Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
God-Sent

Aborted fetus cells used in beauty creams

Recommended Posts

It is completely human down to its genetic make-up.[/b]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.[/b]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No one says you have to use the products. If you don't like it, don't use them.[/b]

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?

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.[/b]

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.

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

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

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.[/b]

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.

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

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

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.[/b]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.[/b]

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

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.[/b]

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.

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.[/b]

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 it's traditional for them to spend that money, yet you said you want that tradition to change.[/b]

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

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.[/b]

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

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

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.

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)[/b]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or they just never got around to it. Or they just don't care at all, one way or another.[/b]

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.

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.[/b]

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.

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.[/b]

And a lot of people have life insurance.

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

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[/b]

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?

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

Then they can't give consent, can they?

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

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.[/b]

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

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.[/b]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If they don't care one way or another, they would do it.[/b]

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'."

When you apply for an ID card or a Driver's License[/b]

If.

It's not just tradition, it's about respect.[/b]

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

Why exactly do you think the tradition started?[/b]

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

It's a whole part of humanity.[/b]

So is cruelty.

Burial of the dead is one of the biggest examples of the evolution of the human mind.[/b]

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.

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.[/b]

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!"

And a lot of people have life insurance.[/b]

A lot of people don't.

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

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.

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?[/b]

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.

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

...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?

Alright, how about it's their body, not yours.[/b]

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?

It may improve the product, but so can adult skin tissue. Why don't they use that?[/b]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.[/b]

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. :rolleyes:

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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?[/b]

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you have to comment on what everyone has to say?[/b]

I don't have to, no.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"When was the last time the fat sucked off the butt of a rich fat woman grew into a [fully developed] human?" -The Reincarnate[/b]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.[/b]

This is simple, someone define what a human is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately, that's the problem.[/b]

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?[/b]

1) The United States Government

2)They don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is simple, someone define what a human is.[/b]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.[/b]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×