HIV/AIDS Cure?

[Archonsod]

Nah, stem cells are like milk. The fresher it is when you get them, the more useful it is. The longer you leave it, the higher proportion of them have turned into cheese or cream.

 

[Feragorn]

So, if you inject a one year old into your bloodstream, you'll be able to eat rotten milk/cheese/other spoiled dairy?

That's a win/win! Get rid of some nasty babies, be able to eat expired milk.

 

[mor2]

no.

Babies are going to be aborted. It's a fact. Some women are just too big of pussies to woman up and accept the fact that they have to stop partying for a little while to raise their ****ing child. So they're going to take the easy way out. I hate them for it, but the least we can do is use those un-babies to help other people.

Isn't that a bit generalising statement? Seems awful to simply put it as "women who don't want to stop partying."
There are many more factors that you are forgetting about.

There's a reason I didn't MENTION those, Grauuu my little over-assuming friend.  Some people have justifiable excuses. Some people don't. THOSE people, I hate.

why hate? i think that they are doing us all a service, they are probably not mature/responsible enough, not stable family cell and probably not enough income to be able to support and raise a child, i say thank you.

 

[kiarj]

Babies are going to be aborted. It's a fact. Some women are just too big of pussies to woman up and accept the fact that they have to stop partying for a little while to raise their ****ing child. So they're going to take the easy way out.

As they say: "WOW WHAT A ****"

 

[Ambalon]

Babies are going to be aborted. It's a fact. Some women are just too big of pussies to woman up and accept the fact that they have to stop partying for a little while to raise their ****ing child. So they're going to take the easy way out.

As they say: "WOW WHAT A ****"

Kiarj: You are aware that he's talking about the cases where the mother just doesn't want the responsibility but could perfectly take care of a child, right?

 

[Swadius 2.0]

What's the difference between having an abortion and using contraception?

 

[Archonsod]

What's the difference between having an abortion and using contraception?

Surgery.

 

[Ambalon]

What's the difference between having an abortion and using contraception?

Surgery.

And with that comes costs.

 

[Sarejo]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't it all come down to when it is considered that life starts, regarding embryos and foetuses?

 

[Swadius 2.0]

What's the difference between having an abortion and using contraception?

Surgery.

Depends on what trimester the lady is on.

And with that comes costs.

The cheapest option is not to have any sex at all . Vaginal or otherwise. In some countries the abortion pill might be more expensive than contraceptives, but I don't think cost should be any reason to prohibit people from using a social medical system. If it is, rock climbing, deep wilderness hiking, and other extreme sports ought to be activities that exclude someone from medical care if they have an accident.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't it all the differences come down to when it is considered that life starts, regarding embryos and foetuses?

When a human life begins is a more pressing question.

 

[Sarejo]

Right, that's what I meant. My brain isn't being cooperative. Well, I think most people will agree that the dividing line is... well, not there. There isn't a line but a broad and diffuse frontier.

Only considering the question "When does Human Life start?"

It's understandable to consider life begins at the moment of conception, since the fertilisation has indeed occurred, and all that the cells need to become a human being is time to fully develop (considering a somewhat ideal environment).

If you don't agree with this,
(barring the "Then every sperm is sacred!" argument, which I consider invalid since there are many other impending factors to have indeed a human life [i.e. that sperm can potentially become millions of different human beings, depending on the ovum it fertilises], while if the conception already occurred, as far as I know, and forgive my ignorance if I'm wrong, there is only one human being that can develop. You can say "But time is the factor you considered! That's arbitrary!" Well, I'll concede that it isn't ideal, but at least is a lone factor, rather than many)
because of n reasons, namely "What could potentially happen isn't important.", "if it hasn't been born then it's not alive", and many others I can't come up with right now, then I guess the other choice is to consider that human life when the human being is born.

Anything in the middle (1 day-8 months and 29 days), appears to be too... hard to measure to be reliable... There is a dividing line between an embryo and a foetus, that is what many consider to be dividing, but the characteristics that are chosen to divide the two stages can be deemed arbitrary...

(Again, forgive any conceptual errors I might have done, I hated biology >_>)

 

[mor2]

Lets just say that contraception is to avoid conception and abortion to stop "it" (the Pregnancy).

EDIT:
While timetables are for picking the best treatment and religious nuts to get pious about.

 

[Swadius 2.0]

隐藏

8=D~~

You don't need to do all that. All that needs to be done are two things. Give a satisfactory definition of what makes humans the way they are, and which humans count, and find out when a fetus can fit in to that criteria. The hard part is making the definition narrow enough to avoid infanticide.

Lets just say that contraception is to avoid conception and abortion to stop "it" (the Pregnancy).

How is the nature of their supposed usage ethically relevant?

 

[Archonsod]

It's understandable to consider life begins at the moment of conception, since the fertilisation has indeed occurred, and all that the cells need to become a human being is time to fully develop

Erm, no. The fertilised egg must successfully implant itself, which takes two weeks. If that fails to occur then it'll be flushed out of the body during menstruation, as any unfertilised egg would be. The first point you could really consider it to be alive would be the fifth week, when the heart should start beating and at which point you can be sure you have a potential human, though it's not until the umbilical cord is formed that you can be sure there's a possibility of it being carried to term, until it's in place the body can flush it out at any point.
And of course the hilarious thing for the religious fundy ****wits, at this point the "human" embryo is actually closer to a fish than a human, complete with developing gills. That's evolution for you.

 

[Sarejo]

You left out the "Considering a somewhat ideal environment" part But I understand your point, yes. I ignored an important part of the process.

To comment on-topic, it would be nice to do something such as removing stem cells from the developing embryo without bringing the pregnancy to an end, thus no-one would consider that someone was murdered, and the research would probably speed up and get more funding. But that's probably not feasible, because it would have been practiced at a large scale if it were.

 

[Moose!]

What we really should be doing is taking stem cells from one embryo, and then clone that embryo. That way, we're only condemning one soul to eternal purgatory thousands of times, rather than thousands of souls one time!

 

[Cyborg Eastern European]

Or we could just store the amniotic cells and then proceed to use that if there are any complications further down the road.