Legislate Morality?
Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2005 2:37 am
check please!
Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:21682
Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:21682
Formally anythingforums.com, iceteks.com, uovalor.com and uogateway.com Forums.
https://www.anyf.ca/
Oh don't worry, he's paying.fragged one wrote: check please!
Camel Toe Elvis. I saw him in Vegas. Great show.Stasi wrote:Oh don't worry, he's paying.fragged one wrote: check please!
He should be ashamed of himself.0 wrote:Camel Toe Elvis. I saw him in Vegas. Great show.Stasi wrote:Oh don't worry, he's paying.fragged one wrote: check please!
If she needs any help, I wrote an essay for Comp last semester on why gay marriage should be legalized.Bookworm wrote: 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.
She has the debate tomorrow. Otherwise I would take you up on your offer. Thanks.erolyn wrote:If she needs any help, I wrote an essay for Comp last semester on why gay marriage should be legalized.Bookworm wrote: 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.
Just remind her that if she begins to lose, she can start making personal attacks on her opponent(s).Bookworm wrote:She has the debate tomorrow. Otherwise I would take you up on your offer. Thanks.erolyn wrote:If she needs any help, I wrote an essay for Comp last semester on why gay marriage should be legalized.Bookworm wrote: 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.
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.Bookworm wrote:She has the debate tomorrow. Otherwise I would take you up on your offer. Thanks.erolyn wrote:If she needs any help, I wrote an essay for Comp last semester on why gay marriage should be legalized.Bookworm wrote: 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.
Bookworm wrote: 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.
Nope. Lost your chance. Sorry.shenbaw wrote: *reserved for shenbaw's reply at a later time*
Can I do that???
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.Bookworm wrote: 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.
Just as well.Bookworm wrote:Nope. Lost your chance. Sorry.shenbaw wrote: *reserved for shenbaw's reply at a later time*
Can I do that???