Genes? DNA? If so, that makes the fetus as human as the fat sucked off the buttocks of rich fat women, because human fat cells have human DNA too.




This post has been edited by Sinnerman: Nov 5 2009, 07:24 AM

"When was the last time the fat sucked off the butt of a rich fat woman grew into a [fully developed] human?" -The Reincarnate

Sometimes I just wonder if you just say things like this because you like the attention that comes with opposing everything the people on this site think is moral.

Would you say the same thing if they used the skin of dead children who had already been born?



The greatest respect to someone who has died is to do what they wanted done with their body. If that means cutting it up and donating the parts to science, then so be it. However, if a person did not volunteer to have that little donor sticker on their driver's license, that means they don't want their body cut up and donated to science.

When it comes to a dead fetus or baby who doesn't have the capacity to care, the best thing to do is just pay it the traditional respects. And a dead fetus isn't going to cost anyone a wad of cash anyway, because I can't think of the last time anyone held a funeral for it.



Well it's traditional for them to spend that money, yet you said you want that tradition to change.



Again, we do know what they want done with the corpse. When people register for an ID card of any kind, they can either opt to be a donor, or choose not to be.

And yes, desecrate. Cutting up bodies without the explicit permission of the person who died is desecration.



Sorry, I just hit the reply button and read it from there. So I missed your heychicky quote.


Beauty creams may make people more attractive, but the likelihood of fetus proteins in it is not going to make the product sell better (hence eliminating any prospect of it helping people economically), neither is it going to make the person that much more attractive (especially considering the use of fully matured skin cells can accomplish the same thing, thus not making any difference on the prospect of it helping people sexually). Especially when it's anti-aging cream. The women using this are either married (so it won't make a difference) or cougars on the prowl who aren't interested in reproducing anyway.

Or they just never got around to it. Or they just don't care at all, one way or another.



Why? Why is it the best thing to do? Do you have anything at all to support this? "Because it's tradition" is not a valid reason. There is no inherent value in tradition. It's "tradition" in certain countries to do horrible things to women's genitalia so that they won't enjoy sex; that doesn't mean they should be doing it.



Are you in the habit of asking what people do with their aborted babies?

Besides, burial still has to be paid for, whether you have an actual funeral or not.



Well, there's a bit of a difference between disliking something and opposing it. I would like it if people would be more willing to hand bodies over to science, but ultimately it's not my place to tell them otherwise. I mean, I'd also like it if people came to my house and gave me money, but I'm not going to start demanding it of anyone.

What I take exception to, however, is when someone does shun the pointless tradition and then there's this huge, irrational, knee-jerk outrage about it



Except this is a fetus we're talking about. Fetuses do not have ID cards.



Use whatever terms you want; I've yet to hear an actual reason as to why we shouldn't do it. Trying to strike a chord by claiming "desecration" isn't going to carry your argument.



As I said, the fact that it backfired in this particular instance doesn't mean the principle of "Improve product for better profit" isn't sound.

This post has been edited by Secundus: Nov 5 2009, 12:35 PM

It really is not anything new. Posthumous organ donation does have it's moral implications on either side I suppose.

If they don't care one way or another, they would do it. And there's no way anyone could "never get around to it." When you apply for an ID card or a Driver's License, there's a very clear box which you have to fill out asking you if you'd like to be an organ donor. You either check yes or no, it's a very simple process.



It's not just tradition, it's about respect. Why exactly do you think the tradition started? It's a whole part of humanity. Burial of the dead is one of the biggest examples of the evolution of the human mind. We do not progress towards complete apathy when it comes to the dead, we progress away from it.

Now, why should we stick to the tradition when it comes to a dead baby who doesn't know what to believe? Well, if there's any possibility that in the future the baby might not have wanted its skin torn off to go to makeup research, then they probably shouldn't go down that road.



And a lot of people have life insurance.

And I'm sure it would be free to go out and bury someone yourself.



So if it's not up to you to decide what people will do with their bodies after they die, why shouldn't there be a negative reaction when it takes place?



Then they can't give consent, can they?

A fetus also lacks any kind of organ that would be helpful for medical donation.




Alright, how about it's their body, not yours.



It may improve the product, but so can adult skin tissue. Why don't they use that? That way people can actually give consent.

How do you know that? As far as I recall, if you tick "Yes", there are further questions you have to answer; which organs you are willing to donate, for instance. "I can't be bothered doing the whole section so I'll just check 'no'."



If.



Respecting someone who is no longer conscious of that respect. Ultimately you're only making yourself feel better.



I really don't care. You're still clinging to this "tradition" argument as though it actually has any merit.



So is cruelty.



Yes indeed. Our advanced intellect makes us the only animal on earth capable of coming up with (and placing a great deal of importance on) such fantastically pointless rituals.



If there's any possibility that the baby might not have wanted to be buried, they shouldn't go down that road.

Also, how come this doesn't apply to adults? "Yeah, he did say he wanted to be a donor, but there's a POSSIBILITY that he might have changed his mind since then or in the future! Therefore we must bury him!"



A lot of people don't.



I'm not really sure about the laws regarding this, but I'm pretty sure most places wouldn't take kindly to people just dumping a dead body any old place.



Just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean what you're doing isn't bloody stupid, nor does it mean you will not be called out on it.



...and yet the hospital went right on ahead and accepted the fetus. Wow, that's weird that they would accept the donation and do all that paperwork and everything when they weren't even getting a viable specimen. Clearly those medical people have no idea what they're doing.

Incidentally, ever heard of stem cells?



And? You're still basing this on the hypothetical result of a decision that they have no capacity to even understand, let alone make. How do you know they wouldn't have wanted to be a donor?



I don't know. I'm not a skin care specialist. Maybe fetal cells are better for some reason. Or maybe they just used what they got.

This post has been edited by Secundus: Nov 6 2009, 11:48 AM

I've already said once before I'm only here because I enjoy getting other people to think deeply about their views. I'm not here to convince anyone that they're actually wrong, just trying to help getting others to actually use their brain then spout nonsense that was fed to them by someone else.

And btw, I do not oppose everything, and not everyone here agree's with each other either, not just me.



No because it isn't the same thing. A fetus (which is not a person) is still in the womb when aborted. You can't abort a child (not possible, but you can murder one) that dead child gained the rights that come along with personhood.

Yes, I know what the comment was in reference to. I have been reading the two of you debate. Do you have to comment on what everyone has to say?

Abort if I remember correctly means to end, so yeah you can abort a child.

I don't have to, no.

Kind of like you don't have to read my posts, but apparently you do it anyway.

Guys, seriously, calm down in here before I have to close this thread.

Most ground meat has fecal matter in it...

Just saying. >_>

It is all unfortunate. the cost of beauty, perhaps? Clinging onto youth so badly it has a vampiric countess bathory air about it; bathing in essenially death of youth to become younger.

But seriously; the more you learn about history, the more stuff like this seems like atrocity happens more when constant negativity is constantly bombarded and synchronistically repeating the same unpleasantness.

Does anyone ever post good news? Like events supposed to make you happy? lol

Ok, it's capital enterprise gone awry; boom I said it.

So? Your argument is grounded on the potentiality of a fetus turning into a human, and that's because you cannot prove that a fetus is a human.

This is simple, someone define what a human is.

But why is it ok to kill other organisms? Is not all life created equal?

Unfortunately, that's the problem.

So then who gave anyone the right to say a fetus is not human? How do they know it doesn't have a soul yet?

1) The United States Government

2)They don't.

EDIT: read it wrong

This post has been edited by Skadaddle09: Nov 6 2009, 11:21 PM

And who gives them the right?

Consciousness. Not just a very basic level of consciousness, but a very complex highly developed one that's human. An adult cow is very much conscious, yet we don't consider it to have our level of consciousness, so it's not human.

The people of the United States.

So if I knock you unconscious, you are no longer human?