quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: Croc, it sounds like you agree or could agree with everything Dag said, so why is it you cannot imagine a rational person objecting to the practice?
Because I hasn't read a single reason yet, and I honestly do not see a reason myself. I understand that people are concerned about killing embryos but this is not what I am asking about. Let's get cells from dead or doomed embryos.
quote: Another of my concerns would be that they're not going to wait around for women to miscarry so they can get their stem cells. I worry about the creation of human embryos for the purpose of medical research on embryonic stem cells.
I may be afraid that my son will speed and get in an accident if I buy him a car that he needs for transportation. I will still buy a car though, and will do my best to advise him.
quote: That may not be what this veto is about; I'm less familiar with the particulars. But it is a concern.
Forget about the veto.
Posts: 114 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Let's get cells from dead or doomed embryos.
The "or doomed" has the same problems as "non-doomed" embryos. And this veto doesn't deal with "dead" embryos. It deals with ones currently in storage in IVF clinics. They may be doomed, but the they will be killed by the act of taking their stem cells.
You need to start exhibiting some good faith in this discussion. Your ongoing refutation of the reasons given belie your interest in discovering what others think on the subject.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems like common sense to me that the embryos absolutely have to be living for them to do any good. Dead cells wouldn't be able to do what is needed for medical research, right? So they have to use live cells from living embryos to do this research?
(An honest question; if we're talking about harvesting cells from miscarriages or other already-dead embryos, that makes a difference, to me.)
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: It's that you're unable to view those who disagree with you as doing so for rational reasons. This makes us think it is pointless to speak with you on the subject.
There's a lot of opinion in this statement of yours. Anyway, if you give me a reason, I'll either accept it or tell you why I think it is irrational. After that you'll have your turn. That how a discussion works I believe.
quote: When I listed a rational rationale for supporting the veto, you proceeded to list reasons why you disagreed with the rationale, which demonstrates to me that you still don't get why your original post was problematic.
I agreed (see above) that my original post was problematic in that I quoted the veto without understanding that it is mainly about money and not about principle (at least formally). I explained that the purpose of mine was to learn about the opinions of this forum on why they may think stem cell research should not be allowed. I did not agree with you about your take on what a president should do based on majority's opinion but that's another topic, let's not discuss it in parallel.
quote: You don't have to agree with the rationale to think it rational.
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: ... (An honest question; if we're talking about harvesting cells from miscarriages or other already-dead embryos, that makes a difference, to me.) [/QB]
A cell and an embryo being alive are two very different things. As far as I know, there are plenty of living cells in a half-decomposed corpse many days after death. I think that harvesting cells from a dead embryo is very similar to harvesting organs from a dead person.
Let me say once again that I do not argue (at the moment) for harvesting cells from a living embryo, much less for killing an embryo by doing so.
As with the question when the embryo is alive, it is uncertain when it is dead. If you throw just fertilized egg from the body, it is my understanding that the cell (the egg) will lose its chance of developing further much earlier than it is technically (read biologically) dead.
Posts: 114 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:The reason I, and I'm guessing MPH, has been working through allusions is to try to encourage you to take an honest look at other people's beliefs.
I frankly don't believe that you can't imagine this, and I doubt MPH does either.
Quoted here, just in case Crocobar missed it the first time.
quote:However, it is beneficial for the sake of discussion, that you examine your reason first, that it is based on reasonable assumptions, and is logical.
I think you need to examine your assumptions, namely that you know what my view on the subject is.
I haven't been advocating anything in this thread, except that it is possible for a rational person to be against spending federal money on embryonic stem cell research.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: The "or doomed" has the same problems as "non-doomed" embryos.
I agree in a sence that if it is alive, we probably should not touch it. What I meant by doomed was: if you have an "alive" embryo in a freezer, do whatever you would do with it if there were no stem cell harvesting. Once the embryo is not alive by your standards, I will get to it with a cleaver.
quote: And this veto doesn't deal with "dead" embryos.
Please, please forget the veto.
quote: It deals with ones currently in storage in IVF clinics. They may be doomed, but the they will be killed by the act of taking their stem cells.
See above.
quote: You need to start exhibiting some good faith in this discussion. Your ongoing refutation of the reasons given belie your interest in discovering what others think on the subject.
You probably meant to say that _you think_ that I need...whatever I needed. I explain why I refute the reasons, and I do not refute all that's said. I am not going to accept the reasons that are faulty just so it would prove my interest in the discussion.
Posts: 114 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would be willing to concede that there are reasons to oppose stem cell researches, though I do not personally agree with them. However, I still think that the rationale needs to extend beyond embryos are life that deserve respect. You can easily be pro-life and pro-embryonic stem cell research (Utah's Senator Hatch comes to mind).
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholar: I would be willing to concede that there are reasons to oppose stem cell researches, though I do not personally agree with them. However, I still think that the rationale needs to extend beyond embryos are life that deserve respect. You can easily be pro-life and pro-embryonic stem cell research (Utah's Senator Hatch comes to mind).
Scholar, let's get past not killing embryos first, it is proving difficult as it is.
Posts: 114 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think you need to examine your assumptions, namely that you know what my view on the subject is
I do not know your view, so I am asking.
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: ... I haven't been advocating anything in this thread, except that it is possible for a rational person to be against spending federal money on embryonic stem cell research.
We do not have a disagreement then. Only, this is beside the point, mainly because of my misleading first statement. It would be interesting to learn your opinion on the subject of the thread.
Posts: 114 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
I don't see how you can say that. You have repeatedly said that you cannot imagine a rational person doing so. Have you changed your mind?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
I don't see how you can say that. You have repeatedly said that you cannot imagine a rational person doing so. Have you changed your mind?
I am not asking about funding the research. I've explained repeatedly through this thread that my mention of the veto hasn't a place in this discussion. I agree that a rational person may be against spending money on any research. My question, however, is not about funding. Once again, forget I've ever mentioned the veto.
Posts: 114 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems you keep changing the debate. Now we're only talking about why a rational person would object to harvesting stem cells from an already-dead embryo for use in research? That is, to me, a very different situation than what actually goes on, and a very different situation than what most people object to, and a different situation than what Pres. Bush wants to ve - wait - not supposed to mention that.
So if you want a rational reason why Pres. Bush or any other person might object to stem-cell research, you can't put so many restrictions on the discussion that we're no longer talking about the things people object to.
I wouldn't personally object to using cells from an already-dead embryo for research, but I would object to using cells from a soon-to-be-dead embryo. Just like I would object to taking the eyes out of a person with a terminal disease just so we could experiment on them (he's going to die soon, he won't need them!). Of course, I object to the existence of doomed embryos in the first place. We shouldn't create life just to destroy it or just to experiment upon it.
Now. Tell me why my reason for objecting is irrational.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a very cloudy area for me, because I am not sure what I really believe about when life begins.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: It seems you keep changing the debate. Now we're only talking about why a rational person would object to harvesting stem cells from an already-dead embryo for use in research?
It only seems so. This was my original question, at least in my mind. I try to abstain from mixing this discussion with a totally different question of harvesting cells from "living" embryos because I understand that this is a question "since when the embryos are alive". Nobody has any knowledge about this but many different opinions exist based on person's beliefs. Hence the discussion would be fruitless.
quote: ... So if you want a rational reason why Pres. Bush or any other person might object to stem-cell research, you can't put so many restrictions on the discussion that we're no longer talking about the things people object to.
I don't put restrictions, only clarify what I am interested in. You are welcome to express your thoughts on any subject. It won't clarify the discussion though.
quote: I wouldn't personally object to using cells from an already-dead embryo for research...
Neither would I. That's why I wonder why would anyone.
quote: but I would object to using cells from a soon-to-be-dead embryo. Just like I would object to taking the eyes out of a person with a terminal disease just so we could experiment on them (he's going to die soon, he won't need them!). Of course, I object to the existence of doomed embryos in the first place. We shouldn't create life just to destroy it or just to experiment upon it.
Now. Tell me why my reason for objecting is irrational.
I don't think that you reason against killing living beings is irrational.
Posts: 114 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Can you imagine any reason why a rational man would suggest vetoing a bill which spends public money on something which a large segment of the population is (rationally or irrationally -- it doesn't matter) against?
Actually, a majority of the population is FOR it. According to MSN.
posted
Just to sum things up, people who object against stem cell research, really seem to object to destroying embryos only.
Apart from that there was an argument comparing using stem cells from dead embryos to using murder victims' bodies for medical experiments but it was abandoned.
I think I get the idea. However, I read a little bit about the stem cells research, and it does seem that the very first cells of an embryo are the most useful, so an issue of creating and destroying embryos solely for the purpose of harvesting the stem cells is unavoidable. If you feel like it, we can discuss it, although this is probably a matter of opinion, what is alive and what is not.
Posts: 114 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Just to sum things up, people who object against stem cell research, really seem to object to destroying embryos only.
That would be my objection, yes.
To limit the conversation to "Why would you object to stem-cell research on stem-cells harvested from dead embryos" ignores the fact that they're not harvesting from dead embryos, and therefore ignores the entire reason for the objection (my objection, anyway).
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The topic I think is more interesting about this is why our research establishment is in such a state that meaningful research can't be performed without federal funding.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Meaningful" research costs a lot. For example, even such a country as USA cannot afford experimental particle physics anymore, it is being done solely by an international effort these days. A remark about grants above was very true. There are literary no scientific institutions in USA that do not have some federal support.
Posts: 114 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Crocobar: This may be true (may be not) but I do not suggest this. There are ways to harvest stem cells after the fate of the embryo is decided, i.e. from just miscarried one-month-old embryo. It is alive from the stem cells point of view but there is no way it is going to survive.
Actually, embryonic stem cells are harvested 3-5 days after sperm and egg meet. At the age you discuss, it would be too late. Plus, I'm not sure if we realistically have the technology to collect (for lack of a better word) a "just miscarried one-month-old embryo."
I'm not sure about that, but just basing it on the difficulty doctors have in finding a heart beat until 6-8 weeks.
Posts: 50 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Can you tell us where you found that?--I'm not doubting you, I just would like to read more about the statistics.
The patient who was all-but-cured of Parkinson's is Dennis Turner. There are many websites about him and the lack of attention his amazing treatment received in the mainstream media.
Here is his testimony about his treatment in front of a Senate committee in 2004. His treatment took place in 1999.
As far as the ineffectiveness of embryonic stem cell treatments, it's hard to prove a negative. My best suggestion would be to keep asking for examples of people successfully treated with them. That will end the conversation because there aren't any, only potential.
Posts: 50 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Then let's try this: can you imagine why anybody would have problems with using the bodies of murder victims for medical experimentation?
mph, please imagine that to some people this is not at all equivelant. Besides, we DO use the bodies of murder victims for medical emperimentation!
Its not as if we murdered them, which is the connection I think you are trying to draw? Not everyone (obviously) thinks that an embryo is alive. That said, I think Crocobar is having you on, he understands what you are saying, but acts as if he doesn't, I suppose he believes this to be in itself, believable. It isn't though.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: The topic I think is more interesting about this is why our research establishment is in such a state that meaningful research can't be performed without federal funding.
I agree. As Bill Bryon noted in a recent book, "Given the choice between producing an anti-biotic that a patient will take for a week, or anti-depressants which patients will take for the rest of their lives, drug companies, not surprisingly, choose the latter."
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:mph, please imagine that to some people this is not at all equivelant.
I didn't say it was equivalent.
But whether you or I think it is equivalent is beside the point.
Here's the point: if you can understand why a rational person would have issues with doing it with murder victims and you can understand why a rational person would view them as equivalent, then you can understand why a rational person would have issues with doing it with embryos.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Crocobar: A cell and an embryo being alive are two very different things. As far as I know, there are plenty of living cells in a half-decomposed corpse many days after death. I think that harvesting cells from a dead embryo is very similar to harvesting organs from a dead person.
Leaving aside for the moment your issues with logic and respect for the thinking processes of other people, your scientific/medical "facts" are simply wrong.
The cells in a body need oxygen. When the heart and lungs stop functioning, all the cells in the body die. Never mind waiting a few days; within a few hours (at most!) all the cells will be dead. (With the exception of those few living cells in direct contact with oxygen, like those of the corneas.)
Not surprisingly, organs must be harvested very, very shortly after death.
Also, leaving aside the technology (or lack of same) needed to collect miscarried embryos/fetuses of any gestational age, it doesn't matter. Embryonic/fetal death generally precedes a miscarriage by hours or days. By the time most miscarriages (particularly very early miscarriages) begin, it is too late. Both to save the baby, and to harvest any living cells.
Back to the practical issues. How exactly would one collect such early miscarried embryos anyway? You're talking about collecting blood, tissue fragments, other fluids, and then sorting through them for a tiny embryo.
If you are going to pose hypotheticals, I recommend reading up a bit more on the topic.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Actually, a majority of the population is FOR it. According to MSN.
I don't doubt that Americans answered this way, and again, I think it is misleadig. Because I was polled myself on this issue -- but the question was the very general "Are you opposed to stem cell research?"
That question does not divide between adult stem cell research and cord-blood research(which I am for) and embryonic stem cell research (which I am against). I cannot answer the question as it is posed by the media polls.
(edit: Last night after a local TV news story about the federal veto, they had a "poll" of viewers and the question, again was only "do you oppose stem cell research" -- not at all specifying embryonic, which is what the veto was about -- yet they were tying it to that story)
And I doubt many other Americans are even aware of the differences, or the repercussions of each. The majority of the population chooses to not educate themselves on many of the prominent issues of the day.
posted
Does a person's opinion on when life begins determine the rationality of every other conclusion they are capable of drawing? (As I mentioned previously, pretty much every opinion on when life begins is irrational, the pro choice end of the spectrum as much as the pro-life).
You say it is pretty much a matter of opinion. I guess that in a metaphysical sense it could be the case, that one's child may not have a soul until one accepts the idea. But the existence of babies whose mothers were in denial that they were ever pregnant would seem to go against that. Saying it's a matter of opinion doesn't really advance rational discussion.
I had an interesting idea while talking with some folks the other day about disproportionate violence against pregnant women, and whether our view on the unborn not really being alive feeds such violence.
It was pointed out to me how men will sometimes revert to an animal nature of killing offspring that is not theirs. In our "my child, my choice" society, it is possible that men do not see the fetus as belonging to them, even where it is their child, creating animosity toward this object in their wife's body.
There is a lot of debate on the data about violence toward pregnant women, and it seems we are a long way off in establishing good data since states have different parameters for establishing what constitutes a pregnant victim. The seminal research was that partner homocide was the leading cause of death among pregnant women, but that was a localized study.
The GAO conducted a study where they found only 2.4 (NY) to 6.6% (NM) of domestic violence reports were against pregnant women, which may not seem alarming unless you factor in what percent of women are actually pregnant at any given time. These figures only included reports where the pregnancy ended in a live birth. Also, The figure for New York didn't include New York City. see page 25
posted
Wow -- I just read the TIME article ONLINE and it really isn't too bad at presenting both viewpoints of the argument (unusual for TIME).
Again, as I said about, the question asked to most of the "populus" (where they get the 2/3rds of electorate) most likely asks about "stem cell research" in general, not specifically explaining the difference between embyronic and non-embryonic.
From that same article:
quote:The good news for all sides is that over the course of this long argument, researchers have learned more about how stem cells work, and the science has outrun the politics. Adult cells, such as those found in bone marrow, were thought to be less valuable than embryonic cells, which are "pluripotent" master cells that can turn into anything from a brain cell to a toenail. But adult cells may be more elastic than scientists thought, and could offer shortcuts to treatment that embryonic cells can't match.
It isn't like embryonic stem-cell research isn't going to happen (because of this veto). It is alive and well in Europe and Singapore, etc. But federal funds shouldn't be used for research that has debateable ethics. And other stem-cell research (Adult and cord-blood) is quite acceptable here.
posted
hmm. I hear ya. I myself am in favor of stem cell research. Its certainly possible that Bush veto'd it for reasons of religious belief. But I also think a case against it can also be made based purely on a non-religous ideal.
Perhaps it is a "slippery slope". Allow this and next thing you know we'll be cloning something and so on. To me the whole idea of genetic engineering is DANGEROUS to the extreme. Like we can out-smart evolution (or creation if you so believe). Forget about religous principles and just think about the consequences of what one thing can lead to another.
All that being said, looking at the short term, I personally have a hard time understanding why they would not want to use frozen embryos, most of which are going to be tossed in the trash can anyway, to do some good for many many people that are already living today. So personally I am in favor of it. If they feel the lives of Embryos must be saved, then one could argue that every single frozen embryo ever obtained should be nurtured to become a living human being That any negligence to do this would be also intepretted the same as if they were used for medical research. How can the religous community condemon the use of these tiny frozen, ill-fated embryos for medical research, yet just silently ignore the fact that if they are instead thrown in the trash can the human life is still never to be?
For the purposes of disclosure, I consider myself agnostic.
Posts: 2 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Leaving aside for the moment your issues with logic and respect for the thinking processes of other people, your scientific/medical "facts" are simply wrong.
Leaving aside your unsubstantiated conclusions about my mental and social capabilities, none of my facts are wrong, it is how you read them. I have actually written very few facts, mostly my thoughts on the subject.
quote: The cells in a body need oxygen. When the heart and lungs stop functioning, all the cells in the body die. Never mind waiting a few days; within a few hours (at most!) all the cells will be dead. (With the exception of those few living cells in direct contact with oxygen, like those of the corneas.)
I am glad we agree on this subject. There are indeed plenty of living cells in a dead body.
quote: Not surprisingly, organs must be harvested very, very shortly after death.
This is due to the fact that you need a functioning organ rather than a few functioning individual cells.
quote: Also, leaving aside the technology (or lack of same) needed to collect miscarried embryos/fetuses of any gestational age, it doesn't matter. Embryonic/fetal death generally precedes a miscarriage by hours or days. By the time most miscarriages (particularly very early miscarriages) begin, it is too late. Both to save the baby, and to harvest any living cells.
Back to the practical issues. How exactly would one collect such early miscarried embryos anyway? You're talking about collecting blood, tissue fragments, other fluids, and then sorting through them for a tiny embryo.
I wrote "i.e. from just miscarried one-month-old embryo". I am guessing it was either "i." or "e." in "i.e." that got you puzzled. EDIT: I feel obligated to point out that that was sarcasm, I do not really think you misunderstood "i.e." I do think that you have either missed or forgotten that I'd used one-month-olds as an example and not as a preferable choice of a stem cell source though.
quote: If you are going to pose hypotheticals, I recommend reading up a bit more on the topic.
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Does a person's opinion on when life begins determine the rationality of every other conclusion they are capable of drawing? (As I mentioned previously, pretty much every opinion on when life begins is irrational, the pro choice end of the spectrum as much as the pro-life).
You say it is pretty much a matter of opinion. I guess that in a metaphysical sense it could be the case, that one's child may not have a soul until one accepts the idea. But the existence of babies whose mothers were in denial that they were ever pregnant would seem to go against that. Saying it's a matter of opinion doesn't really advance rational discussion...
It is either a matter of opinion or a known fact. I do not see how anyone can know that since nobody knows what cognisant life is. So it is a matter of opinion, whether it advances the discussion or not.
quote:I wrote "i.e. from just miscarried one-month-old embryo". I am guessing it was either "i." or "e." in "i.e." that got you puzzled. EDIT: I feel obligated to point out that that was sarcasm, I do not really think you misunderstood "i.e." I do think that you have either missed or forgotten that I'd used one-month-olds as an example and not as a preferable choice of a stem cell source though.
I'm not really interested in taking part in the conversation in its entirety, but perhaps if you'd correctly used "e.g." to indicate an example, rather than incorrectly using "i.e.," it wouldn't have confused rivka. And I feel obligated to point out that had you not been being sarcastic, I wouldn't have mentioned it.
Posts: 6213 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: [QUOTE] Here's the point: if you can understand why a rational person would have issues with doing it with murder victims and you can understand why a rational person would view them as equivalent, then you can understand why a rational person would have issues with doing it with embryos.
Well, in that case I DON'T understand how you can view experimenting on murder victims in the same way as experimenting on Embryos. I mean, aren't you claiming that embryos are alive?? Murder victims are, sadly, already dead, and their families can decide what is to be done with their bodies. How can you see that as an equivelant? It doesn't make sense the way you put it.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That I can agree with. But now I want to know- do you consider stem cells to be dead, or not alive? If you see the distinction I am going for- because I don't think (though I am not very knowledgeable) that DEAD stem cells are good for experimentation. The whole thing requires them to be biologically "living," or not dead.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And your moral/ethical code comes from..? If you consider yourself rational, you won't have a problem with understanding that everything derived from your religious beliefs may not be taken as valid by someone who does not share your beliefs.
I find this very insulting. People choose their religions because said religion lines up with their own moral/ethic code, not the other way round. Or do you mean to imply we're all brainwashed?
I think the problem in this debate is too many people are choosing to define life as "consciousness". If you abort a fetus in (from?) the womb before it's conscious, you're not taking away it's consciousness (where a large number of people now suddenly think it's no longer okay to have an abortion), but you are taking away its life.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I wrote "i.e. from just miscarried one-month-old embryo". I am guessing it was either "i." or "e." in "i.e." that got you puzzled. EDIT: I feel obligated to point out that that was sarcasm, I do not really think you misunderstood "i.e." I do think that you have either missed or forgotten that I'd used one-month-olds as an example and not as a preferable choice of a stem cell source though.
I'm not really interested in taking part in the conversation in its entirety, but perhaps if you'd correctly used "e.g." to indicate an example, rather than incorrectly using "i.e.," it wouldn't have confused rivka. And I feel obligated to point out that had you not been being sarcastic, I wouldn't have mentioned it.
Hey, you were right to point that out. Although "i.e." can still be used in that context, I really meant "e.g." I probably thought about some other grammatical construct, and then changed it at the last moment so "i.e." stayed.
Posts: 114 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:And your moral/ethical code comes from..? If you consider yourself rational, you won't have a problem with understanding that everything derived from your religious beliefs may not be taken as valid by someone who does not share your beliefs.
I find this very insulting. People choose their religions because said religion lines up with their own moral/ethic code, not the other way round. Or do you mean to imply we're all brainwashed?
I did implied (although not intentionally, I just cannot help it, it follows from the arguments that I see as correct) that you most likely are either brainwashed or simply mistaken if you have faith in god. This is not at all the point I was trying to make, and I was certainly not trying to insult anyone.
I honestly do not see anything insulting in a statement that a rational person should understand that claims of his religion may not be accepted by those who have different beliefs.
If you are insulted by my implication that your moral system derives from you religion, and not the other way around, we may have a misunderstanding. As I see it, no matter how you got into your religion, after that the moral code is set for you by the religion. You previous system may coincide with it, and that may be the reason you've decided to accept this religion but this is irrelevant. Once you've joined, it is the religious teaching that tells you what's right and wrong. If you feel that this religion is right for you because your ethical system coincides with it, you do not really have faith in this god. You do not feel obligated to do as the god wants, you just happen to do so on your own. What happens if at some time you find that your ethical system deviates from the system of your religion?
quote:I think the problem in this debate is too many people are choosing to define life as "consciousness". If you abort a fetus in (from?) the womb before it's conscious, you're not taking away it's consciousness (where a large number of people now suddenly think it's no longer okay to have an abortion), but you are taking away its life.
I used the term "cognisant life" on this very purpose, I did not mean just conscience. If you oppose to taking any life, you live in denial. You take life in huge numbers every morning when you brush your teeth.
Posts: 114 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I did implied (although not intentionally, I just cannot help it, it follows from the arguments that I see as correct) that you most likely are either brainwashed or simply mistaken if you have faith in god. This is not at all the point I was trying to make, and I was certainly not trying to insult anyone.
So, let me see if I understand this. You're saying that if a person believes in god they are either delusional or dumb. But because this wasn't the particular point you were making at the time, no one should take offense. Gotcha.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
If cognisant life is the metric you're using, then wouldn't we be justified in harvesting organs from comatose patients? Rationally speaking (according to your definition of rationality), there should be nothing wrong with this.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is that I do not know how to define "cognisant". If I knew, the answer to all our problems would be simple: do not kill cognisant, otherwise do whatever you like. I would define comatose patients cognisant, at least if they have a chance to recover.
quote:Originally posted by vonk: So, let me see if I understand this. You're saying that if a person believes in god they are either delusional or dumb.
Do you honestly not see a difference between "mistaken" and "dumb"? I am mistaken quite often and I do not consider myself dumb. As for believing in god, there is no reason to believe in it, there could be no reason, otherwise it would be knowledge and not belief. A person can choose to believe in god, and many do. Those who think that they have a reason to believe in god, are in my understanding mistaken (perhaps because of some brainwashing). Those who choose to believe without a reason are in my understanding irrational.
quote: But because this wasn't the particular point you were making at the time, no one should take offense. Gotcha.
I do not see what is offensive. If I am right, it is silly to be offended by truth. If I am wrong, there is nothing to be offended by.
posted
That the moment when life begins "is irrelevant" is not an entirely inaccurate summary of why I choose to treat conception as the beginning of life.
Is a stem cell alive? I believe it's roughly equivalent to asking if a major organ is alive, in terms of the importance of that cell to the continued survival of the embryo. In the view that an embryo is a person, it would be like harvesting someone's organs not because they were on death's door, but because they were vibrantly healthy.
I guess that would make a good sci-fi story, you win and olympic gold medal and then you are broken down for parts. The Koreans are always getting pissed because they never get the honor.
Scientist lust for the use of these cells because they contain within them a mystery science does not well understand, which is how one cell can become any structure in the body.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
