Charmaine Yoest on Fox & Friends

On March 8, 2009 Dr. Charmaine Yoest appeared on Fox News Fox & Friends to discuss embryonic stem cell research. Also appearing was Dr. Art Caplan from the University of Pennsylvania.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• escr
• yoest
• fox
• caplan
• bioethics

[denisasitis]

this is ridiculous you have a real scientist debating some dumb cunt with a degree in political science, I hardly think she has anything to say on the matter worth bringing to the table

[L1zardK1n9]

you can always tell when she is in a debate the other person makes a good point she shakes her head and you can see that she has that "it not listening, im not listening" look

[Absolute21Truth]

@BluJugganaut Your definition is still subjective. Some babies develop faster than others. You cannot arrive at an exact time, say 3 months after conception when your definition moves the cells into human status. Yes, a collection of cells, actually even just one cell, is a baby. It is an autonomous human being.

[BluJugganaut]

@Absolute21Truth No, i did not admit anything like that.

A working functional brain has to have neaurons, for a start, and all the main components like the hypothalamus, Cerebrum, pituatary Gland, etc... It must also work independantly.

And once again, a collection of cells is not a baby. No where near. A collection of cells is NOT an unborn baby. It's SIMPLY a collection of cells with no instinct, independent life, or learned behaviours. It is therefore NOT a human being.

[Absolute21Truth]

@BluJugganaut So are you admitting that the "collection of cells" is a living breathing being?

A "working, functional brain" is 100% subjective. At what point is this status achieved?

The definition of "human" is simply Homo Sapien - which is achieved day one, cell one, at conception. Life AND humanity begin at conception. The unborn baby deserves the same right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and the same protection under the law as you and I.

[BluJugganaut]

@Absolute21Truth Bacteria is alive. It has DNA. Should we avoid killing all bacteria too?

A collection of cells is not yet human. A human, IMO, is one that has a working, functional brain. A collection of cells does not have that.

[Absolute21Truth]

@BluJugganaut So at what point to you make the transition from "collection of DNA" to "living breathing...being"? I said "every scientist...agree the unborn child is alive." Obviously that doesn't mean they all agree with my assertion that killing the unborn child is murder. But the fact that the cells are alive means that by definition the unborn child is alive. The real question: Is the unborn child an autonomous being? The answer: yes. The proof: DNA.

[BluJugganaut]

@Absolute21Truth There is quite a difference between a collection of DNA, and a living breathing multicellular being.

Also, you can't just say that all scientists agrees with you. Is a collection of unspecialised cells a living being?

[MEpianist]

The Vatican Newspaper gets no vote on what is "immoral"

[Absolute21Truth]

And calling someone else's beliefs a fairy tale is purely opinion. I can easily call your agnosticism a fairy tale. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Your failure to recognize anything beyond that which you deem physically evident (faith in science) I call living in a fairy tale.