Embryonic stem cell research
-
espeir wrote:
That's tyranny!
That's about what I expected. By the way, you apparently still haven't familiarized yourself with the origin or the true meaning of the phrase "tyranny of the majority". To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means." Do some reading, and you'll understand why I'm not bothered by your signature.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
That's about what I expected.
I'm just applying your view of our government. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
thealj wrote:
am still waiting for you to provide me with a definition that distinguishes how a bacteria is different from a 5 day old embryonic stem cell.
Allow me to interject a personal opinion here. A fetus can be proven to be alive by subjective standards. In function at that stage it is no different than any mulicelluar life form with one outstanding difference. It has the POTENTIAL of becoming a human. It is the only object in the universe that does have that property. It is unique and as such should be viewed in perspective of its potential outcome. Richard Suppose you were an idiot... And suppose you were a member of Congress... But I repeat myself. --Mark Twain
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, 10/26/2001 -
Potential is not the right word. You are correct than an unfertalized egg, or a sperm have the potential to become human. But that is only a statistical probability. A fertilized egg is the moment of beginning, of creation. The process of an actual human life has begun. It is underway. It is on the road. It has set sail. It has taken off. Its good to go. "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
-
So, is multi-cellular life (a fetus) different from unicellular life? It takes approximately 24 hours from the time a sperm penetrates the outer barrier of the egg for the cell to commence division. Until the initial division it is considered a zygote - a unicellular object. Yet it is a unicellular object with the potential to become human and thus falls under the auspices of your definition - if you allow me to include multicellular objects in there as well. I could even take this further and bring up the Catholic church's stance on condoms and birth control, but I won't. Now, unfertilized eggs also have the potential of becoming human and they are also unique objects. When a female menstruates, such objects "go to waste", so to speak, in that they also fall under your definition. They have the potential to become human, are unicellular (like zygotes) and are the only object in the universe that has the potential to become human as such. So we cannot use unicellular vs. multicellular as a criteria for human life. So there is a problem here. Where is the distinction between life, potential life, and non-life? Let's forget about the bacteria bit as I was just using that for illustrative purposes. The inherent problem is at what point do we have something human? Clearly fertilization is an important event, but I do not believe that there is a distinct line drawn at some "magic fertilization moment" that occurs during fertilization. Obviously the situation is complicated. That being said, it is difficult to accept the veto of a president who allows abortion clinics to operate legally in the U.S. while banning embryonic stem cell research. It is hypocritical and I have a problem with that.
thealj wrote:
Until the initial division it is considered a zygote - a unicellular object. Yet it is a unicellular object with the potential to become human and thus falls under the auspices of your definition
I would assume that until celluar division had taken place that it was simply an egg. Once the egg had attached to the womb (planceta or whereever it attaches as I am no MD ) and began division that it was a potential human.
thealj wrote:
Now, unfertilized eggs also have the potential of becoming human and they are also unique objects. When a female menstruates, such objects "go to waste"
An unfertilized egg is simply that - its kinda like a quark in isolation - rather useless without its pals.
thealj wrote:
Where is the distinction between life, potential life, and non-life
This is pretty much covered in the literature is it not. It may well be, in its finer points , a subjective subject to differentiate between potential life and life itself but the difference between life and non life is fairly concrete. I am a believer in the saying "Anything that can happen - will happen" and view potential life in that light. I really don't view life in the religious portent of "the immortal soul" crapola and don't see any difference in context between a human and a sea turtle in biological processes so I assume that once a fertilized egg gets going its just a work in progress until the completed organisim is attained.
thealj wrote:
That being said, it is difficult to accept the veto of a president who allows abortion clinics to operate legally in the U.S. while banning embryonic stem cell research. It is hypocritical and I have a problem with that.
While I also do not agree with President Bush on this subject as to the reason that he vetoed the bill I do believe that he was correct in vetoing it. He cited what, to me , was basically religious grounds while I believe that the bill should be vetoed on more pragmatic grounds that the Federal Gov. has no place in funding spectulative research that will not benefit the taxpayer. If for example there is a signifigent breakthrough found by researchers using public monies would this benefit be shared by the taxpayers or would it benefit some drug company. Would the patents derived from research paid for by public mo
-
Nishant Sivakumar wrote:
but it may be best to fix the beginning of human life more accurately - perhaps when the embryo is 90 days old.
So if your wife gets pregnant, you'd be ok with giving up a 30 day old embryo in the name of science? I doubt it. I bet you any amount of money you'll see it then. And you could see it now if you allow yourself. Jeremy Falcon
But no one is harvesting embryos from unwilling women. 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.
-
I do know what I would do. I just told you. If my wife or child faced such a situation, it would not be only my decision.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Do some serious research on the topic before you apply your "morals".
What makes you think I haven't researched the topic? Our morals guide us in every decision, whether you like to admit it or not. My morals say not to do it. Period.
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blogJason Henderson wrote:
If my wife or child faced such a situation, it would not be only my decision.
No, but you'd certianly have an opinion.
Jason Henderson wrote:
What makes you think I haven't researched the topic? Our morals guide us in every decision, whether you like to admit it or not. My morals say not to do it. Period.
These embryos are being destroyed one way or another for reasons that have NOTHING to do with stem cell research. Which of your morals objects to a potential good coming from an inevitable destruction? "The trouble with jogging is that the ice falls out of your glass." - Martin Mull
-
Jason Henderson wrote:
If my wife or child faced such a situation, it would not be only my decision.
No, but you'd certianly have an opinion.
Jason Henderson wrote:
What makes you think I haven't researched the topic? Our morals guide us in every decision, whether you like to admit it or not. My morals say not to do it. Period.
These embryos are being destroyed one way or another for reasons that have NOTHING to do with stem cell research. Which of your morals objects to a potential good coming from an inevitable destruction? "The trouble with jogging is that the ice falls out of your glass." - Martin Mull
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
blog -
But no one is harvesting embryos from unwilling women. 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.
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
-
led mike wrote:
I'm not asshole. f*** off.
Yes you are. Learn to read. Moron. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
Farhan Noor Qureshi wrote:
Hizbollah has killed 24 or more isaelis and israelis have killed 200 or more lebanese. Who is winning? I don't know. I know who is loosing. Innocent people.
espeir wrote:
Nobody there is innocent. If they were, they wouldn't be in their current condition.
READ THIS ... fuck off asshole
-
espeir wrote:
And adult stem cells can do the same thing (per the same link).
Again, according to the article, one of the advantages of embryonic stem cells is that they are: "Flexible: They have the potential to make any body cell." This is not true of adult stem cells, and is one of the reasons research should proceed on both fronts. The mere fact that the advantages differ at all would seem to indicate as much. Again, you ignore the fact that embryonic stem cell research is supported by a majority of the scientific community, consensus within the biomed field, the American public (by a 2:1 margin), and congressional vote, instead choosing to cite a single researcher interviewed on right-wing radio, couple that with your own biased speculation, and turn it into yet another pointless rant against the left. It's not "the left" that supports it. It's the majority. The majority of scientists, the majority of citizens, and the majority of our elected representatives.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Again, you ignore the fact that embryonic stem cell research is supported by a majority of the scientific community, consensus within the biomed field, the American public (by a 2:1 margin), and congressional vote, instead choosing to cite a single researcher interviewed on right-wing radio, couple that with your own biased speculation, and turn it into yet another pointless rant against the left. It's not "the left" that supports it. It's the majority. The majority of scientists, the majority of citizens, and the majority of our elected representatives.
Well said! "I know nothing... I don't support it... MIT professor... right wing radio... the left... abortion..." What a load of crap!
The bible was written when people were even more stupid than they are today. Can you imagine that? - David Cross
-
led mike wrote:
No you didn't asshole. f*** off
The thread was about Lebanon being bombed by Isreal, moron. I said "there" as in "Lebanon". Using your same level of illiteracy, you could assume that I said nobody in the Milky Way is innocent. Retard. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
Take your literacy and shove it up your ass. I already told you to fuck off dick head can't you get the message. You can try to argue all fucking day I posted your quote you never said "Lebanon" eat shit and die.
Farhan Noor Qureshi wrote:
Hizbollah has killed 24 or more isaelis and israelis have killed 200 or more lebanese. Who is winning? I don't know. I know who is loosing. Innocent people.
espeir wrote:
Nobody there is innocent. If they were, they wouldn't be in their current condition.
-
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
The biological functions is by definition broad irrespective if the biological specimen is a human or an antilope. We share so many biological functions, notwithstanding our actual differences. Thinking brain is what separates the human species from all others and that is base meaning of human consciousness. Take for instance neuron doctrine which seems to be strongly supported by science and philosophy. Many scientists and philosophers adhere to the methodological view known as naturalism. According to naturalism, to the extent that we will be able to understand the world, it will be empirical science (and not, say, religion or philosophy) that provides that understanding. Reference http://www.bbsonline.org/documents/a/00/00/05/53/bbs00000553-00/bbs.gold.html[^]
-
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? 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".
-
Take your literacy and shove it up your ass. I already told you to fuck off dick head can't you get the message. You can try to argue all fucking day I posted your quote you never said "Lebanon" eat shit and die.
Farhan Noor Qureshi wrote:
Hizbollah has killed 24 or more isaelis and israelis have killed 200 or more lebanese. Who is winning? I don't know. I know who is loosing. Innocent people.
espeir wrote:
Nobody there is innocent. If they were, they wouldn't be in their current condition.
It was in a thread about Lebanon, retard. If it were a thread about Costa Rica, would you say I was talking about the middle east? And if you want me to f*** off, stop responding to me. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
That's about what I expected.
I'm just applying your view of our government. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
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.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Again, you ignore the fact that embryonic stem cell research is supported by a majority of the scientific community, consensus within the biomed field, the American public (by a 2:1 margin), and congressional vote, instead choosing to cite a single researcher interviewed on right-wing radio, couple that with your own biased speculation, and turn it into yet another pointless rant against the left. It's not "the left" that supports it. It's the majority. The majority of scientists, the majority of citizens, and the majority of our elected representatives.
Well said! "I know nothing... I don't support it... MIT professor... right wing radio... the left... abortion..." What a load of crap!
The bible was written when people were even more stupid than they are today. Can you imagine that? - David Cross
You eagerly support embryonic stem cell research and you know nothing about it. Why? That's my point. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
Farhan Noor Qureshi wrote:
Hizbollah has killed 24 or more isaelis and israelis have killed 200 or more lebanese. Who is winning? I don't know. I know who is loosing. Innocent people.
espeir wrote:
Nobody there is innocent. If they were, they wouldn't be in their current condition.
READ THIS ... fuck off asshole
led mike wrote:
Hizbollah
led mike wrote:
lebanese
Moron. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
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
