| Author |
Messages |
|
Cherie Kail
Posts:41
 |
| 04/10/2008 11:08 PM |
 Alert
|
It is sacred. We ought to protect it. Don't you agree?
What about stem cells? Why is research good and why is it bad?
When do we cross the line and have we done so officially?
Are you in favor of research at all?
Are stem cells the means to an end or otherwise?
Did you follow up on how the Amendment 2 vote affected/effected Missourians?
Can anyone explain the Caimera issue a little better and the ethics of it?
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT:
EUTHANASIA:
EUGENICS:
GENETICS:
BIOLOGICAL WARFARE:
|
|
|
|
|
Alexander Hoffelder
Posts:18
|
| 04/13/2008 12:57 PM |
Alert
|
You mean chimera?
|
|
|
|
|
Justin Brown
Posts:22
|
| 04/14/2008 1:44 PM |
Alert
|
| My position (opinion) on Capital Punishment is that regardless of how effective or ineffective it might be as a deterrant, its usage prevents a shifting baseline for sentencing. Thats why I am in favor of it being a potential punishment for sex-based crimes. It would help to underscore the seriousness of the crime and how we as a society feel about those types of crimes and the effect they have on our society. Then let the juries decide what punishment is warranted on each individual case. |
|
|
|
|
Justin Brown
Posts:22
|
| 04/14/2008 2:11 PM |
Alert
|
On Human Genetics and Stem Cell Research
I'll start off by saying that scientific research, in my opinion, falls outside of the scope of what should be funded at the Federal level. If the Free Market is unwilling to fund a particular type of research it probably has limited value to our society.
That may seem like a punt, but it isn't intended to be. I believe that if science must turn to the free market for dollars there will be more Accountable to the general public.
Example: If we refuse medical procedures because we feel that they were derived unethically, those who developed the procedure wouldn't get paid for their work and would have to close up business. When they are paid up front through government grants that Accountability is lost.
|
|
|
|
|
Darin Chappell
Posts:29
|
| 04/14/2008 5:32 PM |
Alert
|
Let me be more precise in what I said in the meeting last week...
I believe that the issue of capital punishment is one that exceptionally personal in nature, and I can respect the positions of those with whom I disagree, because I too share some of their same concerns.
As a way to deter crime in the future, there is no real evidence that capital punishment accomplishes this goal as it is currently practiced. It is a complete deterrent for that particular individual...but so also is a life sentence without possibility of parole.
It is more expensive (because of the endless appeals allowed the condemned by our system) to keep a convicted death row inmate, than it would be to keep an inmate sentenced to life without parole, so there is no economic basis for supporting capital punishment either.
For me, it boils down to the sociological point that having the death penalty is one way in which the possibility fo vigilantyism (sp?) is averted by the government. Perhaps we ought not be this way, but society demands certain forms of justice from government, and when/if those expectations are not met, the rise of vigilanty "justice" can be seen in the communities.
For this reason, if for no other, I am in favor of the death penalty.
However, because there have been innocent people put to death in the past, and because the scientific evidences are so very conclusive in many cases of such a nature, I would suggest (though I know I hold a decidedly minority view here) that the death penalty only be available for those cases wherein there is no doubt that a person is guilty. If he's caught on tape, or if his DNA is found all over a victim with whom he had no legitimate contact...fry him. Otherwise, just so that we do not make a mistake we cannot undo...lock him up for the rest of his life with no way of ever getting out again. |
|
Darin Chappell
Just a little to the right of Atilla the Hun... |
|
|
Darin Chappell
Posts:29
|
| 04/14/2008 5:35 PM |
Alert
|
[quote]Posted By Justin Brown on 04/14/2008 2:11 PM
On Human Genetics and Stem Cell Research
I'll start off by saying that scientific research, in my opinion, falls outside of the scope of what should be funded at the Federal level. If the Free Market is unwilling to fund a particular type of research it probably has limited value to our society.
That may seem like a punt, but it isn't intended to be. I believe that if science must turn to the free market for dollars there will be more Accountable to the general public.
Example: If we refuse medical procedures because we feel that they were derived unethically, those who developed the procedure wouldn't get paid for their work and would have to close up business. When they are paid up front through government grants that Accountability is lost.
[/quote]
I agree with most of what you wrote above, and the only caveat I would offer is that there are some scientific research avenues that are needed by the populace as a whole as a matter of national security (alternative fuels may be an example), and in those very few instances, I would support national governmental support for such efforts.
But that is really a different issue, and I don't mean to side-track this line of thought.
|
|
Darin Chappell
Just a little to the right of Atilla the Hun... |
|
|
Justin Brown
Posts:22
|
| 04/16/2008 7:37 AM |
Alert
|
I should have been more plain in my post above. I meant that scientific research with respect to Human Genetics and Stem Cell Research falls outside of the scope of what should be funded at the Federal level. Under the heading of Life I might also include medical research in general, though there will still be concerns like Super viruses and defense against biological warfare that would fall under the Security heading in which case they should be funded at the Federal Level. Cross Topic: Scientific research that advances our ability to develop new defensive and offensive weapons systems would also be necessary at the Federal Level.
Warning: Off-Topic Material
I personally would disagree about the alternative fuels though. I'm not a biofuels expert but I am an Environmental Scientist with some insight on the subject. A case can be made for US Energy Independence being a Federal issue, however, I do not think biofuels take us even one step closer to energy independence, and make us more vulnerable to attack by undermining our ability to both feed and fuel ourselves. Example: We are in the middle of a war against Islamic extremists. Major flooding followed by drought wipe out the majority of the corn and soybean crop in the midwest. Fuel and food costs skyrocket in the US, social stability is undercut, and we can no longer afford to support our troops at the level that they deserve. That I think is the biggest problem with biofuels; they canl never play more than a supporting role for oil. The same, but for different reasons, can be said for solar and wind energy.
I think that if we want to look for a Federally Funded solution to energy indepentence it should start with research on cleaner Nuclear Energy. The technology already exists, the US only lags on implementation. If switchgrass ethanol becomes viable in the future I'm sure the market will make room for it, until then I'm for electric from nuclear at home and in the car. It's clean, dependable, and after the infrastructure is in place, cheap to refuel and maintain. |
|
|
|
|
Darin Chappell
Posts:29
|
| 04/16/2008 11:13 AM |
Alert
|
You can't disagree with me Justin...because I'm against the use of biofuels as well! :)
I too was referring to those alternative fuel sources (such as nuclear created electricity, or possibly the future use of hydrogen-based fuel cells) that are not damaging to our ability to feed ourselves (and the world). I think switchgrass ethanol is a possibility one day, and sugar cane grown in Central and South America may be another option some day, but as of right now, ethanol is of no value to us, and will instead be a great threat to our national security. |
|
Darin Chappell
Just a little to the right of Atilla the Hun... |
|
|
Cherie Kail
Posts:41
|
| 04/17/2008 5:38 AM |
Alert
|
Alex,
I think you're right. Thanks for correcting me. I got Caimera (SP) from www.pedigreequery.com and for reference, I asked my former Genetics Professor and you are indeed correct: Chimera. Wikipedia has an interesting section on Chimeras.
To all,
On the life issue, I do not think we have any place under the guise of our Heavenly Father to create or destroy life. There are, however, certain cases in which we are permitted to [destroy]. That's what Capital Punishment is. I think that if an individual has committed such a heinous crime as to violate a child, murder another, etc, then they ought to be dealt justice under God's dictate. We learned the justice system throughout history and I think it serves a concrete and fair purpose for all of us. It really ought to be a deterrant and not a way to make a spectacle of someone.....i.e. making sure one's motives are moral, pure and right.
On creating life, sure we have the knowledge and we wouldn't have the knowledge if we didn't have the ability to use it. But as in all things, we have to be good stewards of what we have, not to abuse resources or tools. I sincerely believe that in order for us to advance, we have the need to use science. I also think the deeper into science we tap, the more aware we all ought to be of the ethics at stake.
Aristotle in his Book I and II of philosophy, states that life is tied to a soul. Human life has moral and intellectual capabilities. Even at its earliest, inception/creation, there is human life. Even at the fertilization of an embryo or the fusion of zygotes. That is because to have movement and knowledge, perception and beliefs are activities of a soul.
From that I take that Aristotle means we all are life forms and that life forms, not necessarily always human beings, are soulful and indestructible. Also, that in order to maintain structure and semblance, a human being has to have organs and substance or movement to those organs. Of course, that happens at day one, since tissues take on shape and grow and develop. The arguement gets complicated and I am still working on figuring out the philosopher's idea. What I can truly say and mean is that my view is more spiritual. I think life is some parts mystery, some parts miracle. I don't think we ought to know it all or tamper with it all. The science is great, but so are things like sex, wine, education.....things that have also been perverted. I think we need to leave the messing with human life up to the one who created human life. |
|
|
|
|
Brannon Estay
Posts:7
|
| 06/06/2008 5:04 PM |
Alert
|
I had an interesting discusion once with my wife and her mother. Both of these ladies are strong supporters of life as the only choice. The funny thing is when i had my first child we were asked by the hospital if something were to go wrong with the pregnency we would need to decide ahead of time who the doctor would save. the funny thing is my wife said well me of course. We discussed it later and i educated her on her decision. She was acually saying in her decision that her life was more important than the babies. I argued with my wife and my mother in law that if the incident were to take place that i would tell the doctor to save them both. My wife i love dearly. my child i love dearly. but to say her life was more important than the life about to start was not true. The hospital asking us was asking an irrelevant question in that they do not have the understanding of life that comes from God which is we are all equal and worth the same in his eyes. Some people have asked me well what about a rape. That the victim having the child is like a second rape. this is also not true and is also a irrelevant question. Just because the victim did not choose to be impregnated does not change the fact that the life was created and there for has the God given ability at a chance at life. Two wrongs do not make a right and just because the victim was wronged by another person does not mean that the baby should be wronged by another person.
THERE IS NEVER A REASON FOR A BABIES LIFE TO BE TAKEN PREMATURLY!!!! |
|
The grass is always greener on the other side due to all the bodies fertilizing the ground!!!! |
|
|
Brannon Estay
Posts:7
|
| 06/06/2008 5:09 PM |
Alert
|
Capital punishment is easy if you keep the bible and God in your decision making. In Numbers 35:33 it says very plainly that if a murder is not killed for his actions and his blood shed the ground where the victims blood was shed that the land will be cursed.
This is why i do not believe the middle east will ever stop waring because the land is cursed from the perfect sacrifice made by jesus christ. his perfect blood shed the ground and was never covered by the death of us all who killed him. Only when jesus returns will that land be renued and only jesus can do it!!! |
|
The grass is always greener on the other side due to all the bodies fertilizing the ground!!!! |
|
|
Brannon Estay
Posts:7
|
| 06/06/2008 5:25 PM |
Alert
|
| Once we allow the world to put a price tag on what our bodies are worth the sacred concept of life will be reuined. That is the purpose behind all the genetic scientific works. it is to make the human body into a commodity. Think of it in this relm it will be the human slavery packaged in a different set of chains. instead of having a bunch of poor, kidnapped people in the back of a truck. it will be a cold storage of 50 arms waiting for some one to have need of it. God is the only one allowed to say what we are worth because he created us. Suicide is considered evil for two reason, one because it is self murder and two because how dare you take something that is not your to take. our bodies are God's no one elses. He decided when they go our not. And to end a life early other than the rules given to us by Him it is a smite against God's right to his property. My life, all life is Jesus Christ's to do with as He sees fit and no other. i guess i just covered the euthanasia. |
|
The grass is always greener on the other side due to all the bodies fertilizing the ground!!!! |
|
|
Scott Murphree-Roberts
Posts:21
|
| 06/09/2008 5:20 PM |
Alert
|
My take on abortion:
The abortion advocates seem to say it's OK because we can't prove a fetus or embryo is alive. "We're not sure," they say.
If a hunter shoots at a rustling bush, and kills another hunter, we will prosecute him for manslaughter at the least. His excuse that he didn't know what he was shooting at is no good. A responsible hunter won't take the shot unless he KNOWS what he's shooting at.
Let's apply the same test to abortion - if we don't KNOW whether or not the fetus or embryo is alive or is human, we'd best not take the shot.
Embryonic stem cell research should not be done for the same reason. |
|
|
|
|
Kevin M
Posts:2
|
| 07/26/2008 1:14 AM |
Alert
|
| If a single cell was found on Mars, it would be considered "life". How can a baby fetus not be considered "life" then? |
|
|
|
|
Mike Atlas
Posts:44
|
| 10/20/2008 10:14 AM |
Alert
|
| A baby fetus is dependent upon the mother. If the mother dies, so will the fetus. So life (even cellular) on other planets is different in that sense. |
|
|
|
|
Drew Underwood
Posts:13
|
| 10/21/2008 10:41 AM |
Alert
|
| I think abortion is a simple topic: it's murder. The end. Have a nice day, now! |
|
Amen, and God bless America,
Drew Underwood of the Modern Conservative Party of America
www.underwood.tk
www.mcpa.tk
www.underwood13.tk |
|
|
Mike Atlas
Posts:44
|
| 10/21/2008 11:15 AM |
Alert
|
| So what would you call a miscarriage, involuntary manslaughter? |
|
|
|
|
Scott Murphree-Roberts
Posts:21
|
| 10/21/2008 11:52 AM |
Alert
|
Mike,
That's an interesting question. I guess that's a medical question. Can every miscarriage be traced to a mother's deliberate action? Or are you erecting strawmen? |
|
|
|
|
Mike Atlas
Posts:44
|
| 10/21/2008 12:37 PM |
Alert
|
| Not every miscarriage can be traced to a mother's deliberate action. About 25% of pregnancy ends in miscarriage. Many woman may not even realize they've miscarried, they just think they've had a 'heavy flow.' I was not proposing anything serious, I was just trying to point out how ridiculous it would be to charge somebody for murder if they had an abortion. Trust me, when someone has an abortion they don't do it for fun, they pay for it the rest of their lives. |
|
|
|
|
Drew Underwood
Posts:13
|
| 10/21/2008 2:25 PM |
Alert
|
| Listen... IT'S MURDER TO KILL SOMEONE NO MATTER HOW DEVELOPED THEY ARE! I don't care if they knew it or not. If they kill someone, they deserve to be punished. END OF STORY! |
|
Amen, and God bless America,
Drew Underwood of the Modern Conservative Party of America
www.underwood.tk
www.mcpa.tk
www.underwood13.tk |
|
|
|