Andy 60 Posted April 18, 2004 These are not abortions, they've never been in contact with a womb, ever, never ever. But technically they are, they are fertilised - the gift (or curse) of life has been bestowed upon them. To terminate them is still taking life. It's not the mother's either. Should she have to bring the baby into the world? No it's not her fault either, but there are thousands of people who want children, yet can't. If they don't want the baby they can put it up for adoption. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mara 29 Posted April 18, 2004 I'm going to do the smart thing, and just get out of this thread.. before I end up getting angry and getting myself in trouble and saying things I don't mean. G'day. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Radioactive Isotope 29 Posted April 18, 2004 nice try chozen. the cleaning agents would have to come into contact with the sperm for it to kill them, right? as long as you don't ingest anything, it can't get down there. granted, some things can get through the skin, but not many, and very few cleaning agents. i'd try something different if you wanted out of cleaning up. ;) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chozen 1 Posted April 18, 2004 No it's not her fault either, but there are thousands of people who want children, yet can't. If they don't want the baby they can put it up for adoption. Yes. But shoudl she have to bring the child of her attacker.. (God I hate that word when used in this sense) into life. Pretty emotional, i wouldn't want to do it. It's a bit like: Say someone robs your house, but falls down the stairs. Should you be forced to pay for their medical bills? except on a grander scale. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy 60 Posted April 18, 2004 Here's a question. Certain biological substances, say.. Washing up liquid destroyes sperm cells.. Potential children. Should men have to do the washing up? lol, that;s going a bit far. At that stage the sperm are your own cells, not part of a new life that is forming. Besides, using that logic you could say that sex should be banned because of all the millions of wasted potential babies. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tsl 7 Posted April 18, 2004 It's not the mother's either. Should she have to bring the baby into the world? No it's not her fault either, but there are thousands of people who want children, yet can't. If they don't want the baby they can put it up for adoption. What if she's only 11 year old or something... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chozen 1 Posted April 18, 2004 nice try chozen. the cleaning agents would have to come into contact with the sperm for it to kill them, right? as long as you don't ingest anything, it can't get down there. granted, some things can get through the skin, but not many, and very few cleaning agents. i'd try something different if you wanted out of cleaning up. Not so. It's the same principal but in a male's case of "killing potential life" And they only have to touch skin for it to happen. I'm not sure on the persifics. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chozen 1 Posted April 18, 2004 Besides, using that logic you could say that sex should be banned because of all the millions of wasted potential babies. I know. That's exactly it. Why not use unwanted, or not needed embryoes and do stem blah blah blah tests with them?! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy 60 Posted April 18, 2004 Because that's ending a life! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Radioactive Isotope 29 Posted April 18, 2004 i'm not even gonna go there..... as far as 11 year-olds getting pregnant, the question is if they were raped, or if they consented. rape is one of those special cases that abortion could be ok, but it would be stretching it. albeit, most girls aren't sexually mature until they're at least 12, and by then, they should know better than to have unprotected sex. again, rape's a whole 'nother ball game. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chozen 1 Posted April 18, 2004 Because that's ending a life! yes.. un wanted un needed un bloody gived a damn about life. Sperm is life too. Just rated less on the 'I give a damn about' scale. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy 60 Posted April 18, 2004 No, sperm are specialised cells of your own body. They aren't a life on their own. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tsl 7 Posted April 18, 2004 A life that would end anyway. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chozen 1 Posted April 18, 2004 What about testing on animal embryoes? Tisn't human life. But still life. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tsl 7 Posted April 18, 2004 I think they probably do. But things that work with animals don't always work with humans. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chozen 1 Posted April 18, 2004 Okay, that's enough of me taking the piss. It's nearly 12. There's a JW film on. That'd be John Woo. hehe and i'm getting sleepy. good night Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy 60 Posted April 18, 2004 Now forgive me if I offend anyone here, but nature put animals here for our benefit. Well, we rose above the rest and now they stay for our benefit. As long as they don't experiment with species that are considered endangered, I don't have a problem with that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chozen 1 Posted April 18, 2004 (edited) I think they probably do. But things that work with animals don't always work with humans. Yeah. Cromo-scones numbers and all that funky stuff. Now forgive me if I offend anyone here, but nature put animals here for our benefit. Well, we rose above the rest and now they stay for our benefit. As long as they don't experiment with species that are considered endangered, I don't have a problem with that. No offence. I can understand the "pig was made for bacon" approach. mmmm.. bacon. Edited April 18, 2004 by Chozen Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tsl 7 Posted April 18, 2004 lol, g'night Chozen. And welcome back, btw! I'm gonna make a final statement and then vamoose before I piss anybody off, lol. I think stem cell research is really important. Especially to the people it will help. I see kids with diabetes, kids born with failing livers, young mothers diagnosed with MS, etc etc. All of them could potentially be cured by stem cell findings. I'm probably biased by my chosen career field, I accept that. I know the way the cells are obtained isnt't the best of ways. I also don't think it counts as abortion, but that's just an opinion. This is one of those grey area things. I look at it this way. If a terminal patient is dying, and wants to donate his organs so that another may live, the organ harvesting is done after brain death, but before heart death. In other words, the organs must be taken before the heart stops, otherwise the organs become hypoxic and fail. The person is brain dead at this point. Machines are keeping them "alive". I think this applies to the embryoes. These are test tube embryoes, concieved in a lab and frozen. Technology keeps them alive, and nothing else. They can only be kept for so long before they are disposed of. So let them donate their cells so that others may live. If you want to put a stop to the embryo disposal, then you have to put a stop to en vitro fertilization, because the creation of mulitple embryoes is just a part of that process. As long as it's going on though, well...let it benefit others. And now I'm finished. *takes a bow and walks out before anyone can manage to throw a chair at her* :p Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mirax 3 Posted April 18, 2004 *throws a chair on the floor by standing up too quickly and applauds TSL* Well said. :cool: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy 60 Posted April 18, 2004 In other words, the organs must be taken before the heart stops, otherwise the organs become hypoxic and fail. The person is brain dead at this point. Machines are keeping them "alive". I think this applies to the embryoes. These are test tube embryoes, concieved in a lab and frozen. Technology keeps them alive, and nothing else. They can only be kept for so long before they are disposed of. So let them donate their cells so that others may live. Well, okay... But you have to get their consent first! :p Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bad furday 57 Posted April 18, 2004 *applauds* well said Tsl, well said! :D Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Princess 35 Posted April 19, 2004 I fully agree with TSL. If you have embryos that are scientifically created and are going to have to be disposed of because of "exipiration dates" for lack of a better term, than why not use those stem cells to solve medical problems. I'm not talking cloning here, I'm talking giving someone the chance to walk again Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mirax 3 Posted April 19, 2004 Just why is science creating these embryoes? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheUnknown 39 Posted April 20, 2004 Okay, sorry to change the topic back, but I just found this. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
