Embryonic stem cell research
-
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
-
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.
Tim Craig wrote:
So what are they supposed to do with the extras?
Not create so many in the first place. :)
Jeremy Falcon
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
I'm not that stupid
Oh, puhlease! :rolleyes:
The evolution of the human genome is too important to be left to chance.
Tim Craig wrote:
Oh, puhlease!
:laugh: I kinda left myself open for that one.
Jeremy Falcon
-
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
Tim Craig wrote:
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".
Every court allows people of other religions to swear on something other than a Bible. I would expect and encourage that, because I had to testify in a deposition a couple of years ago and they didn't present me with a Bible (and this was a very conservative Southern "Christian" state) upon which to swear. I asked them why and the court recorder told me that they simply don't do that anymore. I thought to myself, "So what am I swearing on? Their slack-jawed yokel state?" If you're Muslim, they can present you with a Qur'an and if you're an atheist they can present you with The Communist Manifesto. However, if you suffer psychological distress upon seeing the 10 Commandments, you're either possessed by Satan or retarded. I and no reasonable person would suffer no such distress upon seeing somequote for the Qur'an saying how I shouldn't murder people (if such a quote exists). By the way, if you want to understand the philosophical purpose behind freedom of religion in the US, read about the Social Contract Theory (link[^]). It develops the concept that power is derived from the Natural Law, not vice versa (hence the need outlaw an established religion...not the outlaw of its practice). In other words, the 10 Commandments presented in a courtroom is actually consistent with the 1st amendment because it implies that the court's power is derived from that Natural Law, whereas disallowing it implies the opposite...that the court determines and has power over Natural Law.
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-- modified at 10:31 Saturday 22nd July, 2006
-
Tim Craig wrote:
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".
Every court allows people of other religions to swear on something other than a Bible. I would expect and encourage that, because I had to testify in a deposition a couple of years ago and they didn't present me with a Bible (and this was a very conservative Southern "Christian" state) upon which to swear. I asked them why and the court recorder told me that they simply don't do that anymore. I thought to myself, "So what am I swearing on? Their slack-jawed yokel state?" If you're Muslim, they can present you with a Qur'an and if you're an atheist they can present you with The Communist Manifesto. However, if you suffer psychological distress upon seeing the 10 Commandments, you're either possessed by Satan or retarded. I and no reasonable person would suffer no such distress upon seeing somequote for the Qur'an saying how I shouldn't murder people (if such a quote exists). By the way, if you want to understand the philosophical purpose behind freedom of religion in the US, read about the Social Contract Theory (link[^]). It develops the concept that power is derived from the Natural Law, not vice versa (hence the need outlaw an established religion...not the outlaw of its practice). In other words, the 10 Commandments presented in a courtroom is actually consistent with the 1st amendment because it implies that the court's power is derived from that Natural Law, whereas disallowing it implies the opposite...that the court determines and has power over Natural Law.
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-- modified at 10:31 Saturday 22nd July, 2006
espeir wrote:
if you're an atheist they can present you with The Communist Manifesto.
When are you and Stan going to get it through your thick skulls that not all atheists are fucking Marxists? The majority are not.
espeir wrote:
if you suffer psychological distress upon seeing the 10 Commandments, you're either possessed by Satan or retarded.
I didn't say simply seeing them caused me distress, dip shit. I said that seeing them in the specific context of court obviously presided over by a right wing christian judge who was also going to force me to indicate my religious beliefs which are irrelevant to the issue would cause me distress. My religious beliefs or lack thereof should have no bearing on a trial and by forcing me to indicate them is going to provide fodder for rabid christian bigots like you. Therefore, no fair trial. All pretense of impartiality is lost.
espeir wrote:
Natural Law
Natural Law? Isn't that the survival of the fittest? I guess since I have no moral qualms about cleaning idiot's clocks and will use whatever underhanded atheist methods available, you're going to be toast.
The evolution of the human genome is too important to be left to chance.
-- modified at 14:27 Sunday 23rd July, 2006