Asimov Posted August 7, 2005 Share Posted August 7, 2005 I don't think I'd ever have been able to face my mother again if she'd walked in on me. Nothing is more embarassing that getting masturbation tips from your mum... I can just imagine.... "Honey, you're doing it wrong! Grab it like this and go slow and steady! Then give it a good jerk every once in awhile, your father LOVES it!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy-tiger Posted August 8, 2005 Share Posted August 8, 2005 I can just imagine.... "Honey, you're doing it wrong! Grab it like this and go slow and steady! Then give it a good jerk every once in awhile, your father LOVES it!" <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Unfortunately, that's about 100% accurate... Though she did give me some good pointers about anal sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedPillAddict Posted August 8, 2005 Share Posted August 8, 2005 Not really, a gamete (sperm or egg) only has half the genetic material needed to produce a human. It is not a human being in any sense of the word. It is just human genetics in a neat package. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> yes, but i said life, not human life. It is alive and has a goal in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted August 8, 2005 Share Posted August 8, 2005 Not really, a gamete (sperm or egg) only has half the genetic material needed to produce a human. It is not a human being in any sense of the word. It is just human genetics in a neat package. So is an embryo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted August 8, 2005 Share Posted August 8, 2005 My opinion on cloning is "why"? The world is becoming overpopulated, there are children who need a good home in every country of the world. It's kind of vain to say, "hey, my genetic makeup is so bad-ass, I need to make another me." It's kind of silly. Has the world run out of eggs and sperm? Cloning isn't so we can make tons of us. It's for a better understanding of how the human body works, and how we can manipulate it for science and furthering our knowledge. The medical possibilities of cloning not just humans, but organs and whatnot is amazing. Don't be taken in by the sci-fi stuff, Madame M...cloning isn't about Ah-nuld making two of himself to kick double the ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyinasuitcase Posted August 8, 2005 Share Posted August 8, 2005 I am a clone. I killed my original. You cant tell me apart in any way except for the oversized genitalia, of course. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! BEST reply EVER! But seriously, I don't think cloning is something we should worry about right now. I mean, there's still a huge controversy over stem cell research. And so what if a few humans are cloned. What's the worst that can happen? To say that "scientists are trying to play God" to me is absurd, because in my opinion there's no such thing as a God. edit: or is stem cell research the same as cloning? by cloning, i'll assume you mean cloning an entire human being, so that it's an exact carbon copy of the original. *shrug* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a midnight star Posted August 8, 2005 Share Posted August 8, 2005 http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen01/gen01490.htm Quote: Living organisms are made up of one or more cells, can grow and develop, reproduce, respond to stimuli, and have a metabolism. After fertilization the cells begin to reproduce. This would mean that it would be a living organism. So, life begins at fertilization. http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/life Quote: . The state of being which begins with generation, birth, or germination, and ends with death; also, the time during which this state continues; that state of an animal or plant in which all or any of its organs are capable of performing all or any of their functions; used of all animal and vegetable organisms. ***"Honey, you're doing it wrong! Grab it like this and go slow and steady! Then give it a good jerk every once in awhile, your father LOVES it!"**** Not funny not if you had my dad and my experiences. But I will assume none of you knew that. ***So is an embryo.*** Nope. Dictionary def of an embryo: the developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception did you notice it says "human individual". So contrary of what you would have me to believe, it IS human. ****I think life is a little difficult to define when it comes to things like that...we kill life every day, death isn't the problem.**** Nope the def is above. ****The embyro is life, but that's not the question. The question is whether or not it's human life.**** No it is a dog life Of course it is human. Sorry, but that struck me as funny. ***Do you have difficulty reconciling the fact that at least half (and perhaps as much as 80%) of all zygotes will spontaneously abort? *** Nope. Our bodies will abort especially if it can't sustain life. There are a lot of factor on why. For me it doesn't negate my belief that purposely killing life is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenoce Posted August 8, 2005 Share Posted August 8, 2005 I rather agree with Highvoltage. Personally, I don't care about life itself. Simple life has no value to me other then the potential to become more complex, thinking life. And that's just it, for me. What is outweighs what could be. By a large margin, at that. Therefore, destroying numerous potentials to enhance the quality of life for one that actually has a mind is perfectly justified. I have two overarching principles in my life. The first is that conciousness is pointless without happiness, or at least the potential for happiness, and that happiness cannot exist without conciousness. The second is that the intelligence to appreciate such happiness increases overall enjoyment of life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a midnight star Posted August 8, 2005 Share Posted August 8, 2005 snipPersonally, I don't care about life itself. Simple life has no value to me other then the potential to become more complex, thinking life. And that's just it, for me. What is outweighs what could be. By a large margin, at that. Therefore, destroying numerous potentials to enhance the quality of life for one that actually has a mind is perfectly justified. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So murder is ok as long as you profit from it? I can understand those who don't believe that it is a human life. But to believe that it is human life and that murder is ok? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy-tiger Posted August 8, 2005 Share Posted August 8, 2005 All I can say is, it's ok as long as it's done early enough... OR, when it's done late, is due to medical reasons rather than "I don't wanna kid after all" And I do know that there's still some grey areas in there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted August 8, 2005 Share Posted August 8, 2005 So murder is ok as long as you profit from it? I can understand those who don't believe that it is a human life. But to believe that it is human life and that murder is ok? Murder is illegal killing. Just a semantical issue... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedPillAddict Posted August 8, 2005 Share Posted August 8, 2005 I think cloning is a necessary step in our evolution. How could we not do it? there is so much to learn from it. We are just another creature on this little planet using the short time we have to try to understand it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trashy Posted August 9, 2005 Share Posted August 9, 2005 The ability to clone a human - bypassing the whole egg/sperm process - would have freaked me out as a Christian. It proves that life can be created without God. I believed this impossible back then, as I believed that this 'spirit' that God placed inside us is what animated us and that this occurred at germination. Hell, I was surprised when they got animal cloning going! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenoce Posted August 9, 2005 Share Posted August 9, 2005 So murder is ok as long as you profit from it? I can understand those who don't believe that it is a human life. But to believe that it is human life and that murder is ok? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Where did I say that? I understand and accept that it is human life, just as my skin is human life. It's just that I don't value life without a mind a fraction as much as I value any sort of mind at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted August 9, 2005 Share Posted August 9, 2005 Where did I say that? I understand and accept that it is human life, just as my skin is human life. It's just that I don't value life without a mind a fraction as much as I value any sort of mind at all. Should we consider an embryo something along the lines of an organ? Something that is harvested for a specific purpose to save a human life? Would you also say that if we do create it in a labratory environment that it is (at least until it gains sentience - ie brain function) of the ownership of the person or company who created it? An embryo has no human functions, no brain, no mind, no nerves, no organs...it's just genetic information, like an organ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenoce Posted August 9, 2005 Share Posted August 9, 2005 Should we consider an embryo something along the lines of an organ? Something that is harvested for a specific purpose to save a human life? Would you also say that if we do create it in a labratory environment that it is (at least until it gains sentience - ie brain function) of the ownership of the person or company who created it? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Quite simply, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted August 9, 2005 Share Posted August 9, 2005 Quite simply, yes. I agree! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samurai Tailor Posted August 9, 2005 Share Posted August 9, 2005 Not really, a gamete (sperm or egg) only has half the genetic material needed to produce a human. It is not a human being in any sense of the word. It is just human genetics in a neat package. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Not sure I would go that far. Parthenogenesis is at least possible in principle with the ovum. I understand there is research on that very subject ongoing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caretaker Posted August 9, 2005 Share Posted August 9, 2005 Hmmmm..... Wouldn't playing "God" kinda sorta invalidate that only God can perform miracles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
highvoltage Posted August 9, 2005 Share Posted August 9, 2005 Hmmmm..... Wouldn't playing "God" kinda sorta invalidate that only God can perform miracles? define miracles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenoce Posted August 9, 2005 Share Posted August 9, 2005 Before anyone can claim that someone is playing god, they need to define what playing god is. Every medicinal/health promoting thing man has synthesized could be, and is by some people, playing god. Thereputic cloning and genetic engineering is just the next logical scientific step. I propose that everything we do that is beyond caveman (without fire or medicinal plants) stage is playing god. Therefore, we've been playing god for thousands of years, and should stop now, lest we damn ourselves. We're all now primitive christian scientists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a midnight star Posted August 9, 2005 Share Posted August 9, 2005 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playing_God Quote: Playing God often refers to someone taking on the role of 'God' for their own purposes. Usually this is used to invoke a sense of caution or to refrain from something. Can we agree on this definition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a midnight star Posted August 9, 2005 Share Posted August 9, 2005 ****Recently, there has been a flood of controversy surrounding the issue of genetic engineering. Virtually every congressman in the United States has spoken out against cloning, and many have spoken out against genetic research which could potentially irradicate any disease in an unborn child, or cure current fatal diseases like muscular dystrophy.******* Ok a different point of view from another perspective: Ethical Concerns Outside the realm of religion there is great diversity of opinion over the ethical considerations posed by the possibility of human cloning. Society has not been able to reach a clear consensus on the morality of human cloning. Although these are secular arguments, many of them parallel religious viewpoints. In a society such as ours, which sharply divides church and state, laws governing human cloning will have to reflect ethical positions that are not based on any God or set of religious belifs. The following concerns have been raised and continue to be debated: It will show both sides of the debate. I just wanted to be sure that everybody knows that I AM NOT a christian, nor are my opinions based on religion, but by my own personal ethics. Link: http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~jones/tmp352/p...oup1/ethic.html (if you are like me and don't really give a rats ass about the religious concerns, scroll down until you see the paragraph that I posted above, this looks like an unbiased reasoned site) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a midnight star Posted August 9, 2005 Share Posted August 9, 2005 Would you also say that if we do create it in a labratory environment that it is (at least until it gains sentience - ie brain function) of the ownership of the person or company who created it? I could argue that since nature created it so then it belongs to nature rather than any person. An embryo has no human functions, no brain, no mind, no nerves, no organs...it's just genetic information, like an organ. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> again a matter of opinion, not science. Though I will add, it is as valid as anyother, even as I disagee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted August 9, 2005 Share Posted August 9, 2005 I could argue that since nature created it so then it belongs to nature rather than any person. So if we build a house, or paint a picture it belongs to nature, is that what you are saying? again a matter of opinion, not science. Though I will add, it is as valid as anyother, even as I disagee. How is it a matter of opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts