BMW M3 Forum (E90 E92)

BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Go Back   M3Post - BMW M3 Forum > BIMMERPOST Universal Forums > Off-Topic Discussions Board > Politics/Religion
 
GT Haus
View Poll Results: Are you religious?
Religious 58 44.62%
Atheist 32 24.62%
Agnostic 40 30.77%
Voters: 130. You may not vote on this poll

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      10-30-2009, 10:50 AM   #111
carve
Major
 
carve's Avatar
 
Drives: 335i
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: usa

Posts: 1,098
iTrader: (0)

The latest and best-supported research suggests that men with a predisposition to be gay did not receive proper adequete amounts of testestorone at the stage of fetal development where male fetuses are differentiated from female (we were all female at the earliest stages of development- thus the man-nipples). They get all the physical male attributes, but parts of the brain are still a bit different. I really can't imagine many people would CHOOSE to be gay; it doesn't look like an easy lifestyle dealing with all the prejudice and health risks.

That said, government should either just get out of the marriage business, or make it all equal. Maybe they should ONLY grant civil unions between any adults, whether they are the same sex or opposite. If you want a marriage in addition to, OR INSTEAD OF that, then that's between you and your partner, your church, and your friends and family. There's no good reason for it to NOT be this way.

In fertility clinics, MANY zygotes must be created for a successful pregnancy. Once the clients give up or successfully have a child, the remaining zygotes must either be stored FOREVER, or disposed of. Instead of using these cells for research, they were flushed down the drain. Nobody benefited. Nobody is adopting zygotes. Other than the genes in those cells, they exhibit none of the qualities we think of as human yet. Instead of pining over what might be in some hypothetical universe, we have to live with the suffering of minds and fully developed humans here and now, who had to deal with immense suffering so...well...not even so the zygotes could "live" (if you call being frozen in liquid nitrogen "living"). They were disposed of anyway. They suffered to appease the egos and dogma of a bunch of religious people with too much power.

UncleWede: until you find enough people (or ANY people) willing to adopt these zygotes and carry them to term, you have ZERO argument here. If you think it's such a good idea, you should adopting them. (although this is a terrible idea; there are FULLY DEVELOPED orphans with feelings, needs and emotions who need adoption right now, and this would be one less home for them)
carve is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-30-2009, 10:56 AM   #112
shpirate87
Captain
 
Drives: 335ix
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NJ

Posts: 706
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by carve View Post
The fetuses weren't developed just for stem cell research. They were the leftover zygotes from fertility clinics, that were produced anyway. Now, instead of being used to save lives, they were disposed of. We're talking about a cluster of (or sometimes SINGLE) cell no more sentient and no more human than the thousands of skin cells you've shed while reading this thread. Nothing was gained, and thousands of fully developed people with desires, feelings, and loving families suffered and died. Not only that, but it resulted in much of the research moving to other countries where there are no such bans, setting the US many years behind our competitors in arguably the most important field of medical research in the past 50 years, if not ever.
There was NO ban on research. There was a prohibition on the use of federal funds. Many states (CA comes to mind) and private foundations dedicated billions of dollars to such research. Interestingly the money is now being directed away from embryonic stem cells which are not living up to their hype and toward adult stem cells.. See here.

The notion that anyone suffered or lives were sacrificed because the federal government was directing research money to adult stem cell research is just crap.

Quote:
Yes; the only reason to oppose gay marriage is based on religion. Everything else is a weak excuse. Can you offer a compelling secular reason?

I agree that, ideally, government should just get out of the marriage business. But, as long as they're in it, ANY group of adults should be able to
get married.
How about the reason given by the New York Court of Appeals;

"Since marriage was instituted to address the fact that sexual contact between a man and a woman naturally can result in pregnancy and childbirth, the Legislature's decision to focus on opposite-sex couples is understandable." Hernandez v. Robles, 855 N.E.2d 1, 32 (N.Y. 2006)

So you would also allow polygamy and incestuous marriages? If that is the case, what is the point of the government involving itself in any relationship at all. The purpose of marriage was to single out the one personal relationship that was most consequential to society, if that is no longer the case what is the purpose? I would have to say Nostrum is on the right track in that case.
shpirate87 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-30-2009, 11:04 AM   #113
carve
Major
 
carve's Avatar
 
Drives: 335i
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: usa

Posts: 1,098
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by shpirate87 View Post
"Since marriage was instituted to address the fact that sexual contact between a man and a woman naturally can result in pregnancy and childbirth, the Legislature's decision to focus on opposite-sex couples is understandable." Hernandez v. Robles, 855 N.E.2d 1, 32 (N.Y. 2006)


So you would also allow polygamy and incestuous marriages? If that is the case, what is the point of the government involving itself in any relationship at all. The purpose of marriage was to single out the one personal relationship that was most consequential to society, if that is no longer the case what is the purpose? I would have to say Nostrum is on the right track in that case.
I mentioned the consequences of lacking fedral funding in a prior post.

Yes: polygamy and incest should be allowed, so long as it is between consenting adults. Just because I find it distasteful doesn't mean we should interfere in people's personal lives. Good question though; why should the government involve itself in personal relationships? I think it either shouldn't, or accepting that it does, treat all personal relationships equally.

If marriages is just about babies, should we also not let infertile people marry? How about women too old to have babies...should be ban them, too? Why or why not?

Also, when the federal government confers rights and benefits to married couples not conferred to unmarried couples, it is by definition no longer just about babies.
carve is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-30-2009, 11:13 AM   #114
jaiman
Captain
 
Drives: very fast
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Toronto

Posts: 657
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by UncleWede View Post
Why not? WHO decided they weren't going to be implanted? What potential still remained?

And even before the CREATION of the zygote, WHO decided to CREATE that potential?

So, you created a zygote, and all you need is a willing womb to implant it to POTENTIALLY create the most wonderful (or evil) person the world has ever known. But instead you just flush it odwn the toilet . . . at what cost to HUMANITY as a whole? Do you know? I surely don't, but I don't know you either, nor do I necessarily trust you to make the right decision.

Of course, this is all said with extreme I'm just asking those difficult questions.

Best regards,
Wede
AFAIK, with in vitro fertalization many embryos are created as the process is not foolproof. After a pregancy is achieved, there can be embryos left over. The people trying to get pregnant have accomplished their goal, and have no use for them. And yes, they'd be flushed.

It sounds like your issue is more with the process that creates left over embryos than what actually happens to them. That's a whole other debate, and one that's pretty much been settled (from a legal and regulatory standpoint). At this point the goal should be to maximize whatever remains from in vitro.

Edit: carve beat me to it.
jaiman is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-30-2009, 11:23 AM   #115
shpirate87
Captain
 
Drives: 335ix
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NJ

Posts: 706
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by carve View Post
I mentioned the consequences of lacking fedral funding in a prior post.

Yes: polygamy and incest should be allowed, so long as it is between consenting adults. Just because I find it distasteful doesn't mean we should interfere in people's personal lives. Good question though; why should the government involve itself in personal relationships? I think it either shouldn't, or accepting that it does, treat all personal relationships equally.

If marriages is just about babies, should we also not let infertile people marry? How about women too old to have babies...should be ban them, too? Why or why not?

Also, when the federal government confers rights and benefits to married couples not conferred to unmarried couples, it is by definition no longer just about babies.
Do you feel this way about all government issued licenses or just this one? When people ask the state for a license they are asking the state to be involved. If people do not want the state to interfere in their personal lives, the answer is simple... don't ask them to get involved.

The state issues licenses for a reason. They then set conditions and restrictions on obtaining those licenses that are reasonably related to that purpose. The fact that the conditions are not 100% fool proof does not make the conditions any less legitimate. The fact that privileges are attached to a licenses is kind of the point, isn't it?
shpirate87 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-30-2009, 11:36 AM   #116
nostrum09
Second Lieutenant
 
Drives: E90 325i
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NJ

Posts: 257
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by UncleWede View Post
That's really too bad, there are so many little ones waiting for adoption, and you at least seem to have MOST of your head screwed on right
My partner and I believe that we're too busy/young to consider adoption (we have a lot of other things going on in our lives which take a lot of our time), and we're not sure that even as we get older we'd be in any less of a hectic situation. We both take our careers seriously, but, as friends and family have pointed out, things can change as you get older, so who knows.

And thanks, I do think my head is mostly screwed on right -- though sometimes it does wobble a bit

Quote:
I can't think of a single mom I know personally who has well-adjusted kids, male or female. Evne those with extended family support, the kids are whacked and usually out of control. In part many moms have to compete and compromise so that their "partner" and/or kid doesn't use it against them. Single-Mom gives up so much power to that very thing, it cripples them as a parent.

Best regards,
Wede
I can't disagree with you on the above. I can't imagine how difficult it must be to raise a child on one's own. My mom did it with my half-brother for a while (prior to her marrying my dad and prior to my birth), and he turned out okay, though I imagine that she had support from her family while she was a single mom. It's certainly not the best situation for a child, but I still think that with the right involvement from those that can put in the time and assist, it's still possible to raise good children. Then again, if they're getting help from family, it's not quite being a single mom, per se.
__________________
Current: 2008 E85 3.0i | Bright Red | Beige | Black Roof | Dark Poplar | STEP | ZPP | Navigation | Heated Seats | Premium Sound | Xenon
Current: 2006 E90 325i | Monaco Blue | Black | Aluminum | STEP | ZCW | ZPP | ZSP | iDrive | CA | Xenon | Logic7 | Sat Radio
Retired: 2003 E46 325Ci | Mystic Blue | Gray | Myrtle Wood | STEP | ZPP | ZSP | Xenon | H/K Sound
nostrum09 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      10-30-2009, 11:42 AM   #117
carve
Major
 
carve's Avatar
 
Drives: 335i
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: usa

Posts: 1,098
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by shpirate87 View Post
Do you feel this way about all government issued licenses or just this one? When people ask the state for a license they are asking the state to be involved. If people do not want the state to interfere in their personal lives, the answer is simple... don't ask them to get involved.

The state issues licenses for a reason. They then set conditions and restrictions on obtaining those licenses that are reasonably related to that purpose. The fact that the conditions are not 100% fool proof does not make the conditions any less legitimate. The fact that privileges are attached to a licenses is kind of the point, isn't it?
When the state recognizes a couple, that COUPLE gets privledges that a couple NOT recognized by the state doesn't have. That is why people ask- because the government is ALREADY involved whether they want it or not. This really isn't that complicated.

You still haven't answered my question on whether couples who can't have babies (or choose not to, for that matter) should be allowed to be married. How about gay couples who choose TO have babies, either via suragote mother/spermdonor or adoption? The fact is, marriage isn't just about procreation.
carve is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-30-2009, 11:56 AM   #118
shpirate87
Captain
 
Drives: 335ix
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NJ

Posts: 706
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by carve View Post
When the state recognizes a couple, that COUPLE gets privledges that a couple NOT recognized by the state doesn't have. That is why people ask- because the government is ALREADY involved whether they want it or not. This really isn't that complicated.

You still haven't answered my question on whether couples who can't have babies (or choose not to, for that matter) should be allowed to be married. How about gay couples who choose TO have babies, either via suragote mother/spermdonor or adoption? The fact is, marriage isn't just about procreation.
The state recognizes a couple for a reason. There is something about that couple that makes them of interest to the state. If you want the privileges, you ask to be licensed. If you meet the requirements you get the license. Is that really difficult to understand?

The question of infertility is not an issue because the state has not made proof of fertility a condition. They have set a standard that they believe properly balances the purpose of the license with the cost in dollars and intrusiveness of the requirements. Just like every other licensing scheme. As for the couples who choose not to have children, that is also not an issue. Plenty of people get licenses and do not use them for what the state intends. You can get a law license and not practice law, a drivers license and not drive, ...
shpirate87 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-30-2009, 12:10 PM   #119
nostrum09
Second Lieutenant
 
Drives: E90 325i
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NJ

Posts: 257
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by shpirate87 View Post
Do you feel this way about all government issued licenses or just this one? When people ask the state for a license they are asking the state to be involved. If people do not want the state to interfere in their personal lives, the answer is simple... don't ask them to get involved.

The state issues licenses for a reason. They then set conditions and restrictions on obtaining those licenses that are reasonably related to that purpose. The fact that the conditions are not 100% fool proof does not make the conditions any less legitimate. The fact that privileges are attached to a licenses is kind of the point, isn't it?
I agree with your position that the government [originally] had a vested interest in granting marriage licenses, as it provided an incentive for a heterosexual couple to marry, have children, and remain together, which is certainly in the best interest of the child. In today's society, however, with adoption far more widespread and likely easier to do, as well as advances in medical science which allow for artificial insemination and surrogacy, the federal government, in my opinion, no longer has as strong a case to promote children solely via heterosexual marriage. That said, I continue to stick by my proposal, which is to eliminate the government from this role. Of course, a big part of marriage involves how you are treated for tax purposes. I am a supporter of the FairTax, which if enacted would make the taxation aspect of marriage a moot point.

Do I hold this position for all types of licenses? No. I certainly support driver's licenses, since it assures the public that a person who holds such a license is at least minimally qualified to operate a motor vehicle (even though with the way some people drive, it's clear that the bar has been set too low). Having the government involved in issuing and maintaining driver's licenses is something I feel is within their purview, even if you take a small government approach. Marriage licenses, however, are not an assessment of whether or not the marriage is actually going to succeed, nor is an assessment of how "good" your marriage will be. I believe it's just a license indicating that you're not related too closely to one another, correct? In this case, the argument for why government should be involved seems dubious, at best.
__________________
Current: 2008 E85 3.0i | Bright Red | Beige | Black Roof | Dark Poplar | STEP | ZPP | Navigation | Heated Seats | Premium Sound | Xenon
Current: 2006 E90 325i | Monaco Blue | Black | Aluminum | STEP | ZCW | ZPP | ZSP | iDrive | CA | Xenon | Logic7 | Sat Radio
Retired: 2003 E46 325Ci | Mystic Blue | Gray | Myrtle Wood | STEP | ZPP | ZSP | Xenon | H/K Sound
nostrum09 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      10-30-2009, 12:18 PM   #120
shpirate87
Captain
 
Drives: 335ix
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NJ

Posts: 706
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by nostrum09 View Post
I agree with your position that the government [originally] had a vested interest in granting marriage licenses, as it provided an incentive for a heterosexual couple to marry, have children, and remain together, which is certainly in the best interest of the child. In today's society, however, with adoption far more widespread and likely easier to do, as well as advances in medical science which allow for artificial insemination and surrogacy, the federal government, in my opinion, no longer has as strong a case to promote children solely via heterosexual marriage. That said, I continue to stick by my proposal, which is to eliminate the government from this role. Of course, a big part of marriage involves how you are treated for tax purposes. I am a supporter of the FairTax, which if enacted would make the taxation aspect of marriage a moot point.

Do I hold this position for all types of licenses? No. I certainly support driver's licenses, since it assures the public that a person who holds such a license is at least minimally qualified to operate a motor vehicle (even though with the way some people drive, it's clear that the bar has been set too low). Having the government involved in issuing and maintaining driver's licenses is something I feel is within their purview, even if you take a small government approach. Marriage licenses, however, are not an assessment of whether or not the marriage is actually going to succeed, nor is an assessment of how "good" your marriage will be. I believe it's just a license indicating that you're not related too closely to one another, correct? In this case, the argument for why government should be involved seems dubious, at best.
I agree that it may be appropriate to re-look at the role that the state plays in marriage. I have no objection to the people of a state deciding freely that their interests are no longer being served by the license or by the restrictions placed on getting one. What I object to was the comment that marriage serves no legitimate secular function when it clearly does.
shpirate87 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-30-2009, 12:24 PM   #121
nostrum09
Second Lieutenant
 
Drives: E90 325i
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NJ

Posts: 257
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by carve View Post
The latest and best-supported research suggests that men with a predisposition to be gay did not receive proper adequete amounts of testestorone at the stage of fetal development where male fetuses are differentiated from female (we were all female at the earliest stages of development- thus the man-nipples). They get all the physical male attributes, but parts of the brain are still a bit different. I really can't imagine many people would CHOOSE to be gay; it doesn't look like an easy lifestyle dealing with all the prejudice and health risks.
I just want to make a clarification on the last sentence above.

Being gay has become far easier, especially for today's youth, as many kids don't seem to care one way or another. Certainly, issues can exist, whether it's due to the parents not accepting that their child may be gay, or to the anxiety that some face when thinking about how their local community or church suggests that being gay is wrong and that something might be "wrong" with them. There still is gay discrimination, but that is something that will likely never go away, just the same as discrimination against a person for virtually any other reason will never go away.

As to the health risks, it should be clear that being a homosexual, in and of itself, is not a health risk, nor does it carry any health risks. However, I will absolutely 100% admit that it is the often careless and unsafe sexual practices that an unfortunately large number of homosexuals engage in that *is* a health risk. Many homosexual advocates try to minimize the impact of HIV/AIDS in the gay community; an example of this is how in the past homosexual advocacy groups have tried to suggest that heterosexuals are just as much at risk as homosexuals, while ignoring the inherently unsafe sexual practices of many homosexual men. In the end, I think the explanation is far simpler: men are highly sexual by nature, and when you consider that male homosexuality means highly sexual men having sex with highly sexual men, and combine that with the fact that they don't have to worry about pregnancy, you have a much higher chance of those men ignoring the need to use protection. Even worse, combine the aforementioned with the club/drug scene, and it should be no wonder that homosexuality is associated with health risks.

It is a rare voice among the gay community who has the stones to actually call the community out on its own failings. I have no problem calling them out, but alas I have no platform within the gay community.
__________________
Current: 2008 E85 3.0i | Bright Red | Beige | Black Roof | Dark Poplar | STEP | ZPP | Navigation | Heated Seats | Premium Sound | Xenon
Current: 2006 E90 325i | Monaco Blue | Black | Aluminum | STEP | ZCW | ZPP | ZSP | iDrive | CA | Xenon | Logic7 | Sat Radio
Retired: 2003 E46 325Ci | Mystic Blue | Gray | Myrtle Wood | STEP | ZPP | ZSP | Xenon | H/K Sound
nostrum09 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      10-30-2009, 12:30 PM   #122
carve
Major
 
carve's Avatar
 
Drives: 335i
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: usa

Posts: 1,098
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by shpirate87 View Post
The state recognizes a couple for a reason. There is something about that couple that makes them of interest to the state. If you want the privileges, you ask to be licensed. If you meet the requirements you get the license. Is that really difficult to understand?

The question of infertility is not an issue because the state has not made proof of fertility a condition. They have set a standard that they believe properly balances the purpose of the license with the cost in dollars and intrusiveness of the requirements. Just like every other licensing scheme. As for the couples who choose not to have children, that is also not an issue. Plenty of people get licenses and do not use them for what the state intends. You can get a law license and not practice law, a drivers license and not drive, ...
I'm sorry, but you did say it was about fertility...
Quote:
Since marriage was instituted to address the fact that sexual contact between a man and a woman naturally can result in pregnancy and childbirth, the Legislature's decision to focus on opposite-sex couples is understandable."
Therefore, if it CAN'T result in childbirth, then they should not be interested, no?

I understand you have to get state approval. That fact isn't the debate; the debate is 1) is that a good idea and 2) if it is, what should the criteria be based on and why
carve is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-30-2009, 02:01 PM   #123
UncleWede
Long Time Admirer, First Time Owner
 
UncleWede's Avatar
 
Drives: E90 325i Arctic
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oxnard, CA

Posts: 2,315
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by carve View Post
UncleWede: until you find enough people (or ANY people) willing to adopt these zygotes and carry them to term, you have ZERO argument here. If you think it's such a good idea, you should adopting them. (although this is a terrible idea; there are FULLY DEVELOPED orphans with feelings, needs and emotions who need adoption right now, and this would be one less home for them)
Oh, I know I don't have the answer I just have a lot of questions. If you look above, I do understand the need for adoption.

There are things we do to change life that I'm not sure is correct. Maybe I shouldn't be asking these questions, but science developed a way to extract pig and cow insulin, and later converted little e-coli bacteria to make a human analog of insulin, so I'm still here to ask. I fully recognize that there are some very tough choices that people have to make. I've had discussions with my parents, and saw a letter my father wrote (I forget to whom) after I was diagnosed with diabetes. Should my mother and father have chosen to sterilize themselves, since they obviously didn't produce perfect offspring?

Is there a biological reason that certain couples can't conceive, that we shouldn't bow down to their ego/desire and make offspring anyways? Should there be a law that until after ALL the unadopted children find a home we shouldn't create more? Are your pets spayed/nutured?

LIFE is such an amzingly wonderful, complex thing, should we be messing with it? I still don't have an answer

Best regards,
Wede
UncleWede is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      10-30-2009, 02:11 PM   #124
UncleWede
Long Time Admirer, First Time Owner
 
UncleWede's Avatar
 
Drives: E90 325i Arctic
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oxnard, CA

Posts: 2,315
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by nostrum09 View Post
My partner and I believe that we're too busy/young to consider adoption (we have a lot of other things going on in our lives which take a lot of our time
Don't deprive yourself of the opportunity for the most wonderful, and equally horrendously stressful/challenging thing of having someone totally dependent on you. Love for your partner is a pale comparison to the sheer joy of watching that little person grow, knowing that you helped him/her. SHARING that responsibility with another will equally tear and unite you in ways that just can't be described.

Although I failed at it miserably when I tried, a good "stepping stone" you might check out is Big Brothers. Your career will NEVER give you a hug.

Best regards,
Wede
UncleWede is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      10-30-2009, 02:25 PM   #125
carve
Major
 
carve's Avatar
 
Drives: 335i
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: usa

Posts: 1,098
iTrader: (0)

UncleWede: The point I was trying to make about adoption is that there is a lot more to being a person than having at least one cell with human DNA. The skin cells you're shedding right now have that trait; the only difference is that they aren't stem cells, and you have lots of copies of them.

The unique DNA issue is a non-starter; otherwise you'd have a problem with identical twins, who DON'T have unique DNA. It's just a cell....an admitedly special cell that can become any & all parts of a person, but until that happens it is still just a cell; not a participant in the human condition. Most zygotes fail to implant naturally. Billions of sperm are wasted all the time, each of which contains a full 50% of the information needed to get that cell started.

(hey...that reminds me of a monty python sketch)
carve is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-30-2009, 02:35 PM   #126
UncleWede
Long Time Admirer, First Time Owner
 
UncleWede's Avatar
 
Drives: E90 325i Arctic
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oxnard, CA

Posts: 2,315
iTrader: (0)

And maybe I'm mis-remembering my biology, but a zygote is a much more specialized combination of sperm/egg, right? That has potential that your skin cell doesn't. The stem cells come relatively later than that, after multitudes of replication.

I'm not even close to ready to discuss when the human condition begins, and will admit my hypocrisy every time I smash a fly on my window.

Best regards,
Wede
UncleWede is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      10-30-2009, 03:09 PM   #127
carve
Major
 
carve's Avatar
 
Drives: 335i
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: usa

Posts: 1,098
iTrader: (0)

A stem cell is a cell that, as it divides, can change to become any number of different types of tissue (or just divide into more stem cells). Since the single or handful of cells in a zygote will eventually come to form every type of tissue in the human body, it's the ultimate stem cell.

Skin cells have all the information needed to make an entire individual in their DNA, but the cell itself is set up to where it can only divide into other skin cells. However, entire animals can (and have been) cloned by removing the DNA from skin cells and putting that DNA into ova, which then becomes a zygote, and thus a stem cell.
carve is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-31-2009, 10:22 AM   #128
Mighty M
First Lieutenant
 
Drives: 08 M3 Jerez/FR Manual
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vienna, VA

Posts: 304
iTrader: (0)

I say let the gay guys get married if they want. Then they can be as miserable as the rest of us.
__________________
Mighty M is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      11-16-2009, 09:05 AM   #129
rojertwose
Registered
 
Drives: sdfsdf
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: sdfds

Posts: 3
iTrader: (0)

Hey Zell.
Faith is not something that can be explained unless you have time to live my entire life experiences. DESPITE my scientific background and logical thinking, Jesus is my savior and the only way to everlasting life for me.
__________________
rojertwose is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      11-16-2009, 08:44 PM   #130
Mighty M
First Lieutenant
 
Drives: 08 M3 Jerez/FR Manual
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vienna, VA

Posts: 304
iTrader: (0)

God created gays. Or not? Created man in his own image? Well there are a ton of gay dudes out there if you havent noticed.

Hmm...
__________________
Mighty M is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      11-16-2009, 09:23 PM   #131
xbook
Lieutenant Colonel
 
xbook's Avatar
 
Drives: '14 EBII M235i & '06 R53 GP
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Northridge, CA

Posts: 1,536
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2008 E82  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mighty M View Post
I say let the gay guys get married if they want. Then they can be as miserable as the rest of us.
EXACTLY!!!!
__________________
xbook is offline   Zimbabwe
0
Reply With Quote
      11-17-2009, 06:29 PM   #132
Kroy
Brigadier General
 
Kroy's Avatar
 
Drives: E90
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Posts: 3,035
iTrader: (1)

The poll is pretty close... I didn't expect that.
Kroy is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:21 PM.




m3post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST