Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

tnphydeaux · Oct 10, 2003, 02:13 pm

Dashing infants against rocks ... sounds so very much like the democrat party championed serial killing method known as partial birth abortion, where the infant's brains are sucked out with a cannula, 'to 'abort' the little parasite'. Such an enlightened way to deliver birth control. [Don't even try to call that crap 'reproductive health'.]

xm.bretton · Oct 10, 2003, 07:02 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by fedfem@10-10-2003 01:40 PM
the OT God was more explicit about having his followers dashing infants against rocks. No translation issues in that one.

hahahaha.

fedfem · Oct 10, 2003, 07:37 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by tnphydeaux@10-10-2003 02:13 PM
Dashing infants against rocks ... sounds so very much like the democrat party championed serial killing method known as partial birth abortion, where the infant's brains are sucked out with a cannula, 'to 'abort' the little parasite'. Such an enlightened way to deliver birth control. [Don't even try to call that crap 'reproductive health'.]

The Yates way is better? Have 'em and drown 'em so the devil can't git 'em.

Do you really believe the propaganda regarding PBA? D+E is nothing of the kind.

tnphydeaux · Oct 10, 2003, 07:48 pm

fedfem wrote, "Do you really believe the propaganda regarding PBA? D+E is nothing of the kind."

I have the medical background to understand fully whatever 'facts' regarding the defense of partial birth killing you wish to share with us. Go right ahead and defend the indefensible. You might start with a Boxeresque delineation of the 'propaganda' items.

tnphydeaux · Oct 11, 2003, 01:22 pm

I'm underwhelmed by your defense for your assertions. Not used to people challenging your specious offerings, fedfem?

GreatWyrm of Babylon · Oct 11, 2003, 04:34 pm

I, personally, do not give a shit about what the bible says on the matter. State and religion have no business in the same bed.

RebelWithanAK · Oct 11, 2003, 05:24 pm

for twice, Greatwyrm and I agree. Thump your bibles elsewhere.

xm.bretton · Oct 11, 2003, 05:36 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by GreatWyrm of Babylon@10-11-2003 04:34 PM
I, personally, do not give a shit about what the bible says on the matter. State and religion have no business in the same bed.

that is true.

but my opinion on abortion is effected by my personal beliefs right? I'm not saying I can prove to you what the "law" should be by my religious beliefs; but it affects my opinion.

GreatWyrm of Babylon · Oct 12, 2003, 12:25 am

You have every right to make your personal decisions based on your beliefs, you do not have the right to make mine!

tnphydeaux · Oct 12, 2003, 02:18 am

Wyrm, there is a billion dollar plus market in fetal body parts ... trading in the dissected or whole bodies of aborted, previously healthy, moments before alive prenatal individual human beings. That's cannibalizing fellow human beings. Is cannibalism against your values? [Hint: that's not a religious question.]

Section 8 · Oct 12, 2003, 02:19 am

Is saving lives against your values. Stem cells can easily cure most uncurable diseases, and will increase your lifespan.

tnphydeaux · Oct 12, 2003, 02:25 am

Which stem cells? To date, the greatest advances have been using adult stem cells, and multipotent adult progenitor cells (MAP-seas or MAPCs).

Section 8 · Oct 12, 2003, 02:26 am

The developement of stem cell research is being hindered by the US, although it's still legal in France I believe. In the future stem cells will most likely be able to be used to cure diseases.

tnphydeaux · Oct 12, 2003, 02:28 am

Section 8, you asserted that stem cells can easily cure ... do you really know how this process works, how the stem cells give rise to tissues and organs?

I would also ask of you, do you know what the first organ for individual survival is, which organ the newly conceived individual life builds for its own survival?

tnphydeaux · Oct 12, 2003, 02:30 am

You are substantially incorrect. Stem cell research is proceeding full bore on many academic and private industry fronts in the United States, and even more so in Great Britain. Again I would ask you to specify which stem cells you refer to.

Section 8 · Oct 12, 2003, 02:30 am

Sorry, you seem like you know alot more than science than I do. I do know that stem cells can help.

Section 8 · Oct 12, 2003, 02:31 am

If you have any information regarding stem cells please post it. Being educated is the key to a good debate.

tnphydeaux · Oct 12, 2003, 02:37 am

You are so correct in saying that stem cells can cure diseases; stem cells are already curing diseases. In fact, there are a brothers (Visconti brothers, I think, in New York) already using MAPCs to build organs! And that is without cloning or killing embryos for their stem cells. The brothers use a matrix structure upon which to grow tissues. The underlying matrix dissolves away leaving the desired structure formed from living stem cells differentiated into more specialized tissues.

In Texas, Texas A&M University has teamed up with a company called Genetic Savings and Clone, to clone people's favored pets! In 2002, they cloned a tabby named CC. Of course the clone was not an identical match to CC, due to the vagaries of cloning that the public is generally uninformed on, but the tissues would be a protein match for transplants, if that were the goal. And therein lies the catch, the cannibalizing catch.

Section 8 · Oct 12, 2003, 02:40 am

Thank you for that, quite interesting.

tnphydeaux · Oct 12, 2003, 02:43 am

Here's an essay you might find of interest ... was posted at FreeRepublic.com and WashingtonDispatch.com:

<BIG>Human Embryo/Human Being</BIG>

Since the Roe abortion decision (in 1973), science has advanced our understanding of prenatal (before birth) life to a depth few could have anticipated. Though usually unexplained for the general public, with careful reading the entire spectrum of prenatal discovery supports a rejection of abortion on demand and reinforces the correctness of protecting prenatal life the way our society protects an adult individual at the end of their life.

In a recent article for First Things, Maureen L. Condic, PhD, Assistant professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah, unintentionally presented an argument for meaning of the death protocol (used when organ harvesting is anticipated) to also be used when contemplating prenatal life. She stated that, “… the loss of integrated bodily function, not the loss of higher mental ability, is the defining legal characteristic of death.”

That is an accurate assessment of the meaning of the ‘death protocol’ but there is confusion because it addresses ‘brain death’, yet it doesn’t refer to loss of thinking ability. It should not be assumed that ‘being alive’ as a human being is solely a function of higher brain functioning, or even dependent upon the organ called brain. After we are born, the brain is the central processor for the organ activity that sustains our survival. Prior to birth, it is the placental organ that accomplishes this function.

The one organ defines alive notion was the perspective decades ago. People focused upon one organ when the heart was believed to be the center of function, before organ harvesting became a reality. When the heart stopped beating, the person was thought to be dead, thought to be no longer a functioning, integrated whole organism. Today, doctors routinely stop and start the heart, keeping the patient functioning for survival, viable as an integrated whole via artificial heart and lungs.

A person in an unrecoverable coma or vegetative state has no meaningful higher brain function, yet their body continues to function as an integrated whole. As Dr. Condic puts it, “Although such patients are clearly in a lamentable medical state, they are also clearly alive, [so] converting such patients into corpses requires some form of euthanasia. … Human life is defined by the ability to function as an integrated whole, not by mere presence of living human cells.”

Functioning as an integrated whole is far more complex than mere cellular structures. The older the organism (during the first year from conception), the more aliveness is spread out into sub-unit forms (the developing organs) of the integrated organism; the younger the human organism is, the less differentiated the sub-units are, the less spread out among forms is the integrated function.

To accurately apply the meaning of the death protocol to individual life before birth, we will have to show how the embryo is in fact a functioning, integrated whole human organism. If the embryo can be defined on this basis, the definition of an alive, individual human being would fit, and the human being should be protected from exploitation and euthanasia.

The gestational process during the fetal age (which follows the embryo age) is a process of already constructed organs growing larger and more functional for survival. If we are to apply the notion of a functioning integrated whole to define individual aliveness, the organs necessary for survival at any age must all be included. The primitive brain stem and primitive lungs are not yet fully functional in early fetal age, so some other organ will have to be responsible for the functioning whole.

The first organ a conceived human individual builds for its own survival is the placenta (the Mother builds none of the organs). This organ breathes, nourishes and protects the new individual human life and is so important that in vitro fertilization doctors will not attempt implantation of an embryo until the encapsulating structure is in evidence. Prior to the fetal age, organs necessary for survival in the air world are not present but are being built by the embryo and looped into the primitive brain, the brain stem, yet a human embryo fits the protocol of an alive, functioning, integrated whole organism, the same protocol upon which organ harvesting depends when contemplating the death of an older human organism. The embryo is no less an individual human being with at least one functioning survival organ that allows the integrated whole to continue the lifetime already up and running.

Oct 11, 2003, 05:24 pm	#27 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	for twice, Greatwyrm and I agree. Thump your bibles elsewhere. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Oct 10, 2003, 02:13 pm	#21 (permalink) (top)
tnphydeaux Molten Ash Posts: 63	Dashing infants against rocks ... sounds so very much like the democrat party championed serial killing method known as partial birth abortion, where the infant's brains are sucked out with a cannula, 'to 'abort' the little parasite'. Such an enlightened way to deliver birth control. [Don't even try to call that crap 'reproductive health'.]

Oct 10, 2003, 07:48 pm	#24 (permalink) (top)
tnphydeaux Molten Ash Posts: 63	fedfem wrote, "Do you really believe the propaganda regarding PBA? D+E is nothing of the kind." I have the medical background to understand fully whatever 'facts' regarding the defense of partial birth killing you wish to share with us. Go right ahead and defend the indefensible. You might start with a Boxeresque delineation of the 'propaganda' items.

Oct 11, 2003, 01:22 pm	#25 (permalink) (top)
tnphydeaux Molten Ash Posts: 63	I'm underwhelmed by your defense for your assertions. Not used to people challenging your specious offerings, fedfem?

Oct 11, 2003, 04:34 pm	#26 (permalink) (top)
GreatWyrm of Babylon Avatar of Tiamut Location: Dallas, Texas (Irving) Posts: 848	I, personally, do not give a shit about what the bible says on the matter. State and religion have no business in the same bed.

Oct 12, 2003, 12:25 am	#29 (permalink) (top)
GreatWyrm of Babylon Avatar of Tiamut Location: Dallas, Texas (Irving) Posts: 848	You have every right to make your personal decisions based on your beliefs, you do not have the right to make mine!

Oct 12, 2003, 02:18 am	#30 (permalink) (top)
tnphydeaux Molten Ash Posts: 63	Wyrm, there is a billion dollar plus market in fetal body parts ... trading in the dissected or whole bodies of aborted, previously healthy, moments before alive prenatal individual human beings. That's cannibalizing fellow human beings. Is cannibalism against your values? [Hint: that's not a religious question.]

Oct 12, 2003, 02:19 am	#31 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	Is saving lives against your values. Stem cells can easily cure most uncurable diseases, and will increase your lifespan.

Oct 12, 2003, 02:25 am	#32 (permalink) (top)
tnphydeaux Molten Ash Posts: 63	Which stem cells? To date, the greatest advances have been using adult stem cells, and multipotent adult progenitor cells (MAP-seas or MAPCs).

Oct 12, 2003, 02:26 am	#33 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	The developement of stem cell research is being hindered by the US, although it's still legal in France I believe. In the future stem cells will most likely be able to be used to cure diseases.

Oct 12, 2003, 02:28 am	#34 (permalink) (top)
tnphydeaux Molten Ash Posts: 63	Section 8, you asserted that stem cells can easily cure ... do you really know how this process works, how the stem cells give rise to tissues and organs? I would also ask of you, do you know what the first organ for individual survival is, which organ the newly conceived individual life builds for its own survival?

Oct 12, 2003, 02:30 am	#35 (permalink) (top)
tnphydeaux Molten Ash Posts: 63	You are substantially incorrect. Stem cell research is proceeding full bore on many academic and private industry fronts in the United States, and even more so in Great Britain. Again I would ask you to specify which stem cells you refer to.

Oct 12, 2003, 02:30 am	#36 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	Sorry, you seem like you know alot more than science than I do. I do know that stem cells can help.

Oct 12, 2003, 02:31 am	#37 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	If you have any information regarding stem cells please post it. Being educated is the key to a good debate.

Oct 12, 2003, 02:37 am	#38 (permalink) (top)
tnphydeaux Molten Ash Posts: 63	You are so correct in saying that stem cells can cure diseases; stem cells are already curing diseases. In fact, there are a brothers (Visconti brothers, I think, in New York) already using MAPCs to build organs! And that is without cloning or killing embryos for their stem cells. The brothers use a matrix structure upon which to grow tissues. The underlying matrix dissolves away leaving the desired structure formed from living stem cells differentiated into more specialized tissues. In Texas, Texas A&M University has teamed up with a company called Genetic Savings and Clone, to clone people's favored pets! In 2002, they cloned a tabby named CC. Of course the clone was not an identical match to CC, due to the vagaries of cloning that the public is generally uninformed on, but the tissues would be a protein match for transplants, if that were the goal. And therein lies the catch, the cannibalizing catch.

Oct 12, 2003, 02:40 am	#39 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	Thank you for that, quite interesting.

Oct 12, 2003, 02:43 am	#40 (permalink) (top)
tnphydeaux Molten Ash Posts: 63	Here's an essay you might find of interest ... was posted at FreeRepublic.com and WashingtonDispatch.com: <BIG>Human Embryo/Human Being</BIG> Since the Roe abortion decision (in 1973), science has advanced our understanding of prenatal (before birth) life to a depth few could have anticipated. Though usually unexplained for the general public, with careful reading the entire spectrum of prenatal discovery supports a rejection of abortion on demand and reinforces the correctness of protecting prenatal life the way our society protects an adult individual at the end of their life. In a recent article for First Things, Maureen L. Condic, PhD, Assistant professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah, unintentionally presented an argument for meaning of the death protocol (used when organ harvesting is anticipated) to also be used when contemplating prenatal life. She stated that, “… the loss of integrated bodily function, not the loss of higher mental ability, is the defining legal characteristic of death.” That is an accurate assessment of the meaning of the ‘death protocol’ but there is confusion because it addresses ‘brain death’, yet it doesn’t refer to loss of thinking ability. It should not be assumed that ‘being alive’ as a human being is solely a function of higher brain functioning, or even dependent upon the organ called brain. After we are born, the brain is the central processor for the organ activity that sustains our survival. Prior to birth, it is the placental organ that accomplishes this function. The one organ defines alive notion was the perspective decades ago. People focused upon one organ when the heart was believed to be the center of function, before organ harvesting became a reality. When the heart stopped beating, the person was thought to be dead, thought to be no longer a functioning, integrated whole organism. Today, doctors routinely stop and start the heart, keeping the patient functioning for survival, viable as an integrated whole via artificial heart and lungs. A person in an unrecoverable coma or vegetative state has no meaningful higher brain function, yet their body continues to function as an integrated whole. As Dr. Condic puts it, “Although such patients are clearly in a lamentable medical state, they are also clearly alive, [so] converting such patients into corpses requires some form of euthanasia. … Human life is defined by the ability to function as an integrated whole, not by mere presence of living human cells.” Functioning as an integrated whole is far more complex than mere cellular structures. The older the organism (during the first year from conception), the more aliveness is spread out into sub-unit forms (the developing organs) of the integrated organism; the younger the human organism is, the less differentiated the sub-units are, the less spread out among forms is the integrated function. To accurately apply the meaning of the death protocol to individual life before birth, we will have to show how the embryo is in fact a functioning, integrated whole human organism. If the embryo can be defined on this basis, the definition of an alive, individual human being would fit, and the human being should be protected from exploitation and euthanasia. The gestational process during the fetal age (which follows the embryo age) is a process of already constructed organs growing larger and more functional for survival. If we are to apply the notion of a functioning integrated whole to define individual aliveness, the organs necessary for survival at any age must all be included. The primitive brain stem and primitive lungs are not yet fully functional in early fetal age, so some other organ will have to be responsible for the functioning whole. The first organ a conceived human individual builds for its own survival is the placenta (the Mother builds none of the organs). This organ breathes, nourishes and protects the new individual human life and is so important that in vitro fertilization doctors will not attempt implantation of an embryo until the encapsulating structure is in evidence. Prior to the fetal age, organs necessary for survival in the air world are not present but are being built by the embryo and looped into the primitive brain, the brain stem, yet a human embryo fits the protocol of an alive, functioning, integrated whole organism, the same protocol upon which organ harvesting depends when contemplating the death of an older human organism. The embryo is no less an individual human being with at least one functioning survival organ that allows the integrated whole to continue the lifetime already up and running.