Alexander 0 Posted April 15, 2004 (edited) [Edit: Nevermind] Edited April 15, 2004 by Alexander Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tsl 7 Posted April 15, 2004 If you truly love each other, then what's the big deal about the paper? You know in your heart. That's all that should matter. Not some piece of paper saying you're stuck with the person. It's not so much the paper, it's the principle of the thing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheUnknown 39 Posted April 15, 2004 With regards to it "being just a piece of paper": There are tons of benefits tied to marriage: insurance, inheritance, hospital visitation, adoption, etc. With regards to divorce: Maybe the problem isn't people wanting to get out of marriage. It's people rushing headlong into marriage without really knowing what they're getting into. In some places, people who are 14, people who aren't considered competent enough to vote or sign a legal contract, can get married. People can go to Las Vegas and get married on a whim. How about a waiting period for marriage so people can find out just what they're getting into? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mirax 3 Posted April 16, 2004 Actually...I think it was only Dolphins and Apes ((Which we technically are...unless you're in the Bible belt...which then we aren't...)) have sex for pleasure...the rest just do it for mating purposes. And that's different from what I said how? With regards to it "being just a piece of paper": There are tons of benefits tied to marriage: insurance, inheritance, hospital visitation, adoption, etc. To true. And if two concentual adults want to think of it as more than "being just a piece of paper." Then we should let them. With regards to divorce: Maybe the problem isn't people wanting to get out of marriage. It's people rushing headlong into marriage without really knowing what they're getting into. In some places, people who are 14, people who aren't considered competent enough to vote or sign a legal contract, can get married. People can go to Las Vegas and get married on a whim. How about a waiting period for marriage so people can find out just what they're getting into? That doesn't always help either. :| Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Princess 35 Posted April 18, 2004 Ok since we seem to have beaten gay marriage into the ground, let's take a lil break from that. Stem cell research and the use of stem cells in humans. What do you think? Personally I'm all for it. Stem cells can divide into ANY cell in the body and can have a multitude of uses. One of my classmates was talking the other day about research where someone had failing heart valves and they had their heart injected with stem cells and the valves regrew. Or a patient that was paralyzed and had stem cells injected into his spinal cord and now has mobility in his legs again. Why are people against something so good? This has the potential to help millions of people both nation and worldwide Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tsl 7 Posted April 18, 2004 They are against it because the stem cells are taken from unused embryoes at fertility clinics. They say it encourages abortion and all that sort of stuff. This is also why everybody's favorite President Shrub has outlawed the use of any new lines being taken for research. Researchers in the States have to use what they've already got, which is very limiting. Personally I'm all for it. If they can get it working, we could cure everything from diabetes to quadreplegia to multiple slcerosis to congenital defects of organs. The embryoes are discarded anyways, by the way...they aren't created for the purpose of getting the stem cells. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alexander 0 Posted April 18, 2004 I'm for stem cell research and usage all the way. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mara 29 Posted April 18, 2004 I'm against embryotic stem cells, but..... Stem cells are also in adult bone marrow. So you can get them there, without killing a life. Just my two cents. *shrug* Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tsl 7 Posted April 18, 2004 I forget exactly how this works...but I know that the stem cells taken from adults are not the same as those obtained from embryoes. They can't differentiate the same way or something. I'd have to look it up. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alexander 0 Posted April 18, 2004 I'm against embryotic stem cells, but..... Stem cells are also in adult bone marrow. So you can get them there, without killing a life. Just my two cents. *shrug* Potential life. An unfertilized egg is technically only half a life. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mara 29 Posted April 18, 2004 But don't they take the cells AFTER conception? Aborted babies are kinda already fertilized. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tsl 7 Posted April 18, 2004 Yes, embryoes are fertilized...obviously, lol. But they are destroyed anyway. Why not take stem cells from them first? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mara 29 Posted April 18, 2004 Shouldn't be destroyed in the first place... but that's another topic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tsl 7 Posted April 18, 2004 (edited) Edit: deleted nvm, lol. Wrong information Edited April 18, 2004 by Tsl Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Radioactive Isotope 29 Posted April 18, 2004 that depends on your definition on when life begins. conception or birth, or somewhere in between. personally, i don't know where exactly i stand on this because i don't know enough about it to formulate an opinion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bad furday 57 Posted April 18, 2004 I'm all for stem cell usage and research. I feel that we need to push science as far to the edge as we possibly can. The stem cells will be able to help millions of people overcome their illnesses or disabilities, and lead a 'normal' life like the majority of us. Stem cells are a key factor in advancing the quality of our lives. For those who say that one could be kiling the person who discovers the cure for AIDS, or a Nobel prize winner, I say the the embryo has an equal chance of becoming a murder, theif, rapist, or other undesirable member of society. That various people and religious groups would rather save a potential life that no one knows how it will turn out, yet deny a paralyzed person the opportunity to regain the life they once knew, seems cruel to me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mara 29 Posted April 18, 2004 that depends on your definition on when life begins. conception or birth, or somewhere in between. personally, i don't know where exactly i stand on this because i don't know enough about it to formulate an opinion. Conception. How can it not be life then? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chozen 1 Posted April 18, 2004 (edited) For those who say that one could be kiling the person who discovers the cure for AIDS, or a Nobel prize winner, I say the the embryo has an equal chance of becoming a murder, theif, rapist, or other undesirable member of society. AIDS/HIV.... *Drifts off* I blame the big phama-suit-and-kill companies that produce the life saving drugs, they're the thiefs, murderers and rapists of the world. *Commie bit* Now if these companies were owned by the state... Edit: I agree with what you said. But you could take that into any context. Why cross the road because you might get hit by a bus shorting your life and stopping your from finding a way of safe .. blah blah blah Edited April 18, 2004 by Chozen Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tsl 7 Posted April 18, 2004 Here we are... "Embryonic stem cells, as their name suggests, are derived from embryos. Specifically, embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro ? in an in vitro fertilization clinic ? and then donated for research purposes with informed consent of the donors. They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman's body. The embryos from which human embryonic stem cells are derived are typically four or five days old and are a hollow microscopic ball of cells called the blastocyst. The blastocyst includes three structures: the trophoblast, which is the layer of cells that surrounds the blastocyst; the blastocoel, which is the hollow cavity inside the blastocyst; and the inner cell mass, which is a group of approximately 30 cells at one end of the blastocoel" and... An adult stem cell is an undifferentiated cell found among differentiated cells in a tissue or organ, can renew itself, and can differentiate to yield the major specialized cell types of the tissue or organ. The primary roles of adult stem cells in a living organism are to maintain and repair the tissue in which they are found. Some scientists now use the term somatic stem cell instead of adult stem cell. Unlike embryonic stem cells, which are defined by their origin (the inner cell mass of the blastocyst), the origin of adult stem cells in mature tissues is unknown. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Radioactive Isotope 29 Posted April 18, 2004 that depends on your definition on when life begins. conception or birth, or somewhere in between. personally, i don't know where exactly i stand on this because i don't know enough about it to formulate an opinion. Conception. How can it not be life then? i agree with you. but some people don't think life starts until the baby takes a breath. that it's not "techincally" alive until then. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mara 29 Posted April 18, 2004 I'm all for stem cell usage and research. I feel that we need to push science as far to the edge as we possibly can. The stem cells will be able to help millions of people overcome their illnesses or disabilities, and lead a 'normal' life like the majority of us. Stem cells are a key factor in advancing the quality of our lives. For those who say that one could be kiling the person who discovers the cure for AIDS, or a Nobel prize winner, I say the the embryo has an equal chance of becoming a murder, theif, rapist, or other undesirable member of society. That various people and religious groups would rather save a potential life that no one knows how it will turn out, yet deny a paralyzed person the opportunity to regain the life they once knew, seems cruel to me. I'm not quite that extreme. It doesn't matter WHO you kill, it matters that you KILL. Kill just for the purpose of possibly curing someone. That's like saying you won't help your friend from drowning, just in case someone else in the next ten seconds needs your help instead. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bad furday 57 Posted April 18, 2004 In scientific terms, until a baby is born and out in the world, it would be considered a parasite....as it totally relies on the host (mother) to survive. just a thought... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mara 29 Posted April 18, 2004 In scientific terms, until a baby is born and out in the world, it would be considered a parasite....as it totally relies on the host (mother) to survive. just a thought... So baby kangaroos are parasites too? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chozen 1 Posted April 18, 2004 Kangaroos are parasites full stop. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mara 29 Posted April 18, 2004 that depends on your definition on when life begins. conception or birth, or somewhere in between. personally, i don't know where exactly i stand on this because i don't know enough about it to formulate an opinion. Conception. How can it not be life then? i agree with you. but some people don't think life starts until the baby takes a breath. that it's not "techincally" alive until then. *shakes head* Some people need Biology lessons. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
