Ben Carson wins

[TarHeelEer]

link

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

It's about to get tough for this guy.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/571671/ben-carson-defends-use-fetal-tissue-research

 

[mneilmont]

It's about to get tough for this guy.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/571671/ben-carson-defends-use-fetal-tissue-research

Playing on this line of thinking, I have solved the problem with cost of prisons.

If the procedure can be accepted on nearly new living babies, why not do a bidding war on death row individuals. Pretest etc and find the perfect match for a heart patient. Kill the inmate that is a match and sell the rest of the organs the same way,

 

[Keyser76]

Playing on this line of thinking, I have solved the problem with cost of prisons.

If the procedure can be accepted on nearly new living babies, why not do a bidding war on death row individuals. Pretest etc and find the perfect match for a heart patient. Kill the inmate that is a match and sell the rest of the organs the same way,

Nearly new living babies, you are a hoot today. So just go ahead and let the GOP run on that, ignore the statistics and go fall on their swords come next Fall.

 

[mneilmont]

Nearly new living babies, you are a hoot today. So just go ahead and let the GOP run on that, ignore the statistics and go fall on their swords come next Fall.

I am not now, nor have I ever been a spokesman to the GOP. Sorry. Which statistics am I ignoring? I thought I was offering an original thought, and you already have statistics refuting it. Really?

 

[op2]

Playing on this line of thinking, I have solved the problem with cost of prisons.

If the procedure can be accepted on nearly new living babies, why not do a bidding war on death row individuals. Pretest etc and find the perfect match for a heart patient. Kill the inmate that is a match and sell the rest of the organs the same way,

Because although at this time in certain place the state can kill/execute an inmate after a certain legal procedure, the state can't just do it whenever it likes and also even when the state does do it that state doesn't have the right to dictate what will happen to the remains. Someone that commits a bad enough crime can lose their right to live but they don't lose the right to determine what happens to their remains after death.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

Someone that commits a bad enough crime can lose their right to live but they don't lose the right to determine what happens to their remains after death.

To read it like that sounds pretty screwy. I'm not saying these types deserve our respect regarding their life, but it seems odd that we would respect their wishes regarding their body when we don't respect the life.

 

[ThatNehlenFeelin]

I'd rather hear it from someone who actually works and has conducted research in the medical field instead of some yahoo.

 

[mneilmont]

Because although at this time in certain place the state can kill/execute an inmate after a certain legal procedure, the state can't just do it whenever it likes and also even when the state does do it that state doesn't have the right to dictate what will happen to the remains. Someone that commits a bad enough crime can lose their right to live but they don't lose the right to determine what happens to their remains after death.

Under my ruling, you can. Just like going to the market - tomato or pepper

 

[op2]

To read it like that sounds pretty screwy. I'm not saying these types deserve our respect regarding their life, but it seems odd that we would respect their wishes regarding their body when we don't respect the life.

It is kinda weird, like how we busted in and put a few bullets in bin Laden's head and then gave him a semi-proper burial as dictated by his religion. But I think it's just protocol and a form of not being over the top. Consider that before a prisoner is executed we give them a final meal of their wishes. Why don't we just say "Not only are we going to execute you, we're not even going to give you a last decent meal."

I think it's a way of saying, yeah, you're losing your life, but at least we'll let you have a little dignity in the process and afterwards.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

It is kinda weird, like how we busted in and put a few bullets in bin Laden's head and then gave him a semi-proper burial as dictated by his religion. But I think it's just protocol and a form of not being over the top. Consider that before a prisoner is executed we give them a final meal of their wishes. Why don't we just say "Not only are we going to execute you, we're not even going to give you a last decent meal."

I think it's a way of saying, yeah, you're losing your life, but at least we'll let you have a little dignity in the process and afterwards.

Yeah, I get it. That was always my thinking, but the way you phrased your statement the first time it made me think differently about it.

If this person is on death row, that means they took somebody's life. Perhaps many people's lives. Upon their death, their organs could lives. The people that lost loved ones to these criminals will never get them back obviously, but it feels like it would balance the social scales a bit if this person could ultimately give life to multiple people instead of his greatest impact on society being the taking of lives.

 

[mneilmont]

Yeah, I get it. That was always my thinking, but the way you phrased your statement the first time it made me think differently about it.

If this person is on death row, that means they took somebody's life. Perhaps many people's lives. Upon their death, their organs could lives. The people that lost loved ones to these criminals will never get them back obviously, but it feels like it would balance the social scales a bit if this person could ultimately give life to multiple people instead of his greatest impact on society being the taking of lives.

How can that be wrong? Sorta like "an eye for an eye", but we are taking a little more than that. Under my system, he would know the consequences of his actions. The last meal is in his honor. My solution allows his last act to benefit humanity and potentially affect more lives than he destroyed. How can allowing him the last chance to do good for society be wrong?

The guilty SOB is being treated like PP treats a poor defenseless baby. And, some of the good folks object to this exchange. The deceased does not feel a thing. What can be wrong with the concept? Does it make a difference if we say the country is"harvesting organs"? Is that considered more appropriate?

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

How can that be wrong? Sorta like "an eye for an eye", but we are taking a little more than that. Under my system, he would know the consequences of his actions. The last meal is in his honor. My solution allows his last act to benefit humanity and potentially affect more lives than he destroyed. How can allowing him the last chance to do good for society be wrong?

The guilty SOB is being treated like PP treats a poor defenseless baby. And, some of the good folks object to this exchange. The deceased does not feel a thing. What can be wrong with the concept? Does it make a difference if we say the country is"harvesting organs"? Is that considered more appropriate?

So, I don't have a problem with it, but I also don't operate on emotion.

 

[mneilmont]

So, I don't have a problem with it, but I also don't operate on emotion.

The second time you have suggest I am operating from emotion. How and why do you detect something that doesn't exist? Do you not feel this is as reasonable as killing an unborn baby for experimental tissue or stem cell transplanted for a hoped for correction? Is that emotional or is it a well thought out parallel? The system has set the parameters. He was in violation. As required found guilty by jury of peers. No unusual punishment and carrying out dictates of the system. Is it cruel to ask him for his particulars? Happens nearly every time you visit physician, and that is acceptable by society. Stop me when you think there are acts(planned) out of emotion. There was no emotion involved, but a reasoned solution to world problems.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

The second time you have suggest I am operating from emotion. How and why do you detect something that doesn't exist? Do you not feel this is as reasonable as killing an unborn baby for experimental tissue or stem cell transplanted for a hoped for correction? Is that emotional or is it a well thought out parallel? The system has set the parameters. He was in violation. As required found guilty by jury of peers. No unusual punishment and carrying out dictates of the system. Is it cruel to ask him for his particulars? Happens nearly every time you visit physician, and that is acceptable by society. Stop me when you think there are acts(planned) out of emotion. There was no emotion involved, but a reasoned solution to world problems.

Wasn't talking about you. I can see an obvious distinction between someone who had an opportunity to make the right decisions and didn't vs a baby who never was given a chance.

 

[mneilmont]

Wasn't talking about you. I can see an obvious distinction between someone who had an opportunity to make the right decisions and didn't vs a baby who never was given a chance.

Thanks for enlightening me. You stated the facts rather eloquently.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

How can that be wrong? Sorta like "an eye for an eye", but we are taking a little more than that. Under my system, he would know the consequences of his actions. The last meal is in his honor. My solution allows his last act to benefit humanity and potentially affect more lives than he destroyed. How can allowing him the last chance to do good for society be wrong?

The guilty SOB is being treated like PP treats a poor defenseless baby. And, some of the good folks object to this exchange. The deceased does not feel a thing. What can be wrong with the concept? Does it make a difference if we say the country is"harvesting organs"? Is that considered more appropriate?

I don't think it's wrong at all. And as somebody that is eventually going to need an organ, I'm all for this kind of thing.