Originally posted by King Kandy
No, you didn't. It says in the article where the stem cells came from. If you think they came from an abortion, then that proves you didn't read it.
Dang...
The brutal truth, you don't hold back, man. 😆
Originally posted by Bardock42
That's not true.It might just mean she didn't understand it.
hmm
That's also true. I did not think about that.
Maybe she isn't aware that stem cells can come from places other than unborn babies? That would be understandable as not everyone loves or understands medicine's complexities: it can get pretty complex and convoluted...even for really really really super smart people. So what have we? 🙁
Originally posted by Bardock42
They won't live anyways, they can't feel it, they will potentially save a shitload of lifes.It would be immoral not to use them.
Wha?
No.
Killing any life to save another is unethical. The outcome should be "save both lives and if that is not possible, one lives, and the one that would have died, dies."
A doctor should never take a life to save another.
Besides, there's no reason for us to be using embryos for stem cell research. There are plenty of other stem cell options out there.
Originally posted by King Kandy
Most adult bone marrow is used on unborn babies? I'm sorry but that's simply wrong. 10 points deducted, come see me after class.
lol
Would have been funnier if you said "10 points deducted from gryffindor!"
Originally posted by dadudemon
Wha?No.
Killing any life to save another is unethical. The outcome should be "save both lives and if that is not possible, one lives, and the one that would have died, dies."
A doctor should never take a life to save another.
Besides, there's no reason for us to be using embryos for stem cell research. There are plenty of other stem cell options out there.
Originally posted by King Kandy
So if there was a train headed towards five people, and you could divert it (but not stop it) onto a track that only hits one, you wouldn't do it?
Absolutely not.
I'd push the dude on the other track out of the way and change the tracks, saving both lives.
Never ever ever ever would I take the life of another to save someone else. That's morally wrong.
This is more of the philosophy forum, though, as it is one of the "big" philosophical questions.
Now, I would certainly give up my life to save a loved one, which is different, because it is my own life.
But, hey, it's nice to know that you would kill someone to save me, if I were on that train...but I would have to live with the guilt the rest of my life that I had to kill someone to live. I guess I don't think as much like an animal as others...none of this "survival over others."
I would, however, kill to help my children survive, depending on the situation. Is that animalistic enough for you?
Originally posted by dadudemon
Wha?No.
Killing any life to save another is unethical. The outcome should be "save both lives and if that is not possible, one lives, and the one that would have died, dies."
A doctor should never take a life to save another.
Besides, there's no reason for us to be using embryos for stem cell research. There are plenty of other stem cell options out there.
That would make sense if women who intend to carry the embryo to term got forced into abortions to supply stem cells for research. Which is of course not what happens. It's embryos that will never, ever become a human life.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Absolutely not.I'd push the dude on the other track out of the way and change the tracks, saving both lives.
Never ever ever ever would I take the life of another to save someone else. That's morally wrong.
This is more of the philosophy forum, though, as it is one of the "big" philosophical questions.
Now, I would certainly give up my life to save a loved one, which is different, because it is my own life.
But, hey, it's nice to know that you would kill someone to save me, if I were on that train...but I would have to live with the guilt the rest of my life that I had to kill someone to live. I guess I don't think as much like an animal as others...none of this "survival over others."
I would, however, kill to help my children survive, depending on the situation. Is that animalistic enough for you?
I'd probably not do that either. I don't feel comfortable to choose 1 life over 5 without any other information. I might pull the plug on someone with no brain functions and no chance of recovery to save someone else though.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This assumes you can run many times faster than a train.
And you think I can't?
estahuh
Here's what I would do:
I would switch the tracks (assuming I don't have time to do both at the same time), then grab the train as it passed and then tell the conductor to stop because there's a bloke on the track that cannot get up.
I'd save all lives, in the process. Weeehehehehehe.
That, or I'd just apparate to each location needed.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I'd probably not do that either. I don't feel comfortable to choose 1 life over 5 without any other information. I might pull the plug on someone with no brain functions and no chance of recovery to save someone else though.
Yeah, I'd probably do the same: pull the plug. Reason: I told my wife if I ever ended up as a vegetable and there was no chance of brain function restoration or I've been in a coma for 6 months, pull the plug. I told her that I would work out a deal with God if I was supposed to recover such as writing in the fogged up mirror or having other signs sent to her. 😐 So if there is not signs, pull the plug.
Originally posted by dadudemon
And you think I can't?estahuh
Here's what I would do:
I would switch the tracks (assuming I don't have time to do both at the same time), then grab the train as it passed and then tell the conductor to stop because there's a bloke on the track that cannot get up.
I'd save all lives, in the process. Weeehehehehehe.
That, or I'd just apparate to each location needed.
Lets rephrase. Without dodging the nature of the though experiment, what would you do?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Lets rephrase. Without dodging the nature of the though experiment, what would you do?
Absolutely nothing.*
The train of people would have survivors and I would not be responsible for knowingly killing someone (second degree murder, depending on how much of a jerk you wanted to get about this thought experiment.)
*Well, that depends. Who is who at each location? Family on the train? Save the train. Family on the track? Save the track person.
Really really hot chick on the track or the train? Save the track or the train peeps. weeehehehehehe
Originally posted by dadudemonthe embryos they use end up being discarded if not used for anything, so yeah, they werent gonna make it anyway.
Wha?No.
Killing any life to save another is unethical. The outcome should be "save both lives and if that is not possible, one lives, and the one that would have died, dies."
A doctor should never take a life to save another.
Besides, there's no reason for us to be using embryos for stem cell research. There are plenty of other stem cell options out there.
lol
Would have been funnier if you said "10 points deducted from gryffindor!"