Japan legalizes stem cell research!

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by rumpel

What do you think about Birth Control then? Abstinence, withdrawl, and condoms. You know the type, they teach that stuff in the Sex Ed (and on the street).

I do not consider that murder, and I dont even consider that to me in the same category as abortion. But before I start to explain why, I will explain my stance on fate:

I dont believe in it. I dont believe that God determined when we were born whether you would go to heaven or hell, because that would completely elliminate the purpose of a religion. But I do however believe that God KNEW if I was going to go to heaven or hell. That is two completely different things. Knowing something and causing it to happen is not the same. I know that if someone drops an egg off of the sears tower it will break, but it doesnt mean I caused it to break, the person who dropped it did.

Ok, now let me tell you why I dont think birth conrol or a condom is actually killing anyone: They are not united. Ejaculating in a female while using a condom isnt much different than masterbating and removing the sperm with a paper towel. The sperm didnt go anywhere, and no potential human was formed.

But what line separates an egg and sperm from its individual parts?

Any living organism is greater than the sum of it's parts, but if the sperm and egg do not combine, than there is no "human-to-be". If you refer to the post I made after yours, you'll see that I think abortion should be allowed before a certain point. I myself am not sure if I would call a simple embryo a human yet, but I WILL say that preventing a life is totally different from taking it. I can prevent a life by never having sex, but I can take it by killing someone or having my girlfriend/wife abort her baby. Just the same as I can prevent a life by using a condom.

.If you murder someone, and it's your will against God's, do you kill not just the person, but also the family tree?
.Is a miss-carriage God's abortion? What gives God the right?
.And if it is God's right... If someone is about to die from natural causes, and human will saves that person, is that also defiance against God's will?

.Of course you prevent the life off any offspring of that person, but god KNEW you would kill him, therefore the family tree never existed anyway. He never concieved the children of that person you killed, because they would never have any. He didnt make you kill him, and he didnt plan for that person to never have a child, he just KNEW that you would.

.God has his own reasons.

.No, because god knew before hand that humans would save them. God isnt working against you, trying to kill you. If he wanted someone dead, believe me, they would be dead. Human will cannot compete with God's will.

[Rumpelstilzchen]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

.No, because god knew before hand that humans would save them. God isnt working against you, trying to kill you. If he wanted someone dead, believe me, they would be dead. Human will cannot compete with God's will.

Then you believe God knows before hand that a child will be aborted. If so, I wonder... why would he create the human?

And by the way, every sperm has "potential." Human will is what dictates whether it has potential anymore. It is human will that destroys its potential through abstinence, just as it is human will that destroys an embryo's potential through abortion.

--

no, didn't read the essay. But I did want to make a reply on the thought.

I don't much like the idea that this technology is worse than old technology simply because the money on this technology could be used to help starving people. The money required to make automobiles could have been used to help needy people. Also, automobiles are among the most expensive items that even average people buy, and wealthy people overbuy. As well, they pollute.

Making a "perfect human" is something good by nature. It makes a healthy person that won't starve or have problems that will end up needing more resources to fix. Also, it helps mankind as a whole by adding more intelligence and potential to the race.

I agree. Rich people waste money on things rather than helping people. Giving another thing for them to buy doesn't change their ideals, it's true. But, that measn there is no harm in it. And, rather than wasting money on a perfect child, the rich person could have been more destructive... like buying a bunch of drugs, or weapons, or something else. Either way, not buying the child wouldn't make the person any more likely to donate money.

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by Rumpelstilzchen

Then you believe God knows before hand that a child will be aborted. If so, I wonder... why would he create the human?

And by the way, every sperm has "potential." Human will is what dictates whether it has potential anymore. It is human will that destroys its potential through abstinence, just as it is human will that destroys an embryo's potential through abortion.

--

no, didn't read the essay. But I did want to make a reply on the thought.

I don't much like the idea that this technology is worse than old technology simply because the money on this technology could be used to help starving people. The money required to make automobiles could have been used to help needy people. Also, automobiles are among the most expensive items that even average people buy, and wealthy people overbuy. As well, they pollute.

Making a "perfect human" is something good by nature. It makes a healthy person that won't starve or have problems that will end up needing more resources to fix. Also, it helps mankind as a whole by adding more intelligence and potential to the race.

I agree. Rich people waste money on things rather than helping people. Giving another thing for them to buy doesn't change their ideals, it's true. But, that measn there is no harm in it. And, rather than wasting money on a perfect child, the rich person could have been more destructive... like buying a bunch of drugs, or weapons, or something else. Either way, not buying the child wouldn't make the person any more likely to donate money.

He knew when he made us that he wasnt making a perfect creature. He knew the abortion was going to occure, but he didnt make you do it, and he didnt cause the pregnancy in the first place, he just KNEW it was going to happen.

And yes, of course the sperms potential is destroyed through abstinence, which is just one more point a human life isnt considered "human" until AFTER the egg and sperm combine. God isnt up there accusing me of murder every second I'm not fertalizing a girl.

Ok, cars are not that expensive. You can get them for dirt cheap at an auctioni. I think I saw one sell for like 200 dollars once. It wouldnt be the best vehicle ever, but hey, it has wheels and it moves. Anyone with a job can get a car. Maybe not a good one, but I never said that.

Henry Ford was one of the first people to make a cool new product but also to pay his customers enough to buy it.

Also, I DONT think MAKING perfect human is good.

And yes, there is harm in what you mentioned. If scientist are more worried about making these cool new genetic enhancement technologies, then thats what they will make, so that they can get more money, instead of focusing on making cures for diseases.

I wasnt asking for the rich people to donate money, I'm asking for scientist to create technology that helps everyone, both the rich and the poor.

[Rumpelstilzchen]

okieday, let's see if this works.

Originally Posted by Vampyr

He knew when he made us that he wasnt making a perfect creature. He knew the abortion was going to occure, but he didnt make you do it, and he didnt cause the pregnancy in the first place, he just KNEW it was going to happen.

Knew when he made us? As in... he made us? But, he didn't get the woman pregnant... and he didn't choose which sperm would win the little race and to which egg... he just knew which one would and to which egg. But he only knew which one would after he made the parents, 'cuz he only knew what would happen with the parent and its children-to-be after he made them to be that way. But we're only people after a little sperm, catch an egg; so he had to know which egg and sperm was needed so that he could make us (but not our parts of course). He didn't make the parts. Otherwise, denying those parts would be the same as denying the embryo.

He knew the abortion was going to occur, and he couldn't control it of course. But he made the person. And the person was made before the abortion, with God knowing there would be an abortion... because he [i]had to make the person, not just in case, but because he knew there was going to be a pregnancy. And an embryo is a life, rather than the parts of an embryo. So, after knowing the woman would abort, God made a human.

God knows, before you're born, what you're going to do. That includes who you're going to kill, and who you're going to make. My bad, God makes the person, you just choose when... and he knows. Therefore he knows who you're going to be with, but he doesn't choose it. But, since he made you, he had to make you the type of person that would do the things he knows you're gonna do. Therefore... if God knows someone is going to be evil, God is going to make someone evil. 'Cuz God makes us and knows us.[/quote]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

And yes, of course the sperms potential is destroyed through abstinence, which is just one more point a human life isnt considered "human" until AFTER the egg and sperm combine. God isnt up there accusing me of murder every second I'm not fertalizing a girl.

What draws the line? What defines human? A human is either the material that makes a human... the functioning mass, or it's the conscious thought, the final production. If it's a functioning mass, then an embryo is a human. But then, so would sperm and egg. But you said that can't be, that they have to combine first. Well, to tell you the truth... the embryo needs even more to have conscious thought. It needs nurishment to grow. It adds more stuff. But there's more to it, isn't there? An embryo has an immediate future of conscious thought. With simple ingredients (eating, rather than sex), it can grow. A sperm and egg can do the same, they just need more complicated ingredients... eachother (oh yeah, and your will, which is needed for sex... and so is the girl's, otherwise it's rape. Of course, even then an embryo is formed. So it only needs one will to make a human). That's what it boils down to? Immediacy and Willpower?

Originally Posted by Vampyr

Ok, cars are not that expensive. You can get them for dirt cheap at an auctioni. I think I saw one sell for like 200 dollars once. It wouldnt be the best vehicle ever, but hey, it has wheels and it moves. Anyone with a job can get a car. Maybe not a good one, but I never said that.

You know what's also not expensive? Food. And maybe anyone with a job will be able to get a perfect child, too. Your argument at first was that Cloning would take money away from the poor. It's not the product that takes money from the poor, it's people who want happiness that don't pay for the poor.

Originally Posted by Vampyr

Henry Ford was one of the first people to make a cool new product but also to pay his customers enough to buy it.

So that everyone could have one and then it would sell better. In other words, he gave them a product they could afford, which was much more expensive than food. Food, which is more important to the needy than a car would be.

Originally Posted by Vampyr

Also, I DONT think MAKING perfect human is good.

Well, God makes people, right? Cloning is just a way of choosing how and when it is made. And God knows that a person will clone another. Cloning works in a similar way to normal reproduction. DNA grows and matter... and the person as a whole. Eventually, there's enough growth for more than just simple functions, but also conscious thought.

Maybe God wants a perfect human, but doesn't have the resources between any man and woman to make one. And since God can't make anything, except people... and he only does so through knowing when it'll happen, perhaps he knows people will clone a perfect person. Perhaps that was part of the plan, not which he made, but which he knew of. So, he made an intelligent person who'd have the knowledge to clone. And, he knew before he made the person, that the person would indeed clone. Otherwise, he would've made someone else, or there would have been a mis-carriage, 'cuz God has his own reasons, as you said.

Originally Posted by Vampyr

And yes, there is harm in what you mentioned. If scientist are more worried about making these cool new genetic enhancement technologies, then thats what they will make, so that they can get more money, instead of focusing on making cures for diseases.

If a scientist is the type of scientist that would like to cure diseases, then he would cure diseases. If a scientist is the type of scientist that wants money, he'll do something that'll get him money. If cloning came out, and it was worth a lot of money, the money scientists would do it. It cloning came out and it would cure diseases, the curing scientists would do it. Cloning won't change the balance of how many scientists are working to help people, and how many scientists want money. And if cloning does cure diseases, then it will be a good thing.

Originally Posted by Vampyre

I wasnt asking for the rich people to donate money, I'm asking for scientist to create technology that helps everyone, both the rich and the poor.

By saying the rich people would waste money on kids instead of poor people if cloning was made, you were trying to say scientists shouldn't make cloning so that... the rich would spend money on the poor... except, you don't want to convince the rich to donate. But, they'll never donate unless they're convinced. So, cloning's not the issue between the rich spending money on the poor or on fun stuff; and, unless you were saying the rich should donate, the argument was moot.

And scientists are rich... and to work on technology that helps the poor would cause them to lose money. So, they'd be directly donating their time, skill, and money for the poor. It'd be a great thing, but it's unrelated to cloning.

Unless... well hey, scientists either work to help people or to make money, right? And if they're gonna do it to make money, then they wouldn't be the type of person that would make technology to help the poor if it'd cost them, which it would... if it'd help the poor who can't pay much money. But, there's also the scientist that tries to make technology not for money, but for the poor. Those type of scientists would only be interested in cloning if they thought cloning could help the world. And if they tried hard enough (hard enough to actually make an effect), then they would most certainly make cloning helpful. And if that's the case, then their lack of efforts on other technologies would not be harmful, as they did indeed help the world. That's what you asked for, someting to help the world.


--

I hope you give as much or more thought as your previous replies into your reply to this post.

By the way, God made me the way I am, and knew I would find this page one day, and that I'd post on this page, and that you'd reply (because he made you that way). Before you or I reveal any of God's secrets, maybe he'll step in with some divine intervention to stop it, 'cuz he has his reasons.

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by Rumpelstilzchen

Knew when he made us? As in... he made us? But, he didn't get the woman pregnant... and he didn't choose which sperm would win the little race and to which egg... he just knew which one would and to which egg. But he only knew which one would after he made the parents, 'cuz he only knew what would happen with the parent and its children-to-be after he made them to be that way. But we're only people after a little sperm, catch an egg; so he had to know which egg and sperm was needed so that he could make us (but not our parts of course). He didn't make the parts. Otherwise, denying those parts would be the same as denying the embryo.

He knew the abortion was going to occur, and he couldn't control it of course. But he made the person. And the person was made before the abortion, with God knowing there would be an abortion... because he [i]had to make the person, not just in case, but because he knew there was going to be a pregnancy. And an embryo is a life, rather than the parts of an embryo. So, after knowing the woman would abort, God made a human.

God knows, before you're born, what you're going to do. That includes who you're going to kill, and who you're going to make. My bad, God makes the person, you just choose when... and he knows. Therefore he knows who you're going to be with, but he doesn't choose it. But, since he made you, he had to make you the type of person that would do the things he knows you're gonna do. Therefore... if God knows someone is going to be evil, God is going to make someone evil. 'Cuz God makes us and knows us.

I'm going to hope I understood everything you said, because some of it was very cryptic in the way you wrote it. So you are saying that God made evil people to be evil? Then what is the point in religion? If he made evil people that he knew was going to hell, and he made good people he knew was going to heaven, then what is the point in me even trying? Anything I do, God has already determined it, and I cant change it. Predetermination is quite frankly a stupid idea.

And you said that God knew everything that humans were going to do. He made humans, and we made cloning and abortion, and he knew we would one day make those things. But dont put words in His mouth. You and I can no more knew if God wanted Abortion or Cloning than if he didnt want it, but I think I would be more correct to assume he didnt, because why would he want us to kill an unborn baby? That makes no sense. And cloning is like being God himself, which I dont think he would appreciate. Also, just because God knows we are going to do something DOES NOT mean it's a good thing to do. Just because he knew we would one day be aborting baby's and cloning people does not mean it's right, but it also does not mean he is making us do it, he just knows what choices we will make, because he knows EVERYTHING.

What draws the line? What defines human? A human is either the material that makes a human... the functioning mass, or it's the conscious thought, the final production. If it's a functioning mass, then an embryo is a human. But then, so would sperm and egg. But you said that can't be, that they have to combine first. Well, to tell you the truth... the embryo needs even more to have conscious thought. It needs nurishment to grow. It adds more stuff. But there's more to it, isn't there? An embryo has an immediate future of conscious thought. With simple ingredients (eating, rather than sex), it can grow. A sperm and egg can do the same, they just need more complicated ingredients... eachother (oh yeah, and your will, which is needed for sex... and so is the girl's, otherwise it's rape. Of course, even then an embryo is formed. So it only needs one will to make a human). That's what it boils down to? Immediacy and Willpower?

What the hell did that have to do with anything?

You know what's also not expensive? Food. And maybe anyone with a job will be able to get a perfect child, too. Your argument at first was that Cloning would take money away from the poor. It's not the product that takes money from the poor, it's people who want happiness that don't pay for the poor.



So that everyone could have one and then it would sell better. In other words, he gave them a product they could afford, which was much more expensive than food. Food, which is more important to the needy than a car would be.

Why did you bring food into this? Those last two paragraphs didnt mean anything at all. Either you are running out of ideas to say, or you really dont know what you are talking about, or I am not understanding the importance of food vs cars. Of course we need food more than automobiles, but the automobile was still a great achievement, he it made food easier to get, and the poor people could buy a car, thus being able to get food better. Once again, I'm not sure what the point of that was.

Well, God makes people, right? Cloning is just a way of choosing how and when it is made. And God knows that a person will clone another. Cloning works in a similar way to normal reproduction. DNA grows and matter... and the person as a whole. Eventually, there's enough growth for more than just simple functions, but also conscious thought.

Maybe God wants a perfect human, but doesn't have the resources between any man and woman to make one. And since God can't make anything, except people... and he only does so through knowing when it'll happen, perhaps he knows people will clone a perfect person. Perhaps that was part of the plan, not which he made, but which he knew of. So, he made an intelligent person who'd have the knowledge to clone. And, he knew before he made the person, that the person would indeed clone. Otherwise, he would've made someone else, or there would have been a mis-carriage, 'cuz God has his own reasons, as you said.

But I choose to believe that God did not want us to clone. It doesnt say in the bible one way or another, so we much chose our own path. Like I said, just because god makes you with the ability to do something, does not mean he wants you to do it. I have the power to kill somone, but that doesnt mean I should. I bet the person with the knowledge to clone would also be able to use that knowledge to help people in other ways.

Another reason why I dont think god wanted us to clone: The majority of clones would be used to harveset their organs so the original person could live. I cannot imagine why god would want us to create one of his children, then kill it. It's ludicrous that god would want that.

And no, I dont think he wants us to make a perfect person, because doing so is like slapping him in the face and saying "you messed up, and now we are fixing your mistakes." Also, I believe that the bible makes prophecies saying that the anti-christ would "be the first of his kind", and he would be a beautiful person. Is it talking about the first clone? Maybe. Maybe not. Want to take the chance?

If a scientist is the type of scientist that would like to cure diseases, then he would cure diseases. If a scientist is the type of scientist that wants money, he'll do something that'll get him money. If cloning came out, and it was worth a lot of money, the money scientists would do it. It cloning came out and it would cure diseases, the curing scientists would do it. Cloning won't change the balance of how many scientists are working to help people, and how many scientists want money. And if cloning does cure diseases, then it will be a good thing.





By saying the rich people would waste money on kids instead of poor people if cloning was made, you were trying to say scientists shouldn't make cloning so that... the rich would spend money on the poor... except, you don't want to convince the rich to donate. But, they'll never donate unless they're convinced. So, cloning's not the issue between the rich spending money on the poor or on fun stuff; and, unless you were saying the rich should donate, the argument was moot.

And scientists are rich... and to work on technology that helps the poor would cause them to lose money. So, they'd be directly donating their time, skill, and money for the poor. It'd be a great thing, but it's unrelated to cloning.

Unless... well hey, scientists either work to help people or to make money, right? And if they're gonna do it to make money, then they wouldn't be the type of person that would make technology to help the poor if it'd cost them, which it would... if it'd help the poor who can't pay much money. But, there's also the scientist that tries to make technology not for money, but for the poor. Those type of scientists would only be interested in cloning if they thought cloning could help the world. And if they tried hard enough (hard enough to actually make an effect), then they would most certainly make cloning helpful. And if that's the case, then their lack of efforts on other technologies would not be harmful, as they did indeed help the world. That's what you asked for, someting to help the world.

I wish you would have read my essay, because I'm restating a lot of things that I said in it.

But anyway, I NEVER SAID I WANTED RICH PEOPLE TO HELP THE POOR PEOPLE. Also, scientist arent as rich as you might think. They are pretty wealthy, but they get the funding for their projects from other organizations. But please, try to get it into your head i was not asking the rich people to donate money. I was saying that because they are rich, scientist are much more likely to make "fun" things that they will buy.

BUT MY ARGUMENT WAS NOT MOOT. What I was saying is that if we learn how to alter genes to IMPROVE humans, then that will take focus off of using it to HELP humans. Rich people get genetic diseases too, you know, so if we instead learned how to alter genes to cure these diseases, both rich and poor would recieve help.

As a final note, I dont think it's possible for you to win your argument. At least I am willing to compromise, yet you are fighting for the whole nine yards, and the person who wants everything never wins.

[Rumpelstilzchen]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

Why did you bring food into this?

Food is what would be given to the hungry. Food would be the start to curing the hunger of the poor.

I have more to add to the conversation, but I don't want one perspective as a reply. I'll post more when more people post. Is that ok with you?

And do you even know what my argument is? I've just been pointing at the holes in your argument so that you can get a better stance on your ideals and rethink what you believe. I can spot something hazy in an argument, or something that doesn't quite fit... and I'll point it out for you, so that you can make it better and have people agree with you more.

In this debate, you've been supplying your ideas 100% of the time. I've been countering them, and you've been defending them. I'm supplying none of my beliefs or ideals, so how am I going to convince anyone what I believe, if they do not know it? I'm not trying to win anything, I'm trying to show you that, while your beliefs are pure-hearted, they can conflict with other forms of rational thought.

Don't hate me 'cuz I'm new

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by Rumpelstilzchen

Food is what would be given to the hungry. Food would be the start to curing the hunger of the poor.

I have more to add to the conversation, but I don't want one perspective as a reply. I'll post more when more people post. Is that ok with you?

And do you even know what my argument is? I've just been pointing at the holes in your argument so that you can get a better stance on your ideals and rethink what you believe. I can spot something hazy in an argument, or something that doesn't quite fit... and I'll point it out for you, so that you can make it better and have people agree with you more.

In this debate, you've been supplying your ideas 100% of the time. I've been countering them, and you've been defending them. I'm supplying none of my beliefs or ideals, so how am I going to convince anyone what I believe, if they do not know it? I'm not trying to win anything, I'm trying to show you that, while your beliefs are pure-hearted, they can conflict with other forms of rational thought.

Don't hate me 'cuz I'm new

Heh. I'm not hating you at all, I was just confused as to what some of your points meant, and I think I may have started the confusion.

I once said something like "children starving a mile away", I wasnt implying that the rich should get food for them, I was meaning that geneticists might be using gentic engineering technology for the rich people to use (ie improving their strenght, intelligence, speed etc) while they COULD be using it to maybe alter a gene that slows metabolism down. Imagine the possibilities. Curing world hunger WITHOUT food. That's what i was implying. Instead of needing more food to give them, you instead make them need less food.

Of course, it would be the persons choice whether they wanted this done to them, because I feel that altering someone's genes without their consent is an act as horrendous as rape or something.

I do realize my argument is not bullet proof, but if you read the last bit of my essay, I do take into consideration other points of view. I think I even plus repped you for providing me with a nice argument, but it may be wise for you to read my ENTIRE argument before pointing out the holes in it.