Japan legalizes stem cell research!

[Crash]

Well, I guess so anyways, I heard it on the radio. If it is true, good for japan, now they'll have people living to 150 instead of 112.

personally i think stem cell research should be looked into by the US (probably already is). As far as morality is concerned, get over it, I say bring on the clones! (so if I get my legs blown off, I get get a clone to donate me some more!


ok, seriously, what do you guys think of Cloning/stem cell research.

---- for those who aren't familiar with this, stem cell research involves taking "garbage" embryos and cloning them. supposively to be used to grow organs/tissue etc to be used for donations etc. so if i drink too much and screw over my liver, they can take a piece of me, clone me a new liver, so I dont have to worry about it not integrating with my body.

what do you think? Japan's doing it, why not us?

[manasecret]

Cloning humans: Not right. Cloning especially wrong when used just to harvest organs.

Stem Cell Research: Not right. Considering they get the best stem cells from unborn embryos (read: aborted babies), I believe it's wrong. I'm against abortion.

I think the U.S. will eventually legalize stem cell research completely. But cloning will never be accepted.

[Typhoid]

I honestly dont really see what all the fuss is about. Same with cloning people, i dont get why thats wrong.

But i say good on you Japan, good on you. May you pave the way for science.

[Jonbo298]

Japan is always 5 years ahead of us in everything:D

But much congrats to Japan. They think more of the medical benefits of stem cell research rather then the "moral issues" like Bush says.

*edit*
Freaky, 3 posts within a minute of each other..If I didnt spend the extra seconds thinking, it couldve been 3 posts in the same minute

[manasecret]

I honestly dont really see what all the fuss is about. Same with cloning people, i dont get why thats wrong.

But i say good on you Japan, good on you. May you pave the way for science.

My philosophy knowledge is slim to none, but if you're cloning yourself just to kill the clone and take organs you need in order to live longer, I think that's obviously wrong. If cloning is considered ok, then any clone has as much right to live as any normal born.

[manasecret]

But much congrats to Japan. They think more of the medical benefits of stem cell research rather then the "moral issues" like Bush says.

That's retarded.

Why don't we do possibly fatal research on the old and almost dead. After all, killing is just a 'moral issue'.

Bush and many other Americans consider abortion to be murder. Murder is wrong.

[Typhoid]

My philosophy knowledge is slim to none, but if you're cloning yourself just to kill the clone and take organs you need in order to live longer, I think that's obviously wrong. If cloning is considered ok, then any clone has as much right to live as any normal born.



Cloning and stem cell-ing ( if its a word) are different things, are they not?

Cloning is making another human being with the same DNA as a pre-existing human being.

Stem cells are for repairing people, youre not killing a clone, your taking embryos. Last time i checked, embryos arnt people. :p

[Jonbo298]

That's retarded.

Why don't we do possibly fatal research on the old and almost dead. After all, killing is just a 'moral issue'.

Bush and many other Americans consider abortion to be murder. Murder is wrong.

Because the older people still have life left in them.

I don't consider embryo's or stem cell's to be life yet because they haven't developed into anything yet. Thats just my opinion. You have yours

[ZebraRampage]

Cloning humans: Not right. Cloning especially wrong when used just to harvest organs.

Stem Cell Research: Not right. Considering they get the best stem cells from unborn embryos (read: aborted babies), I believe it's wrong. I'm against abortion.

I think the U.S. will eventually legalize stem cell research completely. But cloning will never be accepted.

I think it would be okay to take stem cells from babies of a miscarriage..but they might not be the same since the baby is dead..:unsure:

[manasecret]

Cloning and stem cell-ing ( if its a word) are different things, are they not?

Cloning is making another human being with the same DNA as a pre-existing human being.

Stem cells are for repairing people, youre not killing a clone, your taking embryos. Last time i checked, embryos arnt people. :p

Yes, in essence they are completely different.

You can get stem cells from cloned embryos, but there are far more issues about cloning than simply collecting stem cells. And there are far more issues about collecting stem cells than simply getting them from cloned embryos, if you catch my meaning.

As for embryos not being people, depends on who you ask. But by current U.S. law, embryos are not legally people (except after a certain amount of time and/or other technicalities).

That's why I think stem cell research will eventually be legalized. The law about embryos not being people isn't going to backtrack that far; abortion isn't going to be made illegal.

Which I agree with abortion being legal. Woman's rights are as important as unborn baby's rights. It's an unfortunate circumstance with the rights of one crossing another's.

[manasecret]

I think it would be okay to take stem cells from babies of a miscarriage..but they might not be the same since the baby is dead..:unsure:

No one's arguing that.

The only problem Bush and others have with stem cell research is that most stem cells are collected from aborted babies. Bush is against abortion.

[Typhoid]

Which I agree with abortion being legal.



Whats this? But wait....


I believe it's wrong. I'm against abortion.



Make up your mind and dont cantradict yourself so you can hold a propor position in an argument. :p


I know i know.

[Crash]

the last thing the world needs, is to have people live even longer than they are... people are already living 30 years longer than they were 40 years ago....


talk about over population!

[Dylflon]

Beleiving abortion should be legal and not liking abortion are two completely different things.

[GameMaster]

From a scientific standpoint, I think this is exciting news.

As far as moral controversy, I think it probably is wrong but I don't object because we're raising millions of chickens and cows in little farms just to kill the for food. And that's wrong in my opinion. Raising animals just to kill them. And don't even try to argue that we need those farms because humans don't need beef or chicken to live. So as long as we continue to breed animals just for consumption, I say go ahead and bring on the human breeding.

[Jonbo298]

the last thing the world needs, is to have people live even longer than they are... people are already living 30 years longer than they were 40 years ago....


talk about over population!

But in 30-40 years we will be in hover cars and taking daily trips to the moon and harvesting mars

[manasecret]

Make up your mind and dont cantradict yourself so you can hold a propor position in an argument. :p


I know i know.


Beleiving abortion should be legal and not liking abortion are two completely different things.

Thank you, Dylflon. Typhoid, piss up a rope.

[bobcat]

From a scientific standpoint, I think this is exciting news.

As far as moral controversy, I think it probably is wrong but I don't object because we're raising millions of chickens and cows in little farms just to kill the for food. And that's wrong in my opinion. Raising animals just to kill them. And don't even try to argue that we need those farms because humans don't need beef or chicken to live. So as long as we continue to breed animals just for consumption, I say go ahead and bring on the human breeding.

point taken and a good 1 @ that

[manasecret]

From a scientific standpoint, I think this is exciting news.

As far as moral controversy, I think it probably is wrong but I don't object because we're raising millions of chickens and cows in little farms just to kill the for food. And that's wrong in my opinion. Raising animals just to kill them. And don't even try to argue that we need those farms because humans don't need beef or chicken to live. So as long as we continue to breed animals just for consumption, I say go ahead and bring on the human breeding.

So cannibalism should be legal? Farming humans for organs should be legal? How far are you willing to take that argument?

[Canyarion]

The problem with these things is that we don't know the long-term effects. It could be the extinction of our race...

The worst things have been done with the best intentions..

[GameMaster]

So cannibalism should be legal? Farming humans for organs should be legal? How far are you willing to take that argument?

Well, I don't think it should legal to consume a normal-born but if it was bred for the intention of eating like those cows and chickens, go ahead and let the people eat them who prefer cannibalism.

Until we stop the animal breeding for specific purposes, I'm fine with human breeding also for specific purposes. As far as the value of our life's, I don't consider ours to be any more than that of any other creature.

[Happydude]

frankly, i think that the women who want to abort should rather donate the unborn child to research...no point in wasting a life completly. if someone wants to abort, let them abort but not completly waste it.

[ZebraRampage]

I see it this way. I know that cloning can change the evolutionary way of life..but isn't it true that humans have evolved to have bigger brains giving them more intelligence than any other species? I believe that since this has happened we can't be stopped with what we do because our species will become more intelligent through the years. Of course it might be the end of us, but how would we stop it? You can't just stop at one period of time and say this is it, this is as far as we're going and an example of that is the amish. They still are able to live in this world, but now our world is about productivity, and everything is going faster, and it's all better quality, so what we do is just part of evolution in my mind. We're becoming more intelligent, and yes it will affect our world, and it could be for the worst, but that's what is going to happen, and I don't think we can stop it. I'm not saying that I like the idea of cloning..hell I don't know what I think, but I don't think that we can just say no to it. I hope that this makes sense, because I don't usually explain my opinoins very well..

[Yugi Starwind]

well, that's all well and good. it shows what scientific research can do, but i do have to say that some of the things we do for cloning is just not right(IE organ harvesting) but even though it can help us, you'e still taking life away from another human. now if there was a way to preserve one's memories and then clone the person before they die and insert the memories before they died into the 2nd body, then you could practically live forever..just a thought..

[manasecret]

Well, I don't think it should legal to consume a normal-born but if it was bred for the intention of eating like those cows and chickens, go ahead and let the people eat them who prefer cannibalism.

Until we stop the animal breeding for specific purposes, I'm fine with human breeding also for specific purposes. As far as the value of our life's, I don't consider ours to be any more than that of any other creature.

Are you serious? Are you really arguing this?

You can't be. That's the most moronic argument ever that it has to be a joke.

Because we're doing one bad thing according to you, why don't we just go ahead do another completely awful thing. Why not? Two wrongs couldn't be any worse than one.

That's slavery talk. That's almost Hitler talk.

[thatmariolover]

Meh. Scientifically it's interesting.

Morally, I have to say that embryos aren't capable of thought. The can't have a desire to live or die. They are incapable of sentient thought. Yeah, they might grow into people. But I mean, sperm might join with egg if you weren't using condoms.

It's all where you draw the lines. I'm perfectly comfortable with embryos being used.

[Typhoid]

Are you serious? Are you really arguing this?

You can't be. That's the most moronic argument ever that it has to be a joke.

Because we're doing one bad thing according to you, why don't we just go ahead do another completely awful thing. Why not? Two wrongs couldn't be any worse than one.

That's slavery talk. That's almost Hitler talk.



Um. Its not Hitler talk. OR Slavery talk.

In a way, he has a good point (GM)

We breed animals and such for food, and for lab testng, why see it as a travesty when its with humans? Were all animals.

Cloning or stem cell research doesnt affect me, so im perfectly fine with it. Plus liking of new sciences and descoveries, i like the idea. It lets us learn and descover new things, and im all for that.

[manasecret]

We breed animals and such for food, and for lab testng, why see it as a travesty when its with humans? Were all animals.

Once you say breeding humans for food and lab testing, you're talking about exactly what Nazi Germany did. They did horrendous lab testing on humans they deemed less than human.

If you're against breeding animals for food and science, then fine. But saying it should be done on humans is outright ignorant.

What you're talking about is taking away fundamental human rights, you would be making a whole race of humans that would be less than human. That's exactly what slavery is, except in this case it's worse because you'll be lab testing them and eating them. Slavery America as far as I remember at least never did that.

[thatmariolover]

As much as I see what you're trying to say GameMaster, I have an opposite approach to it. Animal testing/breeding should be as illegal as it is for humans. Human testing/breeding shouldn't be as legal as it is for animals.

[Typhoid]

As much as I see what you're trying to say GameMaster, I have an opposite approach to it. Animal testing/breeding should be as illegal as it is for humans. Human testing/breeding shouldn't be as legal as it is for animals.


I think he was trying to make a point. If ones legal why not the other. Or if ones illegal, why is the other legal.

But yeah, i say either both, or none.

[Vampyr]

Meh. Scientifically it's interesting.

Morally, I have to say that embryos aren't capable of thought. The can't have a desire to live or die. They are incapable of sentient thought. Yeah, they might grow into people. But I mean, sperm might join with egg if you weren't using condoms.

It's all where you draw the lines. I'm perfectly comfortable with embryos being used.

“I knew you even before
you were conceived.”

Jeremiah 1:4-5

To me that says something. Being a religious statement, I understand it wouldnt help solve anything scientifically, but I am a christain, and I take those words to heart. So is abortion murder? Even if it is still a undeveloped embryo? Yes. It is. Something that was once living is no longer living. It's not alive anymore, so therefore it is dead.

Which I agree with abortion being legal. Woman's rights are as important as unborn baby's rights. It's an unfortunate circumstance with the rights of one crossing another's.

No it's not. Woman dont have the right to kill. Since when were women allowed to murder someone? But an unborn baby does have the right to live. Weather you are living inside somebody or outside somebody, you are still alive. The ONLY time I think abortion should be allowed is if the doctors confirm that the mother may die from delivering the maybe. Because then the woman has the right to defend herself, and her life is no more important than the baby's.

And no one has mentioned some of the other things that stem cells can be used for. These cells are "blanks", meaning that dont have any information on them yet. Once stem cells have been studied further, they can be programmed and introduced into the body to alter soemone's genetic make up, meaning genetic disorders such as down syndrome, autism, or Alzheimer's can be cured. But, on the flip side, you can use this technology to try and improve humans, by making them stronger, faster, taller, etc, etc. Which I strongly disagree with.

I was so strongly inspired by this that I wrote a short argumentive essay:

Genetic Enhancements:
Forging Humans

If genes were metal, then science is slowly becoming the hammer and the fire is surely time-it burns more brightly and hotly with each passing day. Geneticists would be the proper name of the scientists who study genes, but in the future one would not be wrong to dub them “genesmiths” or even “humansmiths”, for soon they will understand enough to wield the hammer and prove how malleable humans really are. What was once a mere fantasy that played the subject of science fiction novels and movies has now become more and more of a reality.

In February of 2001, the entire human genome was successfully mapped out, and scientists have begun to realize the amazing potential of this feat. What is there to stop us from using this genetic “library” to alter disease causing genes and curing such fallacies as Alzheimer’s and Huntington’s? The information that scientists now hold is comparable to the Rosetta stone. We have obtained the key to understanding a language we have long since known existed, but upon using this key we have unlocked a door only to reveal a nearly infinite number of new locks. These “locks” represent the potentials of genetic engineering, and they are not impossible to unlock. Once the proper research has been performed, scientists will gain each “key” needed to open each lock. With this information we may have the power to create a cure as contagious as any disease, alter human embryos to save a child from Down Syndrome, improve the mental and physical strength of even the healthiest human, or alter the human germ line.

But with this new information a series of questions arise. We must carefully consider the consequences of opening each lock, or we might just find ourselves opening a modern day Pandora’s Box. Some uses of genetic engineering seem quite practical, and would benefit the entire world. Imagine being able to save a family member from Alzheimer’s, or actually being able to cure autism. As the situation stands, scientists are not yet able to perform such miraculous work. For the time being, geneticists can no more alter a gene to cure Alzheimer’s as they can alter a gene to enable a man to lift more weights. Writer W. French Anderson quotes Xu Zhi-Wei (a professor of molecular biology, medicine, and bioethics) in saying that no scientist knows exactly how each of the trillions of organic materials that make up a human body collaborate with each other, and if an individual gene has 20 or greater purposes then how would we know that altering a gene for the common good would not also have a drastic side effect? (Enhancing)

Although what Professor Xu Zhi-Wei stated is true, we must also take into consideration that it will not be long until such feats are possible. Geneticists may not know the consequences of altering each gene for the time being, but they will learn. Soon we will have the power to not only cure humans, but to improve them. When scientists finally do have the appropriate understanding to be able to successfully perform these operations, I believe that genetic engineering should only be used to cure diseases or prevent a disease that is obvious in an unborn baby. Genes should never be altered to enhance a human’s natural abilities, such as emotions, strength, stamina, intelligence, or personality. I also believe germ line engineering (quite different from germ line therapy) should not be practiced.

One reason for my lack of support of genetic engineering to enhance humans resides in the blurry language of nature and ethics. Who gave us the right to be God, or to play the role of Mother Nature? There have been life forms on the Earth for millions of years, each one evolving at their own pace, and each one changing to become the biologically perfectly suited organism for their environment. One may not realize it, but nature is governed by certain laws, and these laws maintain order. Order is a characteristic of all living beings. Every organism on the planet represents and demonstrates some form of order or another. It has been that way for millions of years, never wavering from that path of perfect law and order.

But now, humans have realized that it may be possible to break that law. They may no longer be bound to Darwin’s laws of Natural Selection, also known as the “Law of the Jungle.” Under normal circumstances, a species evolves when members of said species die because they are not suited to their environment. By dying, they are no longer capable of passing on the genes which held the defective trait for which they died for. The members best suited for survival will indeed survive, and pass along the “good” genes required for surviving. These positive genes become stronger and more profound with each generation, while the negative traits slowly pass away. What will happen when humans decide to break the law? As with breaking any law, there must surely be repercussions, and I personally fear what sort of punishment Mother Nature may exact.
Certain religious parties may not believe in the theory of evolution. For one thing, it is a theory and you are by no means obligated to believe it. But accelerated evolution is not only wrong by nature’s standards, but is also wrong ethically and religiously. In the eyes of most organized religions, the act of playing God is not something encouraged. To alter your genes to cure a disease is one thing, but to actually use this technology to improve yourself has a far different meaning, and the correct choice ethically would be to not perform the action.

Speeding up and altering the path of human evolution is a dangerous and risky business, and the cons of such a feat greatly outweigh the benefits.

Another reason for not using genetic engineering to improve human potential is a human fallacy known as “lack of self control.” Where do you draw the line at? The first genetic enhancements may start out as something innocent and simple, such as changing eye color, hair color, or gaining a few inches on your height. But when and where do you draw the line between innocent and immoral? History as proven time and time again that humans have a certain lack of self control, and when they are handed great power they tend to use it, despite the consequences. Just because we can do something, does not mean we have to. What starts as mere changes to a human’s body could easily lead to bizarre transformations.

Some people may request changes that would result in the creation of some abomination that is harmful to its self and others. Perhaps a human has a certain trait altered to leave them in a permanent state of fury? Or maybe they are given enhancements to make their physical body more of a weapon than it already is. Imagine a murderer or other criminal that gets genetic enhancements to make himself faster and stronger, perhaps with finger nails that are more like claws and teeth more like fangs? Once this happens, law enforcement agencies will have no choice but to give their employees genetic enhancements that make them a more perfect hunting machine; faster and stronger than the criminals. And it won’t stop there. After a time, some people will realize that gene’s aren’t the only means of human potential enhancements. Perhaps a computer chip imbedded in their brain, combined with an intelligence enhancing gene?

Centuries down the road, the human race may not even be human anymore, but instead a bizarre combination of technologies. Gone would be the humane days, and we would instead live in a time of prosthetic and biologically enhanced monsters.

The military would of course exercise the same amount of self control that the rest of the human race would have: none. They would embrace the new technology to formulate super soldiers; creatures enhanced to become the perfect fighting machines, made from a combination of prosthetic pieces and gene alternation (including the use of animal DNA to achieve more radical results.)

As you can see…the technology at first used for innocent changes could soon escalate to all out anarchy.

There is yet another reason to avoid using genetics to improve humans, and it is perhaps the most obvious one of all. It is quite simply the risk involved. For their entire existence, humans have had one major desire: to understand themselves, mentally, anatomically, and spiritually. Humans have existed for over 100,000 years, and the inner workings of our bodies and minds is still huge mystery. We have a better understanding of the physical properties of our mind, and how our certain electrical and chemical processes work, though we are still not even close to understanding how the mind completely works. We know most things of how our body functions physically, and we clearly have no solid understanding of the spiritual side of humans. I believe W. French Anderson said it best when he wrote:

"My concern is that, at this point in the development of our culture's scientific expertise, we might be like the young boy who loves to take things apart. He is bright enough to disassemble a watch, and maybe even bright enough to get it back together again so that it works. But what if he tries to "improve" it? Maybe put on bigger hands so that the time can be read more easily. But if the hands are too heavy for the mechanism, the watch will run slowly, erratically, or not at all. The boy can understand what is visible, but he cannot comprehend the precise engineering calculations that determined exactly how strong each spring should be, why the gears interact in the ways that they do, etc. Attempts on his part to improve the watch will probably only harm it. We are now able to provide a new gene so that a property involved in a human life would be changed, for example, a growth hormone gene. If we were to do so simply because we could, I fear we would be like that young boy who changed the watch's hands. We, too, do not really understand what makes the object we are tinkering with tick" (Anderson).

The analogy made by Anderson is simple and precise: we may never understand enough about the mysteries surrounding the human body to actually make improvements. If we are lucky enough to not harm ourselves physically, the enhancement might even alter our mental or spiritual beings as well.

However our opinions stand at this point, we must take into consideration the opposing views of this argument before making a logical decision on which course would benefit humans the most. In an editorial included in an issue of “The Economist”, the editor wrote that the power of a human to have control over his genetic makeup is a right and freedom that he should not be denied. The editor continues by saying that the use of genetic engineering should not only be used to cure diseases, but also to enhance human beings, such as giving them greater strength or the ability to run faster. According to the editor, it is our ultimate freedom to be able to alter our genes to become the person we want to be, although he does make mention that limits should be involved. He says that the technology of genetic engineering should not be used to make a human dangerous to society or harmful to the well being of others. He followed through by stating that every case of gene alteration should be handled individually to make sure that the gene enhancement in question does not cause dire consequences further down the road.

Although his provocative essay may seem like a reasonable solution for the genetic engineering dilemma, it has many holes. Even if we were to disregard all the ethics and risks involved by undergoing such a task, limits would be nearly impossible to enforce. The methods used to alter genes would become as rampant on the streets and practiced as much as illegal drugs are in today’s time. Despite all the efforts taken to limit it, it cannot be kept a secret forever.

To conclude my opinion, I would suggest that the research being done to learn to alter genes for the sake of enhancement be abandoned all together. We would do well to avoid ever accepting the Pandora Box, and refuse the temptation before it can form, though it would do well to mention that I am one to compromise. The study of gene’s and genetic therapy should not be abandoned completely. I would recommend that instead of using our technology to develop something that would become a plaything to the rich, we instead use it to form cures and remedies for diseases that run amok in our world today. More good can come of solving problems that currently exist rather than trying to fix something that is not broken.

I also believe that one final warning must be issued: If humans decide to continue to learn how to alter genes to enhance human potential, the futuristic world portrayed in Ray Bradbury’s prophetic novel “Fahrenheit 451” might touch a bit closer to home and seem more of a reality than before, but instead of burning books, we will be burning our very humanity and the “pages” that composes it. Instead of forgetting our history and our ability to read, we may instead find ourselves forgetting what it’s like to be human.

Works Cited

Anderson, W. French. “Genetics and human malleability.”
The Hastings Center Report Jan-Feb 1990 v20 n1 p21(4)

The Economist (US), April 25, 1992 v323 n7756 p11(2)
Changing your genes. (editorial)

Shriver, Donald W. “Enhancing Humanity”
The Christian Century March 7, 2001 v118 i8 p4

Knowledge Environments. http://www.knowledgeenvironments.com/whywar/04years.html
Published: 2003 Accessed: July 22, 2004

Copyright Zachary Wright 2003

[thatmariolover]

I think he was trying to make a point. If ones legal why not the other. Or if ones illegal, why is the other legal.

But yeah, i say either both, or none.

Right. I figured that was what he was trying to say as well. It was just the side that he posted that most people were reacting negatively to.

Edit: Sorry Vampy, didn't see your post there.

“I knew you even before
you were conceived.”

Jeremiah 1:4-5

To me that says something. Being a religious statement, I understand it wouldnt help solve anything scientifically, but I am a christain, and I take those words to heart. So is abortion murder? Even if it is still a undeveloped embryo? Yes. It is. Something that was once living is no longer living. It's not alive anymore, so therefore it is dead.

First of all, the context of "conceived" in that passage can be and is highly disputed. It could just as easily have been intended to have been said "I knew you even before your parents decided to have you." And second, I don't take every word in the Bible literally. God didn't say those things. People said that God said those things.

I'm a Christian myself, and believe much of what's been said. But there are places I draw the line.

Yeah, if you kill something that was once Living it's dead. Sperm is a living entity. So is bacteria. And Bacteria is capable of more rational thought than an embreyo. Yet I don't feel bad about using Lysol on it when it could possibly turn into a rational sentient bacteria. :sneaky:

I'm not criticizing your views. I'm just stating where mine differ.

[Rumpelstilzchen]

To me that says something. Being a religious statement, I understand it wouldnt help solve anything scientifically, but I am a christain, and I take those words to heart. So is abortion murder? Even if it is still a undeveloped embryo? Yes. It is. Something that was once living is no longer living. It's not alive anymore, so therefore it is dead.

What do you think about Birth Control then? Abstinence, withdrawl, and condoms. You know the type, they teach that stuff in the Sex Ed (and on the street).

I don't remember being able to retain memory until quite awhile after I was born. Maybe that's the same with conscious thought?

But that's not your point, is it? Your point is that God knew people, what they would be like... and basically their fate before they were born. So, God would have to know that even before the sperm and egg were made... to know each part of the human. Then, do you suppose God would know what would become of the child? Like, if there would be an abortion, stem-cell research; or, in the case of abstinence and birth control... would he know before hand the condom or other form of obstacle that prevents the further development of the DNA, "human-to-be"?

That conflicts with human will though, so maybe that's what you're concerned with. Maybe human will is uncontrollable by God. That'd create a lot of conflict with any form of fate, however, as there are 6 billion people running the world. That's a lot of willpower. But to know people, God would know what kinds of decisions they would make. That, there, would give God some sort of control.

But, back to point. If human willpower is what defines something as murder rather than the path of fate designed by God... perhaps abstinence, then, is a form of murder. It could be in God's plan to create a human, and then he makes the sperm and the egg. Yet, even then, if the couple gets together... they could use a condom, which also stops the creation of a human.

Or... what if you believe birth control is not murder because a sperm and egg alone, though they may be in God's plan, are not a child until they unite. But what line separates an egg and sperm from its individual parts? Both have already gone under growth... they simply undergo even more growth when together. And it's still not solitary growth, it relies on the mother. So, perhaps a human is not it's own until birth? Then it'd be running off it's own steam (Aside from feed, of course).

That's not the only point to still consider, though. What if a human's only truly him/herself when it has conscious thought. If that's the case, it still wouldn't be murder if the child dies early in its life. And... eggs and sperm separate have no more conscious thought nor less potential to grow than a complete embryo.

The final thought? What if God does have the power to spin fate? If so, then perhaps it'd be God's will when an unborn human is used in stem-cell research, or aborted, or simply not conceived. It'd be God's will that people are cloned, for they too would have DNA and would have a growth period. But, for that to be incorrect, then any form of murder would be defined by human's will to stop lives. And that starts with abstinence, not just abortion.

As bonus connected thoughts...
.If you murder someone, and it's your will against God's, do you kill not just the person, but also the family tree?
.Is a miss-carriage God's abortion? What gives God the right?
.And if it is God's right... If someone is about to die from natural causes, and human will saves that person, is that also defiance against God's will?

[Vampyr]

Yet I don't feel bad about using Lysol on it when it could possibly turn into a rational sentient bacteria.

But...it cant...turn into a rational sentient bacteria. o_O An embryo CAN though.

But you have to understand my position better. I understand that abortion will NEVER be illegal. Never. And I consider myself to be an intelligent person (I'm not egotistical, just self evaluating), and I realize that for anything to be accomplished, compromise must be had. It is impossible for both parties to get everything they want.

That is the area in which all great debaters seem to fail. As you can see from reading my argumentive essay, I said that a compromise must be had with geneticists, that their research should continue but ONLY for the use of curing diseases. I think that should please nearly everyone.

Now, for the conflict on this "pro-life" "prochoice" debate. Here is how I recommend we compromise: An abortion should ONLY be allowed before a certain point in the pregnacy. Having an abortion at 8 months is sick. They baby is thinking for itself at this point. I believe that a group of scientist and doctors should create a certain point that a pregnacy must be aborted before. After that, they mother must carry on UNLESS her life is in danger by having the baby. At that point, drastic measures must be taken.

Compromise is essential in this world.

It could just as easily have been intended to have been said "I knew you even before your parents decided to have you."

That really didnt help your argument at all. If He knew you before your parents decided to have you, then he MOST CERTAINLY knew you before you were born.

I don't take every word in the Bible literally. God didn't say those things. People said that God said those things

You said you were a Christain. If you are, then arent you supposed to believe those people who said that God said those things? Faith is the center piece of Christianity.

And I dont take every world literally either. I believe that many of the stories are metaphors and symbols for something else. But that line seems to be pretty self explainatory. I cant imagine what else it could mean.

Btw, for anyone who read my essay, what do you think of Somatic Cell therapy? That is using the blank stem cells to enhance humans, like making us stronger and faster and such?

[Rumpelstilzchen]

Btw, for anyone who read my essay, what do you think of Somatic Cell therapy? That is using the blank stem cells to enhance humans, like making us stronger and faster and such?

I think it might be another part of human growth/evolution. We make technologies that make life more convenient... people healthier, thingamathings like that, don't we? Making life more convenient through making people happier and more fit for life could be the next step. Since nobody would disagree aside morality reasons, what justification is there that it is wrong? And what is the difference between designing people and designing people's lives (what they do, how they do it; when they're sick, how they fix it; things like that)?

[Vampyr]

What do you think about Birth Control then? Abstinence, withdrawl, and condoms. You know the type, they teach that stuff in the Sex Ed (and on the street).

I do not consider that murder, and I dont even consider that to me in the same category as abortion. But before I start to explain why, I will explain my stance on fate:

I dont believe in it. I dont believe that God determined when we were born whether you would go to heaven or hell, because that would completely elliminate the purpose of a religion. But I do however believe that God KNEW if I was going to go to heaven or hell. That is two completely different things. Knowing something and causing it to happen is not the same. I know that if someone drops an egg off of the sears tower it will break, but it doesnt mean I caused it to break, the person who dropped it did.

Ok, now let me tell you why I dont think birth conrol or a condom is actually killing anyone: They are not united. Ejaculating in a female while using a condom isnt much different than masterbating and removing the sperm with a paper towel. The sperm didnt go anywhere, and no potential human was formed.

But what line separates an egg and sperm from its individual parts?

Any living organism is greater than the sum of it's parts, but if the sperm and egg do not combine, than there is no "human-to-be". If you refer to the post I made after yours, you'll see that I think abortion should be allowed before a certain point. I myself am not sure if I would call a simple embryo a human yet, but I WILL say that preventing a life is totally different from taking it. I can prevent a life by never having sex, but I can take it by killing someone or having my girlfriend/wife abort her baby. Just the same as I can prevent a life by using a condom.

.If you murder someone, and it's your will against God's, do you kill not just the person, but also the family tree?
.Is a miss-carriage God's abortion? What gives God the right?
.And if it is God's right... If someone is about to die from natural causes, and human will saves that person, is that also defiance against God's will?

.Of course you prevent the life off any offspring of that person, but god KNEW you would kill him, therefore the family tree never existed anyway. He never concieved the children of that person you killed, because they would never have any. He didnt make you kill him, and he didnt plan for that person to never have a child, he just KNEW that you would.

.God has his own reasons.

.No, because god knew before hand that humans would save them. God isnt working against you, trying to kill you. If he wanted someone dead, believe me, they would be dead. Human will cannot compete with God's will.

[Vampyr]

I think it might be another part of human growth/evolution. We make technologies that make life more convenient... people healthier, thingamathings like that, don't we? Making life more convenient through making people happier and more fit for life could be the next step. Since nobody would disagree aside morality reasons, what justification is there that it is wrong? And what is the difference between designing people and designing people's lives (what they do, how they do it; when they're sick, how they fix it; things like that)?

Meh. You totally didnt read my essay. lol. I had some NATURAL reasons to disagree. If you are too lazy to read it, or you dont want to, then say so and I'll find the non-moral reasons and copy and paste them into another post.

And yes, we do make many technologies to make life easier, and we have many "thingamathings", but I have a stance on technology. Back in the day, technology was used to HELP EVERYONE. Microwaves, refrigorators, phones, toasters, lightbulbs, etc. All of these things could be afforded by most people, and they helped everyone. Automobiles did the same thing, they were a great equalizer.

But in recent decades, all the technology being developed are "toys" for the wealthy. Not much is being invented that helps everyone, just fancy things with a million bells and whistles that the more wealthy members of society can afford. They are essentially toys.

If you read my essay, you will note that I called genetic engineering a "toy for the rich". Meaning only the wealthy could afford such improvements, and scientists would take advantage of this. You would have rich people forking over tons of money to design their children and make themselves the perfect living being, but you will having starving children and disease stricken people not a mile away, and the technology could help EVERYONE if it was used for other purposes.

You might like to think that humans wouldnt behave that way, but common logic will tell you that that is what will happen.

[Rumpelstilzchen]

.No, because god knew before hand that humans would save them. God isnt working against you, trying to kill you. If he wanted someone dead, believe me, they would be dead. Human will cannot compete with God's will.

Then you believe God knows before hand that a child will be aborted. If so, I wonder... why would he create the human?

And by the way, every sperm has "potential." Human will is what dictates whether it has potential anymore. It is human will that destroys its potential through abstinence, just as it is human will that destroys an embryo's potential through abortion.

--

no, didn't read the essay. But I did want to make a reply on the thought.

I don't much like the idea that this technology is worse than old technology simply because the money on this technology could be used to help starving people. The money required to make automobiles could have been used to help needy people. Also, automobiles are among the most expensive items that even average people buy, and wealthy people overbuy. As well, they pollute.

Making a "perfect human" is something good by nature. It makes a healthy person that won't starve or have problems that will end up needing more resources to fix. Also, it helps mankind as a whole by adding more intelligence and potential to the race.

I agree. Rich people waste money on things rather than helping people. Giving another thing for them to buy doesn't change their ideals, it's true. But, that measn there is no harm in it. And, rather than wasting money on a perfect child, the rich person could have been more destructive... like buying a bunch of drugs, or weapons, or something else. Either way, not buying the child wouldn't make the person any more likely to donate money.

[Vampyr]

Then you believe God knows before hand that a child will be aborted. If so, I wonder... why would he create the human?

And by the way, every sperm has "potential." Human will is what dictates whether it has potential anymore. It is human will that destroys its potential through abstinence, just as it is human will that destroys an embryo's potential through abortion.

--

no, didn't read the essay. But I did want to make a reply on the thought.

I don't much like the idea that this technology is worse than old technology simply because the money on this technology could be used to help starving people. The money required to make automobiles could have been used to help needy people. Also, automobiles are among the most expensive items that even average people buy, and wealthy people overbuy. As well, they pollute.

Making a "perfect human" is something good by nature. It makes a healthy person that won't starve or have problems that will end up needing more resources to fix. Also, it helps mankind as a whole by adding more intelligence and potential to the race.

I agree. Rich people waste money on things rather than helping people. Giving another thing for them to buy doesn't change their ideals, it's true. But, that measn there is no harm in it. And, rather than wasting money on a perfect child, the rich person could have been more destructive... like buying a bunch of drugs, or weapons, or something else. Either way, not buying the child wouldn't make the person any more likely to donate money.

He knew when he made us that he wasnt making a perfect creature. He knew the abortion was going to occure, but he didnt make you do it, and he didnt cause the pregnancy in the first place, he just KNEW it was going to happen.

And yes, of course the sperms potential is destroyed through abstinence, which is just one more point a human life isnt considered "human" until AFTER the egg and sperm combine. God isnt up there accusing me of murder every second I'm not fertalizing a girl.

Ok, cars are not that expensive. You can get them for dirt cheap at an auctioni. I think I saw one sell for like 200 dollars once. It wouldnt be the best vehicle ever, but hey, it has wheels and it moves. Anyone with a job can get a car. Maybe not a good one, but I never said that.

Henry Ford was one of the first people to make a cool new product but also to pay his customers enough to buy it.

Also, I DONT think MAKING perfect human is good.

And yes, there is harm in what you mentioned. If scientist are more worried about making these cool new genetic enhancement technologies, then thats what they will make, so that they can get more money, instead of focusing on making cures for diseases.

I wasnt asking for the rich people to donate money, I'm asking for scientist to create technology that helps everyone, both the rich and the poor.

[Rumpelstilzchen]

okieday, let's see if this works.

He knew when he made us that he wasnt making a perfect creature. He knew the abortion was going to occure, but he didnt make you do it, and he didnt cause the pregnancy in the first place, he just KNEW it was going to happen.

Knew when he made us? As in... he made us? But, he didn't get the woman pregnant... and he didn't choose which sperm would win the little race and to which egg... he just knew which one would and to which egg. But he only knew which one would after he made the parents, 'cuz he only knew what would happen with the parent and its children-to-be after he made them to be that way. But we're only people after a little sperm, catch an egg; so he had to know which egg and sperm was needed so that he could make us (but not our parts of course). He didn't make the parts. Otherwise, denying those parts would be the same as denying the embryo.

He knew the abortion was going to occur, and he couldn't control it of course. But he made the person. And the person was made before the abortion, with God knowing there would be an abortion... because he [i]had to make the person, not just in case, but because he knew there was going to be a pregnancy. And an embryo is a life, rather than the parts of an embryo. So, after knowing the woman would abort, God made a human.

God knows, before you're born, what you're going to do. That includes who you're going to kill, and who you're going to make. My bad, God makes the person, you just choose when... and he knows. Therefore he knows who you're going to be with, but he doesn't choose it. But, since he made you, he had to make you the type of person that would do the things he knows you're gonna do. Therefore... if God knows someone is going to be evil, God is going to make someone evil. 'Cuz God makes us and knows us.[/quote]


And yes, of course the sperms potential is destroyed through abstinence, which is just one more point a human life isnt considered "human" until AFTER the egg and sperm combine. God isnt up there accusing me of murder every second I'm not fertalizing a girl.

What draws the line? What defines human? A human is either the material that makes a human... the functioning mass, or it's the conscious thought, the final production. If it's a functioning mass, then an embryo is a human. But then, so would sperm and egg. But you said that can't be, that they have to combine first. Well, to tell you the truth... the embryo needs even more to have conscious thought. It needs nurishment to grow. It adds more stuff. But there's more to it, isn't there? An embryo has an immediate future of conscious thought. With simple ingredients (eating, rather than sex), it can grow. A sperm and egg can do the same, they just need more complicated ingredients... eachother (oh yeah, and your will, which is needed for sex... and so is the girl's, otherwise it's rape. Of course, even then an embryo is formed. So it only needs one will to make a human). That's what it boils down to? Immediacy and Willpower?


Ok, cars are not that expensive. You can get them for dirt cheap at an auctioni. I think I saw one sell for like 200 dollars once. It wouldnt be the best vehicle ever, but hey, it has wheels and it moves. Anyone with a job can get a car. Maybe not a good one, but I never said that.

You know what's also not expensive? Food. And maybe anyone with a job will be able to get a perfect child, too. Your argument at first was that Cloning would take money away from the poor. It's not the product that takes money from the poor, it's people who want happiness that don't pay for the poor.

Henry Ford was one of the first people to make a cool new product but also to pay his customers enough to buy it.

So that everyone could have one and then it would sell better. In other words, he gave them a product they could afford, which was much more expensive than food. Food, which is more important to the needy than a car would be.

Also, I DONT think MAKING perfect human is good.

Well, God makes people, right? Cloning is just a way of choosing how and when it is made. And God knows that a person will clone another. Cloning works in a similar way to normal reproduction. DNA grows and matter... and the person as a whole. Eventually, there's enough growth for more than just simple functions, but also conscious thought.

Maybe God wants a perfect human, but doesn't have the resources between any man and woman to make one. And since God can't make anything, except people... and he only does so through knowing when it'll happen, perhaps he knows people will clone a perfect person. Perhaps that was part of the plan, not which he made, but which he knew of. So, he made an intelligent person who'd have the knowledge to clone. And, he knew before he made the person, that the person would indeed clone. Otherwise, he would've made someone else, or there would have been a mis-carriage, 'cuz God has his own reasons, as you said.

And yes, there is harm in what you mentioned. If scientist are more worried about making these cool new genetic enhancement technologies, then thats what they will make, so that they can get more money, instead of focusing on making cures for diseases.

If a scientist is the type of scientist that would like to cure diseases, then he would cure diseases. If a scientist is the type of scientist that wants money, he'll do something that'll get him money. If cloning came out, and it was worth a lot of money, the money scientists would do it. It cloning came out and it would cure diseases, the curing scientists would do it. Cloning won't change the balance of how many scientists are working to help people, and how many scientists want money. And if cloning does cure diseases, then it will be a good thing.



I wasnt asking for the rich people to donate money, I'm asking for scientist to create technology that helps everyone, both the rich and the poor.

By saying the rich people would waste money on kids instead of poor people if cloning was made, you were trying to say scientists shouldn't make cloning so that... the rich would spend money on the poor... except, you don't want to convince the rich to donate. But, they'll never donate unless they're convinced. So, cloning's not the issue between the rich spending money on the poor or on fun stuff; and, unless you were saying the rich should donate, the argument was moot.

And scientists are rich... and to work on technology that helps the poor would cause them to lose money. So, they'd be directly donating their time, skill, and money for the poor. It'd be a great thing, but it's unrelated to cloning.

Unless... well hey, scientists either work to help people or to make money, right? And if they're gonna do it to make money, then they wouldn't be the type of person that would make technology to help the poor if it'd cost them, which it would... if it'd help the poor who can't pay much money. But, there's also the scientist that tries to make technology not for money, but for the poor. Those type of scientists would only be interested in cloning if they thought cloning could help the world. And if they tried hard enough (hard enough to actually make an effect), then they would most certainly make cloning helpful. And if that's the case, then their lack of efforts on other technologies would not be harmful, as they did indeed help the world. That's what you asked for, someting to help the world.


--

I hope you give as much or more thought as your previous replies into your reply to this post.

By the way, God made me the way I am, and knew I would find this page one day, and that I'd post on this page, and that you'd reply (because he made you that way). Before you or I reveal any of God's secrets, maybe he'll step in with some divine intervention to stop it, 'cuz he has his reasons.

[Vampyr]

Knew when he made us? As in... he made us? But, he didn't get the woman pregnant... and he didn't choose which sperm would win the little race and to which egg... he just knew which one would and to which egg. But he only knew which one would after he made the parents, 'cuz he only knew what would happen with the parent and its children-to-be after he made them to be that way. But we're only people after a little sperm, catch an egg; so he had to know which egg and sperm was needed so that he could make us (but not our parts of course). He didn't make the parts. Otherwise, denying those parts would be the same as denying the embryo.

He knew the abortion was going to occur, and he couldn't control it of course. But he made the person. And the person was made before the abortion, with God knowing there would be an abortion... because he [i]had to make the person, not just in case, but because he knew there was going to be a pregnancy. And an embryo is a life, rather than the parts of an embryo. So, after knowing the woman would abort, God made a human.

God knows, before you're born, what you're going to do. That includes who you're going to kill, and who you're going to make. My bad, God makes the person, you just choose when... and he knows. Therefore he knows who you're going to be with, but he doesn't choose it. But, since he made you, he had to make you the type of person that would do the things he knows you're gonna do. Therefore... if God knows someone is going to be evil, God is going to make someone evil. 'Cuz God makes us and knows us.

I'm going to hope I understood everything you said, because some of it was very cryptic in the way you wrote it. So you are saying that God made evil people to be evil? Then what is the point in religion? If he made evil people that he knew was going to hell, and he made good people he knew was going to heaven, then what is the point in me even trying? Anything I do, God has already determined it, and I cant change it. Predetermination is quite frankly a stupid idea.

And you said that God knew everything that humans were going to do. He made humans, and we made cloning and abortion, and he knew we would one day make those things. But dont put words in His mouth. You and I can no more knew if God wanted Abortion or Cloning than if he didnt want it, but I think I would be more correct to assume he didnt, because why would he want us to kill an unborn baby? That makes no sense. And cloning is like being God himself, which I dont think he would appreciate. Also, just because God knows we are going to do something DOES NOT mean it's a good thing to do. Just because he knew we would one day be aborting baby's and cloning people does not mean it's right, but it also does not mean he is making us do it, he just knows what choices we will make, because he knows EVERYTHING.




What draws the line? What defines human? A human is either the material that makes a human... the functioning mass, or it's the conscious thought, the final production. If it's a functioning mass, then an embryo is a human. But then, so would sperm and egg. But you said that can't be, that they have to combine first. Well, to tell you the truth... the embryo needs even more to have conscious thought. It needs nurishment to grow. It adds more stuff. But there's more to it, isn't there? An embryo has an immediate future of conscious thought. With simple ingredients (eating, rather than sex), it can grow. A sperm and egg can do the same, they just need more complicated ingredients... eachother (oh yeah, and your will, which is needed for sex... and so is the girl's, otherwise it's rape. Of course, even then an embryo is formed. So it only needs one will to make a human). That's what it boils down to? Immediacy and Willpower?

What the hell did that have to do with anything?




You know what's also not expensive? Food. And maybe anyone with a job will be able to get a perfect child, too. Your argument at first was that Cloning would take money away from the poor. It's not the product that takes money from the poor, it's people who want happiness that don't pay for the poor.



So that everyone could have one and then it would sell better. In other words, he gave them a product they could afford, which was much more expensive than food. Food, which is more important to the needy than a car would be.

Why did you bring food into this? Those last two paragraphs didnt mean anything at all. Either you are running out of ideas to say, or you really dont know what you are talking about, or I am not understanding the importance of food vs cars. Of course we need food more than automobiles, but the automobile was still a great achievement, he it made food easier to get, and the poor people could buy a car, thus being able to get food better. Once again, I'm not sure what the point of that was.



Well, God makes people, right? Cloning is just a way of choosing how and when it is made. And God knows that a person will clone another. Cloning works in a similar way to normal reproduction. DNA grows and matter... and the person as a whole. Eventually, there's enough growth for more than just simple functions, but also conscious thought.

Maybe God wants a perfect human, but doesn't have the resources between any man and woman to make one. And since God can't make anything, except people... and he only does so through knowing when it'll happen, perhaps he knows people will clone a perfect person. Perhaps that was part of the plan, not which he made, but which he knew of. So, he made an intelligent person who'd have the knowledge to clone. And, he knew before he made the person, that the person would indeed clone. Otherwise, he would've made someone else, or there would have been a mis-carriage, 'cuz God has his own reasons, as you said.

But I choose to believe that God did not want us to clone. It doesnt say in the bible one way or another, so we much chose our own path. Like I said, just because god makes you with the ability to do something, does not mean he wants you to do it. I have the power to kill somone, but that doesnt mean I should. I bet the person with the knowledge to clone would also be able to use that knowledge to help people in other ways.

Another reason why I dont think god wanted us to clone: The majority of clones would be used to harveset their organs so the original person could live. I cannot imagine why god would want us to create one of his children, then kill it. It's ludicrous that god would want that.

And no, I dont think he wants us to make a perfect person, because doing so is like slapping him in the face and saying "you messed up, and now we are fixing your mistakes." Also, I believe that the bible makes prophecies saying that the anti-christ would "be the first of his kind", and he would be a beautiful person. Is it talking about the first clone? Maybe. Maybe not. Want to take the chance?



If a scientist is the type of scientist that would like to cure diseases, then he would cure diseases. If a scientist is the type of scientist that wants money, he'll do something that'll get him money. If cloning came out, and it was worth a lot of money, the money scientists would do it. It cloning came out and it would cure diseases, the curing scientists would do it. Cloning won't change the balance of how many scientists are working to help people, and how many scientists want money. And if cloning does cure diseases, then it will be a good thing.





By saying the rich people would waste money on kids instead of poor people if cloning was made, you were trying to say scientists shouldn't make cloning so that... the rich would spend money on the poor... except, you don't want to convince the rich to donate. But, they'll never donate unless they're convinced. So, cloning's not the issue between the rich spending money on the poor or on fun stuff; and, unless you were saying the rich should donate, the argument was moot.

And scientists are rich... and to work on technology that helps the poor would cause them to lose money. So, they'd be directly donating their time, skill, and money for the poor. It'd be a great thing, but it's unrelated to cloning.

Unless... well hey, scientists either work to help people or to make money, right? And if they're gonna do it to make money, then they wouldn't be the type of person that would make technology to help the poor if it'd cost them, which it would... if it'd help the poor who can't pay much money. But, there's also the scientist that tries to make technology not for money, but for the poor. Those type of scientists would only be interested in cloning if they thought cloning could help the world. And if they tried hard enough (hard enough to actually make an effect), then they would most certainly make cloning helpful. And if that's the case, then their lack of efforts on other technologies would not be harmful, as they did indeed help the world. That's what you asked for, someting to help the world.

I wish you would have read my essay, because I'm restating a lot of things that I said in it.

But anyway, I NEVER SAID I WANTED RICH PEOPLE TO HELP THE POOR PEOPLE. Also, scientist arent as rich as you might think. They are pretty wealthy, but they get the funding for their projects from other organizations. But please, try to get it into your head i was not asking the rich people to donate money. I was saying that because they are rich, scientist are much more likely to make "fun" things that they will buy.

BUT MY ARGUMENT WAS NOT MOOT. What I was saying is that if we learn how to alter genes to IMPROVE humans, then that will take focus off of using it to HELP humans. Rich people get genetic diseases too, you know, so if we instead learned how to alter genes to cure these diseases, both rich and poor would recieve help.

As a final note, I dont think it's possible for you to win your argument. At least I am willing to compromise, yet you are fighting for the whole nine yards, and the person who wants everything never wins.

[Rumpelstilzchen]

Why did you bring food into this?
Food is what would be given to the hungry. Food would be the start to curing the hunger of the poor.

I have more to add to the conversation, but I don't want one perspective as a reply. I'll post more when more people post. Is that ok with you?

And do you even know what my argument is? I've just been pointing at the holes in your argument so that you can get a better stance on your ideals and rethink what you believe. I can spot something hazy in an argument, or something that doesn't quite fit... and I'll point it out for you, so that you can make it better and have people agree with you more.

In this debate, you've been supplying your ideas 100% of the time. I've been countering them, and you've been defending them. I'm supplying none of my beliefs or ideals, so how am I going to convince anyone what I believe, if they do not know it? I'm not trying to win anything, I'm trying to show you that, while your beliefs are pure-hearted, they can conflict with other forms of rational thought.

Don't hate me 'cuz I'm new :(

[Vampyr]

Food is what would be given to the hungry. Food would be the start to curing the hunger of the poor.

I have more to add to the conversation, but I don't want one perspective as a reply. I'll post more when more people post. Is that ok with you?

And do you even know what my argument is? I've just been pointing at the holes in your argument so that you can get a better stance on your ideals and rethink what you believe. I can spot something hazy in an argument, or something that doesn't quite fit... and I'll point it out for you, so that you can make it better and have people agree with you more.

In this debate, you've been supplying your ideas 100% of the time. I've been countering them, and you've been defending them. I'm supplying none of my beliefs or ideals, so how am I going to convince anyone what I believe, if they do not know it? I'm not trying to win anything, I'm trying to show you that, while your beliefs are pure-hearted, they can conflict with other forms of rational thought.

Don't hate me 'cuz I'm new :(

Heh. I'm not hating you at all, I was just confused as to what some of your points meant, and I think I may have started the confusion.

I once said something like "children starving a mile away", I wasnt implying that the rich should get food for them, I was meaning that geneticists might be using gentic engineering technology for the rich people to use (ie improving their strenght, intelligence, speed etc) while they COULD be using it to maybe alter a gene that slows metabolism down. Imagine the possibilities. Curing world hunger WITHOUT food. That's what i was implying. Instead of needing more food to give them, you instead make them need less food.

Of course, it would be the persons choice whether they wanted this done to them, because I feel that altering someone's genes without their consent is an act as horrendous as rape or something.

I do realize my argument is not bullet proof, but if you read the last bit of my essay, I do take into consideration other points of view. I think I even plus repped you for providing me with a nice argument, but it may be wise for you to read my ENTIRE argument before pointing out the holes in it.

[Jonbo298]

I try to read this page but I keep going :eyes:

[Rumpelstilzchen]

I think I even plus repped you for providing me with a nice argument...
Plus repped? Well, I would say your reputation is good too.

[Vampyr]

Plus repped? Well, I would say your reputation is good too.

Lol. Do you know what I meant by "plus repped"? Those little green boxes under our usernames are rep bars. If you like or dislike a persons post, you can click the silver little scales on the bottom left side of their post, and you can either -rep them or +rep them. The more rep points you have, the more bars you have. You can go to your user cp to check the recent reps that have been given to you. Also, the more rep you have, the more privelages.

But you were quite right in saying I have good reputation. :cool: