People against stem-cell research in UCC

thebigcheese22

Has anyone seen these ads around the place? They're hard to miss.
Basically its saying that 70+ medical breakthroughs have come from adult stem cells and none from embryonic stem cells.

These people piss me off so much! I bet ya its some idiot Catholic group behind these ads :mad: They want people to die from diseases rather than use things that aren't useful for anything else. Effing backward idiots.

I applaud UCC for being the only university in Ireland that has the balls to do this (pissing off the Catholic Church always goes down well in my book! )

What do ye think of it? Surely they can spend that money on better stuff? ( like beneficial medical research... :rolleyes:)



*rant over*

Aodan83

Have you done any research into this? Have any medical break throughs come from embryonic stem cell research? Maybe they have a point!!
Also, who gives a flying fvck if it's a religious organisation, does their opinon mean anything less becasue of it?

hunnymonster

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0210/1233867929764.html

Mario007

thebigcheese22 wrote: »

These people piss me off so much! I bet ya its some idiot Catholic group behind these ads :mad: They want people to die from diseases rather than use things that aren't useful for anything else. Effing backward idiots.

I applaud UCC for being the only university in Ireland that has the balls to do this (pissing off the Catholic Church always goes down well in my book! )

first off you appluad UCC for having the balls to do it? ya know whats the only reason for it? the money man. its like €800 million, thats a lot of money. And they're getting all that because they're the only university in ireland to do so.

and i love your hate for the catholic church, its brilliant to know that people with these kind of ideas live 'in their PC' so we dont actually have to take ye seriously;):pac::pac:

titan18

thebigcheese22 wrote: »

Has anyone seen these ads around the place? They're hard to miss.
Basically its saying that 70+ medical breakthroughs have come from adult stem cells and none from embryonic stem cells.

These people piss me off so much! I bet ya its some idiot Catholic group behind these ads :mad: They want people to die from diseases rather than use things that aren't useful for anything else. Effing backward idiots.

I applaud UCC for being the only university in Ireland that has the balls to do this (pissing off the Catholic Church always goes down well in my book! )

What do ye think of it? Surely they can spend that money on better stuff? ( like beneficial medical research... :rolleyes:)



*rant over*

Jerry, what the hell were you drinking last night?

Tbh, even I can understand the Catholic Church's position on it.I'm not in support or against of this crap, because I dont really care about it, but still cos someone is of a different opinion to yours, you can't blame religions for being behind it.Everything has its merits.Unless you did some research into this, than you shouldn't be bothered ranting on about it, you just made yourself look like an idiot with this post.

taram

It's true no embryonic stem cells have been used to treat diseases successfully, they have a number of different features adult ones don't that'll hopefully give us treatments.

People can buy ads saying they shagged a monkey for all I care, but I think the ad with the picture of a fetus on it is messed up, as embryonic stem cells come from blastocysts, 60-100 cells, if it was in a woman it wouldn't even be implanted, never mind becoming a baby! False advertisting :P I know their problem is 'omg potential baby' but it's harvesting cells for medical science, not abortion for the craic.

KeyLimePie

I'm against it =p 100%

But it's not my decision so best of luck with them, however if I was on my deathbed with cancer I would refuse anything that came from stem cell research

btw where are they getting their stem cells?

Foxhound38

The thing of it is that I have no training or knowledge in the specifics of embryonic stem cell research, but something tells me that most or none within the Youth Defence Movement possess that knowledge either. What I do know is that people who actually know what they are talking about and have trained for years to gain that description believe that there is something to be gained by doing this kind of research, and who am I or Youth Defence to question the validity of that without offering A LOT of concrete evidence to back up my point? I don't think scientists wish to choose embryonic stem cells over adult ones for the sheer craic of it and besides, Youth Defence's use of Fetal pictures in those advertisements tells me that their argument is ideologically based, not scientific. At the end of the day, I don't believe that a ball of cells equates or outweighs the importance of developing medicines to help the currently living being. "Potential life" does not equal Baby.

Sometimes you just have to trust the experts

KeyLimePie

Foxhound38 wrote: »

The thing of it is that I have no training or knowledge in the specifics of embryonic stem cell research, but something tells me that most or none within the Youth Defence Movement possess that knowledge either. What I do know is that people who actually know what they are talking about and have trained for years to gain that description believe that there is something to be gained by doing this kind of research, and who am I or Youth Defence to question the validity of that without offering A LOT of concrete evidence to back up my point? I don't think scientists wish to choose embryonic stem cells over adult ones for the sheer craic of it and besides, Youth Defence's use of Fetal pictures in those advertisements tells me that their argument is ideologically based, not scientific. At the end of the day, I don't believe that a ball of cells equates or outweighs the importance of developing medicines to help the currently living being. "Potential life" does not equal Baby.

Sometimes you just have to trust the experts

it's not idealogical, it's moral, lot's of people believe that life starts at conception and even though this Youth Defence or whatever might be going to the extremes, approving of stem cell research means that you're approving of abortions =p

KnifeWRENCH

Just because they're against stem cell research doesn't necessarily mean they're Catholic.

But I am 100% in favour of stem cell research and I'm delighted UCC are going ahead with it. Even if it is for the money, I don't care.

taram wrote:

People can buy ads saying they shagged a monkey for all I care, but I think the ad with the picture of a fetus on it is messed up, as embryonic stem cells come from blastocysts, 60-100 cells, if it was in a woman it wouldn't even be implanted, never mind becoming a baby! False advertisting I know their problem is 'omg potential baby' but it's harvesting cells for medical science, not abortion for the craic.

Those signs really piss me off too. A lump of cells does not equal a baby ffs.

KeyLimePie wrote: »

I'm against it =p 100%

But it's not my decision so best of luck with them, however if I was on my deathbed with cancer I would refuse anything that came from stem cell research

btw where are they getting their stem cells?

Why are you so against it?

Mario007

square_igloo wrote: »

Just because they're against stem cell research doesn't necessarily mean they're Catholic.

But I am 100% in favour of stem cell research and I'm delighted UCC are going ahead with it. Even if it is for the money, I don't care.
Those signs really piss me off too. A lump of cells does not equal a baby ffs.

well especially if ya like science you must agree that they do, in the long run equate. thats pretty much like saying a picture of hitler in 1934 didn't equate to war in europe...

KnifeWRENCH

Mario007 wrote: »

well especially if ya like science you must agree that they do, in the long run equate.

If by in the long run you mean approximately 9 months, then yes the embryo will have developed into a baby by then. But embryonic stem cells are not taken from babies, they're taken from embryo (as the name would suggest)
I saw a protester who had a sign with a picture of a toddler (not an embryo or a foetus, not even a baby - a toddler) and it said "Don't use me for experiments" or something like that. Signs like that which attempt emotional manipulation really bug the hell out of me - it seemed to imply that toddlers were going to be killed and their cells taken!
That is pure bull**** and I hope those protesters won't in any way impede the progress which will be made at UCC.

Mario007 wrote:

thats pretty much like saying a picture of hitler in 1934 didn't equate to war in europe...

Godwin's Law already? This is only the twelfth post.

Mario007

square_igloo wrote: »

If by in the long run you mean approximately 9 months, then yes the embryo will have developed into a baby by then. But embryonic stem cells are not taken from babies, they're taken from embryo (as the name would suggest)
I saw a protester who had a sign with a picture of a toddler (not an embryo or a foetus, not even a baby - a toddler) and it said "Don't use me for experiments" or something like that. Signs like that which attempt emotional manipulation really bug the hell out of me - it seemed to imply that toddlers were going to be killed and their cells taken!
That is pure bull**** and I hope those protesters won't in any way impede the progress which will be made at UCC.
Godwin's Law already? This is only the twelfth post.

ha brilliant, i dont even know what Godwin's Law was, or that such a thing existed, up until now:D

well i suppose its a really touchy subject. so if ya dont like the toddler signs(which i agree with you are pretty bad attempt at trying to be emotional) what about those ones where they state that no medical use has come out of the embryo cell research as opposed to like 72 from adult cell?

D-Generate

Mario007 wrote: »

ha brilliant, i dont even know what Godwin's Law was, or that such a thing existed, up until now:D

well i suppose its a really touchy subject. so if ya dont like the toddler signs(which i agree with you are pretty bad attempt at trying to be emotional) what about those ones where they state that no medical use has come out of the embryo cell research as opposed to like 72 from adult cell?

First off I am gutted that i didn't get to point out the Godwin's Law! If only i had been online last night.
But yes those signs are correct that embryo cell research has produced no cures compared to adult cell research. Nonetheless that doesn't say that there is no merits to embryonic stem cells. It is a newer research area to adult stem cell research and due to its controversial nature it hasn't had the same research investment in it. Its not like they harvested a bunch of cells and were going to strike gold instantaneously with a lot of medical uses. Embryonic stem cells show more promise as they can be manipulated, its just unfortunate at the moment that we do not possess the knowledge or know how to fully exploit their uses. Hence we need to research the use of embryonic stem cells.

thebigcheese22

titan18 wrote: »

you just made yourself look like an idiot with this post.

Ouch Craig... I'd rather be an idiot on boards than in real life...

thebigcheese22

From the Times -

“Some alumni have even offered to hand back their degrees to the university in protest.’’

Wtf like?! It shows how irrational these people are :mad:

Also by checking out Youth Defence, you can clearly see that yhey're a bunch of nutters!(religious or not)

23rd October 1992 - The Democratic Left branch in TCD organised a picket of the Youth Defence offices, then located over the Pipers House pub on Thomas Street. As soon as the 'picket' started a few men drinking in the pub, supporters and friends of YD, bailed out with pool cues and started lashing out at the marchers

In 1998 YD adopted a tactic of directly targeting family planning clinics, using the pretext that these health care providers were 'abortion referral clinics'. The tactics used have been directly copied from Operation Rescue and other extremist groups in the United States. Occupations and pickets of both the IFPA and Marie Stopes clinics in Dublin have become regular events.

16th February 1998 - 12 Youth Defence members occupied the Marie Stopes Reproductive Choices clinic on Blessington Street. An elderly staff member was physically assaulted.

The link to the rest of this

They are clearly a bunch of irrational scumbags, using violence and intimidation to shut up those that oppose them. Fair enough if you disagree with stem-cell research, but no sane individual can support their methods surely?

Also I would love to find out who is funding this ad campaign. It seems very sinister to me.

titan18

thebigcheese22 wrote: »

Ouch Craig... I'd rather be an idiot on boards than in real life...

Who said something?Oh, its the small guy.

alastair_doom

Aodan83 wrote: »

Also, who gives a flying fvck if it's a religious organisation, does their opinon mean anything less becasue of it?

If the religious belief blinds the science of the issue, then yes it does mean less. They obviously have an agenda, and cant be trusted to be unbiased.

Aodan83

alastair_doom wrote: »

If the religious belief blinds the science of the issue, then yes it does mean less. They obviously have an agenda, and cant be trusted to be unbiased.

Touché.

thebigcheese22

Aodan83 wrote: »

Touché.

Snap...

KeyLimePie

square_igloo wrote: »

Why are you so against it?

I'm against abortion, aergo stem cell research
duh

D-Generate

KeyLimePie wrote: »

I'm against abortion, aergo stem cell research
duh

I wish abortions were allowed up to the 100th Trimester, then it wouldn't be too late for your mum to get an abortion.

thebigcheese22

D-Generate wrote: »

I wish abortions were allowed up to the 100th Trimester, then it wouldn't be too late for your mum to get an abortion.

Lol!

Ah now lads and lassies, I want a mature debate bout this...

KeyLimePie

D-Generate wrote: »

I wish abortions were allowed up to the 100th Trimester, then it wouldn't be too late for your mum to get an abortion.

I want you to do this, go into the UCC quad and find someone who's been adopted and tell them that you support abortions 100% even though that

1) you have no uterus
2)you've never gotten a girl pregnant

It's fine to sit at home, on your ass, at your laptop and say bla bla bla abortions are great but in the real world they're kinda not

bleg

KeyLimePie wrote: »

I'm against abortion, aergo stem cell research
duh

against IVF too?

Alan Smith

****ers are handing out fliers everywhere today.

soloparadox

Mario007 wrote: »

well especially if ya like science you must agree that they do, in the long run equate. thats pretty much like saying a picture of hitler in 1934 didn't equate to war in europe...

Hitler seems to be a recurring theme in their arguments:rolleyes:

thebigcheese22

They're handing out leaflets with pictures of foetuses, and also huge blow up posters of them in the Boole. Its ****ing sickening.

What if i girl had an abortion and has to walk past them between classes? :mad:

D-Generate

They don't care about those who have abortions. They see them as murderers although I would love to know whether they think girls who have had abortions should be charged as murderers. I don't understand how they can be distributing fliers on campus or having any kind of presence on campus unless they have been allowed to by the Students Union. I thought the SU need to authorize any distribution of fliers on campus.

Oh and KeyLimePie you are actually incorrect on one of those two assumptions about me. None the less though my comment was still aimed as a joke.

KeyLimePie

D-Generate wrote: »

Oh and KeyLimePie you are actually incorrect on one of those two assumptions about me. None the less though my comment was still aimed as a joke.

sarcasm doesn't write well add lol next time

Foxhound38

KeyLimePie wrote: »

I want you to do this, go into the UCC quad and find someone who's been adopted and tell them that you support abortions 100% even though that

1) you have no uterus
2)you've never gotten a girl pregnant

It's fine to sit at home, on your ass, at your laptop and say bla bla bla abortions are great but in the real world they're kinda not

Are you for real? 90% of the time it was men at that stall yesterday, and the fact that those men don't have uterus's and are unlikely to ever get pregnant gives them even less of a right to decree what a women has to do with her body.

I was at that talk last night. It was a joke, the place was packed out but I could count the amount of people under the age of 65 on two hands. If I wasn't convinced that Students for Life was nothing more than a front for Youth Defence before I am now. They had some tool from the Family Research Council (a Christian Right think-tank and lobby group masqueading as a research centre, with allegations of racism and Dominionism stacking against it - see link) on to give the "scientific" argument against ESCR. Then came the comments from the floor: there was talk of calling the gardai and charging Michael Murphy with murder, endless Nazi comparisons (when one young man stood up and appealed for the audience to not demonize the good intentions of the other side, a man who had been burning at the ears stood up inturrupting him and said "There was also another man with good intentions: Adolf Hitler!" I mean what the ****?) and rather bizzarely, praying for the consecration of Russia (as apparently told to a bunch of kids by an apparition of Mary 100 years ago). The crowd were frothing at the mouth, religious zealots and contrary to their belief, their being neither student nor faculty these Luddites should have no say in what goes on at this college!

KnifeWRENCH

I considered going to that talk, but I didn't want to attend anything that the fcuking Students for Life society was responsible for. :mad:

By your post, I know I'm right in my suspicion that this was not a debate, rather a propaganda showboat for the pro-life/anti-stem cell crowd.

Alan Smith wrote:

****ers are handing out fliers everywhere today.

Yeah I saw their stall. I was hoping a 16tonne weight would fall down and crush it, but alas the Gods were not kind to me.

However, there is a petition today to oppose the Societies' Guild's decision to reject the application for a pro-choice society. I'll definitely be along to sign that!

(I realise this thread isn't about abortion and that abortion and embryonic stem cell research are very different debates, but I just thought I'd mention this petition just in case anyone'ss interested.)

D-Generate

square_igloo wrote: »

I considered going to that talk, but I didn't want to attend anything that the fcuking Students for Life society was responsible for. :mad:

By your post, I know I'm right in my suspicion that this was not a debate, rather a propaganda showboat for the pro-life/anti-stem cell crowd.


Yeah I saw their stall. I was hoping a 16tonne weight would fall down and crush it, but alas the Gods were not kind to me.

However, there is a petition today to oppose the Societies' Guild's decision to reject the application for a pro-choice society. I'll definitely be along to sign that!

(I realise this thread isn't about abortion and that abortion and embryonic stem cell research are very different debates, but I just thought I'd mention this petition just in case anyone'ss interested.)

What were the reasons that a Pro-Choice society was rejected if there is already a Students for Life one? Was it that there were two societies with conflicting aims? Where be a petition for us to sign to try and get this society in?

Its somewhat funny that the Youth Defence and Students for Life would achieve more in keeping their mouths shut because when they open their mouths it just encourages a large number of students to become more active in taking a pro-choice stance. For instance had Students for Life not decided to hand out fliers yesterday, I seriously doubt that a Pro-Choice society would be trying to establish themselves.

thebigcheese22

I was at that talk as well Foxhound and I agree with you 100% it was mainly over 70's, I even saw a couple of nuns. It was a propeganda show that Goebbels himself would have been proud of (had to mention the Nazis! :P) My friend was taking notes on mistakes the so called 'scientist' made and it ran to 4 pages! :rolleyes:

The scene wouldnt have been out of place in 1984, with the 2 minute hate. Truly sickening :eek:

r3nu4l

KeyLimePie wrote: »

I'm against abortion, aergo stem cell research
duh

Duh! You clearly haven't a clue what you are talking about.

Just because you are against abortion does NOT mean you are against stem cell research, at least try to get your facts right before entering a debate and making statements that only make you appear ignorant and uneducated.

There are two main types of stem cells, those that come from embryos and those that come from adults. Stem cells from adults are harvested from the tissue of interest, for example bone marrow stem cells or endothelial stem cells. Adult stem cells have been used to treat disease for a long time now. The problem with an adult stem cell is that if you harvest say an endothelial stem cell, then it can only ever become an endothelial cell, whereas an embryonic stem cell can be cultured to become any type of cell, a blood cell, brain cell, liver cell etc. That's why some scientists want to focus on researching embryonic stem cells.

So you see, it's possible to support stem cell research without compromising your anti-abortion views, you just need to clarify which type you support

Ostrom

Hey guys, a friendly howdy from Maynooth!

Just to let you know, YD pulled the same crap here last night. Audience of about 250, billed as a debate between a Biology lecturer and YD & co.

The debate didnt go ahead, and there was a significant level of support for YD.


I am concerned that the groups' broader objectives and past activities seem to be overlooked by those with a reasonable level of opposition to embryonic stem cell research.

Are there any other events planned?

robp

square_igloo wrote: »

I considered going to that talk, but I didn't want to attend anything that the fcuking Students for Life society was responsible for. :mad:

By your post, I know I'm right in my suspicion that this was not a debate, rather a propaganda showboat for the pro-life/anti-stem cell crowd.


Yeah I saw their stall. I was hoping a 16tonne weight would fall down and crush it, but alas the Gods were not kind to me.

However, there is a petition today to oppose the Societies' Guild's decision to reject the application for a pro-choice society. I'll definitely be along to sign that!

I realise this thread isn't about abortion and that abortion and embryonic stem cell research are very different debates, but I just thought I'd mention this petition just in case anyone'ss interested.)

The talk was meant to be debate.
Opposing speakers were invited; they declined the invite so it was changed to a seminar as advertised by Students for Life.

I was at the talk and in fairness the speakers were balanced and explained stem research empirically. They later discussed it as a moral issue.
The stall and posters were designed to attract students but not many students turned up and leaving a rather skewed older audience, it’s unfortunate but very difficult to address. You can't just childishly assume the audience’s views are representive of the Speakers Dr David Prentice and Weasley Smith, Students for Life or Youth Defence.

In relation to the guilds decision to reject the application of pro choice society it’s surprising and Students for Life always welcome debate. It may be because the proposed society seems to be interested with dealing with just one topic abortion unlike Students for Life which deal with a broader spectrum.

nesf

The post Dudara responded to was removed since the person only registered to abuse the lot of you for your soft liberal left wing views on this matter.

thebigcheese22

nesf wrote: »

The post Dudara responded to was removed since the person only registered to abuse the lot of you for your soft liberal left wing views on this matter.

Right.... :rolleyes:

KnifeWRENCH

robp wrote: »

I was at the talk and in fairness the speakers were balanced and explained stem research empirically. They later discussed it as a moral issue.

That's not what other people are saying:

Foxhound 83: "I was at that talk last night. It was a joke, the place was packed out but I could count the amount of people under the age of 65 on two hands. If I wasn't convinced that Students for Life was nothing more than a front for Youth Defence before I am now. They had some tool from the Family Research Council (a Christian Right think-tank and lobby group masqueading as a research centre, with allegations of racism and Dominionism stacking against it - see link) on to give the "scientific" argument against ESCR."

thebigcheese22: "It was a propeganda show that Goebbels himself would have been proud of (had to mention the Nazis! ) My friend was taking notes on mistakes the so called 'scientist' made and it ran to 4 pages! "

flynn (FUCC forum): "I had to leave that 'debate' after half an hour. It wasn't a debate it was a rally. Not only that but it was tabloid trash. The guy was sensationalising everything. Big bold red writing - exaggerating everything and taking things out of context. Even their main picture is misleading. They have a picture of a fetus next to the word embryo. An embryo looks nothing like a fetus. An embryo consists of a bout 100 cells. The guy was talking about cloning and showing pictures of children with cats eyes, noses and teeth. Then you could hear all this shock and awe in the crowd like... 'i'm not going to let this happen to my kids'. The whole presentation was pathetic."

You can't just childishly assume the audience’s views are representive of the Speakers Dr David Prentice and Weasley Smith, Students for Life or Youth Defence.

Point out to me where I made that "childish assumption". If you're going to quote me and reply to my posts, at least read them properly first.

In relation to the guilds decision to reject the application of pro choice society it’s surprising and Students for Life always welcome debate. It may be because the proposed society seems to be interested with dealing with just one topic abortion unlike Students for Life which deal with a broader spectrum.

Um...what? :rolleyes:
How exactly does the SFL society deal with more?
The proposed pro-choice society is intended to deal with the issue of reproductive rights: that's a much broader spectrum than "Abortion = Murder" imo.

thebigcheese22

Um...what?
How exactly does the SFL society deal with more?
The proposed pro-choice society is intended to deal with the issue of reproductive rights: that's a much broader spectrum than "Abortion = Murder" imo.

+ 1.

I am incensed by this decision. :mad:

robp

square_igloo wrote: »

That's not what other people are saying:

Foxhound 83: "I was at that talk last night. It was a joke, the place was packed out but I could count the amount of people under the age of 65 on two hands. If I wasn't convinced that Students for Life was nothing more than a front for Youth Defence before I am now. They had some tool from the Family Research Council (a Christian Right think-tank and lobby group masqueading as a research centre, with allegations of racism and Dominionism stacking against it - see link) on to give the "scientific" argument against ESCR."

thebigcheese22: "It was a propeganda show that Goebbels himself would have been proud of (had to mention the Nazis! ) My friend was taking notes on mistakes the so called 'scientist' made and it ran to 4 pages! "

flynn (FUCC forum): "I had to leave that 'debate' after half an hour. It wasn't a debate it was a rally. Not only that but it was tabloid trash. The guy was sensationalising everything. Big bold red writing - exaggerating everything and taking things out of context. Even their main picture is misleading. They have a picture of a fetus next to the word embryo. An embryo looks nothing like a fetus. An embryo consists of a bout 100 cells. The guy was talking about cloning and showing pictures of children with cats eyes, noses and teeth. Then you could hear all this shock and awe in the crowd like... 'i'm not going to let this happen to my kids'. The whole presentation was pathetic."

Most

Point out to me where I made that "childish assumption". If you're going to quote me and reply to my posts, at least read them properly first.



Um...what? :rolleyes:
How exactly does the SFL society deal with more?
The proposed pro-choice society is intended to deal with the issue of reproductive rights: that's a much broader spectrum than "Abortion = Murder" imo.

I'm only speculating why the pro choice society was rejected.

However stem Cell research wouldnt come under so called "reproductive rights" tbh.
Euthanasia also would not come under reproductive rights.
These issues are just part of the broader spectrum dealth with.
There is much more to Students for Life than just abortion.
The society is there to give the incontrovertable facts.

The speakers always were honest about giving the facts. Its simply not reasonable or fair to label the talk as pathetic or propaganda. Its highly narrow minded to refuse to attend a talk because its organised by the opposition. Its just demonzing.

They may be embryos in question but they still are human.

I was more generally referring to Foxhound38 and D-Generate coments when I said childish assumptions. Only the first two lines of my comment were in relsponse to your post.

Aodan83

Not certain but pretty sure the pro-choice soc was denied was because it wouldn't make sense to have 2 contradicting societies(or at least 2 societies who will specifically argue with each other, such as "pro choice" and "pro-life"), and since the Students For Life got there first, they get to stay.
Bear in my mind, I could be way off. I'm runnin on what I heard someone else say. For all I know the SU are Pro-life!

thebigcheese22

robp wrote: »

The speakers always were honest about giving the facts. Its simply not reasonable or fair to label the talk as pathetic or propaganda. Its highly narrow minded to refuse to attend a talk because its organised by the opposition. Its just demonzing.

Were you at the talk? I bet you weren't coz you haven't a clue what happened there. They brought in a bad scientist (he was the only speaker I could stomach, I left after him) to spout this bull****, complete with pathetic stunts to back up his argument. Concerning the new scientific way of growing human body parts on animals etc for medical breakthroughs, he had a picture of a baby with fangs!:eek: :mad:

Spouting only your side of an argument, and twisting science and the facts to suit that particular argument is propeganda.

KnifeWRENCH

robp wrote: »

I'm only speculating why the pro choice society was rejected.

However stem Cell research wouldnt come under so called "reproductive rights" tbh.
Euthanasia also would not come under reproductive rights.
These issues are just part of the broader spectrum dealth with.
There is much more to Students for Life than just abortion.

How does the SFL deal with euthenasia? Like abortion and stem cell research, euthenasia is a practice that I am 100% in support of, and if (as I suspect) the official stance of the SFL is against euthenasia, then perhaps a "pro-euthenasia" stance could be included with the pro-choice society.

The society is there to give the incontrovertable facts.

No, it's an anti-abortion pro-life society. If it existed to give incontrovertable facts, it would have to take a neutral stance.

I was more generally referring to Foxhound38 and D-Generate coments when I said childish assumptions. Only the first two lines of my comment were in relsponse to your post.

OK, thank you for clarifying that.

titan18

thebigcheese22 wrote: »

Were you at the talk? I bet you weren't coz you haven't a clue what happened there. They brought in a bad scientist (he was the only speaker I could stomach, I left after him) to spout this bull****, complete with pathetic stunts to back up his argument. Concerning the new scientific way of growing human body parts on animals etc for medical breakthroughs, he had a picture of a baby with fangs!:eek: :mad:

Spouting only your side of an argument, and twisting science and the facts to suit that particular argument is propeganda.

I've never heard of propeganda, what's that?

And, if you left early in it then how do you know what else happened, maybe the other poster is right.

thebigcheese22

titan18 wrote: »

I've never heard of propeganda, what's that?

And, if you left early in it then how do you know what else happened, maybe the other poster is right.

Ha youre hilarious pointing out spelling mistakes... :rolleyes:
Is that your only form of humour craig?! :cool:

I was there long enough believe me. You never did biology craig so you don't know the science behind it. Dave's course is half biology so i think he'd know more than you!

Oh sorry i forgot you have a massive IQ...
Wait did you get over 500 points in the Leaving? no?!

titan18

thebigcheese22 wrote: »

Ha youre hilarious pointing out spelling mistakes... :rolleyes:
Is that your only form of humour craig?! :cool:

I was there long enough believe me. You never did biology craig so you don't know the science behind it. Dave's course is half biology so i think he'd know more than you!

Oh sorry i forgot you have a massive IQ...
Wait did you get over 500 points in the Leaving? no?!

First of all the Leaving Cert is a piece of ****, that in no way determines your intelligence, just how hard you work.

I wasnt talking to Dave, I was talking to you.You have an agenda in this, you actually dont care about it, you just think that religion has some part in it, and automatically decide to hate it, and be angry at it.

And ya, I can call you small and laugh at you, that's humour.

thebigcheese22

titan18 wrote: »

And ya, I can call you small and laugh at you, that's humour.

right...no you laughing at me is funny coz ur such a pathetic individual

Spyral

The thing of it is that I have no training or knowledge in the specifics of embryonic stem cell research, but something tells me that most or none within the Youth Defence Movement possess that knowledge either. What I do know is that people who actually know what they are talking about and have trained for years to gain that description believe that there is something to be gained by doing this kind of research, and who am I or Youth Defence to question the validity of that without offering A LOT of concrete evidence to back up my point? I don't think scientists wish to choose embryonic stem cells over adult ones for the sheer craic of it and besides, Youth Defence's use of Fetal pictures in those advertisements tells me that their argument is ideologically based, not scientific. At the end of the day, I don't believe that a ball of cells equates or outweighs the importance of developing medicines to help the currently living being. "Potential life" does not equal Baby.

Sometimes you just have to trust the experts

Many experts disagree with embryonic stem cells including the guy who pioneered it in japan afaik. Also why don't you contact youth defence and ask them rather than assume that they don't know anything about what they are talking about? Or why not look for the scientific evidence yourself and look at both sides thoroughly.

In addition, recently embryonic stem cells were used to treat a person. However they then turned into cancerous cysts..

Just because they're against stem cell research doesn't necessarily mean they're Catholic.

If the religious belief blinds the science of the issue, then yes it does mean less. They obviously have an agenda, and cant be trusted to be unbiased.

the university obviously has an agenda - money.. so should we not trust them either?

alastair_doom

Spyral wrote: »

the university obviously has an agenda - money.. so should we not trust them either?

There is no such thing as a selfless act? I'm sure if there was no money in it UCC would still want to be carrying out the research.
Every College wants to be on the cutting edge of technology, and everyone wants to cure diseases. Cant imagine they're doing it purely for the money. I'm sure any negative reports about stem cell research discovered in UCC would be reported, so yes I would trust them.