The Democrat Utopia

[TGHusker]

4 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Note that these aren't all the same as "grafting human tissue onto mice" as claimed in the conservative outlets. They're injecting human tissue into mice to make them a better match to human biology for lab testing, which reduces the risk of human trials.

 

If you're upset that fetal tissue is used, then you should be equally upset that human bodies and tissues are used for medical research after people die. This is absolutely no different. And that's if you consider the fetus a person, if you don't think the fetus was a person, then it's even less than that - more like using a removed liver, kidney, mole, etc.

RD, I appreciate your insight on many topics, but here I think you miss the mark.  I do think the 'fetus' (dehumanizing word for baby) is life.  But it is life that hasn't given its consent to its own death or what would happen to its tissue.   Human bodies used in medical research are 1. Already dead  2. Good chance gave their consent on a donor card or mark on their drivers license that they wanted their bodies to be used for such purposes - either as donor or research or both.   The aborted fetus was alive and the life was taken away.  No consent, no donor card.  No choice.  

 

This is  my big concern  & why I'm speaking out on it today and I may not be the most articulate to communicate it:  is that when we as a society devalue life at any stage we devalue life at all stages of development including those who are aging, handicapped (even severely) and the life in the womb.   We saw what the butchers of Nazism and Stalin, Mao Communism did last century.  Those philosophies devalued life.  I don't want our country to go down that road.  It isn't just the battle we see in battling the voices of hate that have shouted out in the past few years, it also includes battling the quiet voices of compromise that makes any of us less human - including the baby in the womb.

[Moiraine]

2 minutes ago, dankebe said:

No egg gets fertilized so..... whats your point?  My point is I believe life begins at conception, I will never change that view.  I doubt I will change yours.  Agree to disagree I guess.  

 

 

I ageee with you, but I think it’s silly to think the issue is black and white and make no attempt to understand why the other side thinks as they do and come here and think you’re saying anything meaningful with something like “but the definition I googled has the word baby in it.”

 

 

One can argue that ejaculating elsewhere prevents babies from being born, just like abortion does. Just saying when you think life starts isn’t a convincing argument. 

[dankebe]

Just now, Moiraine said:

 

 

I ageee with you, but I think it’s silly to think the issue is black and white and make no attempt to understand why the other side thinks as they do and come here and think you’re saying anything meaningful with something like “but the definition I googled has the word baby in it.”

 

Sorry I wasted your time then.

[Moiraine]

8 minutes ago, dankebe said:

 

Sorry I wasted your time then.

 

 

I didn’t say you wasted my time. 

[BigRedBuster]

39 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

If you're upset that fetal tissue is used, then you should be equally upset that human bodies and tissues are used for medical research after people die. This is absolutely no different.

 

There is a huge difference  

[Moiraine]

24 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

There is a huge difference  

 

 

Have to agree here, unless those people are getting assistance in dying.

 

If people are making money off of fetal tissue you have to make sure they aren’t attempting to increase the # of abortions.

[RedDenver]

43 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

RD, I appreciate your insight on many topics, but here I think you miss the mark.  I do think the 'fetus' (dehumanizing word for baby) is life.  But it is life that hasn't given its consent to its own death or what would happen to its tissue.   Human bodies used in medical research are 1. Already dead  2. Good chance gave their consent on a donor card or mark on their drivers license that they wanted their bodies to be used for such purposes - either as donor or research or both.   The aborted fetus was alive and the life was taken away.  No consent, no donor card.  No choice.

If you think the fetus is a person, then that person is a minor who can't give consent anyway. In which case the parents give consent, so that argument doesn't hold any weight.

 

43 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

 

This is  my big concern  & why I'm speaking out on it today and I may not be the most articulate to communicate it:  is that when we as a society devalue life at any stage we devalue life at all stages of development including those who are aging, handicapped (even severely) and the life in the womb.   We saw what the butchers of Nazism and Stalin, Mao Communism did last century.  Those philosophies devalued life.  I don't want our country to go down that road.  It isn't just the battle we see in battling the voices of hate that have shouted out in the past few years, it also includes battling the quiet voices of compromise that makes any of us less human - including the baby in the womb.

First, you have an expanding cirlces argument issue in that if protecting life is so important, then that should expand to protecting animal life and then expand to protecting plant life; however, humans must take life even in order to simply survive.

 

What you probably mean to say is "human life" as being important to protect. But a liver or a kidney is also "human life" in that it's human DNA and it's alive.

 

So then you need to be more narrow and say "person's life" is important to protect, which falls back into the problem of when do we consider the transition from a bunch of cells to being a person. That's very dependent on how you define "person", and we're back to the same point this issue is focused around: differing definitions of a person.

 

And that's also where your analogy breaks down: Nazism, Stalin, etc. were definitely killing people, but this isn't true for abortion depending on your definition.

[RedDenver]

33 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

There is a huge difference  

I don't see how that can possibly be true. Using the tissue of dead people for medical research is independent of the way in which they died.

[Moiraine]

Just now, RedDenver said:

I don't see how that can possibly be true. Using the tissue of dead people for medical research is independent of the way in which they died.

 

 

What if the tissue of murdered people was being used for medical research, and you found out that the murderers were profiting from it?

 

It can be different if you think abortion is murder. 

 

Then there is also a gray area where you believe since it already happened it may as well be used to help medical research, but you fear that the people profiting from it may encourage more abortions.

[TGHusker]

3 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

If you think the fetus is a person, then that person is a minor who can't give consent anyway. In which case the parents give consent, so that argument doesn't hold any weight.

 

First, you have an expanding cirlces argument issue in that if protecting life is so important, then that should expand to protecting animal life and then expand to protecting plant life; however, humans must take life even in order to simply survive.

 

What you probably mean to say is "human life" as being important to protect. But a liver or a kidney is also "human life" in that it's human DNA and it's alive.

 

So then you need to be more narrow and say "person's life" is important to protect, which falls back into the problem of when do we consider the transition from a bunch of cells to being a person. That's very dependent on how you define "person", and we're back to the same point this issue is focused around: differing definitions of a person.

 

And that's also where your analogy breaks down: Nazism, Stalin, etc. were definitely killing people, but this isn't true for abortion depending on your definition.

The bold - minor children are 'minors'.  A parent may give consent to have said minor child sold, enslaved, abused, etc.  The parent's consent does not make it morally right. No one has the right be it parent, guardian, govt authority, to abuse or to take the life of another innocent person.  I extend that right to the baby developing in the womb.  

 

Bold Red:  Science tells us that the 'fetus' has a beating heart and all systems in development relatively early in the life of the fetus.  It is not the 'blob of tissue' that abortionists wanted us to believe for so many years before we could going to the womb and see the baby's development.  And yes it was understood that our discussion was about human life and not animal life or veg life.  So my argument still stands, when we devalue human life at any stage we devalue all human life.  While humans, as a ''life form' may use other life forms (plants and animals) as food or as tools (think of horses pulling a plow back in the day) we in order to exist do not devour (via unchecked abortion) our own in order to exist - that would be self defeating from a purely secular point of view.  From a spiritual/ moral point of view, it would be immoral not unlike the butchers of last century - I am speaking of unchecked abortion and not out of medical necessity. 

[RedDenver]

8 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

What if the tissue of murdered people was being used for medical research, and you found out that the murderers were profiting from it?

Then the medical research and the death would NOT be independent, and I'd be opposed to it. But I haven't seen any evidence that they're not independent.

 

8 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

It can be different if you think abortion is murder.

No, that's the exact case I'm saying is no different. Unless someone is also against murder victims being used for medical research, but that's a different issue than abortion.

 

8 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

Then there is also a gray area where you believe since it already happened it may as well be used to help medical research, but you fear that the people profiting from it may encourage more abortions.

This goes back to the research not being independent of the deaths, which I'd oppose whether it's abortions, euthanasia, executions, etc.

[Moiraine]

5 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Then the medical research and the death would NOT be independent, and I'd be opposed to it. But I haven't seen any evidence that they're not independent.

 

No, that's the exact case I'm saying is no different. Unless someone is also against murder victims being used for medical research, but that's a different issue than abortion.

 

This goes back to the research not being independent of the deaths, which I'd oppose whether it's abortions, euthanasia, executions, etc.

 

 

 

I assumed @BigRedBuster was talking about the first and third but maybe he means all of them. 

[RedDenver]

1 minute ago, TGHusker said:

The bold - minor children are 'minors'.  A parent may give consent to have said minor child sold, enslaved, abused, etc.  The parent's consent does not make it morally right. No one has the right be it parent, guardian, govt authority, to abuse or to take the life of another innocent person.  I extend that right to the baby developing in the womb.

But that's not the argument you were making. You were saying that medical research on the dead baby shouldn't be allowed because the baby didn't give consent. I'm saying that's irrelevent because no baby or minor can give consent - the consent is given by the parents.

 

1 minute ago, TGHusker said:

Bold Red:  Science tells us that the 'fetus' has a beating heart and all systems in development relatively early in the life of the fetus.  It is not the 'blob of tissue' that abortionists wanted us to believe for so many years before we could going to the womb and see the baby's development.  And yes it was understood that our discussion was about human life and not animal life or veg life.  So my argument still stands, when we devalue human life at any stage we devalue all human life.  While humans, as a ''life form' may use other life forms (plants and animals) as food or as tools (think of horses pulling a plow back in the day) we in order to exist do not devour (via unchecked abortion) our own in order to exist - that would be self defeating from a purely secular point of view.  From a spiritual/ moral point of view, it would be immoral not unlike the butchers of last century - I am speaking of unchecked abortion and not out of medical necessity. 

The cow, chicken, or pig people eat also has a beating heart, so that's not an argument unless you're going to also say we shouldn't be killing those animals.

 

Abortion isn't unchecked - there's restrictions on when an abortion can be performed. Even all the angst over late-term abortions is still restricted by a medical doctor stating that it's in the best medical interests of the mother.

 

And I don't buy into your "any stage" argument as then you're also saying that we can't devalue human sperm as it's also part of the stages of human life. That's ridiculous.

[RedDenver]

1 minute ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

 

I assumed @BigRedBuster was talking about the first and third but maybe he means all of them. 

I'll let @BigRedBuster answer what he meant, but I'd be right there with anyone else who opposes medical research that is not independent of human deaths.

[TGHusker]

7 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

But that's not the argument you were making. You were saying that medical research on the dead baby shouldn't be allowed because the baby didn't give consent. I'm saying that's irrelevent because no baby or minor can give consent - the consent is given by the parents.

 

The cow, chicken, or pig people eat also has a beating heart, so that's not an argument unless you're going to also say we shouldn't be killing those animals.

 

Abortion isn't unchecked - there's restrictions on when an abortion can be performed. Even all the angst over late-term abortions is still restricted by a medical doctor stating that it's in the best medical interests of the mother.

 

And I don't buy into your "any stage" argument as then you're also saying that we can't devalue human sperm as it's also part of the stages of human life. That's ridiculous.

RD, you are moving into the 'ridiculous' with that last statement in order to defend one of the holy doctrines of liberalism.  Human sperm by itself isn't an 'organism' capable of developing into a full human.  I'm not talking about individual cells, or an organ and you know that.  I'm talking about a separate life form - the fetus which in itself is capable of developing into a RedDenver or a TGHusker. 

 

I'll take back the word 'unchecked' but there are many in the Dem party who want it to be unchecked and  some who wish it to be extended beyond live birth.