two halves make a whole, so another way to interprate your words is that everytime a married ovulating woman dosn't get pregnant she and her husband kills a baby
House approves stem-cell research bill
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=787594
lets hope that our protector of freedom dont veto it
lets hope that our protector of freedom dont veto it
41 - 60 of 66 Posts
Hes Not Invading, he´s liberating.Player-X said:
Oh come on, for once can we leave the war out of this (Fawlty Towers sketch comes to mind ) it will only lead this thread to a lock.
) it will only lead this thread to a lock.What exactly do you mean with 'but the human ur making doesn't live' ? Did you mean to point out at some kind of risk new treatment might bring which can cause medical mistakes which will cost lives?Suicide_Jaqie said:
History told me that honour can be a big thing to presidents. So I can imagine that for the sake of his own honour, Bush doesn't want to let down the group that supported him during election. But about American politics. I'm not that familiar with the system. But there is some kind of house with representatives who are there in name of the people as well isn't there? Are they elected as well? Cause if so, I find it a bad thing if one person can abort something such as this while others that have been elected as well approved it.Seta San said:
I'm NOT going to interfere in the discussion between Boltz and Elly. I see I no longer need to (but I still sort of will ) express concern on the wonderful uses of stem cells being forbidden for foolish moral standards of those who have no more than disputed faith in personhood to claim their disagreement with. Thank you Boltzmann.
I have another say about the matter though. Something that bugged me with matters concering a certain (former) vegetable of a human being as well: Our use of resources.
Stem Cells are harvested from undeveloped, consciousless, already disintegrating, already lifeless would-be-organisms which have little to no functionality available (they were on complete life support (womb) for crying out loud) in their previous state, that serve no other purpose in this world, other than being a waste of space, a waste of time to fight about, and ready to be disposed of. People with nation-wide responsibilities who consider this (or are used for) an item of utmost importance to fight against, are throwing away valuable time and money that might be used for something more useful, like living beings that are in development and in need of attention.
Over-emotional dribble on a subject that is on the same level as feeling concerned about how to dispose a heap of squashed insect-eggs. Perhaps not entirely, but the meaningless-factor of the subject is as excruciating, for the sole reason that those would-be organisms are going to be disposed of anyway (be it by us, or 'nature') while there are more pressing matters to be concerned about which would benefit from allowing such research. This process can easily be categorized as a SETBACK, upon denial of the bill. Stab us in the back, will you? Yes, what fine topics to use our resources for, or rather, against. This sort of thing is all what several major ruling beliefs are good for: spoiling oppurtunities. I hope it won't this time, but who am I kidding. :lol:
Not to mention how irrelevant the content to the subject is..
) express concern on the wonderful uses of stem cells being forbidden for foolish moral standards of those who have no more than disputed faith in personhood to claim their disagreement with. Thank you Boltzmann.I have another say about the matter though. Something that bugged me with matters concering a certain (former) vegetable of a human being as well: Our use of resources.
Stem Cells are harvested from undeveloped, consciousless, already disintegrating, already lifeless would-be-organisms which have little to no functionality available (they were on complete life support (womb) for crying out loud) in their previous state, that serve no other purpose in this world, other than being a waste of space, a waste of time to fight about, and ready to be disposed of. People with nation-wide responsibilities who consider this (or are used for) an item of utmost importance to fight against, are throwing away valuable time and money that might be used for something more useful, like living beings that are in development and in need of attention.
Over-emotional dribble on a subject that is on the same level as feeling concerned about how to dispose a heap of squashed insect-eggs.
Perhaps not entirely, but the meaningless-factor of the subject is as excruciating, for the sole reason that those would-be organisms are going to be disposed of anyway (be it by us, or 'nature') while there are more pressing matters to be concerned about which would benefit from allowing such research. This process can easily be categorized as a SETBACK, upon denial of the bill. Stab us in the back, will you? Yes, what fine topics to use our resources for, or rather, against. This sort of thing is all what several major ruling beliefs are good for: spoiling oppurtunities. I hope it won't this time, but who am I kidding. :lol:Such extraordinary wisdom! I nominate thee, Elly's worst post evAR, for the knowledge thy does think to possess.エッリー said:
Not to mention how irrelevant the content to the subject is..
Well if you put it that way:Player-X said:
Bush got in to war thus sacrificing lives in order to make the world safer (WMD's)
By that logic why not sacrifice a few 'lifes' by allowing these experiments to save more lifes in future.
Just some random thoughts
Player-X is a baby killer!!
Killing for greater good is always bad... because you have to define what good is oO
A president can argue that killing everyone in other countries is good because it leaves less people on Earth, so there are relatively more resources for everyone and we can preserve the enviroment better and the Earth can stay healthy longer
Also, arguments about less people is good because we already got too many is just dumb... why don't you kill yourself so we can have one less person in the world :rant:
Can stem cells be cultivated? I'm guessing not because there probably won't be this long discussion if it's possible, but just want to make sure.
Killing for greater good is always bad... because you have to define what good is oO
A president can argue that killing everyone in other countries is good because it leaves less people on Earth, so there are relatively more resources for everyone and we can preserve the enviroment better and the Earth can stay healthy longer
Also, arguments about less people is good because we already got too many is just dumb... why don't you kill yourself so we can have one less person in the world :rant:
Can stem cells be cultivated? I'm guessing not because there probably won't be this long discussion if it's possible, but just want to make sure.
41 - 60 of 66 Posts
