What's right and wrong in today's society?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Friend of mine sent this to me. Appearantly, Gallup put on some kind a poll asking people what's morally right and wrong by today's standards, and while they've got charts and graphs up at the page for it, this is the data without all their extraneous text

 

SUMMARY TABLE: MORAL ACCEPTABILITY OF ISSUES

2004 May 2-4

(sorted by "morally acceptable") Morally     Morally 
                               acceptable    wrong
                                   %           %
Divorce                            66          26 

Gambling                           66          30 

The death penalty                  65          28 

Buying and wearing clothing 
made of animal fur                 63          31 

Medical testing on animals         62          32 

Sex between an unmarried 
man and woman                      60          36 

Medical research using stem 
cells obtained from human embryos  54          37

Doctor-assisted suicide            53          41

Having a baby outside of marriage  49          45

Homosexual behavior                42          54

Abortion                           40          50 

Cloning animals                    32          64

Suicide                            15          79

Cloning humans                      9          88

Married men and women 
having an affair                    7          91

Polygamy, when one husband 
has more than one wife 
at the same time                    7          91

 

 

 

What the hell? I post these parts again to make sure everyone has done a double take:

 

Sex between an unmarried 
man and woman                      60          36 

Having a baby outside of marriage  49          45

Homosexual behavior                42          54

 

Being loose and easy? Fine? Accidentally getting her preggers and having a baby raised without a "real" family? Well, we'll let it pass.

 

BUT DON'T YOU LET THOSE TWO MEN BUMP UGLIES!

 

 

I think I'll go to bed and wonder what the hell happened to the world.

[NoCalMike 0]

Michael Savage blames it on the "enemy within" LOL. He says the liberals are more dangerous then Al Qaeda.......

 

Run for the hills everybody!!

[Guest Anglesault]

I think I'll go to bed and wonder what the hell happened to the world.

I'd say it's become more accepting of homosexuals. Run this poll fifty years ago.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

It's more acceptable to execute people than to wear fur..

 

Coming soon.. Texas death row inmate Shadrick Jenkins' last words: "Fur is murder and so is this". More at 7.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I think I'll go to bed and wonder what the hell happened to the world.

I'd say it's become more accepting of homosexuals. Run this poll fifty years ago.

Fifty years ago, teenage mothers weren't such a problem. They are now, and yet rather than show concern about it, the public conciousness has simply accepted seeing a woman who's never been in a seriously committed relationship lugging a child around.

[NoCalMike 0]

the only barrier holding homosexuals back right now IMO, is that heterosexuals find homosexual sex between two males disgusting. I mean when you mention gay this or gay that, the first thing that pops up into a heterosexual's head is, "penis going into male ass" Not, oh they are two american citizens seeking equal civil rights. Hell I don't exactly find the thought to appealing in my head, but that doesn't stop me from looking past that to the bigger picture. Unfortunately, a lot of people can't or just refuse to.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I find it funny that killing animals for fur got 1 percentage point higher than killing animals for medical testing.

 

Wow, just about everything I found on that chart acceptable.

 

Wha-? I'm now wearing sandals and listening to a Phish CD?!

 

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Wow, just about everything I found on that chart acceptable.

Human cloning? That seems the be the one everybody and their brother is against. I'm not against exploring the science for informative purposes, although I don't think it cloning should be an everyday affair either ("crap, forgot to do the laundry. I'll guess I'll make myself a Laundry Clone.")

 

Wha-? I'm now wearing sandals and listening to a Phish CD?!

 

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...

 

LOL. Now to find out if "kkktookmybirkenstocksaway" is too long of a name for the board.

 

My favorite part of the poll is about how doctor-assisted suicide is so much more approved than regular ol' suicide. I guess it's not so much the voluntary self-murder aspect for everybody so much as the mess you leave behind.

[CanadianChris 0]

This one kills me:

 

The death penalty                  65          28 

Medical research using stem 
cells obtained from human embryos  54          37

 

Yeah, go ahead and kill this guy...but let's think a minute about touching those embryos. After all, they might only cure a deadly disease.

[Guest MikeSC]

This one kills me:

 

The death penalty                  65          28 

Medical research using stem 
cells obtained from human embryos  54          37

 

Yeah, go ahead and kill this guy...but let's think a minute about touching those embryos. After all, they might only cure a deadly disease.

Well, there are some differences --- not least of which is that scientists aren't holding embryonic stem cells as the end-all, be-all that supporters are.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Sources, Mike?

[Guest MikeSC]

Sources, Mike?

http://www.texlife.org/docs/smith.html

http://www.physiciansforlife.ca/stemcells.html

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

The first article was penned by an "attorney and consumer advocate." The second article had no specific author.

 

Scientists, please?

[Guest MikeSC]

The first article was penned by an "attorney and consumer advocate." The second article had no specific author.

 

Scientists, please?

Ah, a physician group is not a "specific author" for you. Got it.

 

More specific. OK.

Huhn R.D.; Umbilical cord blood stem cell transplantation and banking; National Journal of Medicine 97, 53-57; Sept. 2000

 

M.F. Pittenger et al.; Multilineage potential of adult human mesenchymal stem cells; Science 284, 143-147; April 2, 1999.

 

Uchida, N. et al.; Direct isolation of human central nervous system stem cells; Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 97, 14720-14725; Dec. 19, 2000.

 

Palmer, T.D., Schwartz, P.H., Taupin, P., Kaspar, B., Stein, S.A., Gage, F.H.; Progenitor cells from human brain after death; Nature 411, 42-43; May 3, 2001.

 

http://www.gene-watch.org/educational/stem_cells_mom.pdf

 

Still want more?

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

In an world where all is just, there'd be a link going to a plea from a scientist rejecting embryonic stem-cell research. One I could read, not just an index that one exists somewhere.

 

In a perfect utopian society, this person would not be speaking in the forum of an anti-abortion group, but I guess we can't always have what we want.

 

The PDF is educational but admits that we don't know everying and "the only way to uncover these benefits is to keep researching and learning" yet concerned that "The more we learn about early human development, the more tempted we may be to attempt to change characteristics."

 

In other words, fear that we're playing God.

 

-=Mike (well, it's my name, too)

...Still waiting for something that doesn't involve the man upstairs or Mother Nature rejecting the new proceedures.

[Guest MikeSC]

In an world where all is just, there'd be a link going to a plea from a scientist rejecting embryonic stem-cell research. One I could read, not just an index that one exists somewhere.

 

In a perfect utopian society, this person would not be speaking in the forum of an anti-abortion group, but I guess we can't always have what we want.

 

The PDF is educational but admits that we don't know everying and "the only way to uncover these benefits is to keep researching and learning" yet concerned that "The more we learn about early human development, the more tempted we may be to attempt to change characteristics."

 

In other words, fear that we're playing God.

 

-=Mike (well, it's my name, too)

...Still waiting for something that doesn't involve the man upstairs or Mother Nature rejecting the new proceedures.

I've provided you sources. If you choose to not explore them, that is your prerogative.

-=Mike

[Guest Anglesault]

It's more acceptable to execute people than to wear fur..

 

Coming soon.. Texas death row inmate Shadrick Jenkins' last words: "Fur is murder and so is this". More at 7.

I'm shocked that so many people are against fur.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Human cloning? That seems the be the one everybody and their brother is against.

I said "just about." Trying to take my words out of context, who do you think you are -- a certain news channel that's on my TV on channel 34?

 

Actually, I should revise my "just about" because I went back and counted and only agreed with 75% of those listed.

 

Downgrade my "just about" to "a whole bunch..."

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I've provided you sources. If you choose to not explore them, that is your prerogative.

          -=Mike

Huhn R.D.; Umbilical cord blood stem cell transplantation and banking; National Journal of Medicine 97, 53-57; Sept. 2000

Googled. Results are a bunch of documents on the subject that reference the article, as well as one index, but nowhere can I find the article itself.

 

M.F. Pittenger et al.; Multilineage potential of adult human mesenchymal stem cells; Science 284, 143-147; April 2, 1999.

Similar. Science Magazine's site has it archived, but wants you to pay to access it.

 

Uchida, N. et al.; Direct isolation of human central nervous system stem cells; Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 97, 14720-14725; Dec. 19, 2000.

Actually found this one. I can't understand very much of this dialogue, though, and I doubt most of us can either. If you'd break it down, it'd be appreciated.

 

Palmer, T.D., Schwartz, P.H., Taupin, P., Kaspar, B., Stein, S.A., Gage, F.H.; Progenitor cells from human brain after death; Nature 411, 42-43; May 3, 2001.

This is all that's made available.

 

And then, when asking me if I want more and I said yes and gave some specific directions that would help, you told me that you gave me all the help I would get.

 

 

 

In conclusion, this went exactly as typically expected.

[Guest MikeSC]

I've provided you sources. If you choose to not explore them, that is your prerogative.

           -=Mike

Huhn R.D.; Umbilical cord blood stem cell transplantation and banking; National Journal of Medicine 97, 53-57; Sept. 2000

Googled. Results are a bunch of documents on the subject that reference the article, as well as one index, but nowhere can I find the article itself.

 

M.F. Pittenger et al.; Multilineage potential of adult human mesenchymal stem cells; Science 284, 143-147; April 2, 1999.

Similar. Science Magazine's site has it archived, but wants you to pay to access it.

 

Uchida, N. et al.; Direct isolation of human central nervous system stem cells; Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 97, 14720-14725; Dec. 19, 2000.

Actually found this one. I can't understand very much of this dialogue, though, and I doubt most of us can either. If you'd break it down, it'd be appreciated.

 

Palmer, T.D., Schwartz, P.H., Taupin, P., Kaspar, B., Stein, S.A., Gage, F.H.; Progenitor cells from human brain after death; Nature 411, 42-43; May 3, 2001.

This]=http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v411/n6833/abs/411042a0_fs.html]This is all that's made available.

 

And then, when asking me if I want more and I said yes and gave some specific directions that would help, you told me that you gave me all the help I would get.

 

 

 

In conclusion, this went exactly as typically expected.

I'm here to assist you.

-=Mike

[CanadianChris 0]

Sources, Mike?

http://www.texlife.org/docs/smith.html

There was no "debunking" done here at all. STATS simply raised the valid issue of why other research was being ignored by the media. There was no substantive dismissal of the potential of embryonic research. Smith seemed more concerned with ethical questions (no surprise, given his background).

 

http://www.physiciansforlife.ca/stemcells.html

No substantive refuting of the benefits of ESCR here either, and even less of an attempt made. Just a statement that ESCR is unethical, and that's pretty much it. About what I'd expect from a pro-life group.

 

I find it amusing that opponents of ESCR say that you can be for abortion but against stem-cell research, while completely ignoring the other side of the coin -- that you can be against abortion but for stem-cell research.

[Vyce 0]

Some of those numbers shouldn't be surprising. Popular opinion about abortion, for example, as that poll demonstrates, has grown steadily more negative over the years.

 

I think the high number for homosexuals has everything to do with the push for gay marriage. Polls have been done ever since Lawrence v. TX was decided last year to gauge the public's opinion on homosexuality, and the disapproval numbers have grown ever since that case. I think that, in general, people are more modestly accepting of homosexuality, but the push for marriage rights has made them feel claustrophobic.

[AndrewTS 0]

I think I'll go to bed and wonder what the hell happened to the world.

I'd say it's become more accepting of homosexuals. Run this poll fifty years ago.

Fifty years ago, teenage mothers weren't such a problem. They are now, and yet rather than show concern about it, the public conciousness has simply accepted seeing a woman who's never been in a seriously committed relationship lugging a child around.

Hey, it's not right, but that's the way it is.

 

Let the gay guys and lesbians bump uglies--they're not producing any children out of it. Although two women, maybe one of them getting sperm...?

 

Well, as long as one of the women can be a strong father figure, sure.

 

No, dumbass teenage girls who are hopelessly irresponsible should not be raising kids, but society doesn't care. We'll just let them suck on the government's teet as their live-in boyfriend of the week knocks her up again, while the other poor dumb brats run around the projects half-naked. Dishes in the sink are sky-high, TV dinners crammed in the freezer, the mother or shack-up boyfriend hooked on drugs...

 

*ahem* Sorry.

 

It's more acceptable to execute people than to wear fur..

 

I'm against the death penalty, because I think those persons should be serving hard labor for the rest of their lives. If they're not going to be contributing anything to society rotting in jail, let them do something useful since our tax dollars go to support them.

 

Then if a mistake is made, well, you can still appeal. If some one is executed--oops.

[Guest wildpegasus]

This one kills me:

 

The death penalty                  65          28 

Medical research using stem 
cells obtained from human embryos  54          37

 

Yeah, go ahead and kill this guy...but let's think a minute about touching those embryos. After all, they might only cure a deadly disease.

Embryos are humans so yeah I can definitely see why people would find it morally unacceptable.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Divorce - why should two people be forced to stay married if neither of them want to remain married?

 

Gambling - what can be morally wrong with a fool and his money being easily parted?

 

Buying and wearing clothing made of animal fur - I guess the 31% for morally wrong also are vegetarians?

 

Medical testing on animals/Death Penalty - I've got a compromise for everyone. Stop medical testing on animals and start doing it to inmates on death row. Everyone wins!

 

Sex between an unmarried man and woman - you know the whole milk/cow deal by now.

 

Medical research using stem cells obtained from human embryos - I'm actually surprised that this is considered acceptable and abortion isn't. I dont think you can have it both ways..

 

Abortion - Im for abortions in cases of rape or when the health of the mother is threatened.

 

Doctor-assisted suicide / Suicide - I dont get how Doctor assisted suicide is more acceptable than regular suicide. Its the same thing, just with doctor assisted, the person dying doesn't have the guts to do it themselves.

 

Having a baby outside of marriage - if two people want to have a baby but don't want to get married, then so be it.

 

Homosexual behavior - if two people of the same sex want to be in a relationship then so be it. It falls under that whole "pursuit of happiness" thing.

 

Cloning animals/humans - if I knew of one good reason for cloning, I might support animal cloning.

 

Married men and women having an affair - uh..pursuit of happiness?

 

Polygamy, when one husband has more than one wife at the same time - the 7% must be mormons.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Medical research using stem cells obtained from human embryos - I'm actually surprised that this is considered acceptable and abortion isn't. I dont think you can have it both ways..

I think it's the old thing about taking a life to save a life. A couple people here in the last few posts have stated that an embryo is a human life but I'm not sure if they realize that opinion is a point of contention.

 

Oh well, I still maintain that you can keep going and eventually reach at "STOP MASTURBATING! YOU'RE KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE!"

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Oh well, I still maintain that you can keep going and eventually reach at "STOP MASTURBATING! YOU'RE KILLING INNOCENT KITTENS!"

Edited for accuracy

 

I dont really think embryos are developed enough to be considered life forms but I can see where that would be a debatable topic. Im for the research though since theres the potential for one of those embryos to save the lives of millions of people.

[Guest wildpegasus]

Medical research using stem cells obtained from human embryos - I'm actually surprised that this is considered acceptable and abortion isn't.  I dont think you can have it both ways..

I think it's the old thing about taking a life to save a life. A couple people here in the last few posts have stated that an embryo is a human life but I'm not sure if they realize that opinion is a point of contention.

 

Oh well, I still maintain that you can keep going and eventually reach at "STOP MASTURBATING! YOU'RE KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE!"

It's not opinion that an embryo is a human being. It's a fact. It's not a tree growing inside the stomach. That's where growth starts from. When the sperm and the egg unite that's where life begins and that's when we start growing. Where else do we start growing from? It's not storks. If someone doesn't think an embryo is a human being than answer this question. When do we officially turn into a human being? 4 hours into pregnancy? 2 weeks, 3hours, 5 min and 3 1/2 seconds into pregnancy? Halfway through birth? 5 minutes after breathing air? 2 weeks after birth? 4 years after birth? Where's the EXACT cutoff point that you can say, "Oh, allright it's okay to kill the baby now because he's not human yet."? If one has to give a broad answer and say well this time span's okay to kill him/her because they're not human yet than how do you know you're just not a little bit off according to their beliefs? What makes that line of thinking any different from saying a 4 year old isn't human yet because he's not fully

developed mentally and physically yet so it's okay to kill him? Maybe we can use whatever from the dead 4 year old in a slight chance that it might cure someone down the road. The belief that an embryo isn't a human being is completely flawed.

 

Think about it. If one goes by the belief that an embryo isn't a human being yet how do you distinguish when it does? Exactly, you can not so that logic is flawed. Does the embryo become a human being when it starts to show physical charactoristics or when it starts to develop a brain? A brain grows to at least when we're 18 years and beyond that is still doing something. The brain doesn't magically appear fully grown in 1 second flat. Same thing with physical charactoristics. They just don't magically appear in 1 second and even if they did it wouldn't mean the baby wasn't human before the theoretical 1 second magical growth. So according to the "logic" that people have that an embryo only turns human when it obtains physical charactoristics/brain how do you determine when it's officially human? When the baby's brain is half formed? 3/4 formed? When he's showing half grown fingers? When the baby's half way born? Remember the brain and doesn't stop growing so we may as well not call something human even if they're 12 years old if we go by the logic of not calling embryos humans.

 

There's a quote that goes, "The longest journey starts with a single step". The first step here is when the sperm and the egg come together. The longest journey represents your onging life itself. Every step of the way or every second of your life is extreamly important as your current step would not exist without taking the previous steps. The last steps of your current journey may seem the most important because you're at you're current destination on your journey but it's really your original steps that are the most important because without them you could not have gotten to where you're at. They're as much of your growth as anything. You have to start from somewhere as you don't start partway down the trail because it's impossable.

[CanadianChris 0]

This one kills me:

 

The death penalty                  65          28 

Medical research using stem 
cells obtained from human embryos  54          37

 

Yeah, go ahead and kill this guy...but let's think a minute about touching those embryos.  After all, they might only cure a deadly disease.

Embryos are humans so yeah I can definitely see why people would find it morally unacceptable.

So are criminals, last I checked.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

But Embryos haven't killed/raped anyone, unless they're some sort of mutant super-baby...