Embryonic Stem Cells Get a Boost

[RoxStar]

Bring on the Stem Cells!


"Put them straight into my pancreas boys!"

I haveType 1 Diabetes

I'm glad that we can actually make use of the stockpile of embryos now. (Not opening a moral debate on that, you don't have to be pro-life to know that it was an absolute waste to have such a resource blocked off)

[GarfieldJL]

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7929690.stm

Finally, science can continue.

More like infantcide being sanctioned, this is why I'm against fertility clinics, abortions, etc.

Human life shouldn't be a commercial object, which is what this is doing.


Some of the conditions they are saying this research will fix is a load of garbage, I highly doubt they can fix conditions which are genetic in nature (despite what abortion advocates claim). That includes diabetes, because it is caused by genetics.

[RoxStar]

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

That includes diabetes, because it is caused by genetics.

With all due respect sir, you do not know the first thing about my illness. If I had about 25,000 USD on hand, I would hop on a plane to Japan to receive stem cell therapy to stimulate the growing off islet cells in my pancreas, causing my body to produce insulin on its own accord once again. It truly works and many diabetics have undergone such experimental procedures.

I was not born with diabetes and is relatively rare for that to actually happen. The vast majority of diabetics are diagnosed just before puberty (I was 14). Type 1 Diabetes is an autoimmunal disease caused by the body destroying islet cells in the pancreas. Stem cells can cause these cells to regenerate, but there is no guarantee that another autoimmunal reaction will destroy them once again. However most diabetics reach upwards of 15 years before having to undergo the therapy once more. The sheer amount of money saved, pork taken out of the healthcare system, and lives extended and saved makes this breakthrough well worth it. Stem cells do not have to come from abortions and believing and telling others that they do is highly unethical, I dare say even immoral.

So when you say

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

I highly doubt they can fix conditions which are genetic in nature ....that includes diabetes, because it is caused by genetics.

(ellipsis is my addition for a concise quote)

You must mean "I really have no idea what I am speaking about and am merely making the rounds between Kavar's Corner and the Senate to spout my usual spiel to anyone that will listen"

[GarfieldJL]

Originally Posted by RoxStar

With all due respect sir, you do not know the first thing about my illness. If I had about 25,000 USD on hand, I would hop on a plane to Japan to receive stem cell therapy to stimulate the growing off islet cells in my pancreas, causing my body to produce insulin on its own accord once again. It truly works and many diabetics have undergone such experimental procedures.

Some diabetes are genetic in nature or there genetically there is a heightened risk for it. Yours sounds different in nature to some of the others I've heard of. What I was referring to overall is the advertising that it's a cure-all which it isn't. Such as saying it will cure Down Syndrome which is a load of garbage.

Originally Posted by RoxStar

I was not born with diabetes and is relatively rare for that to actually happen. The vast majority of diabetics are diagnosed just before puberty (I was 14). Type 1 Diabetes is an autoimmunal disease caused by the body destroying islet cells in the pancreas. Stem cells can cause these cells to regenerate, but there is no guarantee that another autoimmunal reaction will destroy them once again. However most diabetics reach upwards of 15 years before having to undergo the therapy once more. The sheer amount of money saved, pork taken out of the healthcare system, and lives extended and saved makes this breakthrough well worth it. Stem cells do not have to come from abortions and believing and telling others that they do is highly unethical, I dare say even immoral.

Well here's the thing the only stem cells President Bush was denying funding for research on was from abortion clinics and fertility clinics, the adult stem cells were perfectly acceptable, as were stem cells from the umbillical cord of a newborn.

The reason that that treatment hasn't been approved in the US could include the fact that they don't know the side effects. From some sources I've heard that one could be looking at an increased risk of Cancer.

Originally Posted by RoxStar

You must mean "I really have no idea what I am speaking about and am merely making the rounds between Kavar's Corner and the Senate to spout my usual spiel to anyone that will listen"

I know more about the topic than you think... I realize I haven't had a lot of sleep here recently.

Btw, if you would like me to ellaborate on something or counter a particular argument I've made do so, don't personally attack me in a Juvenile manner.

[True_Avery]

If I recall, the scientific community has never said it would be a cure-all.

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

Some diabetes are genetic in nature or there genetically there is a heightened risk for it. Yours sounds different in nature to some of the others I've heard of. What I was referring to overall is the advertising that it's a cure-all which it isn't. Such as saying it will cure Down Syndrome which is a load of garbage.

Source for "I've heard about".

Source for "Advertising it's a cure-all".

Source for "cure Down Syndrome".

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

Well here's the thing the only stem cells President Bush was denying funding for research on was from abortion clinics and fertility clinics, the adult stem cells were perfectly acceptable, as were stem cells from the umbillical cord of a newborn.

So, the fact they throw away and don't use stem cells from fertility clinics every day doesn't matter?

http://www.lifenews.com/bio449.html

Either way, the cells are going to die. It is just if they are used to save someone, or put into a trash can.

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

The reason that that treatment hasn't been approved in the US could include the fact that they don't know the side effects. From some sources I've heard that one could be looking at an increased risk of Cancer.

Source for "treatment hasn't been approved in the US could include the fact they don't know side effects".

Sources for "increased risk of cancer".

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

I know more about the topic than you think... I realize I haven't had a lot of sleep here recently.

Care to back that up? So far you've called pro-choice infant murderers and made speculation on "sources" you did not source.

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

Some of the conditions they are saying this research will fix is a load of garbage, I highly doubt they can fix conditions which are genetic in nature (despite what abortion advocates claim). That includes diabetes, because it is caused by genetics.

http://www.healthandage.com/public/h...y-disease.html
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun...ence/sci-stem7
http://fetus.ucsfmedicalcenter.org/stem_cells/
http://fetus.ucsfmedicalcenter.org/s...learn_more.asp
http://www.dukehealth.org/HealthLibrary/News/8747
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-asc022908.php

Nice try.

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

More like infantcide being sanctioned.

I believe you have to be an infant to be classified under infanticide. Not a collection of brainless, blank slate cells.

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

this is why I'm against fertility clinics, abortions, etc

So, if a woman is about to die along with her baby because of a womb problem and the only way to save the mother is to abort, you are for both of them dying instead?

If someone is raped at 13 and becomes pregnant, they are murders for aborting?

If a couple is having trouble conceiving or cannot without help, going to a fertility clinic is evil?

Other than an incredibly selfish superstition, why are you against them? And no, "I don't like killing babies" is not an answer, because only psychopaths like killing babies.

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

Human life shouldn't be a commercial object, which is what this is doing.

And how do you define human life?

A pile of blank slate cells do not think. They are as relevant as the cells in your bone marrow.

They do not know what to be yet. They have the -possibility- to become a baby, but they also have the possibility to become any other cell in your body.

Its like banning the use of legos because you could make legos look like a baby, when at the same time you could use them to make hundreds of other things.

Thing is, you are so concentrated around the fact you think these are fetus'...

They aren't. They are purer and more malleable versions of the same cells found in adults.



That. Not this:


One has a brain, the other does not even have brain cells. One is a pile of blank slate cells, the other is a collection of various determined cells. One feels pain, the other does not.

Life isn't precious. If it was, your god wouldn't of rained hell and killed thousands of people in his early days. Were there babies? Pregnant women? Children? For a book that seems to call life precious, those in it weren't above killing thousands to further the teachings. And, being that you are christian, I am going to assume your philosophy that life is precious starts with your faith.

Which, in reality, would only be relevant if the stem cells were living humans instead of a collection of blank cells. It is relevant, however, on the basis of the origins of your superstition.

Or does living life not matter? I seem to also recall that you support Israel's fighting Hamas. Our fight in the Middle East. Even torturing people.

Where does the line on life cross with you exactly? Do you require them to be born, and then forget about them until they do something bad?

[EnderWiggin]

Originally Posted by True_Avery

They aren't. They are purer and more malleable versions of the same cells found in adults.

Just to back up what Avery is saying:

The adult cells are multipotent, meaning they can turn into more than one type of cell, true. However, Garfy, Avery is correct: They are not pluripotent, like the stem cells we're talking about here are. Pluripotent means that they can become any type of cell.

To reinforce:

An example of a multipotent stem cell is a hematopoietic cell — a blood stem cell that can develop into several types of blood cells, but cannot develop into brain cells or other types of cells.

Pluripotent stem cells can give rise to any fetal or adult cell type. However, alone they cannot develop into a fetal or adult animal because they lack the potential to contribute to extraembryonic tissue.

_EW_

[GarfieldJL]

Originally Posted by EnderWiggin

The adult cells are multipotent, meaning they can turn into more than one type of cell, true. However, Garfy, Avery is correct: They are not pluripotent, like the stem cells we're talking about here are. Pluripotent means that they can become any type of cell.

You mean they can't yet. I'd honestly be for further research on the adult cells, that way there wouldn't be the ethics issue.

[EnderWiggin]

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

You mean they can't yet. I'd honestly be for further research on the adult cells, that way there wouldn't be the ethics issue.

They can't at any point. They're classified as multipotent because they, by definition, are unable to do what pluripotent cells can.

Please get some sort of biological backing before you make false claims please.

_EW_

[GarfieldJL]

Originally Posted by EnderWiggin

They can't at any point. They're classified as multipotent because they, by definition, are unable to do what pluripotent cells can.

Please get some sort of biological backing before you make false claims please.

Aren't they able to make stem cells out of skin cells now? Seriously to say that it isn't possible and dismiss it right off is dismissing the fact that we can make scientific advances to change how a cell behaves.

[EnderWiggin]

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

Aren't they able to make stem cells out of skin cells now? Seriously to say that it isn't possible and dismiss it right off is dismissing the fact that we can make scientific advances to change how a cell behaves.

Not pluripotent ones, which was my original point

_EW_

[GarfieldJL]

Originally Posted by EnderWiggin

Not pluripotent ones, which was my original point

And I'm saying they can't yet, how about they do research on altering pluripotent cells which wouldn't cause any moral issues.

[PastramiX]

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

And I'm saying they can't yet, how about they do research on altering pluripotent cells which wouldn't cause any moral issues.

Adult stem cells can not be easily manipulated as embryonic ones, due to the fact that they have matured and have taken on some characteristics of their intended purpose, hence why embryonic stem cells are highly sought after, since they are entirely "blank", if you will.

[EnderWiggin]

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

And I'm saying they can't yet, how about they do research on altering pluripotent cells which wouldn't cause any moral issues.

I stand corrected. While I thought they were making multipotent cells out of skin cells, but they are in fact making Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells. However, these are the cells that are shown to cause tumors.

However, Pastrami is correct.

_EW_

[GarfieldJL]

Originally Posted by EnderWiggin

I stand corrected. While I thought they were making multipotent cells out of skin cells, but they are in fact making Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells. However, these are the cells that are shown to cause tumors.

Depends, I don't think the tumors show up as often if it is the skin cells of the person you intend to use the stem cells on. You can gather cells with the same properties as embryonic stem cells from another source though which is a leftover from the birthing process.

[EnderWiggin]

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

Depends, I don't think the tumors show up as often if it is the skin cells of the person you intend to use the stem cells on. You can gather cells with the same properties as embryonic stem cells from another source though which is a leftover from the birthing process.

False. You have no empirical evidence to claim that they don't "show up as often." The reason that these induced pluripotent stem cells aren't used is due to the causal relationship they have with tumors - tumors which present irrespective of who they're being used on.

_EW_

[kipperthefrog]

I got something to contribute:
talked to some people and they use the slippery slope arguemnt aginst stem cell research. The biggest fear, they clain, is that if they start using blastocysts, thay will have less respect for life, and move on to terminating bigger things.

[Totenkopf]

Meh, it's the triumph of politics over medcical ethics. Especially in light of all the advances in stem cells that have occurred since the ban (on lines not yet already existing).

[Rake]

I really don't understand the hypocritical nature of some people on the side against stem cell research. In my opinion, every cell that is going to be thrown away in every fertility clinic should be stockpiled and given to everyone against "murdering babies." Especially after a baby is born, they are allowed to be "collateral" damage in bombings and the like.

[EnderWiggin]

Originally Posted by kipperthefrog

I got something to contribute:
talked to some people and they use the slippery slope arguemnt aginst stem cell research. The biggest fear, they clain, is that if they start using blastocysts, thay will have less respect for life, and move on to terminating bigger things.

....did this surprise you?

_EW_

[Achilles]

Originally Posted by kipperthefrog

I got something to contribute:
talked to some people and they use the slippery slope arguemnt aginst stem cell research. The biggest fear, they clain, is that if they start using blastocysts, thay will have less respect for life, and move on to terminating bigger things.

Well, you do have to watch out for those zany, kill-happy scientists. Everyone knows that they're only looking for ways to kill people under the guise of "helping to further mankind", etc.

Nothing at all like those "devout christians" who blow up reproductive health clinics where the blastocysts can be found...with the doctors and nurses inside.

[GarfieldJL]

Originally Posted by Kyp Dooran

I really don't understand the hypocritical nature of some people on the side against stem cell research. In my opinion, every cell that is going to be thrown away in every fertility clinic should be stockpiled and given to everyone against "murdering babies." Especially after a baby is born, they are allowed to be "collateral" damage in bombings and the like.

Many of the people whom are against embryonic stem cell research, are also against abortion, and against fertility clinics existing. There is a concept called adoption, there are a bunch of children out there that need homes.


I don't condone the hypocracy of tossing bombs at fertility clinics if they think those embryos are life.

I also don't condone the practice that leads to those embryos being created in the first place.

Human life is human life from the first cell division to when they are born, to when they are an adult, to when they are elderly.

A baby doesn't look like an adult human, but they are both still human. This is nothing more than commercializing human life, which is immoral.

[Achilles]

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

Human life is human life from the first cell division to when they are born, to when they are an adult, to when they are elderly.

A baby doesn't look like an adult human, but they are both still human. This is nothing more than commercializing human life, which is immoral.

These are your opinions. If pressed for your "good reasons" for believing this to be true, I'm willing to bet we'll find religious dogma, not well-founded moral philosophy.

[GarfieldJL]

Originally Posted by Achilles

These are your opinions. If pressed for your "good reasons" for believing this to be true, I'm willing to bet we'll find religious dogma, not well-founded moral philosophy.

Can a human give birth to a cat, dog, fish, etc. Two humans mating will only produce a human offspring, that's simple biology, it isn't an opinion.

[SkinWalker]

Of course a blastocyst is human. I don't think Achilles is denying it or arguing otherwise. It has human DNA. What a blastocyst isn't is a person. Its a ball of cells with no brain. It has as much right to live as the bacteria in my bowels.

[Achilles]

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

Can a human give birth to a cat, dog, fish, etc. Two humans mating will only produce a human offspring, that's simple biology, it isn't an opinion.

Huh?

Yes, a blastocyst can become an embryo which can become a fetus which can give way to a baby which can grow into a human being. You would argue that all of these things are "a person". I would argue that only a couple of them are. Your arguments are most likely grounded in religious dogma, conservative talking points, and general ignorance about the field of biology. My arguments are based on something else.

[Totenkopf]

Good thing that bacteria can't grow into a fully functional human, I mean talk about a real pain in the arse...

If you acknowledge that a blastocyst is human, why should it be ignored human rights? If I introduce human DNA into a dog, does it then become human as well? (warning..it's a rhetorical question) Does a "human" only have rights insofar as it draws breath unaided in earth's atmosphere? I'm not asking a legal question here btw.

[SkinWalker]

My toenails are human. My skin is human. A blastocyst, while it has the potential to develop into an embryo and then a fetus, is not a person. A sperm cell has the same potential to develop into a person. Yet we would hardly expect all of them to do so. Nor is it immoral (to most rational people) to protect every single sperm cell with the same sort of vigor.

A blastocyst is not a person. It has no brain.

[Totenkopf]

And will never be allowed to develop the brain that DNA provides it with as it continues to develop b/c some people are content to snuff it out for what are statistically known to be completely selfish reasons.

The reason that your 1st 2 examples = fail is because none of those cells grows into a person, but are just differentiated parts of the whole. Also, a brain is not a person either, but like the toenail, skin and sperm cell also merely parts.

Nor is it immoral (to most rational people) to protect every single sperm cell with the same sort of vigor.

Did you mean that to most rational people masturbation is NOT immoral?

[SkinWalker]

I was actually speaking of birth control. There is no rational reason to object to condoms, the pill, the morning after pill, diaphragms, spermicide, etc., but there are those who object based on supernatural concerns.

Killing a sperm or egg -or preventing an egg from fertilizing to begin with, amounts to the same result as fertilizing it and removing the blastocyst before it becomes a person. Indeed, many, many blastocysts never fully develop to begin with.

So, what good reason is there to object to obtaining stem cells from a blastocyst (which is not a person) if one is has no objections to birth control?

[Achilles]

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

Nor is it immoral (to most rational people) to protect every single sperm cell with the same sort of vigor.

On the opposite side of the playing field: how about the egg cell?

Non-pregnant women who have experience puberty but have not yet been through menopause typically "waste" one of the precious cell every month. I mean, if were seriously going to advocate extending human rights to every cell that has the potential to become a human being, I can think of no better poster child for the cause than an egg cell.

Following this train of thought through to it's logical conclusion, doesn't this mean that women have a moral obligation to be pregnant at all times? Shouldn't the wasteful ejection of a viable potential person be cause for scorn?

I think if we want this silly argument to be taken seriously, we have to recognize that the time of half-measures has passed. Let's round up some women and force them to be pregnant all the time! I'm sure they won't mind at all [/sarcasm]

[Totenkopf]

While they most likely wouldn't like it, for "supernatural reasons", I'd still be willing to bet that many of them would concede that an ounce of prevention (condoms) was preferable to a pound of cure (abortion in any of it's varieties).

Indeed, many, many blastocysts never fully develop to begin with.

Indeed, and many people die in the course of things from illnesses or varied genetic defects as well.

So, what good reason is there to object to obtaining stem cells from a blastocyst (which is not a person) if one is has no objections to birth control?

Probably the same kind of thing that allows people to approve of killing in self-defense but not murder. They're two different animals.

[SkinWalker]

Originally Posted by Totenkopf

Probably the same kind of thing that allows people to approve of killing in self-defense but not murder. They're two different animals.

Since harvesting a blastocyst isn't the same as killing a person, this is a weak analogy.

[Totenkopf]

Hardly, as the end effect is still the same. A person is still a person (lest we're now talking legal definitions) all along the spectrum of life. The whole purpose of fetal stem cells is largely to supply another revenue stream for abortion providers. And regardless of whether you chose to agree with that or not (you won't, of course ), other methods have since been developed that obviate the need to go down the path of fetal stem cell research.

[SkinWalker]

Originally Posted by Totenkopf

The whole purpose of fetal stem cells is largely to supply another revenue stream for abortion providers. And regardless of whether you chose to agree with that or not (you won't, of course), other methods have since been developed that obviate the need to go down the path of fetal stem cell research.

First, those methods do not obviate the need or value of doing embryonic stem cell research (they don't bother with cells of fetus' -so I'm assuming you mis-typed). The method(s) you're probably referring to do not produce nearly the pluropotency that can be obtained from embryonic lines.

Second, I'm willing to agree with your contention about abortion clinic profits, but I'll need to see some evidence. Most abortions are conducted after the blastocyst stage, so I don't see how this is a logical argument since the core premise doesn't hold.

Fertility clinics might get some new revenue streams, but the contention that abortion clinics would/do is likely undereducated rhetoric from superstitious objectionists who are already aligned against abortion clinics and seek to poison the well with regard to embryonic stem cells by associating them with something easier to criticize. I suspect you may have read some of this rhetoric.

But, like I said, I'm willing to revise my opinion/conclusion. I'd be interested to see what evidence there is for it.

[GarfieldJL]

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

Since harvesting a blastocyst isn't the same as killing a person, this is a weak analogy.

How isn't it, you just admitted it is a human, just because it isn't a fully developed adult doesn't mean it isn't human.


The brain isn't fully developed in a newborn, but a newborn is still human. Your Toenails are largely made up of dead and dieing cells btw.

[Totenkopf]

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

First, those methods [i]do not[/i(I] obviate the need or value of doing embryonic stem cell research (they don't bother with cells of fetus' -so I'm assuming you mis-typed). The method(s) you're probably referring to do not produce nearly the pluropotency that can be obtained from embryonic lines.

Right, and that was naturally why private industry didn't pursue any of it when the ban was ONLY on federal funding, not private funding. I suspect you may be as current on this as you were about Libby/Armitage. And probably no less sloppy in your thinking about what is just and what isn't.

Second, I'm willing to agree with your contention about abortion clinic profits, but I'll need to see some evidence. Most abortions are conducted after the blastocyst stage, so I don't see how this is a logical argument since the core premise doesn't hold.

I didn't actually say "abortion clinincs". And despite your parsing about "blastocysts", it's called fetal stem cell for a reason. When fertility clinincs are in the business of disposing of fertilized egg cells when they are "done" with them, that's still an abortion.

Fertility clinics might get some new revenue streams, but the contention that abortion clinics would/do is likely undereducated rhetoric from superstitious objectionists who are already aligned against abortion clinics and seek to poison the well with regard to embryonic stem cells by associating them with something easier to criticize. I suspect you may have read some of this rhetoric.

Shilling for the "abortion industry" are you.. Actually, I've never visited "superstitious" pro-life sites, not sure how you jump to your conclusion beyond making the illogical assumption that all opposition to abortion (in any of it's stages/incarnations) is only rooted in religion. Is that part of some atheistic credo, as you aren't the only atheist here that customarily jumps to that conclusion?

But, like I said, I'm willing to revise my opinion/conclusion.....

No offense, I rather doubt it based on many of your comments in this thread.

[Achilles]

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

How isn't it, you just admitted it is a human, just because it isn't a fully developed adult doesn't mean it isn't human.

As he's already pointed out (more than once?), the true issue at hand is personhood, not whether or not something is "human".

Thanks to modern science, dead toenails cells have the same "potential for personhood" as an egg cell or a sperm cell. Are we going to extend human rights to toenail clippings too?

You see, Garf, at some point the argument goes too far and the discussion becomes impractical.

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

The brain isn't fully developed in a newborn, but a newborn is still human.

Indeed, and since a newborn has a brain and a heart and activity in both, and meets all the other requirements for "life", there isn't much debate about whether or not it's a living thing.

So, I'm not sure what your point is.

[GarfieldJL]

Originally Posted by Achilles

As he's already pointed out (more than once?), the true issue at hand is personhood, not whether or not something is "human".

Thanks to modern science, dead toenails cells have the same "potential for personhood" as an egg cell or a sperm cell. Are we going to extend human rights to toenail clippings too?

No, a toenail does not have that capability on its own via natural means to become self-aware. Egg cells and sperm cells by themselves lack some of the chromosomes needed to create new life. Once you have cell division, that it, left on it's own you can end up having a baby with a fully functioning nervous system. If they were making stem cells out of unfertalized eggs or straight sperm cells, there wouldn't be that big of an issue, but once we see the egg be fertalized that's it we're talking about a life that is seperate from the mother's.

Originally Posted by Achilles

You see, Garf, at some point the argument goes too far and the discussion becomes impractical.

Originally Posted by Achilles

Indeed, and since a newborn has a brain and a heart and activity in both, and meets all the other requirements for "life", there isn't much debate about whether or not it's a living thing.

Not according to people like Planned Parenthood and Barack Obama.

Originally Posted by Achilles

So, I'm not sure what your point is.

My point is that it seems the Catholics have it right. You shouldn't allow abortions, fertility clinics, etc. because there wouldn't be this moral calamity.

[True_Avery]

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

My point is that it seems the Catholics have it right. You shouldn't allow abortions, fertility clinics, etc. because there wouldn't be this moral calamity.

Moral by whom's standards? The Catholics? You'll have to excuse me if I don't agree with the "morals" of a church that has committed countless atrocities.

It is a moral calamity to you, but not to me and others. Unfortunately for you, not everyone has your morals.

You'll also have to forgive me for not believing in this perfect world you have realized. You do realize that in the absence of clinics, girls can and do go to back alley "clinics" or attempt abortions themselves along with killing/dumping their babies when born? How about when the abortion is needed to save the mother's life?

This topic seems to also focus on the baby, but there is a woman carrying that baby. That baby can kill her, ruin her, and she has, regardless of a clinic or not, the power to abort that baby in a number of ways. What are you going to do when that happens? Charge the woman with murder?

Awfully convenient for the men in this thread to talk when they aren't the ones carrying the baby to term and putting their life on the line to do such.

Your world has holes in it, and I am quite frankly ticked off that you keep ignoring this glaringly obvious hole in your thought processes and posts that point it out.

[GarfieldJL]

Originally Posted by True_Avery

Moral by whom's standards? The Catholics? You'll have to excuse me if I don't agree with the "morals" of a church that has committed countless atrocities.

True_Avery, I'm not Catholic for a reason, but in this area I feel they have the correct viewpoint.

Originally Posted by True_Avery

It is a moral calamity to you, but not to me and others. Unfortunately for you, not everyone has your morals.

There are people out there that think cold-blooded murder and raping women is okay, does that mean I should respect their morals? Seriously, there are some things that liberal moral relativism is stupid.

Originally Posted by True_Avery

You'll also have to forgive me for not believing in this perfect world you have realized. You do realize that in the absence of clinics, girls can and do go to back alley "clinics" or attempt abortions themselves along with killing/dumping their babies when born? How about when the abortion is needed to save the mother's life?

The instance you're giving happens extremely rarely, most of the time a woman wants an abortion because she decides to get laid then doesn't want to get saddled with the inconvience having a baby would cause her.

Originally Posted by True_Avery

This topic seems to also focus on the baby, but there is a woman carrying that baby. That baby can kill her, ruin her, and she has, regardless of a clinic or not, the power to abort that baby in a number of ways. What are you going to do when that happens? Charge the woman with murder?

So you are admitting we're talking about a baby? And in answer I would also say in my opinion it is murder, there is such a thing known as adoption, and people wouldn't be able to get invetro fertilization either so that would mean couples that can't have children can adopt children.

Originally Posted by True_Avery

Awfully convenient for the men in this thread to talk when they aren't the ones carrying the baby to term and putting their life on the line to do such.

Actually, I condemn the man that knocked the woman up too if it was consentual, if there is rape involved then I think the rapist should have life in prison without possibility of parole, and/or the rapist be castrated. There are incidents where women rape young teenage boys and in situations like that the woman should have life in prison.

Originally Posted by True_Avery

Your world has holes in it, and I am quite frankly ticked off that you keep ignoring this glaringly obvious hole in your thought processes and posts that point it out.

And then we have planned parenthood not reporting to the police or prosecutors when an underage girl comes in whom had sex with an adult and got pregnent (which was statuatory rape), seriously there is problems with your solution too.