OT: Stem Cell Research - fer it or agin it?

Wait till we get artificial wombs then two people (or more) have to do a contract to implant a fertilized egg in one with agreed upon options as the embryo develops.

The State can (arbitrarily) declare the embryo to be a person when they're "decanted" and enforce responsibilities on the "parent(s)".

Robert

In Canada, the parliament tried to pass compromise legislation. It was opposed so vigorously by both the pro choice and the anti abortion groups that no laws were passed. Some provincial legislatures try to impose their views on women, but it's a losing cause except for those too poor to buy a plane ride.

Incidentally, that has always been the case in the USA - the rich could fly to Switzerland, the poor are forced to give birth and then abused for their "poor choices".

Or adoption - which is another form of abortion.

What happens when the gene spinners come on line?

Some will almost automatically get used. The ones that cure Genetic Disease. At least the ones that most everyone agree are pretty bad.

A lot else will be argued about, with some places allowing what other places stop.

Unless we get a unified World Government. Which doesn't seem likely.

Robert

"Okay, Ms Winfrey. And would you like your daughter to be tall? Slender? White?"

The churches usually say property of god instead but the concept matches.

OK, what marks the transition between a fertilized ova and an unique identifiable individual? Birth, does not work very well for me.

You just previously called it church property, nice argumentative slight of hand.

Back to cutting at at the funding issue, as in don't you dare spend my tax dollars that way.

John what is the actual chances of a naturally fertilized ova developing into a embryo? Source of data required.

It is an issue that theologians will hapily discuss with anybody prepared to waste their time discussing it with theologians. It is also an issue where theologians haven't got a thing to offer - for a start, they don't know anything useful about defining "life", which desn't seem to inhibit them from rabbiting on about this and a lot other stuff that they don't really understand.

Certainly less than 70% - some 30% pregnancies end in an early miscarrriage, usually due to a genetic defect in the fetus. Humna being seem to carry a fairly high load of recessive lethal genes, and they stop a lot of early pregancies dead in their tracks.

This doesn't count the "fertilised" eggs that never implant - regular unprotectec sex offers a roughly 25% chance of implantation and pregnanacy per ovulation.

I don't see any equivalence. In one case the fetus lives, in a family that wants it; in the other case it's destroyed, or killed from another perspective.

There's a firehouse a short walk from my house, and there's a door with a doorbell, and a sign that says, in effect, "Drop off unwanted infants here, no questions asked." Far more people want to adopt here in the US than there are available babies.

John

I recall something like 50%, but you can do your own research if you want better data. Could be that some mechanism exists to evaluate viability or quality of this particular gene mix, and dumps the bad ones before too much is invested. That aligns with my evolutionary macro-process ideas.

My own parenthood involves two live births and one known spontaneous abortion. Your statistics may vary.

But what's your point here?

John

May Islam be with you.

...Jim Thompson

the

the

great

funding

believes

go

real

even

money

to

So, you think you are going to defeat the big boogy man, Islam by fighting in Iraq. And, if we don't "win," whatever that means, they will follow us home riding their camels I suppose. Surely you're not serious since there are over a billion Muslims, you better find a better approach. Allah Akbar

Birth has the great advantage that it s very well defined.

"Quickening" is - in theory - obvious to the mother, but in fact the early fetus thrashes around a great deal in the womb without the mother noticing a thing, and there is no obvious evidence that the fetus is doing anything more than exercising and linking up the nerves and muscles involved.

Stick with birth - once the baby is breathing on its own (even if it isn't doing anything uniquely individual) it makes sense to treat it as a unique and separate individual.

So you think it's better to try to decimate them on our own shores, rather than over there?

So vote Democrat and get the opportunity to test your approach ;-)

...Jim Thompson

To abort something means to fail to complete it. No one reasonably suggests that once the fetus is born the resultant baby can be left to run wild and care for itself. At some point they become self actuating but until then they need parental protection and support. Adoption is not the normal process for this.

And as for available babies, true for white ones but many black children are adopted out overseas from the USA -- often remarkably quickly -- while the white ones can be auctioned off in the US.

"Jim Thompson" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

Easier to sit on the shore and pick off the camels as they come in - can ragheads swim?

Why not? It couldn't be any worse than it is now - heading for another 3,000 dead and thousands disabled for life and $1 trillion in costs.

You can say the same about fertilization.

Obviously. But what about two weeks before natural birth, or two hours?

The Roe decision of our Supreme Court was an attempt to compromise a moral dilemma that is, in my opinion, insoluble. A single cell, over a

John