Bad furday 57 Posted April 18, 2004 Yes...we all were. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tsl 7 Posted April 18, 2004 A baby cannot survive outside the womb until 20 weeks at the earliest. Even then, the baby would be in Intentise care for a very long time, on life support, may not make it, and if he/she does make it, will likely have a very crappy quality of life. Even if we saved and didn't destroy the en vitro embryoes, they couldn't survive...they haven't even developed a neural tube at that point yet. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Radioactive Isotope 29 Posted April 18, 2004 (edited) no kidding, Mara Edited April 18, 2004 by Firefly Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mara 29 Posted April 18, 2004 Just because they couldn't survive, doesn't mean they aren't alive. Are people diognosed with fatal cancer "dead"? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mara 29 Posted April 18, 2004 Yes...we all were. No. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bad furday 57 Posted April 18, 2004 Not until the EKG is a flat line......./\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\___________________________ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chozen 1 Posted April 18, 2004 (edited) Just because they couldn't survive, doesn't mean they aren't alive. Clinically dead? Edited April 18, 2004 by Chozen Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tsl 7 Posted April 18, 2004 So...what would you have them do with the embryoes then? Store them in a fridge or freeze them or something? :???: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mara 29 Posted April 18, 2004 Not until the EKG is a flat line......./\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\___________________________ There. You see? Life till physically dead. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bad furday 57 Posted April 18, 2004 But they can only be frozen for a certain amount of time, right? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tsl 7 Posted April 18, 2004 the embryo wouldn't have an ECG...it has no heart, lol. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mara 29 Posted April 18, 2004 So...what would you have them do with the embryoes then? Store them in a fridge or freeze them or something? Don't remove them. At all. No abortions. Or let them grow up. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bad furday 57 Posted April 18, 2004 yes...clusters of cells don't have hearts. My amoeba doesn't have a heart... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tsl 7 Posted April 18, 2004 Erm...en vitro means they were created in a lab. Test tube babys to be implanted into a women later. Several are created, only one is implanted. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chozen 1 Posted April 18, 2004 Not until the EKG is a flat line......./\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\___________________________ There. You see? Life till physically dead. CLINICALLY DEAD?!?!?! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy 60 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... Come on now, you can't call a baby a parasite, as it is part of a natural process that MUST take place for the purpose of reproduction, but anyway... I think stem cell research is a good idea, but I am totally against abortion at any stage unless it threatens the life of the mother. If it was possible to produce the stem cells in a lab, then that would be better, but until that time, I suppose I'll have to admit that some 'sacrifices' are neccesary. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chozen 1 Posted April 18, 2004 I think stem cell research is a good idea, but I am totally against abortion at any stage unless it threatens the life of the mother. If it was possible to produce the stem cells in a lab, then that would be better, but until that time, I suppose I'll have to admit that some 'sacrifices' are neccesary. The mother was raped? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy 60 Posted April 18, 2004 yes...clusters of cells don't have hearts. My amoeba doesn't have a heart... Neither did the Tin Man in the Wizard of Oz, but he was still alive. :p Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy 60 Posted April 18, 2004 I think stem cell research is a good idea, but I am totally against abortion at any stage unless it threatens the life of the mother. If it was possible to produce the stem cells in a lab, then that would be better, but until that time, I suppose I'll have to admit that some 'sacrifices' are neccesary. The mother was raped? That's not the babies fault. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bad furday 57 Posted April 18, 2004 I think I see what you're getting at Chozen. Someone can be hooked up to life support for 17 years, but mentally they'd be dead, kept alive by the machines. Discussed this with a Biotech major...very interesting. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chozen 1 Posted April 18, 2004 It's not the mother's either. Should she have to bring the baby into the world? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tsl 7 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... Come on now, you can't call a baby a parasite, as it is part of a natural process that MUST take place for the purpose of reproduction, but anyway... I think stem cell research is a good idea, but I am totally against abortion at any stage unless it threatens the life of the mother. If it was possible to produce the stem cells in a lab, then that would be better, but until that time, I suppose I'll have to admit that some 'sacrifices' are neccesary. Yes, embryoes aren't considered parasites...that's ridiculous. Parasites must harm the host to be considered parasites. And no, these aren't aborted babies! Read the info I looked up and posted for you, lol. These are not abortions, they've never been in contact with a womb, ever, never ever. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bad furday 57 Posted April 18, 2004 It's not the mother's either. Should she have to bring the baby into the world? No she shouldn't, she didn't decide to get raped. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mara 29 Posted April 18, 2004 I agree with Beeurd.... I agree that stem cells are helpful and can help many people improve the quality of life... ..but how long will it be for? We all die in the end anyway. I also agree that any form of abortion is wrong, as it's murder. Except in the case that having the child endangers the mother, so the baby must be removed in order that both don't die. The mother is saved and the baby had a chance at survival. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chozen 1 Posted April 18, 2004 Yes, embryoes aren't considered parasites...that's ridiculous. Parasites must harm the host to be considered parasites. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host. Not really. But I know that you're getting at. Here's a question. Certain biological substances, say.. Washing up liquid destroyes sperm cells.. Potential children. Should men have to do the washing up? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
