Embryonic stem cell research
-
espeir wrote:
Let me begin by saying that I know nothing technical whatsoever about this subject
Then learn about it before commenting otherwise you're just repeating heresay and not adding anything valuable. Please say: I've read some papers on the subject and I'm in favour/not in favour because... Then we can have a discussion. cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
Chris Maunder wrote:
Then learn about it before commenting otherwise you're just repeating heresay and not adding anything valuable.
This clearly wasn't aimed at being a technical discussion, nor did I say that I oppose it on technical grounds, so it's irrelevant. I just wanted a disclaimer to discourage the random tangential attacks on my technical ignorance. Clearly I failed in that attempt.
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-- modified at 12:42 Friday 21st July, 2006
-
How do you guarantee "individual sovereignty"? Where does the power, the authority come from to achieve that?
"You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
Constitutionally. I would amend the constitution. The founders felt that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were unalienable rights. Life is protected, the pursuit of happiness is vague. All I'm asking is to codify, in the Constitution, the right to liberty, so that the concept is included as a test when enacting new laws. I think the harm principle is a good start, and we have the system already in place to resolve any ambiguities.
-
Constitutionally. I would amend the constitution. The founders felt that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were unalienable rights. Life is protected, the pursuit of happiness is vague. All I'm asking is to codify, in the Constitution, the right to liberty, so that the concept is included as a test when enacting new laws. I think the harm principle is a good start, and we have the system already in place to resolve any ambiguities.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
The founders felt that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were unalienable rights.
While these rights were enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, their implementation in the constitution was done more realistically. Remember that the Declaration of Independence was not a legal document, nor was it intended to be.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Life is protected, the pursuit of happiness is vague.
The "pursuit of happiness" was originally penned as the "right to property" (again, a John Locke sentiment), but was changed to make it sound more idealistic.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I think the harm principle is a good start, and we have the system already in place to resolve any ambiguities.
Not as you define "harm". As I have already demonstrated in numerous examples, "harm" can be attributed to virtually anything, guaranteeing that any law arising democratically can be shot down. It could go so far as to shoot down other provisions in the constitution, such as our right to amend it. One thing to note: In most cases I and most other Americans agree that most behavior that is benign is not worth illegalizing even when you disagree with it, so your concept of the "harm principle" is already addressed via the democratic process (e.g. If I don't like snakes, I don't feel compelled to ensure that they can't be owned). However, we may at times feel that some behavior which might fail your arbitrary "harm test" should not be permitted just to ensure a more pleasant life. Making panhandling illegal is another example of something that would fail your harm test but which would make visiting downtown more pleasant.
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
Constitutionally. I would amend the constitution. The founders felt that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were unalienable rights. Life is protected, the pursuit of happiness is vague. All I'm asking is to codify, in the Constitution, the right to liberty, so that the concept is included as a test when enacting new laws. I think the harm principle is a good start, and we have the system already in place to resolve any ambiguities.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Constitutionally
So you would specifically define within the body of the constitution what liberty means, and to require the federal courts enforce that definition? You would actualy put something in the constitution like "The citizens right to do anything they please as long as they harm no other citizen shall not be infringed" ?
"You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
-
Jason Henderson wrote:
But, the big ethical issues that have already been brought to light should be addressed before we fund any research - not just stem cell research.
I read where a Catholic bishop wants to deny communion to anyone associated with stem cell research (embryonic or adult). Is this a "big ethical" issue? Who gets to decide which ethical issues are big and which ones are not? Only christians? X| The general population and the congress has already decided - it's only Bush and the hard-core christian right that are balking.
Jason Henderson wrote:
o someone who is not a christian is telling a christian how christians are supposed to act? Does that make sense?
Even us non-christians are still allowed opinions. ;) I'm simply expressing mine and pointing out a percieved hypocrisy.
Jason Henderson wrote:
I will be against it until sufficient steps have been taken to guard against such practices.
Which is certainly your right but I for one am hoping that the will of the people superceeds the will of Bush and his eroding base.
"The trouble with jogging is that the ice falls out of your glass." - Martin Mull
Mike Mullikin wrote:
I read where a Catholic bishop wants to deny communion to anyone associated with stem cell research (embryonic or adult). Is this a "big ethical" issue? Who gets to decide which ethical issues are big and which ones are not? Only christians?
That sounds like an internal delimna with the Catholic church. If the RCC wants to deny communion that's their right. The only ethical question I have with stem cell research is; if they use embryos, where did they get them? Also, when we find a cure for something that requires embryonic stem cells, where are we going to get the stems cells? Will there be a market for them? If so, will there also be a market for embryos? These are legitimate questions Mike, and they need to be dealt with.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
The general population and the congress has already decided - it's only Bush and the hard-core christian right that are balking
This may be true, but in a republic, the masses don't always get their way, nor should they. I personally would not feel responsible if the government used my tax money to fund stem cell research that lead to embryo farming. But, that does not mean I should not voice my opinion about how my taxes are spent.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Even us non-christians are still allowed opinions. I'm simply expressing mine and pointing out a percieved hypocrisy.
If I'm being hypocritical, by all means tell me. I just thought it was ironic.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Which is certainly your right but I for one am hoping that the will of the people superceeds the will of Bush and his eroding base.
And I'm hoping the opposite until we get some laws in place to protect life.
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blog -
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
The founders felt that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were unalienable rights.
While these rights were enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, their implementation in the constitution was done more realistically. Remember that the Declaration of Independence was not a legal document, nor was it intended to be.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Life is protected, the pursuit of happiness is vague.
The "pursuit of happiness" was originally penned as the "right to property" (again, a John Locke sentiment), but was changed to make it sound more idealistic.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I think the harm principle is a good start, and we have the system already in place to resolve any ambiguities.
Not as you define "harm". As I have already demonstrated in numerous examples, "harm" can be attributed to virtually anything, guaranteeing that any law arising democratically can be shot down. It could go so far as to shoot down other provisions in the constitution, such as our right to amend it. One thing to note: In most cases I and most other Americans agree that most behavior that is benign is not worth illegalizing even when you disagree with it, so your concept of the "harm principle" is already addressed via the democratic process (e.g. If I don't like snakes, I don't feel compelled to ensure that they can't be owned). However, we may at times feel that some behavior which might fail your arbitrary "harm test" should not be permitted just to ensure a more pleasant life. Making panhandling illegal is another example of something that would fail your harm test but which would make visiting downtown more pleasant.
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
espeir wrote:
While these rights were enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, their implementation in the constitution was done more realistically. Remember that the Declaration of Independence was not a legal document, nor was it intended to be.
The constitution has been amended many times to correct oversights and accommodate changes. I feel that not guaranteeing the consideration of personal liberty was an oversight.
espeir wrote:
The "pursuit of happiness" was originally penned as the "right to property" (again, a John Locke sentiment), but was changed to make it sound more idealistic.
"Pursuit of property," actually, and it was Adam Smith, not Locke.
espeir wrote:
Not as you define "harm". As I have already demonstrated in numerous examples, "harm" can be attributed to virtually anything, guaranteeing that any law arising democratically can be shot down. It could go so far as to shoot down other provisions in the constitution, such as our right to amend it.
You've demonstrated -- and continue to demonstrate -- nothing other than your misunderstanding of the word "harm" as it applies to governmental control vs. individual liberty.
espeir wrote:
In most cases I and most other Americans agree that most behavior that is benign is not worth illegalizing
I'm not talking about "most". Yes, most people are sensible en masse, and most laws are reasonable and would be perfectly acceptable even taking the new consideration into account. You don't seem to understand that instituting the harm principle would only affect areas where legislation prohibits behavior that harms no one but the actor, or no one at all. I get the feeling that this makes you uncomfortable because behavior would be allowed that you disagree with. Allowing behavior that you disagree with, but which otherwise does not affect you, is the entire point. Personal liberty, individual sovereignty, is the nightmare of those who want to legislate etiquette, religion, and personal morality, who want everyone to behave just like they do, or at least like their God wants them to.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Constitutionally
So you would specifically define within the body of the constitution what liberty means, and to require the federal courts enforce that definition? You would actualy put something in the constitution like "The citizens right to do anything they please as long as they harm no other citizen shall not be infringed" ?
"You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
Stan Shannon wrote:
You would actualy put something in the constitution like "The citizens right to do anything they please as long as they harm no other citizen shall not be infringed" ?
Yes. Absolutely. I believe that personal liberty is, in fact, an unalienable right, and this is not explicitly recognized by our constitution. Maybe the founders assumed it so fundamental as not to require protection beyond that which they provided. Maybe Jefferson thought there would have been several revolutions by now. In any case, yes. Refine the language to make it as broad and unambiguous as possible (include harm to person or property, for example) without burying the ideal in exceptions, and let the system take it from there. Just like the rest of the constitution.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
You would actualy put something in the constitution like "The citizens right to do anything they please as long as they harm no other citizen shall not be infringed" ?
Yes. Absolutely. I believe that personal liberty is, in fact, an unalienable right, and this is not explicitly recognized by our constitution. Maybe the founders assumed it so fundamental as not to require protection beyond that which they provided. Maybe Jefferson thought there would have been several revolutions by now. In any case, yes. Refine the language to make it as broad and unambiguous as possible (include harm to person or property, for example) without burying the ideal in exceptions, and let the system take it from there. Just like the rest of the constitution.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
make it as broad and unambiguous as possible (include harm to person or property, for example) without burying the ideal in exceptions,
So you would leave it to the courts to define what constitutes 'harm' on a case by case basis?
"You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Constitutionally
So you would specifically define within the body of the constitution what liberty means, and to require the federal courts enforce that definition? You would actualy put something in the constitution like "The citizens right to do anything they please as long as they harm no other citizen shall not be infringed" ?
"You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
I think we've reached CP's thread depth limit :laugh:. It wouldn't let me answer your last post, so I'm answering it here...
Stan Shannon wrote:
So you would leave it to the courts to define what constitutes 'harm' on a case by case basis?
Only to the same degree that they already define what constitutes free speech.
-
espeir wrote:
While these rights were enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, their implementation in the constitution was done more realistically. Remember that the Declaration of Independence was not a legal document, nor was it intended to be.
The constitution has been amended many times to correct oversights and accommodate changes. I feel that not guaranteeing the consideration of personal liberty was an oversight.
espeir wrote:
The "pursuit of happiness" was originally penned as the "right to property" (again, a John Locke sentiment), but was changed to make it sound more idealistic.
"Pursuit of property," actually, and it was Adam Smith, not Locke.
espeir wrote:
Not as you define "harm". As I have already demonstrated in numerous examples, "harm" can be attributed to virtually anything, guaranteeing that any law arising democratically can be shot down. It could go so far as to shoot down other provisions in the constitution, such as our right to amend it.
You've demonstrated -- and continue to demonstrate -- nothing other than your misunderstanding of the word "harm" as it applies to governmental control vs. individual liberty.
espeir wrote:
In most cases I and most other Americans agree that most behavior that is benign is not worth illegalizing
I'm not talking about "most". Yes, most people are sensible en masse, and most laws are reasonable and would be perfectly acceptable even taking the new consideration into account. You don't seem to understand that instituting the harm principle would only affect areas where legislation prohibits behavior that harms no one but the actor, or no one at all. I get the feeling that this makes you uncomfortable because behavior would be allowed that you disagree with. Allowing behavior that you disagree with, but which otherwise does not affect you, is the entire point. Personal liberty, individual sovereignty, is the nightmare of those who want to legislate etiquette, religion, and personal morality, who want everyone to behave just like they do, or at least like their God wants them to.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
The constitution has been amended many times to correct oversights and accommodate changes. I feel that not guaranteeing the consideration of personal liberty was an oversight.
It was obviously not an oversight. The constitution was ratified when slavery was prevelant and there existed numerous laws that violate "personal liberty" as you call it.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
"Pursuit of property," actually, and it was Adam Smith, not Locke.
Sorry, but that was Locke. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke[^]: "John Locke had the thought that all men had the natural rights of life, liberty, and property (the later was replaced by "the pursuit of happiness" during negotiations of the drafting of the US Declaration of Independence)."
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
You've demonstrated -- and continue to demonstrate -- nothing other than your misunderstanding of the word "harm" as it applies to governmental control vs. individual liberty.
No, I demonstrate my disagreement with you on what might be considered harmful. I will temporarily ignore your incessant insults and assume that you're a reasonable man and remind you that reasonable men can disagree...especially on something so absolutely vague. Our disagreement is convenient for me in that it demonstrates where this concept fails when tested against human nature. I contend that abortion is harmful and you probably contend the opposite.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I'm not talking about "most". Yes, most people are sensible en masse, and most laws are reasonable and would be perfectly acceptable even taking the new consideration into account. You don't seem to understand that instituting the harm principle would only affect areas where legislation prohibits behavior that harms no one but the actor, or no one at all. I get the feeling that this makes you uncomfortable because behavior would be allowed that you disagree with. Allowing behavior that you disagree with, but which otherwise does not affect you, is the entire point. Personal liberty, individual sovereignty, is the nightmare of those who want to legislate etiquette, religion, and personal morality, who want everyone to behav
-
I think we've reached CP's thread depth limit :laugh:. It wouldn't let me answer your last post, so I'm answering it here...
Stan Shannon wrote:
So you would leave it to the courts to define what constitutes 'harm' on a case by case basis?
Only to the same degree that they already define what constitutes free speech.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Only to the same degree that they already define what constitutes free speech.
Free speech pertains to a specific action and, while broad in scope, is specific in meaning. It also represents a universally necessary fundamental right for democracy and self-determination to function (unlike the "harm test"). You talk about the "tyranny of the majority", but freedom of speech ensures that the minority is capable of attempting to change the minds of the majority and can redress the government for grievances.
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
I think we've reached CP's thread depth limit :laugh:. It wouldn't let me answer your last post, so I'm answering it here...
Stan Shannon wrote:
So you would leave it to the courts to define what constitutes 'harm' on a case by case basis?
Only to the same degree that they already define what constitutes free speech.
I guess we'll have to start a new thread. I wonder if this is the first time someone has exhausted thread depth?
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Only to the same degree that they already define what constitutes free speech.
So just to be sure I understand. You think that allowing the courts the absolute power to define what constitutes 'harm'? That a community would have to tolerate any behavior regardless of how vile and repugnent it might be to local community standards if a judge decides that no one is actually being harmed according to that judges on personnel sentiments and interpretation of the law? So, having anal sex is a more basic right than decideing with your neighbors that sodomy should be illegal in your community. That burning a flag is a greater freedom than being part of the decision making process to decide whether or not it should be legal? That being free to do what ever you wish to do is a more basic and fundamentla right than is the right to stand together with like minded individuals and be part of the decision making process on such issues? That judges should have the soul exclusive power to decide such issues without regard at all for community standards?
Thank God for disproportional force.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Constitutionally
So you would specifically define within the body of the constitution what liberty means, and to require the federal courts enforce that definition? You would actualy put something in the constitution like "The citizens right to do anything they please as long as they harm no other citizen shall not be infringed" ?
"You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
Stan Shannon wrote:
So just to be sure I understand. You think that allowing the courts the absolute power to define what constitutes 'harm'? That a community would have to tolerate any behavior regardless of how vile and repugnent it might be to local community standards if a judge decides that no one is actually being harmed according to that judges on personnel sentiments and interpretation of the law?
Again, the power would be identical to the power they currently hold in determining what constitutes 'free speech', taking into account that a minority of judges are "activist", and the Supreme Court would still be, well, supreme.
Stan Shannon wrote:
So, having anal sex is a more basic right than decideing with your neighbors that sodomy should be illegal in your community. That burning a flag is a greater freedom than being part of the decision making process to decide whether or not it should be legal? That being free to do what ever you wish to do is a more basic and fundamentla right than is the right to stand together with like minded individuals and be part of the decision making process on such issues? That judges should have the soul exclusive power to decide such issues without regard at all for community standards?
Love these colored examples. Yeah, freedom of all kind means having to accept the bad with the good. We have freedom of speech, so we have Nazis, Communists, and insurance salesmen. How about the freedom to purchase a bottle of beer on Sunday is a more basic right than that of your neighbors to prevent you from buying the beer because their God doesn't want you to. Or criticizing the government is a greater freedom than that of the community to prevent such criticism. Ultimately, all I'm saying is that personal liberty should be protected like personal speech. If you wish to view that as protecting liberty from community standards -- much as speech is protected today -- then you are, of course, at liberty to do so.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
So just to be sure I understand. You think that allowing the courts the absolute power to define what constitutes 'harm'? That a community would have to tolerate any behavior regardless of how vile and repugnent it might be to local community standards if a judge decides that no one is actually being harmed according to that judges on personnel sentiments and interpretation of the law?
Again, the power would be identical to the power they currently hold in determining what constitutes 'free speech', taking into account that a minority of judges are "activist", and the Supreme Court would still be, well, supreme.
Stan Shannon wrote:
So, having anal sex is a more basic right than decideing with your neighbors that sodomy should be illegal in your community. That burning a flag is a greater freedom than being part of the decision making process to decide whether or not it should be legal? That being free to do what ever you wish to do is a more basic and fundamentla right than is the right to stand together with like minded individuals and be part of the decision making process on such issues? That judges should have the soul exclusive power to decide such issues without regard at all for community standards?
Love these colored examples. Yeah, freedom of all kind means having to accept the bad with the good. We have freedom of speech, so we have Nazis, Communists, and insurance salesmen. How about the freedom to purchase a bottle of beer on Sunday is a more basic right than that of your neighbors to prevent you from buying the beer because their God doesn't want you to. Or criticizing the government is a greater freedom than that of the community to prevent such criticism. Ultimately, all I'm saying is that personal liberty should be protected like personal speech. If you wish to view that as protecting liberty from community standards -- much as speech is protected today -- then you are, of course, at liberty to do so.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Love these colored examples. Yeah, freedom of all kind means having to accept the bad with the good. We have freedom of speech, so we have Nazis, Communists, and insurance salesmen. How about the freedom to purchase a bottle of beer on Sunday is a more basic right than that of your neighbors to prevent you from buying the beer because their God doesn't want you to. Or criticizing the government is a greater freedom than that of the community to prevent such criticism.
You're ignoring the 500 pound gorilla sitting right next to you. "Harm" is not like "speech". It doesn't mean anything in particular. An "activist judge" (as we conservatives refer to them) is one that reads the law and, rather than coming to a reasonable conclusion based on the text and meaning, decides to reinterpret that law to his own ends. Abortion is a good example, because there is no text (as Sam Alito pointed out to Senator Kennedy during his confirmation) that indicates abortion is a protected right. So if congress passes a law stating that you can't conduct political speech a week before a federal election (a la McCain-Feingold), then only an "activist judge" would uphold such a law because it's absurdly against the 1st amendment. However, your "harm clause" does not require an activist judge. It requires only a very arbitrary opinion of a judge that could include or exclude physical harm, financial harm, psychological harm, emotional harm, etc... In effect, it would transform our government into a system similar to our civil courts (in which you can sue and win money for emotional distress). Giving the courts such a broad power directly undermines our Democracy. I can't remember which Federalist Papers address concerns over excessive judicial power (I think it was Madison or Hamilton), but even after the constitution was written, the concern persisted.
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
So just to be sure I understand. You think that allowing the courts the absolute power to define what constitutes 'harm'? That a community would have to tolerate any behavior regardless of how vile and repugnent it might be to local community standards if a judge decides that no one is actually being harmed according to that judges on personnel sentiments and interpretation of the law?
Again, the power would be identical to the power they currently hold in determining what constitutes 'free speech', taking into account that a minority of judges are "activist", and the Supreme Court would still be, well, supreme.
Stan Shannon wrote:
So, having anal sex is a more basic right than decideing with your neighbors that sodomy should be illegal in your community. That burning a flag is a greater freedom than being part of the decision making process to decide whether or not it should be legal? That being free to do what ever you wish to do is a more basic and fundamentla right than is the right to stand together with like minded individuals and be part of the decision making process on such issues? That judges should have the soul exclusive power to decide such issues without regard at all for community standards?
Love these colored examples. Yeah, freedom of all kind means having to accept the bad with the good. We have freedom of speech, so we have Nazis, Communists, and insurance salesmen. How about the freedom to purchase a bottle of beer on Sunday is a more basic right than that of your neighbors to prevent you from buying the beer because their God doesn't want you to. Or criticizing the government is a greater freedom than that of the community to prevent such criticism. Ultimately, all I'm saying is that personal liberty should be protected like personal speech. If you wish to view that as protecting liberty from community standards -- much as speech is protected today -- then you are, of course, at liberty to do so.
All I can say is that the picutre you are painting is horrific. You seem to live in such terror that some religious person might get to have some say in the process of making community standards, that you want to give that authority completely over to some judge who has absolute power to define it however he pleases. Yet, you can't seem to comprehend how that constitutes tyranny. No individual would be able to have any say in the direction society takes. Society would instantly collapse into a lowest common demoninator of morality with all of us being forced by the court system to tolerate all of it with no power to do anything about it. The nation would no longer be ruled by the conscience of the people, but by the whims of arrogant judges. The founders did not inadvertanly fail to create the kind of world you describe. They did everything possible to protect the nation from it. To the founders 'Liberty' is the right to take responsibility for your own welfare and to interact equally in the process of deciding how you community will be governed, it is not the freedom to do what ever you please and be protected by some omnipotent federal court. You have confirmed my worst fears about people of your political type. You wish to throw out our nation's most fundamental founding principles in order to replace them with obscure and arcane European philosophies. You want to turn the US into a European social welfare state, a libertarian utopia under the absolute control of the courts and the federal government. You are a perfect example of why I vote Republican.
Thank God for disproportional force.
-
ahz wrote:
It's a PERSON-IN-POTENTIAL.
So is an unfertilized egg. What's your point?
Ok John, answer this. In your opinion, when does human life begin if not at conception? At what moment in time, at what event in life does a person come into being? what is so special of that point that you all of a sudden have a human being while moments before you did not?
You may be right
I may be crazy
-- Billy Joel --Within you lies the power for good, use it!!!
-
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
make a case for outlawing masterbation
Isnt that called Catholosism? Objects in mirror are closer than they appear
-
leckey wrote:
I guess I'm thinking of embryos created for invitro (spelling?).
As I see it, In Vitro Fertilization doesn't count because the process still starts off with a woman's egg and a man's sperm. The eggs just don't appear out of nowhere. IVF basicaly means they put a man's sperm and a woman's egg in a dish and let it do it's thing, thus it still started off inside a human and counts as human.
leckey wrote:
A lot of times they make lots of embroyos in a petri dish and only implant a certain number. If it's successful, then the other embroys just stay in dry ice for a certain number of years. If the "owners" (parents) don't claim them after that time, then they can be donated for science.
Well, I don't know the validity of this, and I have mixed feelings on it but will refrain for drawing too much of a conclusion until I know more about it. I can say that the link that pointed to the NIH did refer to patients donating embryos for stem cell research directly (or so it seems) rather than this means, but then again I'm not sure this isn't the case as the link was vague on it (probably intentionally). As it stands though, I personally do not think that over fertilizing embryos a plenty on a hit and miss situation is a good thing. And I don't think life should be marginalized because petri dish A kicked off before B did. That means we're playing God. It's the start a bigger process that will go way out of scope of this thread, but suffice it to say that progression and change do happen and it's not always a change for the better.
leckey wrote:
..and thanks for not biting my head off!
Having a well rounded conversation - even if we totally disagree with each other is cool. As long as we respect that. Having an argument with an idiot that wants to start insulting my mother because he's a big baby is a different story. ;)
leckey wrote:
the cranberry/peach ones are quite scrumptious!
Sounds like a good combination. Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
The eggs just don't appear out of nowhere. IVF basicaly means they put a man's sperm and a woman's egg in a dish and let it do it's thing, thus it still started off inside a human and counts as human.
So what are they supposed to do with the extras? Find surrogate mothers and bring them all to term? Even if some of them appear to be damaged goods? Overpopulate the world because when parents want one child they have to bring 10 into the world to get that one? IVF is notorious for multiple births as it is.
The evolution of the human genome is too important to be left to chance.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
No, the whole damn point is that you think it's stopping a "kid" from developing, and I don't.
It is. Where do you think kids come from, the stork?
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
The point is that, regardless of whether or not she thinks it is okay, you would be causing her harm.
You're causing the embryo harm by killing it off before it develops.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
"Sissy boys"? It was an analogy.
It was a very insulting one. Don't play it off dumbass; I'm not that stupid. Like you weren't upset when you said it.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Really got your panties puckered over this one, huh?
I don't wear panties like you do sissy boy. There's that's on your level, so you should comprehend it.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
The difference is there's a difference. My cells differentiated, I was carried to term, and so on.
What's the difference, you value your life more than one that's developing? Your basis of life means cells can't be the same to be alive? Do you believe in evolution? Can you see where I'm going, or will have I to use crayons again?
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I get the feeling that you won't be happy until each and every conception ends in a full-term pregnancy and a happy
Your right, failed pregnancies are something to be happy about. Let's celebrate your wife's next miscarriage.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
healthy child with two loving and heterosexual parents.
Way to throw in an unrelated point.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
and disdain for the advancement of medical science.
Nice assumption. Oh yeah, that is the basis of your logic after all. Jeremy Falcon
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Looks like you're also failing to understand Mill. Government should keep people from harming each other's person or property. Period. Nothing more. Is that stripping the people of their powers to legislate? Legislate indiscriminately and oppressively, maybe.
The problem you're encountering with me is that I understand both the ceoncept behind Mill, and the fact that they are contrary to both human nature and our successful government. Your philosophy is basically this: The people should be stripped of the power to legislate anything unless it passes my personal opinion of what is harmful. In other words, only the laws you approve of can be passed.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
No hypocrisy at all, just more misunderstanding on your part. A display of the ten commandments on government property -- especially at a courthouse -- is a statement of intent by the government to violate the harm principle. It would indicate that the government considers it to be wrong for me to covet my neighbor's ass, or take the name of the Lord, their God in vain, when neither action harms anyone.
It is entirely hypocritical and this is the major flaw of this philosophy. A display of the 10 commandments does not cause any physical, psychological or other form of harm to anybody. However, you personally believe that it's harmful and therefore the government must restrict its display, regardless of democratic preference. Your personal view of what is "harmful" therefore trumps the will of the people and effectively creates a despotic regime.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
You've grossly oversimplified my position at every turn, most recently regarding my views on both democracy and religion. When I tell you you're wrong, and clarify, you just repeat yourself. I haven't given you a single example, I've given you dozens.
I still believe that I understand your position completely and I can understand a desire for "harmless" laws. However, political philosophy is unique in that it is purely pragmatic. There is no room for abstract theory because it's purpose is real-life application. A political theory has to be considered against human nature, and not an abstract concept. If a political theory conflicts with human nature, then it will fail (communism/socialism being a prime example). I therefore contend that your political theory is flawed for the
espeir wrote:
A display of the 10 commandments does not cause any physical, psychological or other form of harm to anybody.
If I'm hauled into a courtroom and the judge has the 10 commandments prominently displayed behind him and then they haul out the bible and tell me to put my left hand on it and tell me to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help me god, it's going to cause me considerable psychological distress. I'm going to figure my shot at any form of justice is going to circle the drain when I say "no".
The evolution of the human genome is too important to be left to chance.
-- modified at 23:44 Friday 21st July, 2006
