Well said, atheist...

Originally posted by amannion
That's true in the same way that an egg is a chicken.
Both are trivial.

An embryo is a potential human being, nothing more.

That's absolutely correct.

Bare it in mind that LucifersStammer is a Catholic and so has to toe the Papal bulldust lie about abortion being murder.

Originally posted by amannion
Scottish that sounds a bit touchy feely for you. What's wrong?

I got some sleep. It's amazing what 6 months of sleep depravation can do to you. Look back through my last 6 months of posts - i used to tolerate fools relatively well....

Originally posted by lucifershammer
There is this article by Maureen Condic as well:

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0201/articles/condic.html

"Maureen L. Condic, ..., is an Assistant Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah, working on the regeneration of adult and embryonic neurons following spinal cord injury."

http://www.neuro.utah.edu/people/faculty/condic.php

LH, I have a question. You have a problem with a couple terminating an embryo (incapable of pain, not self aware) because they cannot (or will not) take care of it. What's your position on people giving kids up for adoption - should they be forced to keep a kid they don't want or can't care for too?

Originally posted by howardgee
That's absolutely correct.

Bare it in mind that LucifersStammer is a Catholic and so has to toe the Papal bulldust lie about abortion being murder.

Yes, I assumed that.
Still doesn't make any sense to me.

You may as well call stepping on an ant murder. In fact, that's more murderous than aborting a foetus.

Originally posted by amannion
Yes, I assumed that.
Still doesn't make any sense to me.

You may as well call stepping on an ant murder. In fact, that's more murderous than aborting a foetus.

Of course it doesn't make sense - it is linked to religion. (-;

Originally posted by amannion
Some moral and ethical positions espoused by religious people do make sense. 'Love your neighbour as you love yourself' beats the shit out of blowing each other up all the time.

Yeah, but usually they are blowing each other up because they believe in a different messiah!

Originally posted by reader1107
I'm sorry, what I meant to do was refute the OP which seemed to be a blanket statement of how caring and life-affirming (paraphrase) atheists are. Some may be. I don't see it as a function of being an atheist, as I know cases to the contrary. I think some people are and will be good (or awful or fair-to-middlin' or psychotic or doing-the-best-they-can ...[text shortened]... not bashing the category of atheist -- I've lived with some remarkably nasty nuns as well.

Ah, I understand you know. Thank you for clearing that up.

Originally posted by Halitose
You might need to check your "facts":

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-smith042302.asp

First of all, Embryonic cells are precursors to all cells. Stem-cell unfortunately have not been coaxed into becoming all types of cells. It is not even established if mature stem- cells can become all other types of cells. Secondly, the reason why stem- cell research outperforms embryonic research is because most embryonic research is stifled by regulations- most of the leading counties in biotechnology have been curtailed in this line of research. Thirdly, I fail to see why a potential therapy should be restricted if it offers the possibility of saving lives. I tend to think adults are more important then embryos. And fourthly, do you really think that scientists want to gratuitously kill embryos? It doesn't sound like fun to me.

Originally posted by amannion
An embryo is a potential human being, nothing more.

At which point does an embryo become a human being, pray tell?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
LH, I have a question. You have a problem with a couple terminating an embryo (incapable of pain, not self aware) because they cannot (or will not) take care of it. What's your position on people giving kids up for adoption - should they be forced to keep a kid they don't want or can't care for too?

I'm not saying they should be forced to keep a kid they can't care for. Would you argue that gives them the right to kill such a kid?

Originally posted by Conrau K
First of all, Embryonic cells are precursors to all cells. Stem-cell unfortunately have not been coaxed into becoming all types of cells. It is not even established if mature stem- cells can become all other types of cells. Secondly, the reason why stem- cell research outperforms embryonic research is because most embryonic research is stifled by regulation ...[text shortened]... eally think that scientists want to gratuitously kill embryos? It doesn't sound like fun to me.

First of all, Embryonic cells are precursors to all cells.

So? The reason adult stem cells are investigated is because totipotence can be induced in them.

Stem-cell unfortunately have not been coaxed into becoming all types of cells.

Neither have embryonic stem cells. (I presume you're talking about adult stem cells here).

It is not even established if mature stem- cells can become all other types of cells.

Nor, under laboratory conditions, embryonic stem cells.

Secondly, the reason why stem- cell research outperforms embryonic research is because most embryonic research is stifled by regulations- most of the leading counties in biotechnology have been curtailed in this line of research.

I would argue the opposite - adult stem-cell research has been forced to stagnate because of the attention lavished on embryonic stem cells.

Thirdly, I fail to see why a potential therapy should be restricted if it offers the possibility of saving lives.

Nazi-style adult human experimentation could yield such cures. Would you permit even one person to undergo such a procedure to save millions, even billions, of lives?

Sometimes, principles are more important than living longer.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Would you permit even one person to undergo such a procedure to save millions, even billions, of lives?

Sometimes, principles are more important than living longer.

Are you volunteering? Better yet, would Jesus?

Originally posted by David C
Are you volunteering? Better yet, would Jesus?

I might - but at least I'll be given a choice in the matter and do so of my own accord. And, even if I do, it's perfectly debatable whether I should be allowed to.

As for Jesus, he already has.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
At which point does an embryo become a human being, pray tell?

Simple, it's a human being when it's born.
Until that point it's only a potential human being and should certainly be accorded no rights that actual humans have.

Now don't get me wrong here.
I've got two kids of my own and love them to death. And I loved them before they were born. But that didn't make them humans - just potential humans.