Legislate Morality?

[fragged one]

check please!

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:21682

[Bookworm]

Oh, the irony. I asked my oldest daughter if she needed any help with her debate in her Current Issues class. It turns out she chose the issue of gay rights, and she chose to argue in favor of them. I told her to read this thread and the gay thread and pay attention to anyone who disagreed with me.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:21762

[Stasi]

check please!

Oh don't worry, he's paying.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:21796

[000]

check please!

Oh don't worry, he's paying.

Camel Toe Elvis. I saw him in Vegas. Great show.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:21807

[Stasi]

check please!

Oh don't worry, he's paying.

Camel Toe Elvis. I saw him in Vegas. Great show.

He should be ashamed of himself.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:21821

[erolyn]

Oh, the irony. I asked my oldest daughter if she needed any help with her debate in her Current Issues class. It turns out she chose the issue of gay rights, and she chose to argue in favor of them. I told her to read this thread and the gay thread and pay attention to anyone who disagreed with me.

If she needs any help, I wrote an essay for Comp last semester on why gay marriage should be legalized.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:21852

[Bookworm]

Oh, the irony. I asked my oldest daughter if she needed any help with her debate in her Current Issues class. It turns out she chose the issue of gay rights, and she chose to argue in favor of them. I told her to read this thread and the gay thread and pay attention to anyone who disagreed with me.

If she needs any help, I wrote an essay for Comp last semester on why gay marriage should be legalized.

She has the debate tomorrow. Otherwise I would take you up on your offer. Thanks.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:21861

[Stasi]

Oh, the irony. I asked my oldest daughter if she needed any help with her debate in her Current Issues class. It turns out she chose the issue of gay rights, and she chose to argue in favor of them. I told her to read this thread and the gay thread and pay attention to anyone who disagreed with me.

If she needs any help, I wrote an essay for Comp last semester on why gay marriage should be legalized.

She has the debate tomorrow. Otherwise I would take you up on your offer. Thanks.

Just remind her that if she begins to lose, she can start making personal attacks on her opponent(s).

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:21864

[shenbaw]

Oh, the irony. I asked my oldest daughter if she needed any help with her debate in her Current Issues class. It turns out she chose the issue of gay rights, and she chose to argue in favor of them. I told her to read this thread and the gay thread and pay attention to anyone who disagreed with me.

If she needs any help, I wrote an essay for Comp last semester on why gay marriage should be legalized.

She has the debate tomorrow. Otherwise I would take you up on your offer. Thanks.

Aww, that's no fun. I was going to say, I could email her my senior thesis on victimless crimes also. Might have been helpful.

Tell her to focus on the history of American values as far as civil rights go, how we've been wrong countless times before, thus discounting the oppositions only possible argument. (one claiming the correctness of something based on the fact that the majority of people believe it) Then she should be fine as long as she can show that gay people are just as deserving of rights as you and I.

What "rights" exactly is she arguing in favor of???

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:21882

[erolyn]

here's an interesting question, that kind of has to do with morality.

I'm taking Debate this semester (your daughter's not alone, Bookworm), and in a couple days I'll be arguing about cloning. My group's contention is that cloning is beneficial to society (and there's LOTS of evidence to back that up...most of which I haven't found yet), but as to morality (which, thankfully, we're not aruging in this specific debate), I'm undecided. So I thought I'd bring it up here and see what you guys think about it. And maybe you could even give me some juicy facts for my debate

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:21955

[Bookworm]

Are you arguing that cloning people would be beneficial to society? I could perhaps see the benefit of cloning certain animals. A specific type of mouse for scientific research, for instance, or even that cat that was recently cloned. The emotional factor associated with having a clone of her cat was worth 50,000 to the owner. But from what I understand, most cloned animals do not live as long as the originals, so there is possibly some undiscovered danger in the process. Experimentation with animals might uncover some of that danger, but when (or if) the process is applied to humans, other dangers might surface which could only be discovered and corrected with experimentation. Do we really want to be experimenting with human life? It is impossible for us to determine when life actually begins, but if one takes the position that I do, that life begins at conception, then any procedure which removes the nucleus from a fertilized egg is destroying a life. Unless you can catagorically prove that life does not begin at conception, then I do not believe you should apply the cloning procedure to humans, and any possible benefit to the rest of mankind would not be worth the destruction of a human life. Even if you do not believe that life begins at conception, you would have to say that life begins at some point during the pregnancy. I think very few people would say that life doesn't begin until the actual birth. So suppose you are monitering the pregnancy of a mother with a cloned embryo, and you discover something wrong with the development of the embryo, what do you do? How bad would the maldevelopment have to be before you would abort, or would anything less than perfect development be aborted, and how late in the pregnancy would these abortions be allowed, or would the researchers just let every embryo progress to term just to examine the results? At some point there, you would be experimenting with human life. And you would also have the health of the mothers to keep in mind. When experimenting with cloning in animals, you can start many, many pregnancies just to get one living clone, but would we want to do the same thing to many, many human mothers? I don't think so. I think human cloning should be completely off-limit.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:21972

[Stasi]

The only aspect of cloning that I feel confident in my conclusions over is not permitting an adult(s) to birth and/or raise a clone of themself or anyone else.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:21979

[shenbaw]

Are you arguing that cloning people would be beneficial to society? I could perhaps see the benefit of cloning certain animals. A specific type of mouse for scientific research, for instance, or even that cat that was recently cloned. The emotional factor associated with having a clone of her cat was worth 50,000 to the owner. But from what I understand, most cloned animals do not live as long as the originals, so there is possibly some undiscovered danger in the process. Experimentation with animals might uncover some of that danger, but when (or if) the process is applied to humans, other dangers might surface which could only be discovered and corrected with experimentation. Do we really want to be experimenting with human life? It is impossible for us to determine when life actually begins, but if one takes the position that I do, that life begins at conception, then any procedure which removes the nucleus from a fertilized egg is destroying a life. Unless you can catagorically prove that life does not begin at conception, then I do not believe you should apply the cloning procedure to humans, and any possible benefit to the rest of mankind would not be worth the destruction of a human life. Even if you do not believe that life begins at conception, you would have to say that life begins at some point during the pregnancy. I think very few people would say that life doesn't begin until the actual birth. So suppose you are monitering the pregnancy of a mother with a cloned embryo, and you discover something wrong with the development of the embryo, what do you do? How bad would the maldevelopment have to be before you would abort, or would anything less than perfect development be aborted, and how late in the pregnancy would these abortions be allowed, or would the researchers just let every embryo progress to term just to examine the results? At some point there, you would be experimenting with human life. And you would also have the health of the mothers to keep in mind. When experimenting with cloning in animals, you can start many, many pregnancies just to get one living clone, but would we want to do the same thing to many, many human mothers? I don't think so. I think human cloning should be completely off-limit.

*reserved for shenbaw's reply at a later time*



Can I do that???




Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:22000

[Bookworm]

*reserved for shenbaw's reply at a later time*



Can I do that???

Nope. Lost your chance. Sorry.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:22010

[erolyn]

Are you arguing that cloning people would be beneficial to society? I could perhaps see the benefit of cloning certain animals. A specific type of mouse for scientific research, for instance, or even that cat that was recently cloned. The emotional factor associated with having a clone of her cat was worth 50,000 to the owner. But from what I understand, most cloned animals do not live as long as the originals, so there is possibly some undiscovered danger in the process. Experimentation with animals might uncover some of that danger, but when (or if) the process is applied to humans, other dangers might surface which could only be discovered and corrected with experimentation. Do we really want to be experimenting with human life? It is impossible for us to determine when life actually begins, but if one takes the position that I do, that life begins at conception, then any procedure which removes the nucleus from a fertilized egg is destroying a life. Unless you can catagorically prove that life does not begin at conception, then I do not believe you should apply the cloning procedure to humans, and any possible benefit to the rest of mankind would not be worth the destruction of a human life. Even if you do not believe that life begins at conception, you would have to say that life begins at some point during the pregnancy. I think very few people would say that life doesn't begin until the actual birth. So suppose you are monitering the pregnancy of a mother with a cloned embryo, and you discover something wrong with the development of the embryo, what do you do? How bad would the maldevelopment have to be before you would abort, or would anything less than perfect development be aborted, and how late in the pregnancy would these abortions be allowed, or would the researchers just let every embryo progress to term just to examine the results? At some point there, you would be experimenting with human life. And you would also have the health of the mothers to keep in mind. When experimenting with cloning in animals, you can start many, many pregnancies just to get one living clone, but would we want to do the same thing to many, many human mothers? I don't think so. I think human cloning should be completely off-limit.

No, we're not arguing people per se, it's just cloning in general, but the other side (understandably) focused mainly on human cloning, so my group's going to present some of the medical benefits of simply cloning genes, cells, organs, etc.

I absolutely don't believe that cloning humans is morally right, especially after researching this debate and discovering that not only are about one or two out of a hundred cloning experiments (to clone mammals, anyway) are successful, and that even surviving clones have a 30 percent chance of being physically debilitated. But the issue we were asked to debate was whether or not cloning in general was benficial to society, so when the teacher asked me if I agreed with that or not, I couldn't say no. Especially since I just read an article (http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/01/07/ai ... index.html) about how scientists have found a gene that, if copied through molecular cloning, could possibly prevent AIDS. Also, I'm doing an experiment in AP Biology right now in which we're innoculating E.coli with ampicillin resistant genes, and the whole process is almost exactly what would be done with the gene mentioned in the article and with other molecular cloning experiments. It all seems a lot less immoral when you know exactly how it works.

So there's my two billion cents. Wish me luck tomorrow...

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:22026

[shenbaw]

*reserved for shenbaw's reply at a later time*



Can I do that???

Nope. Lost your chance. Sorry.

Just as well.




Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:22048