Embryonic stem cell research
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
though our morals would never allow
That's an important point because while I frame the matter almost exclusively as a moral one, you're trying to frame it as a biological one. So while I want to restrict the destruction of human life in very broad terms, you want to specifically define what constitutes human life. I contend that your approach is not possible because we do not see eachother as biological entities but rather as friend, family, and dirty liberal hippies. I choose a very early definition for the creation of human life because that is the most moral approach. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
Richard Stringer wrote:
It has the POTENTIAL of becoming a human.
How do you explain the current crop of world leaders then, or even Link2006?
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001Because the sperm came from a really bad Big Grabowski[^]. I've been wanting to use this all day. :-D Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] When no one was looking, every single American woman between the ages of 18 and 32 went out and got a tatoo just above their rumpus. [link[^]]
-
espeir wrote:
I'm just applying your view of our government.
Perhaps I have been unclear, at times, in articulating my views; but I think, at least in part, your lack of willingness to even academically entertain thoughts that might conflict with your preconceptions severely limits your understanding of others. Mill articulates it well. Read "On Liberty". Try to understand what he meant by "tyranny of the majority", wrap your head around the "harm principle". Then you can disagree all you want, but at least you might actually understand my position, and that of other liberals.
I already understand your position and, as I said elsewhere, it has been discredited by history. Your numerous examples of the tyranny of the majority include such travesties as the outlawing of drinking on Sunday (but apparently you're fine with dry counties). The left's argument is a farce and is the same one used by every single dictator who has usurped their government since the beginning of time...that people need to be protected from themselves. Our Founding Fathers largely dismissed Mill, and instead placed faith in the American people along with certain protections for fundamental political rights. The greatest fear (besides disproportionate representation) with the American democratic experiment during the Continental Congress was that the people would act in their own interests and essentially vote themselves all the money in the treasury (among other things). This has not happened. The provisions in the constitution that prevent tyranny (little things...like tax-free municipal bonds) have ensured us a bright and stable democracy. If you'll take note, this thread was not about my desire to force federally funded embryonic stem cell research on an unwilling public (as you would demand if you were in my position). I'm perfectly fine with California putting up $3 billion in research money and if Bush had not vetoed it, I would not have claimed tyranny, though I be in the minority. You're changing the subject to something completely unrelated to my initial comments which, as usual, is nonsensical. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
Jason Henderson wrote:
How do I know where they are coming from if this research takes off? Will they start harvesting clones? I'd rather not pay for that with my tax money.
That's actually a good argument for Federal funding. If all of this is left to private companies, without government oversight you might very well have "clone harvesting".
Private funding does not imply the lack of laws. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
Private funding does not imply the lack of laws. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
Jason Henderson wrote:
How do I know where they are coming from if this research takes off? Will they start harvesting clones? I'd rather not pay for that with my tax money.
That's actually a good argument for Federal funding. If all of this is left to private companies, without government oversight you might very well have "clone harvesting".
Funding by Government is fundamental. It is the kickstart that Universities and private companies crave for. But the most important act a government can take is to legally define the parameters within which research is permitted. Providing such parameters are monitored by an executive agency of government then "clone harvesting" should not occur. Unfortunately, there are some governments of this world whose moral standing is below that expected by civilized governments such as USA/UK and guard against such by relevant actions.
-
espeir wrote:
Private funding does not imply the lack of laws.
No, it doesn't imply a lack of laws, there simply is a lack of laws governing what can and cannot be done.
I'm not 100% certain, but I'm pretty sure there are plenty of laws governing that. Cloning humans, for example, is illegal in the US. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
espeir wrote:
Personally, I oppose it because I find it absolutely immoral and a bit sci-fi bizarre to kill one person
The embryo is extracted when it's 2-3 weeks old, correct? Would a 3 week embryo be alive? I think it'd just be like a body part - even the brain may not have formed yet! Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. Also visit the Ultimate Toolbox blog (New)Nishant Sivakumar wrote:
Would a 3 week embryo be alive?
Well, on this hinges the entire abortion debate. It all depends on your definition of alive. It's plainly not a body part, it's a seperate entity, which has the potential to become a human being. At what point it can be defined as human is a sticky question that we've created by shoving stuff up there to get rid of it. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
-
I thought that I did. :confused: "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
And people get killed every day in car wrecks also, so why not just arbitrarily kill adult humans?
huh? WTF are talking about? You're comparing things that aren't comparable, Mr. Strawman.
Silence is the voice of complicity. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. -- monty python Might I suggest that the universe was always the size of the cosmos. It is just that at one point the cosmos was the size of a marble. -- Colin Angus Mackay
You're saying that embyros die every day. Stan is saying that if this sort of research yields results, we will be *creating* embryos to kill them. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
But no one is harvesting embryos from unwilling women.
I never said they were.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
If my wife lost the embryo for medical reasons, I would rather see it used to further medical research and potentially have some benefit to mankind than just be disposed of as medical waste.
That's two different things now isn't it? That's if you lost it anyway. If you didn't loose it already, I bet you wouldn't give it up. [edit] Which would only further prove they are something of value. [/edit] Jeremy Falcon
No one is arguing their value. My point is that if an embryo -- a blastocyst, actually -- is to be discarded anyway, it would be better used to further the cause of medicine than to further the volume of medical waste. For the record, actual trumps potential in my book. I would certainly not trade the life of a loved one for a five-day-old, questionably viable cell grouping.
-
I'm not 100% certain, but I'm pretty sure there are plenty of laws governing that. Cloning humans, for example, is illegal in the US. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
Here is a link dated June 27, 2005 that says there is no Federal law banning cloning. It says some states have banned it. While still looking I have found no Federal law on the topic. http://www.wired.com/news/technology/medtech/0,67972-0.html[^]
-
Here is a link dated June 27, 2005 that says there is no Federal law banning cloning. It says some states have banned it. While still looking I have found no Federal law on the topic. http://www.wired.com/news/technology/medtech/0,67972-0.html[^]
I'm not sure if it passed or not but I thought this (or something similar) went through: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:s.876:[^] "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
I'm not sure if it passed or not but I thought this (or something similar) went through: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:s.876:[^] "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
Jason Henderson wrote:
How do I know where they are coming from if this research takes off? Will they start harvesting clones? I'd rather not pay for that with my tax money.
That's actually a good argument for Federal funding. If all of this is left to private companies, without government oversight you might very well have "clone harvesting".
You have a point, but I don't trust the government either.
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blog -
I already understand your position and, as I said elsewhere, it has been discredited by history. Your numerous examples of the tyranny of the majority include such travesties as the outlawing of drinking on Sunday (but apparently you're fine with dry counties). The left's argument is a farce and is the same one used by every single dictator who has usurped their government since the beginning of time...that people need to be protected from themselves. Our Founding Fathers largely dismissed Mill, and instead placed faith in the American people along with certain protections for fundamental political rights. The greatest fear (besides disproportionate representation) with the American democratic experiment during the Continental Congress was that the people would act in their own interests and essentially vote themselves all the money in the treasury (among other things). This has not happened. The provisions in the constitution that prevent tyranny (little things...like tax-free municipal bonds) have ensured us a bright and stable democracy. If you'll take note, this thread was not about my desire to force federally funded embryonic stem cell research on an unwilling public (as you would demand if you were in my position). I'm perfectly fine with California putting up $3 billion in research money and if Bush had not vetoed it, I would not have claimed tyranny, though I be in the minority. You're changing the subject to something completely unrelated to my initial comments which, as usual, is nonsensical. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
espeir wrote:
I already understand your position and, as I said elsewhere, it has been discredited by history. Your numerous examples of the tyranny of the majority include such travesties as the outlawing of drinking on Sunday (but apparently you're fine with dry counties). The left's argument is a farce and is the same one used by every single dictator who has usurped their government since the beginning of time...that people need to be protected from themselves.
Given your obvious misunderstanding of my position, I've owned up to the possibility that I didn't articulate it well, and gave you an avenue of clarification. You have consistently refused, instead choosing to selectively quote isolated examples, out of context, extrapolating from them incorrectly, claiming that this supports your point. It doesn't. People don't need to be protected from themselves. Individual liberty needs to be protected from governmental control. Since you refuse to read, allow me to furnish a quote from Chapter One of On Liberty. It has become known as the "harm principle", and is fundamental to both true liberalism and libertarianism today: "The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."
espeir wrote:
Our Founding Fathers largely dismissed Mill
Must have been an interestingly pre-emptive dismissal, considering Mill wasn't born until 1803, and wrote "On Liberty" in 1859. For the record, Jefferson died in 1826, and Washington in 1799.
espeir wrote:
If you'll take note, this thread was not about my desire to force federally funded embryonic stem cell research on an un
-
No one is arguing their value. My point is that if an embryo -- a blastocyst, actually -- is to be discarded anyway, it would be better used to further the cause of medicine than to further the volume of medical waste. For the record, actual trumps potential in my book. I would certainly not trade the life of a loved one for a five-day-old, questionably viable cell grouping.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
a blastocyst, actually
You don't know much about the process. It's an embryo 2 weeks after ovulation. Half the time of the 30 day mark I was talking about.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
is to be discarded anyway
You can't prove every last embryo used was going to be discarded anyway. Thus, it's impossible for this to be a valid point.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I would certainly not trade the life of a loved one for a five-day-old, questionably viable cell grouping.
An embryo is older than five days. Keep your facts straight. And before you continue on showing you don't know much about the process I suggest you read on it a little bit. Jeremy Falcon
-
How do I know where they are coming from if this research takes off? Will they start harvesting clones? I'd rather not pay for that with my tax money.
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blogJason Henderson wrote:
How do I know where they are coming from if this research takes off? Will they start harvesting clones?
You can't be morally opposed to a possibility. It's possible I could snap tomorrow and end up in a clock tower with a high powered rifle but I doubt anyone would be morally opposed to me living my life simply due to the possibility. "The trouble with jogging is that the ice falls out of your glass." - Martin Mull
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
a blastocyst, actually
You don't know much about the process. It's an embryo 2 weeks after ovulation. Half the time of the 30 day mark I was talking about.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
is to be discarded anyway
You can't prove every last embryo used was going to be discarded anyway. Thus, it's impossible for this to be a valid point.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I would certainly not trade the life of a loved one for a five-day-old, questionably viable cell grouping.
An embryo is older than five days. Keep your facts straight. And before you continue on showing you don't know much about the process I suggest you read on it a little bit. Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
You don't know much about the process. It's an embryo 2 weeks after ovulation. Half the time of the 30 day mark I was talking about.
From the National Institute of Health:
The embryos from which human embryonic stem cells are derived are typically four or five days old and are a hollow microscopic ball of cells called the blastocyst.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
You can't prove every last embryo used was going to be discarded anyway. Thus, it's impossible for this to be a valid point.
Again, the NIH says:
Embryonic stem cells, as their name suggests, are derived from embryos. Specifically, embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro—in an in vitro fertilization clinic—and then donated for research purposes with informed consent of the donors. They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman's body.
Note the words "informed consent". The donors are, in fact, "discarding" the embryos, albeit for good cause.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
An embryo is older than five days. Keep your facts straight. And before you continue on showing you don't know much about the process I suggest you read on it a little bit.
"Keep your facts straight"? I feel like I'm still talking to espeir. Anyway, I refer you to the first quote. The page I visited is here[^]. There's also a link at the bottom of the page that will allow you to contact the National Institute of Health and help them get their facts straight.
-
espeir wrote:
I already understand your position and, as I said elsewhere, it has been discredited by history. Your numerous examples of the tyranny of the majority include such travesties as the outlawing of drinking on Sunday (but apparently you're fine with dry counties). The left's argument is a farce and is the same one used by every single dictator who has usurped their government since the beginning of time...that people need to be protected from themselves.
Given your obvious misunderstanding of my position, I've owned up to the possibility that I didn't articulate it well, and gave you an avenue of clarification. You have consistently refused, instead choosing to selectively quote isolated examples, out of context, extrapolating from them incorrectly, claiming that this supports your point. It doesn't. People don't need to be protected from themselves. Individual liberty needs to be protected from governmental control. Since you refuse to read, allow me to furnish a quote from Chapter One of On Liberty. It has become known as the "harm principle", and is fundamental to both true liberalism and libertarianism today: "The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."
espeir wrote:
Our Founding Fathers largely dismissed Mill
Must have been an interestingly pre-emptive dismissal, considering Mill wasn't born until 1803, and wrote "On Liberty" in 1859. For the record, Jefferson died in 1826, and Washington in 1799.
espeir wrote:
If you'll take note, this thread was not about my desire to force federally funded embryonic stem cell research on an un
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Given your obvious misunderstanding of my position, I've owned up to the possibility that I didn't articulate it well, and gave you an avenue of clarification. You have consistently refused, instead choosing to selectively quote isolated examples, out of context, extrapolating from them incorrectly, claiming that this supports your point. It doesn't. People don't need to be protected from themselves. Individual liberty needs to be protected from governmental control. Since you refuse to read, allow me to furnish a quote from Chapter One of On Liberty. It has become known as the "harm principle", and is fundamental to both true liberalism and libertarianism today: "The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."
Then explain where I am failing to understand your position, because I have interpreted it exactly as expressed by Mill. You believe in a government contrary to our own wherein the people are stripped of their powers to legislate by a government that is ironically overbearing in this capability. You are also hypocritical in that you state that people should be prevented from displaying the 10 commandments on public property, even though this directly contradicts the "harm principle". So you are, in fact, attempting to present a libertarian viewpoint (insomuch as legislative powers are stripped from the people) while simultaneously advocating restictive powers granted only to yourself. The end result is a totalitarian regime headed by none other than yourself. How convenient. Libertarianism (especially your corrupted version) is compatible with human only until someone decides to make his front lawn a garbage dump.
