are behind because we are being retarded! And the reality is, eventually, this country will study and freely examine stem cells. Its just a matter of time. Its progress. Within 10 years probably. All we are doing now is procrastinating. We really can do better than this.
Stem cell research itself doesn't necessary bother me so such as a nation of fat, slobbering, lazy fools, who gorge themselves on poisoned food, go to the "doctor" to get prescribed a little red "happy" pill to fix all their problems and who then think that "stem cell research" is their Constitutional, God-given "right" to solve all the medical problems that their own slob-like lifestyles have created..

What a nation of weak, cowardly fools..

[psholtz]

John wrote: And don't forget about the milk. They pasteurize milk so they don't have to keep the conditions of the cows clean. :wink:
Sad but very true.. :-|

Same thing w/ these new "genetically modified" foods and vegetables.

They "modify" the vegetables so that Monsanto can sell 1000x more pesticides and expose the plants to 1000x more pesticides before the pesticides kill the plants. So Monsanto ends up making $$ on both sides of the equation... they make $$ on the pesticides and they make $$ on the genetic seeds designed to "withstand" the pesticides..

Super, super evil..

[John]

psholtz wrote: John wrote: And don't forget about the milk. They pasteurize milk so they don't have to keep the conditions of the cows clean. :wink:
Sad but very true.. :-|

Same thing w/ these new "genetically modified" foods and vegetables.

They "modify" the vegetables so that Monsanto can sell 1000x more pesticides and expose the plants to 1000x more pesticides before the pesticides kill the plants. So Monsanto ends up making $$ on both sides of the equation... they make $$ on the pesticides and they make $$ on the genetic seeds designed to "withstand" the pesticides..

Super, super evil..

How do you avoid it?

[feederband]

John wrote: psholtz wrote: John wrote: And don't forget about the milk. They pasteurize milk so they don't have to keep the conditions of the cows clean. :wink:
Sad but very true.. :-|

Same thing w/ these new "genetically modified" foods and vegetables.

They "modify" the vegetables so that Monsanto can sell 1000x more pesticides and expose the plants to 1000x more pesticides before the pesticides kill the plants. So Monsanto ends up making $$ on both sides of the equation... they make $$ on the pesticides and they make $$ on the genetic seeds designed to "withstand" the pesticides..

Super, super evil..

How do you avoid it?
\
Die.

[John]

Quote: Sad but very true.. :-|


I wasn't mockin ya. I thought the wink would clue you in that I had been listening to the link you recommended.

[perdidochas]

Shady wrote: perdidochas wrote: Shady wrote: CCD wrote: Not one human embryo is expendable, NOT ONE.


Agreed. Including those that have diseases that could possibly recover through stem-cell research.

Similar to Dr. Rascher's (Rascher was one of Mengele's colleagues) argument in experiments with human exposure. He used concentration camp prisoners in experiments to determine the limits of human endurance, and to determine the best ways to revive hypothermic victims. He figured the sacrifice of these subhumans was worth the lives of the people that he would save......

The difference being those cells are going to be destroyed anyway, are not human life and never will be human life, as opposed to Dr. Rasher's experiments on living human beings.

Regardless, you are still denying ME a chance to cure MY disease, because of YOUR moral dilemma. You are directly infringing on my rights, I am infringing on none of yours. No one would force to use any medicine derived from stem cell research or to donate any of your own stem cells.

So you agree with Rascher, that the death of subhumans (in his opinion) was an acceptable cost to save the lives of real humans.

Embryonic stem cell research doesn't infringe on my rights (but then again mass murder of people that are unrelated to me also doesn't infringe on my rights), but it does infringe on what I consider (based on my scientific views) to be human life. I believe that all human life has a right to life. The only logical beginning point of human life is the moment that egg and sperm unite to form a new unique set of human DNA. Any other point for the beginning of human life is arbitrary.

[perdidochas]

Nathyn wrote: John wrote: Nathyn wrote: John wrote: Faet wrote: John wrote: Embryonic stem cell research opens up the opportunity to FARM these cells by culturing human embryos in a lab. It’s evil mad scientist Dr. Mengele Nazi crap…and it’s just plain wrong.

I disagree. If we were able to reproduce these cells, we would no longer need to get them from the dubious sources where souls a born. And, for the record, if one human life could save many, I'd be for it. Especially a human who has a blank harddrive.


Able to reproduce these cells? By cloning embryos...AKA FARMING human beings as a product. It's sick.
That's a fallacy of division. Embryos are made up of embryonic stem cells, but each embryonic stem cell is not a "human being," or else each fetus would be multiple human beings. A "person," even according to those who define embryos as human beings, is defined as a cluster of such cells, not each cell by themselves. If they can re-create such cells, they aren't "farming humans," because they aren't creating new embryos -- just new cells.

You need an embryo in order to "create" embryonic stem cells.
You used to. Not anymore. According to Wikipedia, a scientist recently developed a way to remove the stem cells without killing the embryo. I remember hearing, in another story, about how scientists had been able to grow embryonic stem cells from existing cells, without even needing an embryo. In either case, it's possible.

The scientist theorized that it would be possible. He hasn't succeeded in this yet.

[perdidochas]

Flashbang88 wrote: I am a Christian and I have never understood people against stem cell research. Stems cells are not human beings and they will not necessarily develop into them. They have no feelings or emotions. They are random collections of organic material.

If they were "random collections of organic material" they would be of absolutely no use medically. That is the most absurd statement I've read in a while. The only reason embryonic stem cells are useful is that they are human cells that have the potential to differentiate into other human cells. That is not random at all.



Flashbang88 wrote: Yet here we are worried about whether we offend them. Offend what? Disrespect the sanctity of what? I would much rather respect the sanctity of actual human beings who are dying from diseases that maybe, just maybe, could be treated if we could research stem cells. Why don't we protect living people? Why don't we protect our mothers and brothers and loved ones instead of a cell? Remember these cells will be thrown out anyway. Thrown away! How is throwing them away protecting their sanctity? Please. People need to stop being ignorant and start thinking about reality. Everyone else in the world is researching stem cells. We are behind because we are being retarded! And the reality is, eventually, this country will study and freely examine stem cells. Its just a matter of time. Its progress. Within 10 years probably. All we are doing now is procrastinating. We really can do better than this.

It's my prediction that embryonic stem cells will never result in any major cures--why? Rejection. Embryonic stem cells from unrelated people still will cause rejection when implanted into people. Basically, we need to work on methods of using adult stem cells from the patient. Over 75 treatments have already been developed using adult stem cells. 0 have been developed with embryonic stem cells. Hmm, which seems more promising in real life (not in the pipe dreams of sick people who are grasping at straws).

[John]

Nathyn wrote: John wrote: Nathyn wrote: John wrote: Faet wrote: John wrote: Embryonic stem cell research opens up the opportunity to FARM these cells by culturing human embryos in a lab. It’s evil mad scientist Dr. Mengele Nazi crap…and it’s just plain wrong.

I disagree. If we were able to reproduce these cells, we would no longer need to get them from the dubious sources where souls a born. And, for the record, if one human life could save many, I'd be for it. Especially a human who has a blank harddrive.


Able to reproduce these cells? By cloning embryos...AKA FARMING human beings as a product. It's sick.
That's a fallacy of division. Embryos are made up of embryonic stem cells, but each embryonic stem cell is not a "human being," or else each fetus would be multiple human beings. A "person," even according to those who define embryos as human beings, is defined as a cluster of such cells, not each cell by themselves. If they can re-create such cells, they aren't "farming humans," because they aren't creating new embryos -- just new cells.

You need an embryo in order to "create" embryonic stem cells.
You used to. Not anymore. According to Wikipedia, a scientist recently developed a way to remove the stem cells without killing the embryo. I remember hearing, in another story, about how scientists had been able to grow embryonic stem cells from existing cells, without even needing an embryo. In either case, it's possible.

Were does the embryo come from, and what will happen to the little person once in grows into an infant?

I don't have any problem what so ever with stem cell research that doesn't kill or harm embryos.

[John]

perdidochas wrote: Flashbang88 wrote: I am a Christian and I have never understood people against stem cell research. Stems cells are not human beings and they will not necessarily develop into them. They have no feelings or emotions. They are random collections of organic material.

If they were "random collections of organic material" they would be of absolutely no use medically. That is the most absurd statement I've read in a while. The only reason embryonic stem cells are useful is that they are human cells that have the potential to differentiate into other human cells. That is not random at all.



Flashbang88 wrote: Yet here we are worried about whether we offend them. Offend what? Disrespect the sanctity of what? I would much rather respect the sanctity of actual human beings who are dying from diseases that maybe, just maybe, could be treated if we could research stem cells. Why don't we protect living people? Why don't we protect our mothers and brothers and loved ones instead of a cell? Remember these cells will be thrown out anyway. Thrown away! How is throwing them away protecting their sanctity? Please. People need to stop being ignorant and start thinking about reality. Everyone else in the world is researching stem cells. We are behind because we are being retarded! And the reality is, eventually, this country will study and freely examine stem cells. Its just a matter of time. Its progress. Within 10 years probably. All we are doing now is procrastinating. We really can do better than this.

It's my prediction that embryonic stem cells will never result in any major cures--why? Rejection. Embryonic stem cells from unrelated people still will cause rejection when implanted into people. Basically, we need to work on methods of using adult stem cells from the patient. Over 75 treatments have already been developed using adult stem cells. 0 have been developed with embryonic stem cells. Hmm, which seems more promising in real life (not in the pipe dreams of sick people who are grasping at straws).

Agreed. People are talking like it's already a known cure. It's all speculation.

I think the idea of collecting stem cells from the infant at birth (umbilical cord blood) and saving it for later is a great idea.

[psholtz]

John wrote: Quote: Sad but very true.. :-|


I wasn't mockin ya. I thought the wink would clue you in that I had been listening to the link you recommended.
I understand..

Believe me, I understand..

[psholtz]

perdidochas wrote: So you agree with Rascher, that the death of subhumans (in his opinion) was an acceptable cost to save the lives of real humans.
That's a classic eugenics philosophy, and any society that embraces such a vision of life invariably commits suicide sooner or later.

The fact is that *everything* that incarnates and takes on life on God's good earth has a reason for being, and a reason it was brought into existence. Who are you to question God's wisdom, and to judge and to play God w/ the fate of those you know nothing about?

Already the Enemy is active here in America, murdering your mentally retarded, murdering your elderly, murdering your orphans, murdering your widows... all b/c these are "undesirables"..

You think the Enemy is just going to stop there?

The Enemy thinks/acts/feels like an animal, and like all animals it preys upon the weakest in any pack first.. these the easiest "kills", so to speak. But don't think for a moment that you'll be evade the Enemy for long. Keep eating those GM foods. Keep drinking those diet sodas. Keep gorging yourself on those cheeseburgers.

Sooner or later you too will be sick and weak.. fit "prey" for the Enemy to feast upon.

You're next in line, my friend.

[mojo]

psholtz wrote: Flashbang88 wrote: I am a Christian and I have never understood people against stem cell research. Stems cells are not human beings and they will not necessarily develop into them. They have no feelings or emotions. They are random collections of organic material. Yet here we are worried about whether we offend them. Offend what? Disrespect the sanctity of what? I would much rather respect the sanctity of actual human beings who are dying from diseases that maybe, just maybe, could be treated if we could research stem cells. Why don't we protect living people? Why don't we protect our mothers and brothers and loved ones instead of a cell? Remember these cells will be thrown out anyway. Thrown away! How is throwing them away protecting their sanctity? Please. People need to stop being ignorant and start thinking about reality. Everyone else in the world is researching stem cells. We are behind because we are being retarded! And the reality is, eventually, this country will study and freely examine stem cells. Its just a matter of time. Its progress. Within 10 years probably. All we are doing now is procrastinating. We really can do better than this.
Stem cell research itself doesn't necessary bother me so such as a nation of fat, slobbering, lazy fools, who gorge themselves on poisoned food, go to the "doctor" to get prescribed a little red "happy" pill to fix all their problems and who then think that "stem cell research" is their Constitutional, God-given "right" to solve all the medical problems that their own slob-like lifestyles have created..

What a nation of weak, cowardly fools..

I cant help but agree.

[Shady]

This isn't directly related, but what are the people's opinions here on faith-based healing? I had an aunt that wouldn't let her children or any members of her immediate family visit doctor's because of her belief that if God wanted the disease to be cured he'd cure it himself. I presume the vast majority of Christians think differently, but for those more strict Christians (for lack of a better word) such as queasy and John, what's your opinion?

[perdidochas]

Shady wrote: This isn't directly related, but what are the people's opinions here on faith-based healing? I had an aunt that wouldn't let her children or any members of her immediate family visit doctor's because of her belief that if God wanted the disease to be cured he'd cure it himself. I presume the vast majority of Christians think differently, but for those more strict Christians (for lack of a better word) such as queasy and John, what's your opinion?

My opinion (not quite as "strict" as John or Cap'n) is that God gave us medical technology for a reason. We just have to use it right. IMHO, embryonic stem cell is not a correct use, because it involves killing human life.

[Shady]

perdidochas wrote: Shady wrote: This isn't directly related, but what are the people's opinions here on faith-based healing? I had an aunt that wouldn't let her children or any members of her immediate family visit doctor's because of her belief that if God wanted the disease to be cured he'd cure it himself. I presume the vast majority of Christians think differently, but for those more strict Christians (for lack of a better word) such as queasy and John, what's your opinion?

My opinion (not quite as "strict" as John or Cap'n) is that God gave us medical technology for a reason. We just have to use it right. IMHO, embryonic stem cell is not a correct use, because it involves killing human life.

Fair enough. How about transplats or blood transfusions? I know Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood transfusions, is that a typical Christian viewpoint?

[John]

Shady wrote: This isn't directly related, but what are the people's opinions here on faith-based healing? I had an aunt that wouldn't let her children or any members of her immediate family visit doctor's because of her belief that if God wanted the disease to be cured he'd cure it himself. I presume the vast majority of Christians think differently, but for those more strict Christians (for lack of a better word) such as queasy and John, what's your opinion?


I believe God inspired men to come up with ways of helping people get over sickness. In other words....God can cure you through the use of medicine. It would be foolish to break your leg and refuse to have it placed in a cast with the opinion that God wanted your leg to heal He’d just heal it….maybe He wants you to be in a cast for 6 weeks.

But off this topic...I also understand that being admitted into a hospital is prolly the unhealthiest thing you can do. I personally don't put a lot of faith in the medical know how of most doctors. They are guessing most of the time in my opinion.

[John]

Shady wrote: perdidochas wrote: Shady wrote: This isn't directly related, but what are the people's opinions here on faith-based healing? I had an aunt that wouldn't let her children or any members of her immediate family visit doctor's because of her belief that if God wanted the disease to be cured he'd cure it himself. I presume the vast majority of Christians think differently, but for those more strict Christians (for lack of a better word) such as queasy and John, what's your opinion?

My opinion (not quite as "strict" as John or Cap'n) is that God gave us medical technology for a reason. We just have to use it right. IMHO, embryonic stem cell is not a correct use, because it involves killing human life.

Fair enough. How about transplats or blood transfusions? I know Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood transfusions, is that a typical Christian viewpoint?

Just Jehovah's Witnesses as far as I know. But they don't believe that Jesus is God...so they're not Christians.

[Shady]

John wrote: Shady wrote: This isn't directly related, but what are the people's opinions here on faith-based healing? I had an aunt that wouldn't let her children or any members of her immediate family visit doctor's because of her belief that if God wanted the disease to be cured he'd cure it himself. I presume the vast majority of Christians think differently, but for those more strict Christians (for lack of a better word) such as queasy and John, what's your opinion?


I believe God inspired men to come up with ways of helping people get over sickness. In other words....God can cure you through the use of medicine. It would be foolish to break your leg and refuse to have it placed in a cast with the opinion that God wanted your leg to heal He’d just heal it….maybe He wants you to be in a cast for 6 weeks.

But off this topic...I also understand that being admitted into a hospital is prolly the unhealthiest thing you can do. I personally don't put a lot of faith in the medical know how of most doctors. They are guessing most of the time in my opinion.

Interesting take on it. I'm not going to bother debating with you about your latter comments though, you are free to hold your own opinion.

So you don't believe that prayer alone will heal you? I guess I'm not entirely clear.

[perdidochas]

Shady wrote: perdidochas wrote: Shady wrote: This isn't directly related, but what are the people's opinions here on faith-based healing? I had an aunt that wouldn't let her children or any members of her immediate family visit doctor's because of her belief that if God wanted the disease to be cured he'd cure it himself. I presume the vast majority of Christians think differently, but for those more strict Christians (for lack of a better word) such as queasy and John, what's your opinion?

My opinion (not quite as "strict" as John or Cap'n) is that God gave us medical technology for a reason. We just have to use it right. IMHO, embryonic stem cell is not a correct use, because it involves killing human life.

Fair enough. How about transplats or blood transfusions? I know Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood transfusions, is that a typical Christian viewpoint?

It's not a typical Christian viewpoint. Transplants and transfusions are the same as medicine. Now, if the transplant was an involuntary transplant from a live human, I woudl be against it. The same with transfusions.