The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

Honestly, no. But I reckon that I have more of an insight into the "pricing schemes" than most.

... Why?

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Ah, the Ludington Daily News, that hallmark of journalistic standards, respected around the globe.

How about this then:-
http://www.nrlc.org/Baby_Parts/omeara.html
http://babypartstrafficking.org/html/Overview.html

doctoremma

JC, unsurprisingly, you are presenting a severely slanted view of what's happening. There may well be objections to using human tissue in research but you have to try and be objective about it. I guess that's easier for some than others but fortunately, that's why ethics committees aren't chaired by yourself.

1. There is never (and nor should there be) any financial incentive for a woman to have an abortion, let's just be clear on that. It seems like you might try to bring this in at some point so let's get it out of the way. The money that is involved is never a payment to the woman.
2. Scientists wishing to work on human tissue need ethical approval. This will be in collaboration and agreement with a surgeon (of whatever discipline) and the proposals vetted extensively by national ethics committees and in-house checks. JC, you may or may not have heard of the Alder Hey scandal but I can assure you that since then, this process is a tight as anything in scientific research. Nobody can go shopping for body parts on the interweb.
3. The tissue is procured for scientific research. Tissue in research comes from all kinds of sources, not just terminations. People leave their bodies to science, donate surgery waste while alive etc. Now, while you may think that the language used is horrific (Leg needed, x incision at hip, etc), it is entirely necessary when trying to communciate to your surgeon the type of tissue you would like to use. There is no point pussy-footing around - that leads to mistakes and waste of time and tissue. There would be less of an issue with such clinical language when describing how you would like a tumour sample to be dissected; there is no room for anything else when describing which organ you would like to use. Of course, the part of the process that is patient-facing does not use this language.
4. A surgeon is taking the time and investing the effort into a research project. There will be a nurse/pathologist processing tissue (of any kind). I personally think it entirely appropriate that such people are reimbursed for the extra time they took to do somethign they didn't need to do. Obviously, such reimbursement is at a level reflecting their involvement. This in no way should be a profit-making process and as far as I am aware of what is my work environment, it isn't. In fact, I know of surgeons who turn down any compensation for their time on the basis that it's too complicated ethically.

So, maybe, instead of watching abortiontv.com, maybe you could actually take a bit of time to find out what happens in the real world?

Edit: pleased to see the edit on #21992.

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

JC, unsurprisingly, you are presenting a severely slanted view of what's happening. There may well be objections to using human tissue in research but you have to try and be objective about it. I guess that's easier for some than others but fortunately, that's why ethics committees aren't chaired by yourself.

1. There is never (and nor should there be) any financial incentive for a woman to have an abortion, let's just be clear on that. It seems like you might try to bring this in at some point so let's get it out of the way. The money that is involved is never a payment to the woman.
2. Scientists wishing to work on human tissue need ethical approval. This will be in collaboration and agreement with a surgeon (of whatever discipline) and the proposals vetted extensively by national ethics committees and in-house checks. JC, you may or may not have heard of the Alder Hey scandal but I can assure you that since then, this process is a tight as anything in scientific research. Nobody can go shopping for body parts on the interweb.
3. The tissue is procured for scientific research. Tissue in research comes from all kinds of sources, not just terminations. People leave their bodies to science, donate surgery waste while alive etc. Now, while you may think that the language used is horrific (Leg needed, x incision at hip, etc), it is entirely necessary when trying to communciate to your surgeon the type of tissue you would like to use. There is no point pussy-footing around - that leads to mistakes and waste of time and tissue. There would be less of an issue with such clinical language when describing how you would like a tumour sample to be dissected; there is no room for anything else when describing which organ you would like to use. Of course, the part of the process that is patient-facing does not use this language.
4. A surgeon is taking the time and investing the effort into a research project. There will be a nurse/pathologist processing tissue (of any kind). I personally think it entirely appropriate that such people are reimbursed for the extra time they took to do somethign they didn't need to do. Obviously, such reimbursement is at a level reflecting their involvement. This in no way should be a profit-making process and as far as I am aware of what is my work environment, it isn't. In fact, I know of surgeons who turn down any compensation for their time on the basis that it's too complicated ethically.

So, maybe, instead of watching abortiontv.com, maybe you could actually take a bit of time to find out what happens in the real world?

Edit: pleased to see the edit on #21992.

... and maybe if you thought about what you are so clinically promoting ... you would see the horrific evil you are associating with.
http://www.unbornintheusa.org/pages/P_bodyparts.htm

http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/human-body-parts-for-sale/

... and here is an amazing woman ... I give you 'Jane Roe', a former abortion activist, whose Supreme Court case (Roe v Wade 1973) legalised abortion in America ... and who now does her best to undo the damage that her law case (which she describes as the biggest mistake of her life) has caused:-

Jer 1:4 ¶ Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying:
5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.


.

J C

... and for all the parents out there, who have little angels in Heaven, for all kinds of different reasons, I hope the following video brings you reassurance and comfort:-

If you are a woman considering having an abortion, on my knees, I beg you to please, please don't do it.
If you are a doctor performing abortions, on my knees, I beg you to please, please don't do it.
If you are a man and your wife/girlfriend is pregnant, on my knees, I beg you to please, please protect her and stand-by her. Have the baby adopted if you are unable to rear it.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

... and can I assure everyone touched in any way by abortion that Jesus loves you ... and wants to Save you.
Mt 9:11 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to His disciples, "Why does your Teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?"
12 When Jesus heard that, He said to them, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.
13 "But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy and not sacrifice.' For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance."

May the peace and love of Jesus Christ be with you all



.

rainbow kirby

J C wrote: »

If you are a doctor performing abortions on my knees, I beg you to please, please don't do it.

Relax, nobody's trying to abort your knees :pac:

J C

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Relax, nobody's trying to abort your knees :pac:

... be still and know that Jesus Christ is Lord.

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

... and maybe if you thought about what you are so clinically promoting ... you would see the horrific evil you are associating with.

So you didn't assimilate any of post, brilliant, thanks there. How am I clinically promoting anything? Promoting what? Let's all have abortions so we can do some research? Are you mental?

JC, here's the thing. I have thought about it. I don't think abortions are necessarily evil and nor do you (by your own admission some posts ago). I think if everything was a fluffy ideal world, then great, there'd be no fetal tissue to research with. That would be a good thing, JC, and nobody would argue against that (because although you may find it hard to believe, scientists aren't baby butchers, nobody is promoting it). But it isn't a reality. End of. There is fetal tissue and if something small and even remotely good can come out of what you consider an evil act, then that has to be a good thing, surely?

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

So you didn't assimilate any of post, brilliant, thanks there. How am I clinically promoting anything? Promoting what? Let's all have abortions so we can do some research? Are you mental?

JC, here's the thing. I have thought about it. I don't think abortions are necessarily evil and nor do you (by your own admission some posts ago). I think if everything was a fluffy ideal world, then great, there'd be no fetal tissue to research with. That would be a good thing, JC, and nobody would argue against that (because although you may find it hard to believe, scientists aren't baby butchers, nobody is promoting it). But it isn't a reality. End of. There is fetal tissue and if something small and even remotely good can come out of what you consider an evil act, then that has to be a good thing, surely?

Just like any other killing of Human Beings, Abortions performed deliberately, other than in extremis i.e. 'life or death' situations, are wrong.

... and you cannot justify an intrinsically evil act by claiming that some good can come from it.
For example, if I needed a heart and you were the perfect donor, it would be intrinsically evil if somebody proceeded to deliberately kill you, even though 'some good' would come from it if I obtained your heart as a result.

Of course there is some ethically sourced foetal tissue (consented collection from spontaneous miscarriages, for example).
Equally, it is entirely ethical to harvest donor organs from people who have consented in advance and who are clinically 'brain dead' or to use bodies that are donated to Medical Science for research purposes.

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

Just like any other killing of Human Beings, Abortions performed deliberately, other than in extremis i.e. 'life or death' situations, are wrong.

Is your opinion.

J C wrote: »

... and you cannot justify an intrinsically evil act by claiming that some good can come from it.

I didn't.

J C wrote: »

For example, if I needed a heart and you were the perfect donor, it would be intrinsically evil if somebody proceeded to deliberately kill you, even though 'some good' would come from it if I obtained your heart as a result.

As I didn't do the justification bit above, this example is extraneous.

J C wrote: »

Of course there is some ethically sourced foetal tissue (consented collection from spontaneous miscarriages, for example).

...the distribution of which would involve harsh clinical descriptions, graphic dissection procedures and financial compensation. So, you don't obviously object to the procedure of tissue collection/distribution, you object to pregnancy terminations. So let's end this.

J C

Emma, Jesus loves you.

Ps 139:13 For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother's womb.
14 I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well.

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

Emma, Jesus loves you.

I hear he used that line on your Momma...

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But the individual sufferer is not sinning by being deformed or ill;
But you do believe that they are deformed because of sin, correct? That it is not the perfect form that God intended, that it is in fact a degraded form, some more degraded from the perfect standard than others? Correct?

Correct. Our fall in Adam has brought suffering in all its forms and degrees to us all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
nor is the suffering necessarily a particular judgement on that individual:
Are you suggesting it can be?

Yes. God at times sends afflictions to turn sinners out of their evil ways, or to make an example of them to others.

wolfsbane

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wicknight
Certainly. Pick any one you like from here

http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/20...-evidence.html

My fav is the "induction of multicellularity", ie a single celled organism evolved into a multi celled one, even going so far as to evolve the ability to make a primitive skin around itself.

After this happened the biologists not only had to say a new species evolved but it was in fact a new genus,

"They key out now as being in the genus Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella."

You can't really get a bigger observable evolution than that.

I await your inevitable dismissal (but but Wicknight, it was still green!! )



Hey, that's not a Chlorella vulgaris! In fact that isn't even a Chlorella, since Chlorella are single celled and this is multi-celled
Thanks, that's exactly the sort of thing I'm after. I'll do some investigation and get back to you.

Just a follow-up to help my investigation:
Within five days a colonial form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came to dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32 cells. Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has persisted in culture for about a decade.

In this colonisation, does the single-cell give up some of its functions that are essential to single-cell life (the ability to digest food, for example) in order to function as part of the multi-cell? That is, can it no longer survive on its own? Or is it still a viable single-cell organism operating in co-operation with other single-celled organisms?

Thanks.

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

I hear he used that line on your Momma...

... what do you mean?


... anyway, please listen to this amazing young Christian woman's story

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
Just like any other killing of Human Beings, Abortions performed deliberately, other than in extremis i.e. 'life or death' situations, are wrong.

doctoremma
Is your opinion.

It isn't an opinion ... it is an objective moral fact.

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
... and you cannot justify an intrinsically evil act by claiming that some good can come from it.

doctoremma
I didn't.

You did so when you said "There is fetal tissue and if something small and even remotely good can come out of what you consider an evil act, then that has to be a good thing, surely?"

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
Of course there is some ethically sourced foetal tissue (consented collection from spontaneous miscarriages, for example).

doctoremma
...the distribution of which would involve harsh clinical descriptions, graphic dissection procedures and financial compensation. So, you don't obviously object to the procedure of tissue collection/distribution, you object to pregnancy terminations. So let's end this.

I object to the production, collection and use of tissue derived from deliberately killed Human Beings.
The fact that they are amongst the most vulnerable of Humans makes it all the more reprehensible.

wrote:

doctoremma
Now, while you may think that the language used is horrific (Leg needed, x incision at hip, etc), it is entirely necessary when trying to communciate to your surgeon the type of tissue you would like to use. There is no point pussy-footing around - that leads to mistakes and waste of time and tissue.

... the fact that there is a price tag of $50 on a pair of foetal eyes, $150 for lungs and hearts ... and $999 for an eight week brain ... recovered from some abortuaries, proves that the little babies that are being killed there are not 'a bunch of cells', as some people dismissively describe the unborn Human Beings caught up in this awful business.

.

Ghost Buster

J C wrote: »

... what do you mean?


... anyway, please listen to this amazing young Christian woman's story

Errrrrr. An abortion survivor??? As in she survived being aborted?
I always thought it was a relatively simple and effectice procedure.

J C

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Errrrrr. An abortion survivor??? As in she survived being aborted?
I always thought it was a relatively simple and effectice procedure.

... yes, its usually deadly effective!!!

... but not always, apparently.

... there are over 1 million abortions in America each year ... and some babies do survive.

... and The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act was enacted by the US Congress in 2002 to protect these babies from being murdered after they are born alive in abortions.
It states that any baby that has been born alive is to be legally considered a person. As such, she or he would automatically be granted full protection under the U.S. Constitution. Other existing laws require that newborns must receive medical attention as needed. Killing a born-alive infant would be considered murder. This seems like such an obvious ethical mandate that one wonders who could possibly be against it. Some might wonder why such a bill is needed; after all, it is the traditional function of medical staff to give a baby any needed care after it has been born.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born-Alive_Infants_Protection_Act

Here is an example of a 'born alive' aborted baby that eventually died

A further twist is that the baby must be expelled fully from the birth canal before the protection of the law is granted. This resulted in the procedure known as partial-birth abortion where breech-birthed babies have the head forcefully held within the woman with the spinal chord being severed and the brain siphoned out. Alternatively, with a normal delivery, the head is delivered and the rest of the delivery is stopped and the baby is killed.
This has now been outlawed by the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act in America in 2003.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act

Apparently some abortion providers have now adopted the practice of injecting the fetus with lethal drugs before all late-term abortions - so that it is dead before delivery.

JimiTime

Just kidding;):D

Sam Vimes

JimiTime wrote: »

Just kidding;):D

That's it, you're gonna fry

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

... the fact that there is a price tag of $50 on a pair of foetal eyes, $150 for lungs and hearts ... and $999 for an eight week brain ... recovered from some abortuaries, proves that the little babies that are being killed there are not 'a bunch of cells', as some people dismissively describe the unborn Human Beings caught up in this awful business..

Have you a credible source to back up these figures? Forgive my skepticism, but it sounds fairly far fetchd.

token56

And its back, I never actually thought it would stay away for good, but one could always hope. I was also hoping the mods might secretly lock it while it was away from the spotlight, but like that Jesus fellow you cant keep it down.

JimiTime

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That's it, you're gonna fry

I just couldn't help myself, and it looks like I really have resurected it. Yes, I am a muppet:o

Damn you Galvasean [shakes fist]

monosharp

J C wrote: »

... the fact that there is a price tag of $50 on a pair of foetal eyes, $150 for lungs and hearts ... and $999 for an eight week brain ... recovered from some abortuaries, proves that the little babies that are being killed there are not 'a bunch of cells', as some people dismissively describe the unborn Human Beings caught up in this awful business.

Thats nothing, apparently in China 'baby' is used to cook meals for your health.

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/warning-not-for-the-squeamish-contains-a-graphic-photo-aborted-baby-soup/question-256503/

http://www.trosch.org/lif/baby-eat.html

*warning, may be as accurate as intelligent design. i.e > These are bs.

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

Have you a credible source to back up these figures? Forgive my skepticism, but it sounds fairly far fetchd.

The sale of foetal body parts is apparently illegal in several countries, including America. However, the costs incurred can be recovered legally.
Emma, as somebody apparently involved to some degree with this issue, has confirmed that she has no problem with the recovery and use of foetal tissue obtained in elective abortions:-

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
... does putting a price of $50 on a pair of foetal eyes, $150 for lungs and hearts ... and $999for an eight week brain ... recovered from abortuaries not disgust people enough???

doctoremma
Honestly, no. But I reckon that I have more of an insight into the "pricing schemes" than most.

Equally, doctoremma justifies the cost element on the following basis:-

doctoremma wrote: »

... A surgeon is taking the time and investing the effort into a research project. There will be a nurse/pathologist processing tissue (of any kind). I personally think it entirely appropriate that such people are reimbursed for the extra time they took to do somethign they didn't need to do. Obviously, such reimbursement is at a level reflecting their involvement. This in no way should be a profit-making process and as far as I am aware of what is my work environment, it isn't. In fact, I know of surgeons who turn down any compensation for their time on the basis that it's too complicated ethically.

The fact that you think that the commercial/research use of aborted foetal body parts and tissue, is 'far fetched' (even though the use of foetal body parts, cell lines and tissue plays a significant part in some research as well as the production of certain health products) could indicate that public transparency might need to be improved somewhat in this area.

Equally, the 'ethics' of this whole business might also benefit from more transparency and discussion as well.

For example, here is an article on the possibility of selling foetal organs for adult transplantation!!!!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-m-appel/are-we-ready-for-a-market_b_175900.html

Galvasean

JimiTime wrote: »

I just couldn't help myself, and it looks like I really have resurected it. Yes, I am a muppet:o

Damn you Galvasean [shakes fist]

I'm not the one who bumped it! [shakes fist back]
I just saw it pop back up (thinking the topic might have moved on to that new hominid found in South Africa) and suddenly everyone's talking about abortion.

J C wrote: »

The sale of foetal body parts is apparently illegal in several countries, including America. However, the costs incurred can be recovered legally

That doesn't answer my query at all. I asked, "Have you a credible source to back up these figures?" I assume by this response you mean you don't have any and are dodging the issue.
Also, curious selection of certain words in bold. Seems kind of random.

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

That doesn't answer my query at all. I asked, "Have you a credible source to back up these figures?" I assume by this response you mean you don't have any and are dodging the issue.

... Like I have said, the fact that you think that the commercial/research use of aborted foetal body parts and tissue, is 'far fetched' (even though the use of foetal body parts, cell lines and tissue plays a significant part in some research as well as the production of certain health products) could indicate that public transparency might need to be improved somewhat in this area.

Equally, the 'ethics' of this whole business might also benefit from a little more transparency as well.

Galvasean wrote: »

Also, curious selection of certain words in bold. Seems kind of random.

... a careful reading will be rewarded by an understanding of why I used bold to emphasise certain words.

Now that you seem to be asking all the questions, could I ask you, as an Evolutionist, if you believe that the use of electively aborted foetuses meets the Nuremberg Code for ethical medical experimentation?
... and if you do, how does it comply with principles 1-10 in regard to the Foetal Human Persons involved?
http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Nuremberg-Code
... or do you simply deny that a Human Being is involved ... and that the foetus is 'life undeserving of life'?

... or do you think that the Nuremberg Code has outlived its usefulness?

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

Now that you seem to be asking all the questions, could I ask you, as an Evolutionist, if you believe that the use of electively aborted foetuses meets the Nuremberg Code for ethical medical experimentation?
... and if you do, how does it comply with principles 1-10 in regard to the Foetal Human Persons involved?
http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Nuremberg-Code
... or do you simply deny that a Human Being is involved ... and that the foetus is 'life undeserving of life'?

... or do you think that the Nuremberg Code has outlived its usefulness?

After having a read of the Nuremberg Code (first time I have so actually) such a situation meets principals 2-8 and 10.
It definately does not meet principal #1 considering said fetuses are already dead and therefore cannot give consent.
#9 does not really apply as a dead foetus will not ask for experimentation to stop.
Although to be honest I do not think the Nuremberg Code applies to instances of experimentation on dead foetuses. As far as I can tell the Nuremberg Code only applies to living things.

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

After having a read of the Nuremberg Code (first time I have so actually) such a situation meets principals 2-8 and 10.
It definately does not meet principal #1 considering said fetuses are already dead and therefore cannot give consent.
#9 does not really apply as a dead foetus will not ask for experimentation to stop.
Although to be honest I do not think the Nuremberg Code applies to instances of experimentation on dead foetuses. As far as I can tell the Nuremberg Code only applies to living things.

... the Nuremberg Code applied to the ethical performance of medical research on Human Beings ... and it included safeguards against the killing of said Human Beings.
Point number 1 rules out experimentation on children and other Humans who cannot give informed consent either because of a legal or physical incapacity :-
"1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision."

Experimentation may also involve living embryos.

... so, I repeat my question, do Evolutionists ... simply deny that a Human Being is involved?

... or do they think that the Nuremberg Code has now outlived its usefulness (in regard to, at least, certain categories of Human Being)?

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

... the Nuremberg Code applied to the ethical performance of medical research on Human Beings ... and it included safeguards against the killing of said Human Beings.
Point number 1 rules out experimentation on children and other Humans who cannot give informed consent either because of a legal or physical incapacity :-
"1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision."

Experimentation may also involve living embryos.

... so, I repeat my question, do Evolutionists ... simply deny that a Human Being is involved?

... or do they think that the Nuremberg Code has now outlived its usefulness (in regard to, at least, certain categories of Human Being)?

Okay, since you are basically repeating your question I will more or less repeat my answer. I dn't think the Nuremberg Code applies here since said foetuses are already dead. As far as I can tell the Nuremberge Code only applies to living people. Corpses do not apply as something which is dead cannot give consent. For the record, I do not consider said corpses to be human beings as I believe you stop being human when you die so to speak.
I know you said, "Experimentation may also involve living embryos", but I am fairly certain that is aside from the point considering we are talking about terminated embryos. Or have I missed something (point it out if I have)?