A "tradition" is exactly what it is. Just because something is a "tradition" doesn't mean it's worth holding to. The whole idea of giving the dead a "peaceful rest" implies that whatever happens after a person's death (if anything) will somehow be disrupted if you don't pay to have them put in a box and buried underground. The corpse doesn't care, and the soul (if it exists) is independent of the remains, so "Giving the dead a peaceful rest" is ultimately just meaningless poetry.



Yeah, and if this was someone who'd actually expressed a formal request to be buried, I might be more inclined to agree. But it wasn't. It was a fetus, not even capable of coherent thought. So what you are, in fact, basing this on is nothing more substantial than what he might have chosen if he had grown into an adult.

People donate organs, tissue, even their whole bodies to medical science. It's a common practice. What makes you think this kid would have been any different?



But that which benefits the most people is good!

This post has been edited by Secundus: Nov 4 2009, 04:34 PM

Felt the need to make a correction.

The term would be "person" a fetus is human, but it isn't a person. It doesn't gain personhood (and thus laws to protect it like all other persons) until birth. When that happens, it becomes a baby and a person.

As for the OP... Oh well. Might as well not let it go to waste.

This post has been edited by FlyingNun: Nov 4 2009, 04:42 PM

How about swine?

Jako, I know exactly how you feel. :/ It sickens me too, but name calling is still against the rules on here.

It's all a matter of respect. Again, you're seriously disagreeing with mankind here. There is no reason for us to change the tradition.



If there were some medically beneficial use for this fetus's organs, then I'm sure it would agree. But I don't think anyone would agree to donating any part of their dead body to be used for beauty products.

And it isn't even about whether or not they explicitly said that they want to be buried. That's just what you do.



When you get a custom title, you should make it "The Context Butcher."


For beauty products?

Come on. That's sick.

This is SICK. Honestly, what has our world come to?



This.

Whoopee. So what? If nobody stood up and disagreed with the majority every now and then, we'd be in a pretty dismal place.



Yes there is. In fact, there are two.

1. Funerals are costly. In fact, the whole concept of funerals has always seemed extremely unreasonable to me. How is it fair of me to expect people to shell out for some pointless ceremony that I won't even be around to appreciate? If my family actually did that then I'd have to claw my way back out just to smack some sense into them. My body is going to science. All of it.

2. Using bodies for medical science is beneficial to us.



I would. Why shouldn't I? So what if beauty products aren't a necessity of life? It's still more than I would accomplish by rotting in a wooden box.



"That's just what you do." Great. Let's not bother making any kind of change or progress because "That's just what you do."



Hey, that's what you said. If you'd said "That which benefits the most people is good except when..." then maybe I wouldn't bring it up.



Do you even know what that comment was in reference to (and, more importantly, do you have a convincing rebuttal to make?) or did you just feel like taking a shot at me?

This post has been edited by Secundus: Nov 4 2009, 05:57 PM

Looked at yourself in the mirror lately?

One word and it's not even a word :

this is just sick and wrong

Thats sick, and whats worse is people using this cream probably have no idea what kind of industry there supporting, or what they're rubbing on their face. This just gives one more incentive for abortion clinics to operate and its disgusting.

You're sooo right. Unless the minority stand up against those oppressive Dead-Respecters, the whole planet's gonna go to hell in a hand basket.

Minorities are not always right, you know.



1. It's a part of the economy, and it doesn't hurt anyone.

2. Great, people who volunteer their bodies can go right ahead.



Well you seem opposed to people wasting money on fruitless things. You should be opposed to any part of your body going towards an industry that leeches billions off of people for something that isn't really necessary right? Just like funerals.



Well you can go and start the new dead body desecration movement. A century in the future, people will look back in contempt at the primitive old days where dead people's bodies were buried in the ground instead of mutilated for whatever reasons, or left to dogs in the street.



Yes, it was an off-topic rebuttal for the altruism debate. But I'll humor you, that statement was also about biology, reproduction, and the preservation of genes. Beauty cream with dead fetus in it doesn't do that.

Well... I didn't know that stem cells were used in creams, but I can't say that it comes as a major shock.
I think that they should use stem cells for things like curing diseases, not stopping the aging process.
But like someone said above, they weren't aborted for that reason and since they were aborted, they should be at least used for something other than just being thrown in the trash or something.
It is sad, but most people who use the products probably have no idea that this is what is in them.

This post has been edited by horsesforlife: Nov 4 2009, 10:39 PM

This is just sick and twisted.

Anyone who disagrees is a sick and twisted human being.

Non-issue. I could easily say that the girl prior to reaching puberty is less of a female than a mature woman, but still the girl is still a female because she possess female genitalia. Here, the fetus is not even less of a human, it's not a human.


http://eileen.250x.com/Main/Einstein/Brain_Waves.htm

This post has been edited by Sinnerman: Nov 4 2009, 10:34 PM

Guys, this topic needs to calm down and now. Seriously, everyone is intitled to their own opinion on this. Just because you are disgusted does not give you the right to insult another member. I will not hesitate to close this thread if you guys can not keep this civil.

I prefer the term "human", because "person" suggests that the human has been socialized or become a member of society. Whereas "human" merely means different from other animals. So, a human who grows up in the jungle among animals as feral child, isolated from society, might not be considered as a person, because it lacks the social aspect. But, biologically, it's still a human.

I just felt like pointing something out.

They are not using multiple babies to produce multiple creams. This is not "1 aborted fetus = 20 creams".

They used a small skin sample from an aborted fetus to develop the cream. This is more like, "1 skin sample = method of producing cream = x number of creams".

I just thought the headline was misleading, 'tis all.

This post has been edited by Aeterna: Nov 4 2009, 10:52 PM

I agree. However in America, legally it would be a person once it has been born.



No one says you have to use the products. If you don't like it, don't use them.

This post has been edited by FlyingNun: Nov 5 2009, 12:16 AM

Which would be incorrect.

This post has been edited by God-Sent: Nov 5 2009, 06:12 AM

Agreed. The point was that saying "You're going against mankind" is completely meaningless, because majorities are not always right either.



Tell me something. Is using a person's corpse for science "disrespectful" because it goes against their wishes, or is it "disrespectful" just because you aren't burying them?

If it's the former, you're making a pretty big assumption. See, if a person wanted to be buried, you'd be disrespecting them by sending them off to be used by scientists...but if they wanted to go to science, you'd be disrespecting them by burying them instead. Right?

So, in cases where we don't know either way, especially in the case of dead fetuses or babies, WHO DID NOT HAVE THE CAPACITY TO CARE EITHER WAY, it makes the most sense to default to the option that is beneficial to humanity and isn't going to cost anyone a wad of cash.



I'm not. It's their money; they can spend it however they want.



What are you trying to prove here? Yeah, it is extremely primitive to let a potentially useful body go to waste when we don't even know what the person wanted to be done with it one way or another, and I do hope we grow out of it in the near future.

"Desecrate." Give me a break. IT'S A CORPSE. AN EMPTY SHELL. Next thing you know we'll be burying ourselves along with dear old grandpa so that he has some company when he's gone.



I was asking heychicky. I know you know what it refers to because you were involved in the discussion.

Doesn't matter. The fetus is still not less of a human than a full grown adult, it is not even remotely human.

Also:



Come on. Think beyond step one for a second.

People buy beauty creams to become more attractive. The more attractive you are, the greater your chances of attracting a mate. Thus, reproduction, thus the preservation of these all-important genes you keep harping on about.

Also, consider the welfare of the company that sells the product, and the people in it. If this makes the beauty cream more effective, they'll turn a higher profit. The more money they make, the better equipped they are to survive.

Of course, in this particular case it ended up backfiring because people refuse to think with their brains rather than their guts for one friggin' second, but the principle is sound.

It is completely human down to its genetic make-up.