Home - List All Discussions

stem cells

by: coco

I think abortions are wrong, but if a women has an abortion the aborted fetus should be donated to science and aid in the use of stem cells. Obviously the mother does not care about the child and the child could aid medicine in discovering new cures for diseases for all people.

reply from: AshMarie88

"I think abortions are wrong, but if a women has an abortion the aborted fetus should be donated to science and aid in the use of stem cells"
This is wrong on so many levels. For one, fetal stem cells haven't proven useful. Adult stem cells and cord blood have been useful for MANY studies, however. Not long ago, adult stem cells were used and a human liver was grown.
Second, why experiment on dead people? Anyone would have to be a mad scientist to do that...
"Obviously the mother does not care about the child and the child could aid medicine in discovering new cures for diseases for all people."
Because the mom doesn't care about the child, that dead child should be experimented on?
I'd rather not use dead people to find cures of diseases... It's really gross, and again, it doesn't work.

reply from: AshMarie88

Did you know that flu shots have dead fetuses in them?

reply from: coco

People donate thier bodies to science so its not like an outlandish idea. Secondly, the babies are thrown away and sometimes sold, so why not use them to preserve others that are suffering from horriable diseases. I know that that is not a fitting end to a young life but if at least the baby is aiding in the life of others.

reply from: AshMarie88

But as I said before, it's not.
Adult stem cells and cord blood are the only options. They actually help in curing diseases.

reply from: yoda

Would you feel the same way about a murdered baby that had been born? Would you suggest that it's body be used for medical science? If not, why not?
Making use of fetal tissue serves to legitimizes abortion.

reply from: coco

If the mother gives her consant why not? I personally see nothing wrong with people giving thier bodies to science, as long as it is for the common good for mankind. I myself am considering the idea

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Really? I thought they just shot a tiny bit of a few of the flu viruses and the immune system did the rest. Eew.

reply from: AshMarie88

The key word in your sentence is "people giving THEIR bodies", not "people giving OTHER PEOPLE'S bodies".
What if that baby wouldn't want to be donated to science? Why does the mom get to make all the decisions for her child?

reply from: coco

that is intresting because they baby cant give its last wishes, it cant talk. so how would you know if the baby wants to be cremated or burried. The mom has to make the LAST decisions anyway, so why not make a negitive into somewhat a positive?
sorry for the missppellings

reply from: coco

http://www.rideforlife.com/archives/001145.html

reply from: coco

http://www.rideforlife.com/archives/001145.html

reply from: AshMarie88

They're probably talking about adult stem cell research, not embryotic stem cell research.

reply from: AshMarie88

http://www.stemcellresearch.org/

reply from: coco

paragraph 7 read the artical the reason why it is contraversial because the cells come from an embro. Honey I know what I am talking about, read it for yourself

reply from: AshMarie88

No one has to use dead children for research... especially on rats.

reply from: coco

Dead people, yes including children, are used in science all the time that is how we learn about the body. I am a nursing student and see Anatomy and physiology books that dead bodies including children. I am not trying to be rude but educate yourself sounds like you really need it

reply from: Shiprahagain

Coco, that's like saying that murder is wrong but if it occurs the corpse's flesh should be used to feed the hungry. Yes the flesh would have a positive use that way, the dead person might be glad to know this, but still -- cannabalism is wrong. The same situtation applies here.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Cannabalism is wrong because it lowers the status of interpersonal relationships from that of loved one to loved one (be it platonic, romantic, custodial, etc.) to that of predator and prey.

reply from: coco

I will use your cannablism example, say my children lived in north korea and i died. And the only thing that they had to eat was my flesh. They have not eaten in weeks so in order for them to survive they had to eat my flesh to survive, of course i would not be mad. I am aiding them to carry on and live
P.S that does happen in north korea

reply from: Shiprahagain

However, say your children had food to eat and killed you and the other kids decided to eat you anyways. That's what stem cell research is, because a) abortion isn't necessary b) we can use adult stem cells. There's no reason to use baby stem cells -- we don't need them. Furthermore, it's not okay to brutally murder the unwilling and then generously donate their remains to science. In your example the person dies naturally -- not analagous to abortion, and the body is needed for food -- also not analagous to abortion.

reply from: coco

In our culture it is wrong, but thier are cultures that actually beleve that partaking in flesh is a way that the deceased will always remain with thier loved ones. So in that sense it actually Does not harm interpersonal relationships. I know if i did not eat for weeks i would probably eat a dead person and I am sure you saw that movie "alive" people are stripped away from the social ills and turn to thier primal instincts when it comes to a life or death situation

reply from: AshMarie88

Most of the Muslim religion believe in killing non-followers... Does that make murder okay, because they think it is okay and do it?
Same with cannibalism... just because one culture thinks it's okay and does it, doesn't mean it's alright.

reply from: coco

What makes our culture better than others??

reply from: coco

Muslims do not beleve killing is alright were do you get that info??? I have family that is muslim and they are kind people!!

reply from: Shiprahagain

Most of the Muslim religion believe in killing non-followers... Does that make murder okay, because they think it is okay and do it?
Same with cannibalism... just because one culture thinks it's okay and does it, doesn't mean it's alright.
Ash, only an extreme minority of Muslims believe that.

reply from: 1003

oh. good debate, but stay away from pure relativism. this should be fun.

reply from: Shiprahagain

I don't call that cannabalism any more than blood donation is. Theres one thing mixing the ashes of your beloved with fruit juices to honor them and murdering them against their will to eat them.
Agian, in that kind of cannabalism the people die of natural causes - so it's still not analagous to abortion.

reply from: coco

killing is wrong but if something positive can come out of a situation that could save millions of lives then why not??

reply from: Shiprahagain

Nothing. Cultures cannot be hierarchized. It is only the character of individuals that counts.

reply from: AshMarie88

I said MOST, not all. Maybe I'm wrong, but what about the "Praise Allah" fanatics that kill non-believers and cheer after their deaths (such as when 9/11 happened and there were big celebrations in the mid-eastern countries, people were cheering and happy Americans were murdered...)
Sorry if I offended you.

reply from: AshMarie88

I'm all for it, but not if we have to kill millions to save millions...

reply from: Shiprahagain

I said MOST, not all. Maybe I'm wrong, but what about the "Praise Allah" fanatics that kill non-believers and cheer after their deaths (such as when 9/11 happened and there were big celebrations in the mid-eastern countries, people were cheering and happy Americans were murdered...)
Sorry if I offended you.
It isn't most or all, it's an extreme minority.

reply from: Shiprahagain

So why don't you like-minded people kill yourselves for something positive? It's easy to sacrifice another human being.

reply from: coco

My mother-in-law died of cancer (13 years of suffering)
grandfather has dementia,colin cancer, diabites, and glocoma, parkinsins
grandmother Parkinsins
Mother diabites
self possibly kidney problems (only 25 years old)
If I die and science could learn about kidney disfunction or other disorders why would i not want to help other like me that have a family and possibly avoid death so they could watch thier kids and grandkids grow up if i could not??
Of course the fetus did not choose to die but unfurtnetly the mother has chosen the childs fate so why not help others in need?? That is selfish if you have the oppertunity to aid others and deny them access to treatment

reply from: AshMarie88

ADULT STEM CELLS work, embryonic stem cells don't.
Adult stem cells have proven more useful for research and studies... Use those.

reply from: coco

why dont you kill yourself ??

reply from: Shiprahagain

We don't need fetal stem cells. Adult ones work excellently.

reply from: coco

Again, http://www.rideforlife.com/archives/001145.html embryonic cells were used and that showed promise if adult stem cells show promise then use those too but if not use what works

reply from: coco

were u at 1003??
ha ha enjoying add your 2 cents in

reply from: coco

If your pro life why are you telling me to kill myself?? sounds like hypocracy to me my dear

reply from: Shiprahagain

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/winter01/stem_cell.html

Embryonic stem cells have not yet been used for even one therapy, while adult stem cells have already been successfully used in numerous patients, including for cardiac infarction (death of some of the heart tissue).
Adult stem cells not only work -- but better than embryonic ones!

reply from: coco

did you read that link they use embryoinic cells to aid in repair of the rats spinal cord

reply from: Shiprahagain

No, I didn't, but still, you can use adult stem cells. Not need for fetal ones.

reply from: coco

I know you can use adult ones but if they dont work as well why not use those cells from aborted babies if they are going to be thrown out??

reply from: Shiprahagain

Coco, they work just fine.

reply from: coco

I love a good debate!!!

reply from: Shiprahagain

I love a vigorous opponent.

reply from: holopaw

This is a Pro-Choice argument. The Pro-Abortionists act as if they are doing this magnaminous thing by killing their unborn babies and donating the body to science to benefit mankind. Bull crap, they are murderers, plain and simple.

reply from: holopaw

Because you are condoning evil. The ends do not justify the means. We could inject prisoners with syphilis, but that is not acceptable in a moral society. BTW, the Nazis experimented on Jews. The Jews were going to be killed, regardless, the Nazis were still evil and deserved no praise for any medical advancement they might have discovered.

reply from: holopaw

Because Ashley's life has value. To God, her friends, family, and the unborn children she defends. Any more ignorant questions?

reply from: holopaw

So do I. Are you going to start one? You've already admitted adult cells work fine. If you ever decide to go to the Pro-Choice side, you're off to a good start. You're already thinking like them.

reply from: coco

Obviously holopaw you did not read the thread properly shiprehagain said that i should kill myself so next time you comment on something MAKE SURE YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!!! SECOND OF ALL IF OUR CULTURE IS BETTER WHY IS OUR SOCIETY SCREWED UP IF WE WERE BETTER THAN OTHER CULTURES WE WOULD NOT BE DISSCUSSING ANYTHING ONTHIS TOPIC WE WOULD ALL BE OVERJOYED ABOUT OUR PEACHY LIVES!!! THIRD life is not BLACK and WHITE if something such as a baby being aborted all ready occured why not make use of the tradgedy and help other that could benefit!! I agree with yoda when he says that people would use abortion to legitimize thier excuse for having one. By the way I have two children by the age of twenty-one so if i beleved in abbortion i would be responsablity free instead i took resopnsablity for my actions and had my children knowing that i was going to endure hardships!! An as for your whole jew nazis point sad to say they did endure an immense amount of mental, spiritual,physical amount of pain that no person ever should endure but i do think that if the responsible parent/family says it is o.k to experiment on a fetus or a child that had pass on from a specific disease I think THAT AS A HUMAN BEING TO GIVE OUR SELF TO SAVE THOSE THAT ARE SICK!!! ITS CALLED HUMANITY!! I YET TO SEE YOUR EDUCATION YOU CANT EVEN READ A THREAD PROPERLY TO KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON SO LETS SEE YOUR DEBATE KNOWLEDGE!!

reply from: Shiprahagain

I'm sorry. How do experiments on Jews and those on the unborn differ?

reply from: coco

They dont at all but if you believe in humanity you'll understand the point that i am making. Yes they did do experiments on jews but did they do them to benefit mankind?? NO, they did it soley for eugenics purposes which hurt all that were not blonde hair blue-eyed nordic people. I am not saying people should get pregnant then have an abortion for the purpose of science if you think that you again have not read my posts and need to look at them. Abortion came about to exterminate babies of color.

reply from: coco

Im sorry I ment to say they do differ because one was used to exterminate a verity of races and creeds as for abortion they also exterminate children but thier cells can be used to help the sick and dying. and yes once again i am against abortions

reply from: Shiprahagain

So it seems like you're saying that Nazi experiments don't differ from fetal experiments and nazi experiments are wrong, so then are you saying that fetal experiments are wrong? If so , we agree.

reply from: coco

I am saying to put it frank these children are dead their is no returning, if you do these experiments it is helping MILLIONS of people nazis did not dot those experiments for the greater good they did those experiments to harm,kill,exterminate. ONCE AGAIN,ABORTION IN MY EYES IS WRONG BUT IF THE MOTHER GIVES HER CONSANT TO USE THE CHILD FOR SCIENCE FOR THE COMMON GOOD OF MANKIND THEN THAT IS THE LEAST SHE OWES TO THE CHILD AT LEAST THE MURDERD CHILD COULD SAVE MILLIONS OF OTHER CHILDREN AND ADULTS!!

reply from: AshMarie88

Did you not here, the first time, that ADULT STEM CELLS WORK SO MUCH BETTER? And that embryonic stem cells HAVE NOT DONE ANYTHING FOR CURING HUMAN DISEASES?

reply from: coco

I AM SORRY DR but i have also read that embryonic and adult cells DO WORK, why such an attitude you have run out of points why dont you go on myspace little girl. You have not experinced life yet and think you know it all!!!

reply from: Shiprahagain

I have noticed that when older people start attacking your age and not your arguments, it shows you've threatened them with your intellectual ability so Ash -- my hat's off to you. If coco disagrees she can get a source to back up her claims.

reply from: coco

By the way is it bedtime yet ash???

reply from: AshMarie88

lol. 1, I'm not the one with an attitude. I'm just sick of you repeating yourself. 2, I do go on myspace. 3, I haven't experienced life? How do you know? Do you even know how old I am or what I like to do? I bet not.

reply from: AshMarie88

Ahhh, yes, that's true!
I'll wait for her sources.

reply from: coco

she is 17 years old and past her bedtime and i have not once said something about anyones age except for her and that nasty "did you not here" remark someone needs to teach her some manners.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Here's an interesting link on cancer and stem cells http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=000B1BED-0C0A-1498-8C0A83414B7F0000&ref=rss

reply from: coco

And as far as that intellect ability comment is that why you had mention earlyer that i should go kill myself because my intellect surpasses yours Thanks for the complement honey !! appretated it

reply from: AshMarie88

You implied I haven't experienced life yet and that I was a little girl. That's talking about my age right there, but as an insult.
And it's not past my bedtime, but thanks for caring.

reply from: coco

ash if you are sick of it why are you posting and as for laying off of it people are attacking me therfore fueling the debate so when people stop then I will but up untill then let the posts keep on commin

reply from: Shiprahagain

Everyone on the board can see that the comment had nothing to do with intellect but my suggestion that those who are so willing to dedicate other people's lives to science should instead give their own. You maybe the oldest of the three of us but you are the least mature as your words demonstrate. It's sad you can't debate 2 teens without resorting to pettiness? We're using science in you're mocking bedtimes.

reply from: AshMarie88

Debating isn't attacking you. No one attacked you.

reply from: coco

I thought you were pro-life, but yet you go and say that !!! now how pro-life is that!! your just mad cause you tried to attack me, but yet when i called you out about that kill myself comment and could not say that i was right so you have to say that i am immature, go brush up on your debate skills youll need them someday!! YODA WERE ARE YOU??? YOU SEEM LIKE YOU ARE WISE AND KNOW HOW TO DEBATE WERE ARE YOU ??

reply from: coco

as for the science debate take A&P then talk to me about the human science

reply from: AshMarie88

I'm not attacking you by saying this, so don't take offense to it, but here's some advice if you ever want to get into a good, intellectual debate: Use better grammar, don't "yell" at people (leaving your caps on), and don't insult or critisize them (such as critisizing them on their age, lack of "life experience", whatever the case).
It will help in those debates.

reply from: coco

Its said that ash needed to make a smart remark so their for I got one back with her as anyone would !! second of all this is not a debate anymore it has resulted in personal attacks so thier fore when someone with true intellect comes around we will debate this further ( you gys cant even read the thread and you think your good debaters) HA!HA!HA!

reply from: coco

The personal attacks were off the debate they were JUST that personal as far as my grammer when i speak intellectually i do so fyi when i want to get a attitude i will do just that and when you get an attitude you dont care about your grammer. Remember i am a nursing student so A&P is anatomy and physiology. Heres were the intellect comes out (oh i forgot i am lacking that)
Anatomy= study of the structure of the body
Physiology= study of the function of the body

reply from: Shiprahagain

Maybe she means AP science. Which I did take where I learned, in biology AP, that life begins as a zygote. Did you take it coco?

reply from: AshMarie88

I love biology and learning about the human body, the way it works, about natural processes, etc. It interests me. So I do know a lot about it. I have many books on stuff like that.

reply from: coco

what the hell I dont believe an abortions, and no this is diffrent then highschool bio, this is exclusively dedicated to the study the whole human body and all of the bodies functions and yes i do agree that it begains at conception and are you trying to discredit me because i am studing to be a nurse and i had to take college a&p ??
do you feel threaten that i had to take 1 year of college science devoted to the body?? would like to insult my intelligence using that insomeway because i know of the human body?? because if you are it wont work

reply from: coco

ash then become a doctor A&P is not fun and you have to read a whole lot (sum times confusing stuff)and 1 college book is like $250.00 but go for it find out all you can

reply from: AshMarie88

I've thought about being an EMT before, but not really a doctor. It'd be interesting, but I don't know now.
Anyway, I think stuff like biology and AP is fun learning.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Last I heard we were talking about ethics, not biology, unless you believe that something you've learned in biology makes a child unborn inhuman -- if so share -- with source. If you don't think this but still believe in fetal research, Ash and I disagree for the same reasons you disagree w/Nazi research, and I for one don't need to con't to waste my time. As for your insecurity issues, petty posting, all caps ranting, etc.? It sounds like what you need more than anything is a jolt of confidence and destressing. To be learning to be a nurse and have 2 kids at the same time is an accomplishment so be proud of that. I commend you. Just relax some.

reply from: coco

This subject is part of human A&P and also biomedical ethics (took that class too,very intresting and fun this subject was a case study) so it conicides and i am not insicure at all i am impowered by my education both from the school of the hard knocks and by my eagerness to investigate and learn. I am a passionate and not easily influnced person and when i believe something i believe in it for a reason!!!

reply from: coco

emts see people at their worst because they are the first responders they see tragic inhumane things the reason why i choose nursing is due to the fact you can choose the area you want to work at if you like the thrill of not knowing what is comming then er is for you but me personally i choose to be a pediatric nurse i love babies but dont want another one. I get the joy of leaving them at work and not having to weak up in the middle of the night to change diapers or a feeding. I get my baby urges out of my system for 12 hours then go home. wroks for me

reply from: holopaw

You truly remind me of a pro-abortionist. This forum isn't about who is smartest or has the best debating skills. This isn't a game or popularity contest. Babies are being killed. Our culture, though it is in decay, is the greatest one yet devised my man. Lots of abortion apologists would never have an abortion. If they were responsible parents, they would not have killed their unborn child! There we debated. I hope you're happy.

reply from: yoda

And how would you know if it wanted it's body used for research?

reply from: holopaw

It's inhumane. You are a baby killing apologist. It is wrong and immoral to intentionally kill a child and try to spin some positive thing out of it. "I killed my baby, but I"m not so bad, I'm donating the body to science." BTW, these unborn children did not 'give' themselves. They were killed. If anyone deserves a burial, it's these children. They should not be utilized as if they are medical waste.

reply from: yoda

Well that's good news for crippled rats, I guess.

reply from: yoda

It doesn't work that way. Aborted cells are already dead, they can't be used.

reply from: AshMarie88

Well that's good news for crippled rats, I guess.
For some reason, that made me laugh a bit. lol

reply from: 1003

same way we know whether or not children can get tatoos, surgeries, or medicated. we ask their parents.

reply from: Shiprahagain

None of those involve murdering the child -- again, not an analagous situation.

reply from: 1003

no analogy is perfect. so is your issue just that it isn't perfectly analogous?

reply from: coco

Thank you 1003 oh and for the little rat comments for all those uneducated folks they need to test a procedure or meds on animals to keep from harming humans!! Your education tip off the day

reply from: AshMarie88

I'm educated enough, thanks.

reply from: coco

Holopaw, since you know so much and since i am going to be a bad nurse why dont you go into the midical field and show us all how things really go?? sorry but you are ignorant for saying something like that

reply from: yoda

same way we know whether or not children can get tatoos, surgeries, or medicated. we ask their parents.
Typical proabort comparison......comparing tatoos to mutilating a body....

reply from: holopaw

You say you're Pro-Life, yet you appear to share the opinions of 1003, the biggest Anti-Lifer on the forum.

reply from: holopaw

I don't have to have a degree in medicine to know doctors and nurses are supposed to save lives not defend the advocates of killing the unborn.

reply from: coco

I am pro-life would i think that having an abortion is wrong if i wasnt?? You totally misunderstood me if the deed is done then make the child not die in vain let that child become and "angel" "giver of life" to others that are suffering. Its called HUMANISM aka doing something for the common good

reply from: AshMarie88

You're anti-innocent-so called "unwanted"-life.

reply from: coco

what?? You are anti-life denying research for potential meds for sick and dying children and adults the child is dead already make something positive happen for the death of a child if my children died because of a certain disease I would allow them to aid science to help other children from the fate of death. I as a parent would decied that to help those that are sick

reply from: AshMarie88

Oh please... Being against killing babies then donating them to labs to be experimented on isn't being anti-life.

reply from: coco

Anti life is also anti life for those that are already here (denying access to proper meds and treatment)

reply from: AshMarie88

You sound very pro-choice, even tho you claim to be pro-life...
"for those that are already here" - Hmm?

reply from: coco

Pro choice means someone that thinks it is ok to terminate the fetus it is not ok to terminate a fetus in my book

reply from: holopaw

You sound very pro-choice, even tho you claim to be pro-life...
"for those that are already here" - Hmm?
At best, she sounds like a Pro-Lifer with "EXCEPTIONS!"

reply from: yoda

As I mentioned before, dead tissue cannot be used for research. That requires living tissue, so your point is moot.
Human embryos that are used for research are bred especially for that research, and then are killed during that research. Is that something you approve of also?

reply from: yoda

Which actually, as Mark Crutcher says, is a fictional creature. Such a person is "prochoice with exceptions".

reply from: holopaw

Define Humanism as you wish. I still believe you are an abortion apologist. John Edwards' young son was killed and (raped?). He took that evil act and created America's Most Wanted. He took an evil act and created good out of it. If Mr. Edwards had killed his son and then created the show, it wouldn't be the same.
Your "angel" belief condones evil.

reply from: Hereforareason

" how am i anti-life? "
You would have helped to take my life 1003. You might have even driven my mother to the clinic to help tear me limb from limb or be burned to death. You would have protected her right to choose, but not mine. But, since I couldn't articulate my desire for life, you wouldn't have done anything for me, would you?
"what?? You are anti-life denying research for potential meds for sick and dying children and adults the child is dead already make something positive happen for the death of a child if my children died because of a certain disease I would allow them to aid science to help other children from the fate of death. I as a parent would decied that to help those that are sick"
Coco, I am assuming that you are talking about embrionic stem cell research correct. (That is the title of the thread)
If so, show me one case, just one, where embrionic stem cells have helped somebody. If you look into it, you will find that not one itsy bitsy step forward has been taken with embrionic stem cells, though they have plenty to test. Only Adult stem cells have helped anyone. And then, their own cells.
Amber

reply from: lovingmommyof2

It is not right to murder a child then graciously hand over the remains for research. The child's right to life was stripped from them. Did you watch the news conference on stem cell research last night? A paralyzed man took the stand and asked, "why should someone's child die so I can walk?" He himself could benefit from the research, yet he knows it is wrong. It takes a selfish person to want a child to die so they could benefit. I realize you are saying if the child is already aborted, but how does that make it right. It only fuels the baby killing industry, another way they can pretend they care about anything but killing babies.

reply from: Shiprahagain

It seems to me that people with handicaps should be the most opposed to stem cell research. You'd think those disempowered, discarded, and excluded from society, seen as lesser human beings by those who are "complete or whole" would fight against the disenfrachisement of another group. If we can use embryos to benefit the born, what would stop us as a society from saying we should experiment on the handicapped to help those who are whole?

reply from: holopaw

You as a "parent" murdered your own child. Handling the remains over to science does not make you noble, it makes them an accomplance.

reply from: yoda

The "It's already been aborted, so why not?" argument is fatally flawed anyway. That's like saying "Animals that are already killed might as well be skinned and made into fur coats". The purchase of those fur coats is what keeps getting animals killed. And the use of abortive tissue for any purpose would encourage more abortions.

reply from: coco

I agree with your original comment that was in refrence to the practice will legitimize abortions for women i think you are right that when would use that excuse to make themselves better. But i still think it is ok to use a aborted fetus,embryos, and adult stem cells for profecting a humans quality on life.

reply from: AshMarie88

You're okay with it, but not everyone is. Not everyone sees experimenting on the dead a great and awesome thing...

reply from: coco

what you fail to relize is that they have been using dead bodies to "EXPERIMENT" on why is that so gross to you ??

reply from: AshMarie88

Haven't you EVER heard of mad scientists? Doesn't that cross your mind every time you hear about some innocent person being experimented on?

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Coco, children are not spare bodies. Or spare parts. You don't even now if they would have wanted to be tested on. Besides, it encourages women to get abortions. If you knew a woman who killed her child purely for stem cell research, would you be happy or sad?

reply from: holopaw

I could easily see a Planned Death counselor using the "help mankind" argument to convince a woman who is on the fence to have an abortion.
"Well, Sara. You know you can't afford to have it." Pro-death counselor.
Sara, "I wish I could have this baby, it's just I'm only 16."
Anti-Life counselor, "Sara, you can always have more children. And this isn't even a baby yet, it's just a blob of cells. Plus after the procedure, they can use the cells to cure diseases. You can help people."
VOMIT!

reply from: coco

mad scientist are maid scientist corners or forensic investigaters ?? everheard of those professions?? they are scientist that specialize in dead bodies so i guess that catigorizes them too huh?? Bet you didnt know that their are people that donate thier bodies to science and the are put in an exclusive areas for those that want a carierr in forensic science to study on guess they are crazy too

reply from: coco

so a child that was killed by the age of 3 in an accident the parents should not consider the thought of organ donation because thier bodies should not be used for spare parts?? The children that i know dont know what that means but plenty of people give their childrens organs up! once again i would have to agree with yoda those sad souls that cant own up to the fact or say yea i made that desicion to have an abortion because they dont want to take care of a baby because they want to party and feel gulty about it would that are looking for an excuse will use that but then again i am a strong women that takes responsiblity I believe you say and do things and you should own up to it your actions

reply from: AshMarie88

How about you actually HEAR someone say they would like to be donated to science, instead of assuming that's what they'd want?

reply from: coco

http://www.tharpfuneralhome.com/donate_body.shtml

reply from: coco

http://www.vdh.state.va.us/medexam/donate.asp

reply from: Shiprahagain

Again, Coco, the problem isn't the fact that bodies are used for science but that you are mudering somebody.

reply from: coco

someone was already murdered so you are taking that deth and enriching others lives

reply from: Shiprahagain

Okay, let's look at this piece by piece you have a) the unwilling brutal murder of a child b) the fact that this research could be used to convince vulnerable moms to abort when they are on the fence c) the fact that this research makes noble sex offender protecting, eugenics supporting, women's health destroying, babykilling clinics d) the fact that we don't need the babies in the first place due to adult stem cells which actually work BETTER e) why research with fetuses if you plan on making abortion illegal and one day any scientific "gain" will become null
There's no point in fetal research unless we use fetuses long into the future to help others -- since the goal of prolifers is to end abortion ASAP, such research is fruitless.

reply from: 1003

maybe you should change your goals and stop impeding progress.

reply from: Shiprahagain

http://blackgenocide.org/
">http://blackgenocide.org/
http://www.usccb.org/prolife/programs/rlp/03ruse.htm
http://www.rense.com/general59/kissingereugenics.htm

reply from: coco

A) the child was already murdered by a car accident
B) you are right about that one!! again i am giving props to yoda for that vaild argument.
C) dont understand please clearify
D)Once again this is not proven we have limited ablity to prove that claim so your argument is irrelivent
E) abortion is already legal

reply from: Shiprahagain

C- Research provides a benign mask for human rights abuses done in the name of abortion.
D- yes it is
E- If you're prolife, you're trying to end abortion, so why encourage research that will one day become illegal to use?

reply from: coco

Eugenics is a pratice that is used to creat a master race (nazis blue eyed blonde hair theory) my original question was how is this eugenics if you are aiding all of mankind not just whites,blacks or hispanics.

reply from: coco

Abortion, drug use, rapping will never end no matter if it is outlawed or not so what is your point with those posts i already knew that info i am educated on the abortion topic had to take sociology,psychology,and A&P classes so i have background in my knowledge

reply from: holopaw

You can't be murdered by a car.
murder
in criminal law, the unjustified killing of one person by another, usually distinguished from the crime of manslaughter by the element of malice aforethought.
The difference once again, your hypothetical 3 year old died by accident. The unborn baby that was aborted was killed intentionally.
The legality of abortion is inconsequential, the act is indefensible.

reply from: holopaw

It's not the fact that they are dead bodies. The problem is they are experimenting on murdered babies.

reply from: Shiprahagain

If you disproportionately kill one group through abortion, to benefit those who can pay for super-expensive research, you aren't aiding all mankind. Especially not those you're killing.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Cool, so let's make all those things legal too. In fact, we should let people legally rape women, kill them, and donate the remains to science.

reply from: AshMarie88

Cool, so let's make all those things legal too. In fact, we should let people legally rape women, kill them, and donate the remains to science.
And heck, maybe their remains will help in repairing a rat's spinal cord...
After all, experimenting on humans is okay because it may save a rat!

reply from: holopaw

I believe your opinion reveals a great lack of morality. If society truly wanted to advance medical knowledge we could experiment on convicts or the ignorant. It's been done before.
Tuskegee syphilis study
official name Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the NegroMale American medical research project that earned notoriety for its unethical experimentation on African American patients in the rural South.
The subjects were not told that they had syphilis or that the disease could be transmitted through sexual intercourse. Instead, they were told that they suffered from "bad blood," a local term used to refer to a range of ills. Treatment was initially part of the study, and some patients were administered arsenic, bismuth, and mercury. But after the original study failed to produce any useful data, it was decided to follow the subjects until their deaths, and all treatment was halted. Penicillin was denied to the infected men after that drug became available in the mid-1940s, and it was still being withheld from them 25 yearslater, in direct violation of government legislation that mandated the treatment of venereal disease. It is estimated that more than 100 of the subjects died of tertiary syphilis.
It is NEVER right to subtlely condone evil for the "greater good."

reply from: holopaw

There is nothing wrong with forensic medicine. The difference you don't want to acknowledge is there is nothing wrong with donating one's body to science, if a child passes away, it is a bit noble to allow that child to live on in others by donating organ. However, it is ghoulish if I were to kill my child and then donate her organs.

reply from: holopaw

I don't see where they believe that it is acceptable to kill a person and then donate the body.

reply from: holopaw

Cool, so let's make all those things legal too. In fact, we should let people legally rape women, kill them, and donate the remains to science.
It'd be better to make a law where all bodies are donated to science. The people are already dead. It would help people, why not?

reply from: coco

holopaw you cant be murdered by a car have you ever heard of a person that was drunk and killed someone with the car and was charged with murder not manslaughter not vechicular manslaughter but murder??

reply from: coco

ship you are not killing a baby simply because its a boy or a girl these girls are murdering thier children because most dont want any reponsiblity so the eugenics argument does not work at all the study of eugenics is to create a master race of human beings and exterminate all those that do not fit thier specific dsignated criteria so killing some babies from all races is not eugenics killing all babies would fit in the catigory of ending mankind

reply from: coco

holopaw ash has a problem with experiment on all dead bodies she says that "mad scientists" do that that is why is said that

reply from: Shiprahagain

You still don't get it. Most babies killed are minority. The largest abortion provider in the world, Planned Parenthood, has 80% of its American abortion clinics in the black community and an even higher percentage among non-whites abroad. Most of those aborted are of color, those who will benefit are the wealthy, mostly white people, who can pay for cutting edge research. If you don't recognize the disproportionate amount of aborted babies of color get a source.

reply from: coco

ASH once again you are beyond ignorant i must explain how meds and procedures are approved(short version)

1. when scientist belive they have found a cure for something they must test it on animals to ensure no human beings will sustain any harm.
2.once scientist believe they have cured enough animals then they will begin human trials. you have heard the radio commercial if you have this call this we will pay you for your time and you will get free meds.
3. once this goes threw then they will sit before the fda and they will approve or disaprove.
SO BEFORE THE DOCTOR GIVES YOU PENICILIN OR WHATEVER DRUGS YOU TAKE THE HAVE HAD TO WORK ON RATS OR MONKEYS!!!
you really make yourself sound so uneducated are you sure you took or passed science cause it sounds like you need a refresher course

reply from: coco

HOLOPAW , tuskgege trials were preformed on people that are functioning you know alive these babies are no longer alive so i am sorry your scienerio is therfore baseless

reply from: coco

so i believe it is in the netherlands it is law that everyone, unless they have written consant, must donate thier organs so yes holowpaw I DO AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT ONE

reply from: coco

once again eugenics says that if a person doesnt fit the mold that they are trying to create then ALL those that do not conform must be terminated. As far as numbers the 1st abortion clinic was i beleive in harlem and it was used to kill only black children then white women who were fooling around on their husbands became pregnant and had to terminate thier pregnacy so some white married women had them and then white 16 yearold sallie messed around with her boyfriend and got pregnant and she had one then black monique did the same then she had one then brown maria also happen to do the same thing so she had one. The same thing goes with liquor stores on which street corner do you see most liqour stores??? the areas were their is prodmantly minorites but just because of that does that stop white eric from the suburbs from becoming an alcholic of course not. point being just you have a peice of realestae in a certain area does not mean one thing it is who goes their that makes a diffrence and you are right probably more minorites do abort but the government doesnt tell us that all pregnant minorties must report to the nearst abortion clinic at once if they did that then that would imply the action of starting a eugenics movement!!!

reply from: holopaw

My scenario is not baseless. In each instance, people are doing evil and stating it is for the greater good of mankind. You think it is wrong to use living, human beings to experment upon, others will disagree. Your subjective morality on doing things for the common good regardless of the means is the road to hades.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Interesting how you reduce all science to Western science and not, for example, indigenous medicine that involves no animal testing.

reply from: Shiprahagain

This is speculation. You need to read the facts. Genocide is killing someone b/c of the group they are a part of -- babies are killed first because they are unborn and secondly because they are often of color. For example, if a Klansman lynches a black person but doesn't try to kill all black people, that doesn't mean his act wasn't genocidal. Margaret Sanger, founder of planned parenthood, had what she called a "negro project" http://blackgenocide.org/negro.html You can read there exactly why there are more clinics in minority neighborhoods.

reply from: Tam

Well that's good news for crippled rats, I guess.
LOL

reply from: Tam

You hit the nail right on the head, holo!!

reply from: coco

ship we are talking about western science, indengenious medicine as far as i know have no intrest in stemcell research, and "western" medicine is a billion dollar industry so it is very powerful and influencial

reply from: Shiprahagain

Which of course makes it ethical.

reply from: coco

once again ship not all babies are aborted if they are i must have skiped that memo twice. your eugentics "theory" is pointless. i have educated myself in abortion history and you did not read the post that proves it so i know about margert singer, the comstead act, etc but again not babies are aborted PERIOD!!!

reply from: coco

so you would rather test on humans and not on animals??

reply from: Shiprahagain

A- eugenics doesn't stop being eugenics just because a total population isn't eradicated and
B- neither human nor animal testing is needed

reply from: coco

A) you say that eugenics is killing minoraty children then why do i have two minority children
so you would not want meds to be tested on anyone or anything?

reply from: Shiprahagain

Eugenics means you target people they have a certain quality. It doesn't mean, I repeat, that you are successful at erasing the entire population. I don't believe in medical testing.

reply from: coco

it is selective breeding not entire breeding

reply from: Shiprahagain

That's eugenics. Read Malthus.

reply from: coco

the main goal of eugenics is to prohibit breeding of those that do not fit the mold that is desired so if government says that ALL black pregnant women cant have babies because they are less thatn desirable and are stupid and white babies are smarter then the counterpart then yes that would be eugenics but not all babies are aborted.

reply from: Shiprahagain

No, just the majority - 3 out of 5 black pregnancies are aborted (blackgenocide.com is my source)
THE CAMBODIAN "KILLING FIELDS"
Pol Pot's murder of 1 out of every 4 Cambodians is invariably described as "genocide" despite the fact that the perpetrators shared the same ethnicity and nationality as their victims and were not trying to kill "a whole nation." They only attempted to murder Cambodians deemed a threat to the Khmer Rouge revolution.
http://abortionno.org/Resources/abortion.html

Are historians wrong about defining genocide?

reply from: coco

blacks are still able to breed thought if all black people were sterlized for the purpose to stop the black race then that would be eugenics. those WOMEN DEcIDED TO HAVE AN ABORTION SOMEONE DID NOT CHOOSE THAT FOR THEm.
http://www.ourfounder.com/jleroy/eugenics.htm

reply from: Shiprahagain

So blacks "breed" huh?

reply from: coco

anyone that has a baby breeds what are you implying??

reply from: Shiprahagain

For someone who doesn't like the term bastard used in a correct context (to mean illegitimacy and not improper behavior) you are insensitive enough to realize that breeding is never an okay term for human reproduction?

reply from: coco

Eugenics was a pseudoscience given birth by Francis Galton in the mid 1800s (that's him up there). It taught that the human race could be improved by selective breeding and proper living. It took natural selection and religion and class consciousness and bigotry and made sort of a wacky pop-science pie out of them.
Thats what it says on the link i posted word from word

reply from: 1003

this brand of "medicine" is often little more than herblore and magic.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Spoken from a position of ignorance. Thousands of Native American herbs have been approved by the FDA, for example. I know to you something's not real medicine if you can't harm an innocent creature, or possibly, a child.

reply from: 1003

unprovoked and unfounded.

reply from: coco

so how do you think they should test a new medicine ship???

reply from: 1003

that's the right question.
/me applauds.

reply from: Shiprahagain

That's just what I'm saying, if you observe nature, get spiritual visions, and study the world around you, you don't need tests. Read about Muskogee, Yanomami, or Bushmen medicine for example.

reply from: 1003

not scientific.
done through testing.

reply from: coco

point blank you must test a medicine on a living moving thing!! no plant no nothing either a animal and risk it of dying or a human and risk a human dying. so what would you rather have dying a animal or a human being??

reply from: coco

ship would you rather test on an animal or a human???

reply from: Shiprahagain

No you don't have to test on anybody, you're only saying that b/c you haven't studied indigenous medicine and until you do you are speaking from a position of ignorance.

reply from: coco

I think you are speaking from ignorance,so next time you take a dose of meds you would risk your life and face dying because you dont know about animal testing.
Yea indigenious people do have meds, but not all work.

reply from: Shiprahagain

How gracious you are in the sharing of your vast knowledge!
Wouldn't someone have to have been the first to take a newly discovered medicine? Wouldn't that constitute a test? Are you implying that people knew what the affects would be of eating a particular herb before eating it? Medicinal effects of plants and herbs were most likely discovered accidentally, by trial and error. Of course, observation could result in speculation, but no person could be certain of the effects without testing.
I suggest anybody interested read about how Bushman, Yanomami medicine, Yunnan, Huichol, or Muskogee for example are practiced and they'll learn how it's done without testing. If you would study these cultures you could answer your own questions. A good book to start with would be The Wind is My Mother by Bear Heart, a Muskogee Shaman who is on the advisory board of Johns Hopkins. It's done without experimenting on animals, humans, and especially, the unborn.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Concerned, before you make further rude comments towards me, let's trace this (0r the part relating to indignous medicine) discussion. First Coco calls Ash "beyond ignorant" and I politely introduce the idea of indigneous medicine.
Interesting how you reduce all science to Western science and not, for example, indigenous medicine that involves no animal testing.
Coco then says, "ship we are talking about western science, indengenious medicine as far as i know have no intrest in stemcell research, and "western" medicine is a billion dollar industry so it is very powerful and influencial "
And I respond, "Which of course makes it ethical. "
She then said, "so you would rather test on humans and not on animals?? "
And I reiterated, "Eugenics means you target people they have a certain quality. It doesn't mean, I repeat, that you are successful at erasing the entire population. I don't believe in medical testing. "
1003 dismisses indigneous medicine, "Interesting how you reduce all science to Western science and not, for example, indigenous medicine that involves no animal testing.
this brand of "medicine" is often little more than herblore and magic."
And I point out its incorrect, "Spoken from a position of ignorance. Thousands of Native American herbs have been approved by the FDA, for example. I know to you something's not real medicine if you can't harm an innocent creature, or possibly, a child. "
1003 then says me saying how the FDA approves of indigneous medicine was "unprovoked and unfounded. " When, since I was responding to his claim that indigenous medicine was merely herblore, it was not unprovoked, and since he was speaking from ignorance -- ignorance being a lack of knowledge, was correct. It was not unfounded because I am founded -- by the FDA.
Coco added "so how do you think they should test a new medicine ship??? "
Seconded by 1003, "that's the right question.
/me applauds. "
When i add, "That's just what I'm saying, if you observe nature, get spiritual visions, and study the world around you, you don't need tests. Read about Muskogee, Yanomami, or Bushmen medicine for example. "
10003 repeats, "get spiritual visions,
not scientific.
study the world around you
done through testing. "
seconded by, "point blank you must test a medicine on a living moving thing!! no plant no nothing either a animal and risk it of dying or a human and risk a human dying. so what would you rather have dying a animal or a human being?? ship would you rather test on an animal or a human??? " Who is still incorectly assuming you need animal testing and using exclamation marks to "raise her voice" at me.
Then when I respond, "No you don't have to test on anybody, you're only saying that b/c you haven't studied indigenous medicine and until you do you are speaking from a position of ignorance." Concerned gets an attitude. Coco is speaking from a position of ignorance because she is ignorant of indigenous medicine. And if you take such umbrage to people being told they speak from a position of ignorance -- note, I didn't say she was ignorant, then you really should have scolded Coco when she called Ash beyond ignorant. As you can see, I patiently defended indigenous medicine and you are merely bullying me due to bias. Otherwise, you would have scolded Coco for making a worse remark than the one you jumped on me for. There is medicine done without testing -- the fact that such medicine lies outside your realm of experience doesn't mean it does not exist.

reply from: coco

is that why indengenious medicine could not find a cure for meseles??http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/eldorado/hurtado.html

reply from: coco

MOst of these indengenous people have not been exposed to the "worlds" germs so their bodies have built immunity against thier "GERMS" but when an outsider comes with diffrent foregin "germs" their bodies cannot build immunity because it is foregin to them so they die.
I dont know much about pharmcalogy or indengenious medicine but i do know that neither has all the ansewers to the current illinesses,but i do know i would rather have a monkey be experimented on before my kids take a med. and i am sure most people would agree with me

reply from: Shiprahagain

I didn't say that indigenous medicine yet holds the answers for all diseases, I merely said that is has set a precedent for medicine without testing -- especially fetal testing. For further questions not related to abortion, pm me. With the yanomami specifically, they have cures for many sicknesses indigenous to their people, but when rapidly hit with alien diseases they are at an unfair disadvantage. Saying that indigenous medicine fails because one tribe succombed to measles is like saying Western medicine fails because it has not yet conqured AIDS.

reply from: coco

IN christopher columbas time why did all the indengenous people die off besides the fact that they were mostly slaughtered?? because the "white"man brought diseases.
I called her beyond ignorant because i wrote that once and she was arguing that i was wrong!! i dont know if science has changed in a year, but last time i heard that was the procedure of testing meds before a med became approved.

reply from: coco

what is fetal testing??

reply from: Shiprahagain

Interesting how you reduce all science to Western science and not, for example, indigenous medicine that involves no animal testing.
Coco then says, "ship we are talking about western science, indengenious medicine as far as i know have no intrest in stemcell research, and "western" medicine is a billion dollar industry so it is very powerful and influencial "
And I respond, "Which of course makes it ethical. "
She then said, "so you would rather test on humans and not on animals?? "
And I reiterated, "Eugenics means you target people they have a certain quality. It doesn't mean, I repeat, that you are successful at erasing the entire population. I don't believe in medical testing. "
1003 dismisses indigneous medicine, "Interesting how you reduce all science to Western science and not, for example, indigenous medicine that involves no animal testing.
this brand of "medicine" is often little more than herblore and magic."
And I point out its incorrect, "Spoken from a position of ignorance. Thousands of Native American herbs have been approved by the FDA, for example. I know to you something's not real medicine if you can't harm an innocent creature, or possibly, a child. "
1003 then says me saying how the FDA approves of indigneous medicine was "unprovoked and unfounded. " When, since I was responding to his claim that indigenous medicine was merely herblore, it was not unprovoked, and since he was speaking from ignorance -- ignorance being a lack of knowledge, was correct. It was not unfounded because I am founded -- by the FDA.
Coco added "so how do you think they should test a new medicine ship??? "
Seconded by 1003, "that's the right question.
/me applauds. "
When i add, "That's just what I'm saying, if you observe nature, get spiritual visions, and study the world around you, you don't need tests. Read about Muskogee, Yanomami, or Bushmen medicine for example. "
10003 repeats, "get spiritual visions,
not scientific.
study the world around you
done through testing. "
seconded by, "point blank you must test a medicine on a living moving thing!! no plant no nothing either a animal and risk it of dying or a human and risk a human dying. so what would you rather have dying a animal or a human being?? ship would you rather test on an animal or a human??? " Who is still incorectly assuming you need animal testing and using exclamation marks to "raise her voice" at me.
Then when I respond, "No you don't have to test on anybody, you're only saying that b/c you haven't studied indigenous medicine and until you do you are speaking from a position of ignorance." Concerned gets an attitude. Coco is speaking from a position of ignorance because she is ignorant of indigenous medicine. And if you take such umbrage to people being told they speak from a position of ignorance -- note, I didn't say she was ignorant, then you really should have scolded Coco when she called Ash beyond ignorant. As you can see, I patiently defended indigenous medicine and you are merely bullying me due to bias. Otherwise, you would have scolded Coco for making a worse remark than the one you jumped on me for. There is medicine done without testing -- the fact that such medicine lies outside your realm of experience doesn't mean it does not exist.
You make a habit of using the word "ignorance." When you accuse someone of ignorance, don't turn around and pretend you aren't referring to them as "ignorant." It's the same thing. I see you "bullying" coco on nearly every thread she's posted on. Get off your high horse, Ship, you don't know everything.
I said she was speaking from a position of ignorance, not that she was ignorant. For example, if I wanted to talk about Japanese puppetry, I'd have to speak from a position of ignorance because I don't know that subject. That doesn't make me all around ignorant. The fact that you can't distinguish the difference doesn't nullify it, the fact that it doesn't bother you when coco calls ash ignorant is hypocritical, and for someone so picky about his posts being misread you certainly don't mind misreading others. You claim I don't know everything which I have never asserted to the contrary, but you believe you do and hide that sentiment with false humility. You continually tell people not to respond to your posts but just think about your words like you're a guru. In pm, I faithfully read the different religious sites you recommened me to, which you didn't reciprocate, and if I ever diagreed you called me close minded. You are so arrogant.
Now that is an "ignorant" statement. You and I have never discussed medicine, and you have no way of knowing that your "expertise" on the subject surpasses my own. I would contend that there is no way to determine how a substance might affect a human being until it is tested on a human being. You have not proven otherwise. Once again, you assert your own authority and as a source, you recommend we read a book. I happen to be aware of no culture, past or present, that have written histories you might have accessed that suggest any form of medicine was discovered and applied without the benefit of any form of testing.
You made it obvious you had no "expertise" on the subject when you said you didn't know how there could be medicine with lack of testing. The fact that you know of no culture whose histories I could have assessed, again, doesn't mean such cultures do not exist. I know you're so arrogant you think something doesn't exist if you don't know about it but in the real world that's not the case.
The contention is quite illogical, and you have in no way proven that testing is not necessary.
I gave you sources where you cold prove it for yourself, but don't think I'm about to pander to your laziness.
Since you are the "expert," why don't you explain to us how the effects of medicines are verified without any form of testing, and rather than giving us a list of subjects we might research, quote us the relevant passages and give the page numbers.
By the book, and I'll give you the page number. You know good and well I never called myself an expert, I only asserted that such medicine exists. How my polite assertions that indigenous medicine came to be without testing got twisted into expertise is only a result of your convoluted, mean-spirited mind. What point is there in me giving you a page number for a book you don't own?

reply from: coco

once again you assume that i have not ,actually ship i have read about the yanomami tribe in brazil in my antrho class (although i found that class unbearling boaring) i did read the book The yanomamo case studies in cultural antho and although that book is not dedicated to the yanomamo medicine practices i am familiar with them. i am not familiar with the other tribes but i have ssen some programs on the bushmen of the australian outback. i know that the yanomamo rely on "illegal" substances (in our cultures eyes)but whatever works best

reply from: Shiprahagain

You can think that all you want concerned, doesn't make it correct. I don't want to waste my time educating somebody with an obnoxious attitude.

reply from: coco

obnoxious,
That's just what I'm saying, if you observe nature, get spiritual visions, and study the world around you, you don't need tests. Read about Muskogee, Yanomami, or Bushmen medicine for example.
dont assume i have not read about the yanomami

reply from: Shiprahagain

Yes, I agree it would be a waste of your time to attempt to educate me on something you are unable to explain. I defy anyone to offer a reasonable explanation for how the effects of any substance on human beings can be determined without testing of any kind. If you're not up to the challenge, it is not necessary for you to admit you were blowing smoke. Your failure to offer any explanation speaks for itself.
So you're saying because I don't want to educate someone who acts like a bully I don't know what I'm talking about. Go ahead. Think that. You are dead wrong, but think that. I don't care whether someone I have never met thinks I don't know about indigenous medicine. I could care less. I have tried to educate you about other things -- race and religion namely. I have already tried twice and you are a horrid student, so my unwillingness to try a third time doesn't mean I don't know my subject. I just means I'm not a fool. I've learned from past experience.

reply from: 1003

cp... i've always thought you were kind of a jerk. from way back when your other forum blocked you or shut down and you first came here... i was like "this guy's a jerk"... but lately... i dunno. maybe you've changed. maybe i've changed... but... you seem really level-headed. wrong about abortion... but.. i'd invite you over for dinner with the fam... i think you're a good guy.

reply from: coco

guys, i have a stinkin suspicion that someone is going to calls us some trolls

reply from: yoda

Personally, I wish that cp and shiprah would take their dispute private again......

reply from: Shiprahagain

Sorry, I tried to call a truce with him on the Questions for coco thread, but you can see how he responded
Originally posted by: Shiprahagain
I'm afraid I don't always understand your posts, Concerned, but if it's something religion related I suppose pm would be more appropriate. However, this one, though cryptic, does make me smile -- First Corinthians is my favorite part of the Bible
Please let me know if I'm misinterpreting you -- b/c that's not my intent -- but I think you're saying we should respond to people's poor life choices with charity. I agree -- but I don't believe charity corresponds to tax funded college tuition that encourages further poor choices.
Originally posted by Concerned
"I'm afraid I don't always understand your posts, Concerned,"
That much is obvious.
Then I came out swinging, but I'll try to tone it down.

reply from: Tam

You don't say....
Those who would condone animal experimentation and giving pharmaceutical drugs to children would undoubtedly agree with you.

reply from: Tam

Gosh, I wonder why anyone would eeeeeever think THAT! Don't worry--no one will suspect CP of being a troll, whereas IMO it's been pretty obvious right from the start that coco is just 1003 posing as a prolifer.

reply from: Tam

*ahem* Not to get in the middle of this, but, Ship said

reply from: 1003

ask terry to confirm our ips. i doubt we even live in the same state.

reply from: Tam

It is only necessary to have two browsers, not two computers. If you have, say, both Safari and IE, it is trivial to log in as two users simultaneously. The fact that they're on at the same time is evidence in support of my theory that they're one and the same. But I fully admit it's just a theory.
Not particularly--but 1003 likes to try to make prolifers look foolish, and has discussed the idea of posing as a prolifer. I just think it's one thing to take seriously someone who seems genuine, and another thing to fall for a fake personality created as some kind of setup. (Coco, if you are not 1003, I do apologize if this theory upsets you--I sure wouldn't want anyone to think I am 1003, either!!! Then again, since you think so highly of 1003, perhaps you'll take it as a compliment.)
Well, speaking for myself only--pretty much, yeah. The nicer someone is, the nicer I want to be to him/her in return. I don't think I'm horribly mean to anyone or anything--but I don't go out of my way to be nice to people who are going out of their way to be obnoxious.
Well, I must have missed something...
Well, that's sort of my point about what I said about coco/1003. I'm definitely not going out of my way to be mean or anything. I don't even consider it mean, frankly. To suggest that a poster who has made it clear he thinks it would be interesting to troll as a pro-lifer on this forum might be posing as a pro-lifer on this forum is not mean, it's just what I think, and I didn't say it in a mean way, just saying what I think needs saying.
Sure. But if you knew full well (which we don't, here) that a poster did not even believe what s/he was posting, I expect you might take it less seriously--or, well, I would take it less seriously than I would a post from someone I thought was being sincere. That's all I'm saying.
Plus, there are more than two kinds of posters here. It's not that all the pro-lifers are "the pro-life elite who post regularly" and all the pro-choicers are trolls. That's not at all what I'm saying. By "troll" I mean someone posing rather than being sincere, although it can also mean someone just trying to stir up trouble. And also--if there IS in fact an "elite" on this forum, you're definitely in that group!

reply from: Tam

ask terry to confirm our ips. i doubt we even live in the same state.
I'm not invested enough in the answer to this question to bother Terry about it. But if you want to ask him, that's your call. However, as you are surely well aware, it is possible to route an internet connection through multiple IPs. So it really would prove nothing IMO. You obviously know your way around a computer and the internet, so I'd be surprised if you didn't realize this, and (if you're trolling) make the appropriate adjustments to appear as two separate posters.
For the record--if I'm wrong, and you're not trolling on this forum, I apologize for assuming you are. That's all I can really think of to say on the subject.

reply from: Tam

*ahem* Not to get in the middle of this, but, Ship said
No, Ship said:

Apparently Ship would have us believe it is possible to determine the effects of a substance on human beings without any kind of testing, yet is unwilling or unable to explain how this might be accomplished, and refuses to cite a specific source. If the source was the book she suggested we start with, why are we instructed to research multiple topics? Telling me to "go read some books" does not constitute a valid source of substantiation, and it is inconceivable that any honest, intelligent person would accuse me of laziness because I don't read a library of reference materials searching for proof of a contention she has made and not adequately supported, especially since logic would seem to dictate that the contention is ridiculous to begin with.
Look, I'm not trying to take sides. You said she didn't specify "any titles" and I was just quoting that because I figured you might have missed it that she did specify a title, and I think it is pretty fair to assume that when she said to buy the book and she'd give you a page number, she was referring to the book she specified by title. I also hope that it's obvious to both of you that you wouldn't need to buy the book literally, but could find it in a library.

reply from: 1003

it's trivial to trace to a real ip through a proxy.
i can run it with just firefox and two different user accounts on one machine...

reply from: coco

I am not 1003,although i think that it is horrible that MOST of the board have not been " NICE" even when I am not rude. THe ONLY person i was "mean" to was ash and i do applogize. when i am wrong, i dont mind admitting it but it does seem that if you have a differ of opinions then you are "jumped" and the grade school siding with your friends kind of situation happends.
I try to respect EVERYONES ideas even if I dont like them or agree but some do need some education on some topics. I dont have to prove NOTHING to any of you i just find the people on this board INTRESTING to say the least. I like learning about people and what shapes thier ideas,etc. As far as the "troll" name calling that is so kindergarten just because someone doesnt share the same views as you COME ON GROW UP!!

reply from: 1003

/me applauds.
zomg. the debate might be elevated from its former drudges into enlightened discussion... with everyone agreeing with me, of course.

reply from: Tam

Ok. Hmm. I am not so quick to assume that she can't prove her point--or, even if she can't prove it, that it therefore isn't true. Why do I say this? Because I have done essentially the same thing you are saying Shiprah has done, on another forum about another issue, just because I refused to do the work for someone I knew didn't really care enough about the issue to research it on her own, and because I didn't know off the top of my head anything to substantiate my claim despite my being sure it's true. So I just admitted I hadn't proved it correct but that neither had she proven it wrong, and pointed out that her attempts to do so had been easily explained away by me whereas she hadn't had any good explanation for what she was alleging. Point being, I wasn't trying to be lazy, just that there are only so many hours in a day and if someone is really interested, s/he'll look into it him/herself.
Speaking of which, I am really interested now, and I think I am going to get the book (out of the library), so Ship, can you please post the page number of whatever you're saying would be a good place to look? Because I am ALL about indigenous medicine and NOT about animal testing, so I'm rather fascinated by this interchange, contentious as it may be!

reply from: coco

The reason that i gave "PROPS" to concern and 1003 is because they both seem to be able to view the diffrent side of the debate and if they didnt agree with me they said i dont agree with you maybe not in so many words but they said it respectfully without making someone feel like they are being attacked so once again I GIVE YOU, 1003 and CONCERNED PROPS!! LETS HEAR IT FOR THEM

reply from: Tam

Well, I don't respect everyone's ideas. If someone has the idea that it's okay to rape women, to kill children, or to eat animals, I have no respect for that idea. If you have respect for everyone's ideas, you respect Hitler's ideas, then?
As far as your thinking "troll" is namecalling, you obviously have misinterpreted the word. It is not used as a derogatory insult, it is meant to describe someone who comes to a forum for a purpose other than honest discourse. It's not your fault, presuming you are really not 1003, that just before you showed up on the forum singing his praises, he was talking about posing as a prolifer. Maybe it's just a whopping coincidence. In any case, it's his fault, not yours, that the allegation was even made. I admit that I do find you to be a rather abrasive poster, difficult to get along with, but I'm making an effort to take it with a grain of salt, the way I do with Faithman (another poster who can be very abrasive, but whom I like).
Anyway, again, "troll" is not an insult, at least not the way I've used it. I have never meant to insult you, just speculating on how far 1003 will go to make a point. In other words, if anyone is being accused of trolling, it's not you. Why not? Because if 1003 is trolling, it's he who is the troll, and if not, then you're probably for real.

reply from: coco

what do you mean by an "abrasive poster"???

reply from: Shiprahagain

Thanks for the kind words, Tam. I'm pming you the page numbers, since it is unrelated to abortion.
Concerned, primitive is a slur, although I'm sure you didn't mean it that way.http://www.survival-international.org/stampitout.php

reply from: holopaw

Why must everyone be so sensitive? Everything is a slur or offensive to some one. People truly need to get thicker skins.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Oh, Holo, that's like a non-black to say the "n" word isn't a slur and we shouldn't be so sensitive. Indigenous people are not primitive and don't want to be called so -- especially since it's that title that makes the vulnerable to theivery of their land and lack of the ability to determine their futures. Please don't tell another culture what isn't a slur to them. I'd never tell a Jew that the "k" word wasn't a slur and to get a thicker skin. I expect the same respect and I will give other cultures the same respect.

reply from: coco

ship i agree that that was an ignorant comment

reply from: Shiprahagain

My point was that indigenous cultlures don't use testing, but I didn't think I need to go through the mechanisms of indigenous medicine since that's science unrelated to abortion, but if you want the page numbers you're welcome to themages 29-51 really describe the processes involved in how the indigenous learn about medicine, and it's summarized on page 41. In short, because the indigenous are getting their medicine from God, they don't need to test it b/c you don't have to test God's authority. Bear Heart describes chants, botany, and many other processes involved in the gathering of indigenous medical knowledge but no where is testing on an animal or human mentioned as part of the process. Although the whole book talks about gathering medicine and physical and spiritual healing, those pages really describe the process of how indigenous people learn science and medicine. Beyond that, the book is just a good read in general. Bear Heart is highly respected among his people, the Muskogee, because he is a shaman. He's also respected among non-Indians because he sits on the alternative medicine advisory board of Johns Hopkins Hospital. 07/24/2006 08:47 PM Unread

Even that dictionary definition of primitive ranks cultures by a standard from outside of their value system -- it remains a slur. Besides, indigenous doesn't correlate to preliterate or non-industrial so that association is stereotypical.

reply from: Shiprahagain

I made reference to indigenous people, you were the one who responded by saying you were familiar with primitive culture. As you can see from the variety of examples I posted, all of them were merely someone from outside of a specific culture telling that culture what shouldn't offend them.

reply from: holopaw

I'm African-American and I can deal with the 'N" word. Is it polite, not necessarily. I still feel people are too sensitive. People use that sensitivity to limit our rights to free expression. I can't wear my Pro-Life or Christianity t-shirts because it offends Pro-Abortionists and Atheists. It's why people are scared to say Christmas in December. The problem is it doesn't stop. Can't call a short person short because it might offend them. I don't like cursing, i find it ignorant and shows a limited vocabulary. However, people have the right to say that stuff. My being offended and making them stop limits everyone's freedom. I said my peace. I don't like arguing with my Pro-Life brothers and sisters, so I'll leave it at that.
God Bless You, Shipra. You too, CP.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Concerned, all I can do is give you the indigenous perspective on the word primitive. Perhaps they could get a life and move on if people weren't using calling them primitive to rob them of their land and destroy their way of life.
You said, "I am not without some background on the subject of primitive cultures (despite a previous statement of doubt being misinterpreted as a confession of "ignorance"), and I would be very interested in seeing Shiprahs response to your request." So if you weren't responding to my indigenous peoples, who were you referring to? Peoples never previously mentioned on this thread?
Holo, I'm glad you aren't offended by the "n" word, for me, it's terribly offensive and I know many others for whom that is true, and I don't feel like someone whom a word wasn't designed to hurt can tell that culture not to be offended by it. Even if you aren't offended by the "n" word, I hope you can still understand my point that I don't think it's fair for someone outside a culture to dictate to a culture what should or shouldn't offend them.
Like tam said, you clearly don't respect indigenous medicine so I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain it to you and I encourage you to research Bear Heart. The fact is current peoples aren't the beginnings of "advanced" cultures but are people in the middle of their metamorphosis like all people. There is no such thing as an advanced or primitive culture. Many indigenous peoples have their own technologies -- again you're stereotyping them. And you'll find that their cultures are far from simple or basic. Besides, if you don't know why primitive is offensive, why would you understand my being upset if you had used the word to refer to a particular people? Either the term is offensive or it isn't. I obviously know no offense was intended, which is what I mentioned on my original post. But if you continue to use the term having read my link and knowing how indigenous peoples feel, it's not a matter of them needing thicker skin but your disrespect.
Besides, you owe me an apology as I was able to provide page numbers despite your slander to the contrary.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Oddly enough, my search revealed not one article on the JH website mentioning Bear Heart. What medicines has God revealed to him? Does he go by another name? Thet really toot their own horn on that site. If Bear Heart had made any notable discoveries, I would think they might have mentioned them.
That doesn't mean he's not on the board. I'm not doing further research for someone who obviously doesn't care about the medicine. What you care about is being right.

reply from: Shiprahagain

You asked for the pages, not quotes, and I am not going to quote entire pages, as a line or two would not suffice. The fact that your lack of knowledge makes his science seem uncredible doesn't make it so.

reply from: Shiprahagain

I have never told anyone of another culture what should or should not offend them to the best of my recollection, but you are telling me what words I should use or not use because you believe it is offensive. You accused me of stereotyping "indigenous people" while claiming "they" are offended by my using the word "primitive," which is stereotyping, since I do not believe you can speak for an entire "class" of people based on the statements of probably very few.
You would probably have contended that "the 'n' word is offensive to blacks, yet here we have Holo who says it's no big deal, and I have known blacks who did not find the word offensive except in situations where it was obviously intended to be offensive. They wouls have been equally offended to have been called anything in a derogatory context. It is not words which offend, Shiprah, it is perceptions.
As an aside, so-called "Native Americans" are technically not indigenous to America, even though their migrations occurred long ago. They didn't originate here any more than the rest of us did. All our ancestors are believed to have originated in Africa, so technically, only those who still live there are truly "indigenous." The Asiatic migrations simply occurred long before the influx of Europeans and Africans. I know you already knew this, I just wondered if you had considered the issue of who is really "indigenous."
Of course, the word itself is merely for description and common understanding, just like all words. The purpose of language is communication. If we use language to communicate contempt, we should expect some to be offended, but what truly offends? Is it the language (the words), or is it the contempt itself which is offensive? I don't think I can make the point any clearer.
I merely showed you how many indigenous people see the word, you can respect that or not as you please. For someone so concerned about having his life experience respected, you don't care about respecting that of others. I made a circus of others - Tam correctly explained my unwillingness to share info with you. You asked for page numbers, and when I complied, you try to make me seem lax for denying quotes you never requested.

reply from: Shiprahagain

The word "indigenous" does not appear in Princeton Wordnets definition. "Pre-literate" and "non-industrial" are terms that apply to "primitive" cultures. Whether the people of that culture are indigenous is not an issue. Do you still believe the definition unfairly stereotypes your "indigenous people?" The populations which existed on this continent when Europeans arrived were "primitive." This is simply a statement of fact. Many of the frontier settlements were also "primitive" even though the inhabitants were mostly of European descent. It simply describes the conditions under which they lived.
Right Livelihood Award address, Stockholm, December 2005
My name is Roy Sesana; I am a Gana Bushman from the Kalahari in what is now called Botswana. In my language, my name is 'Tobee' and our land is 'T//amm'. We have been there longer than any people has been anywhere.
When I was young, I went to work in a mine. I put off my skins and wore clothes. But I went home after a while. Does that make me less Bushman? I don't think so.
I am a leader. When I was a boy we did not need leaders and we lived well. Now we need them because our land is being stolen and we must struggle to survive. It doesn't mean I tell people what to do, it's the other way around: they tell me what I have to do to help them.
I cannot read. You wanted me to write this speech, so my friends helped, but I cannot read words - I'm sorry! But I do know how to read the land and the animals. All our children could. If they didn't, they would have all died long ago.
I know many who can read words and many, like me, who can only read the land. Both are important. We are not backward or less intelligent: we live in exactly the same up-to-date year as you. I was going to say we all live under the same stars, but no, they're different, and there are many more in the Kalahari. The sun and moon are the same.I grew up a hunter. All our boys and men were hunters. Hunting is going and talking to the animals. You don't steal. You go and ask. You set a trap or go with bow or spear. It can take days. You track the antelope. He knows you are there, he knows he has to give you his strength. But he runs and you have to run. As you run, you become like him. It can last hours and exhaust you both. You talk to him and look into his eyes. And then he knows he must give you his strength so your children can live.
When I first hunted, I was not allowed to eat. Pieces of the steenbok were burnt with some roots and spread on my body. This is how I learned. It's not the same way you learn, but it works well.
The farmer says he is more advanced than the backward hunter, but I don't believe him. His herds give no more food than ours. The antelope are not our slaves, they do not wear bells on their necks and they can run faster than the lazy cow or the herder. We run through life together.
When I wear the antelope horns, it helps me talk to my ancestors and they help me. The ancestors are so important: we would not be alive without them. Everyone knows this in their heart, but some have forgotten. Would any of us be here without our ancestors? I don't think so.
I was trained as a healer. You have to read the plants and the sand. You have to dig the roots and become fit. You put some of the root back for tomorrow, so one day your grandchildren can find it and eat. You learn what the land tells you.
When the old die, we bury them and they become ancestors. When there is sickness, we dance and we talk to them; they speak through my blood. I touch the sick person and can find the illness and heal it.
We are the ancestors of our grandchildren's children. We look after them, just as our ancestors look after us. We aren't here for ourselves. We are here for each other and for the children of our grandchildren.
Why am I here? Because my people love their land, and without it we are dying. Many years ago, the president of Botswana said we could live on our ancestral land forever. We never needed anyone to tell us that. Of course we can live where God created us! But the next president said we must move and began forcing us away.
They said we had to go because of diamonds. Then they said we were killing too many animals: but that's not true. They say many things which aren't true. They said we had to move so the government could develop us. The president says unless we change we will perish like the dodo. I didn't know what a dodo was. But I found out: it was a bird which was wiped out by settlers. The president was right. They are killing us by forcing us off our land. We have been tortured and shot at. They arrested me and beat me.
Thank you for the Right Livelihood Award. It is global recognition of our struggle and will raise our voice throughout the world. When I heard I had won I had just been let out of prison. They say I am a criminal, as I stand here today.
I say what kind of development is it when the people live shorter lives than before? They catch HIV/AIDS. Our children are beaten in school and won't go there. Some become prostitutes. They are not allowed to hunt. They fight because they are bored and get drunk. They are starting to commit suicide. We never saw that before. It hurts to say this. Is this 'development'?
We are not primitive. We live differently to you, but we do not live exactly like our grandparents did, nor do you. Were your ancestors 'primitive'? I don't think so. We respect our ancestors. We love our children. This is the same for all people.
We now have to stop the government stealing our land: without it we will die.
If anyone has read a lot of books and thinks I am primitive because I have not read even one, then he should throw away those books and get one which says we are all brothers and sisters under God and we too have a right to live.
That is all. Thank you.
Roy Sesana
First People of the Kalahari, Botswana
Maybe you feel primitive and non-literate are the same. Mr. Sesana doesn't. I agree with him. I'm not going to discuss this with you further. Not because I can't, but because you are so disrespectful. If tam asks for further info I'll give it in pm because I'd rather discuss a subject so close to my heart with only those who truly care.

reply from: holopaw

I'm African-American and I can deal with the 'N" word. Is it polite, not necessarily. I still feel people are too sensitive. People use that sensitivity to limit our rights to free expression. I can't wear my Pro-Life or Christianity t-shirts because it offends Pro-Abortionists and Atheists. It's why people are scared to say Christmas in December. The problem is it doesn't stop. Can't call a short person short because it might offend them. I don't like cursing, i find it ignorant and shows a limited vocabulary. However, people have the right to say that stuff. My being offended and making them stop limits everyone's freedom. I said my peace. I don't like arguing with my Pro-Life brothers and sisters, so I'll leave it at that.
God Bless You, Shipra. You too, CP.
I hear you, Holo. People can be "politically correct" and still be quite offensive, and you would have to be a hermit or possibly just not paying attention to never be offended. I think people make too much of too little sometimes, and while I believe it's wrong to intentionally offend someone, I feel it is petty to look for offense where none is intended. I must admit I have been guilty of this very thing, which accounts for much of my insight.
I notice that the Pro-Abortionists get offended more than anyone.
If we say abortion is murder, we are offending women.
If someone compares abortion to slavery, we are offending African-Americans.
If we compare abortion to the Holocaust, we are offending Jews.
I love hamburgers, that offends PETA.
It goes on and on. I'm an adult in a fallen, ugly world I'm going to hear things that bother me, people have freedom of expression, and I'm not willing to give up that right to experience not ever being offended.

reply from: yoda

Another cryptic, undecipherable comment from 1003. Are we not all amazed?

reply from: 1003

instead of a title, publisher, author, or year, how about the isbn code. that's how most people look up books.

reply from: Tam

Well, since I ordered it yesterday, I have that information at my disposal.
ISBN: 0425161609


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics