Slashdot Mirror
U.N. Delays Debate on Cloning
hedpe2003 writes "'The General Assembly on Tuesday ducked for a year a polarizing debate over human cloning that has set the Bush administration against some allies like Britain and much of the world's scientific community.
All 191 United Nations members agree on a treaty to prohibit cloning human beings, but they are divided over whether to extend such a ban to stem cell and other research known as therapeutic cloning.
Opponents say total prohibition would block research on cancer, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, diabetes, spinal cord injuries and other conditions. The White House says that enough stem cells from human embryos exist for research and that cloning an embryo for any reason is unethical.
United States was happy to go along with the one-year consensus but would not alter its stance. 'We will continue to work for a total ban,' he said.'
I was just wondering what everyone thought about this. To tell the truth, I didn't know that the US was pushing so hard to ban stem cell research all together."
If only those embryos had even a couple synaptic responses that it could use to tap out in Morse code whether it agreed to be used in such research.
I have been pwned because my
The White House says that enough stem cells from human embryos exist for research...
Which stem cells? The ones that are gathered at the abortion clinics? The abortion clinics that preform the abortions that YOU'RE TOTALLY OPPOSED TO AND WANT TO SEE MADE ILLEGAL? Those abortion clinics?
Stupid fucking government.
In the defense of our idiot-in-chief president, he is Texan, so some leeway must be given.
My own personal opposition to cloning comes not from moral reasons, but because we have a population problem, and the last thing we need to do is make it worse.
#define DRM chmod 000
A UN vote would not make any difference. It would only affect countries who sign up to the resolution. I do not think the UK would, the government is very keen on getting the biotech industry up and running.
There are a TON of anti-cloning supporters out there, but seriously, what is the big deal? If there is a path of technology that might allow us to grow spare body parts, rid the world of cancer, and anything else, then I'm all for it. I think a large percentage of people object to cloning because of the moral (read religious) ideas of a soul and other such nonsense. I wish people would just grow up already.
of oneself for the health benifit of that one person alone is good.
I for one welcome my own DNA and body being used to treat myself.
Clone my own cells to help myself, i would rather have my own than some Pig's cells anyway, money talks, not them. Just pay any doctor enough and you will get what you want.
why not clone the whole linus torvalds alan cox etc. plus a thousand darl mcbrides for replacement organs if theres a malfunction in the cloned linus...
...
hell, its even better to clone thousand mcbrides for organ harvesting except for the brain...
Truth nowadays is based upon the general consensus of the many
As far as I know this is a result of not what the White House thinks but Mr Bush's personal (and possibly religiously grounded) opinion on the subject which from what I've read is extremely strong. (For the against.) I have no problem with this for medical advancement but I agree with controls and the idea that the system (if put in place) could change often to reflect social and technological achievements.
I ate your fish.
As for me more important are possible benefits - that is finding cures for some diseases.
But we could discuss forever and neither of us would convince himself to change his mind. The future shall show which path was correct...
so don't flame me
:\
i think one shouldn't prohibit cloning of humans. progress cannot be stopped, even though it is sometimes questionable whether progress in knowledge helps humans a step forward.
i personally think the the ethics are too human-centric in this debate. as if we are a more special breed of mammals or something. factors enter this debate that should be separate from science IMHO, and definetely from governmental decisions (religious arguments for example - don't mess with God's creation...).
the benefits can be many, and cloned humans will be a rare phenomenon, even if it happens. just like genetic engineering in general, cloning human cells or tissues can be a good thing if applied under very strong restricions. think of the (now very sci-fi) idea of growing new organs, or tissues from a patient. no more rejection of transplanted organs by the patient's immune system because they (the organs) are made up by his/her own cells.
regulations should be strict though, to prevent some mad scientist from running ahead of the facts and doing things that have unpredictable effects. although i doubt that regulations will stop a mad man anyway, but that's a different discussion alltogether, so i will not touch that subject
All 191 United Nations members agree on a treaty
You mean the Arab and Muslim states voted with Israel? Amazing. Maybe there is hope in the world.
I hope you are kidding... Creationists like you would be the cause of the evential downfall of the USA, given more power than they already have. your medieval views are pathetic. scientists are NOT playing God, they are trying to understand. You undoubtedly don't, have all your views cast in concrete, till kingdom come. Dream on.
That's great. If you believe in God, that is. The rest of us, meanwhile, need a solution based on that which we can observe, measure and prove. Don't forget that the God-fearing portion of the population is not the entireity, and that the rest of us don't typically like having Christianity shoved down our throats. Belive what you want. That's fine, but don't make us follow your morals.
#define DRM chmod 000
In a dark lab somewhere...
it is already happening.
so much for "policies"
-Grump
Is it true that more people vote for the winner of American Idol, than vote for the president? -Ali G.
life is re-created by an act of God through the union of man and woman, and not by a scientist in a lab.
Does this mean you are against In-Vitro Fertilization and surrogate mothers?
Nobody died when Nixon lied.
I'm meeting you half way you stupid hippies!
Well, that's what you get when you have a Christian Fundamentalist in the White House.
Nice troll, let me countertroll; so you condone murder?
Tell that to Superman, or my grandma who died of Alzheimers.
If I had a disease which could potentially be cured through some kind of research, but someone else wants to prohibit that research on religious grounds, they are as guilty of murder as "christian" "scientist" "parents" who withhold treatment from their sick children (won't someone please think of the children?) for religious reasons.
This is something I feel pretty strongly about--I find any religious argument against the reduction of suffering or extension of life to be anti-humanist, ignorant and intolerant. Live how you will, but don't deny me and others the fundamental right to live what we see as better lives through the advancement of medical science.
Now flame away.
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
and then we will not need to worry as much about diseases, etc. If God is pleased to do so, He can give us cures for any diseases from whatever pleases Him.
Hello, 1978 called, they want their religous zealots back.
You HAVE heard of "test tube babies" or "in vitro fertilization" or "taking a sperm and then injecting that bad boy inside an egg and then putting that fetilized egg in a womb"...right? You're just pulling our leg with this bit about not knowing about this stuff huh? We've been doin this stuff for 25 years now!
The future shall show which path was correct...
Maybe, but history is written by the victors, no? It is fully likely that history shall not show who was correct, but who it acceptable to believe was correct.
#define DRM chmod 000
bushy needs the religious right to keep the power and to hell with consequences. Just to keep the research alive for a cure for juvenile diabetes, the society had to fund their own research for 17 new stem cell lines of which none could be used in the US, the researcher has two kids with diabetes of his own and for the "SIN" of trying to keep his kids alives, has been hounded, threatened and abused. The research is moving overseas rapidly which is to be expected and in the end won't slow it down much. What doesn't get mentioned much, is that most of the approved stem cells are locked up in patents and too flawed for meanful research.
While I am morally opposed to cloning human beings, I see no real problem with experimenting with other sorts of animals. Even the Bible gives man the rights over the animals (Genesis 1:26). So, if it is limited to animals, then we can in essence "practice" on them and then use some of the benefits from the research.
Interesting to note also that Bush is pushing for complete ban, while the rest of the world seems to not care. Seems like the US isn't a bunch of heathens after all.
-Tukon
In most civilized countries there is something called the seperation of church and state. The U.S., apparently, is not that civilized and therefor allows religious arguments to stand in the way of a cure for some of the most horrible deceases we know.
There is nothing sacred about about a human life being consuming by bone cancer. Please go to a hospital and take a look at 10 year old leukemia sufferers and tell me again how great this God of yours is.
No matter how much of a religious zealot you are, you cannot claim that these little kids don't deserve a cure.
I think there would be allot to be learned from experimenting with cloning. We could even put it to good use with cloning organs and skin cells.
But I think this kind of thing should have the most stringent monitoring available, this is also the kind of thing which could do allot of damage to this world.
Imagine the repercussions if a world leader were cloned. Or worse yet what if we could speed up the process and steal other people's identities.
VENI, VIDI, VICI, DIXI
Y'know, abortion completely diviided America, unbelievebly divisive,
I've never seen anything like it. Even my friends, all very intelligent, totally divided on abortion.
Some of my friends think these pro-life people are annoying idiots. Other of my friends think these pro-life people are evil fucks.
How are we gonna come to a consensus? I mean I'm torn. I think of them as evil annoying idiot fucks"
-Bill Hicks 1962-1994
life is re-created by an act of God through the union of man and woman, and not by a scientist in a lab.
Oh no, the invisible man in the sky said no. Listen, the portion of the population that isn't completely insane is trying to solve real problems that praying wont fix. So stop using superstition as a reason to halt progress.
Everything seemed to be going so nice
'till the end of all beings punched right through the ice
If you believe what is writen in the bible we ARE Gods.
And the Lord God said, "Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil, he must not be allowed to stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
All Nations?
Last I recall, China was trying this shit.
Too much of the objection over stem cell use is concerned with the origin of some stem cell cultures in aborted fetuses.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
The White House says that enough stem cells from human embryos exist for research and that cloning an embryo for any reason is unethical.
Ah yes, I forgot that the Bush administration is a world reknowned authority on ethics.
How about we let this hypothetical God decide about what he is willing to let us do.
Not pseuso-christian religious fanatics like you who so much like to spout nonsense in His name.
Personally talked to God about biotechnology, recently, have you? I'm sure Creator's just taking a little nap and forgot to throw fire and brimstone upon those EEEEEEEVIL scientists trying to stole His rightful place. He'll probably be back in few billion years or something.
We have a chance to end some of the most horrible debilitating deseases know and it largely comes down to semantics. When life starts. The attitude is better to flush the tissue down the toliet than find a cure to these deseases. It shouldn't come down to a religious issue of when life starts. People should be given the option of donating the unused tissue. I have major reservations about genetically modifying plants and animals but have no issue with stem cell research. Few of the same people show the same enthusiasm about banning nuclear weapons that can kill millions but become irrational when it cames to a line of research that can save millions. Cloning itself simply produces a twin. Deal with it. I oppose cloning of humans strictly because of the crude nature of the current techniques. Few it any would survive and any survivors would have severe genetic problems. There's enough genetic desease without creating more. Until there is a more reliable technique it's irresponsible to clone humans. Reproducing stem cell tissue is a completely different issue. A three or four day old cluster of cells lacks conciousness. There are no brainwaves. In fact no brain. Stem cells by definition lack defining characteristics. They are a blank slate waiting to be told what to become. It's why they are such a promising option for replacing damaged tissue.
/RANT For the last time cloning will not replicate people! No duplication of people is possible.
/RANT
No more than identical twins are the same person!
Doh!
i agree completely with you. period.
funny thing is that religion does have a *huge* influence on the way things are decided in the usa (and they are not the only government, let me add, but by far the biggest).
in a true democracy there should be an absolute separation between church and state. in real life, true democracy doesn't exist, unfortunately. like any political ideology, we will never find out if it is the 'best way'. just because the implementation of democracy (or any political system) is miles away from what the original idea was. just like communism as it is and was applied was not communism, but just a dictatorship.
i know this rant is slightly OT, but i think it matters in this discussion. it is essentially about ethics, moral, religion and not about facts. which is a shame in my opinion.
Cool, let me write that down and get back to you on it when you're lying in a hospital bed in agonizing pain, unable to move, hooked up to a catheter and colostomy bag and dribbling uncontrollably.
I'd love to see some statistics on the number of "god-fearing" people currently insisting on receiving treatment they opposed for others on religious reasons at some point in time.
I don't believe in your god; I believe in Man. I don't tell you how not to spend your sunday mornings, and you, bub, don't tell me what my doctor can or cannot do.
Man, I knew leaving the US was a good thing.
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
The US wants to ban stem cell research internationally to ban competition for its pharma companies. They will do this research whether it is illegal or not, and the administration does not want to know about it, and it knows the competition won't break that rule.
When was the last time the US abided by a UN resolution it did not support, even if it was achieved by a 'vote'?
What if they were to clone CowboyNeal?
I think I think, therefore I think I am.
The present US administration has been attempting to bury stem cell research and therapeutic cloning - both fundamental technologies in regenerative medicine - since it came to power. Therapeutic cloning is essential to many stem cell therapies and much related research. Immense damage has been done. Christopher Reeve and many stem cell scientists (including the founders of the field) believe that the actions of this administration alone have set the field back by 5 years.
Some nasty math works out from here. There is currently an 80% effective stem cell therapy for heart disease that has been demonstrated in the US, Germany and Japan in human trials. It saves lives. 2000 people die EVERY DAY in the US from heart disease, yet the FDA is currently blocking any application of this working therapy. For more, see:
http://www.longevitymeme.org/projects/protest_fda_ interference.cfm
A stem cell/therapeutic cloning cure for Parkinson's has been demonstrated in mice, as have stem cell cures for nerve damage, diabetes, cancer (yes, a cure for cancer based on stem cells has been demonstrated in mice:
http://www.betterhumans.com/News/news.aspx?article ID=2003-12-10-3
) and many other conditions. This isn't pie in the sky science! Real, working cures based on stem cell medicine are in the labs, only 5-10 years from being available for us. This is the science that the US administration is trying to drown. It's sickening that any group of human beings would try to enforce so much suffering...
The US house of representatives passed a therapeutic cloning ban last year, but the US senate has been sitting on it. More on that here:
http://www.longevitymeme.org/projects/oppose_the_t herapeutic_cloning_ban.cfm
The Bush administration basically went over their heads to try and get what they wanted now from the UN, and damn near succeeded. You can read more about that here:
http://www.longevitymeme.org/projects/oppose_globa l_therapeutic_cloning_ban.cfm
This stopped being about human reproductive cloning a long time ago - there is a large, influential group of organizations, politicians and factions who stand opposed to any medical progress that will lead to longer, healthier lives. If cures for cancer, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes and other things get thrown away as well...well, too bad. You can see these views in their raw, ugly forms in the pronouncements of Leon Kass and the President's Council on Bioethics:
http://www.bioethics.gov
In their view, living healthily for longer is bad. Working to cure suffering is bad. Medical progress is bad.
Time to kick these people out of power - if we don't stand up for our right to develop and use better medicine, we're all going to be paying for it in years to come. See more at:
http://www.longevitymeme.org/projects/
Speak out!
Reason
Senator Tom Harkin (D - Iowa) is a proponent of human cloning (not just stem cell research, mind you, but human cloning). He was in a public discussion a while ago with Doctor Ian Wilmut (the guy in charge of the Dolly sheep-cloning experiment). Wilmut said "it would be quite inhumane" to clone people. Harkin blasted him:
... It holds untold benefits for humankind in the future."
"Human cloning will take place and it will take place within my lifetime. I think it is right and proper.
Article about it
The US blocking of clone research is pretty consistent with US denial of nanotechnology research funding.
A few weeks ago, the US effectively denied government funding of nanotechnology despite its public position of wishing to support it. The funding initiative (NNI) which was set up expressly to fund US research into nanotechnology was hijacked by US big business interests through a hilarious or appalling (depends on your point of view) technicality which resulted in nil dollars going to molecular nanotechnology. Yes, nil.
This sleight of hand was performed by first defining nanotechnology as being the application of nanoscience, and then positioning the huge US presence in chemical, biotech and materials sciences as already operating in nanoscience. As a result, 100% of NNI funds were allocated to those megacorps, and zero dollars to the small and powerless sector that currently does the real research into molecular nanotechnology.
It makes you wonder what the hell is happening in the US when such key research areas are blocked through government being concerned entirely with the protection of big business's current interests instead of being allowed to plan for the country's future.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Obviously George Warlord Bush isn't watching Star Wars, otherwise the Pentagon would be working closely with people like Chuck Norris or Sly Stallone to build a new Freedom Army...
For all the people that don't take a religious stand on the issue I wouldn't be surprised if many of the people who object most of all don't know anything about stem cell research and cloning technology. I bet most of them have never had to take care of someone with Parkinsons or Alzeimers.
Most of these people just take 1 look at the idea and speak up about how abhorant this idea is, basically because their first instinct is to screw up their faces and say 'yuck'. It's the 'yuck' factor that stops people from looking further into an issue and understand the real issues.
This is just another example of people talking loudly without putting in any effort into understanding more.
As for people with religious objections, while have have respect for their views, there are a significant number who are making the debate very polarised. They will not allow any answers other than yes or no, leaving out all the important details in between. I don't like that style of argument, it generally sets my alarm bells ringing!
The current US administration acts as if they believe that the UN is an organization somewhere between the Three Stooges and the Devil Incarnate, and they usually ignore the UN's resolutions and dismiss its statements.
So, why are they taking this issue to the UN? Because they have been unable to get the Senate to agree to this ban. They hope that by using the UN, they can force through something that wouldn't be palatable to even US politicians.
...life is re-created by an act of God through the union of man and woman, and not by a scientist in a lab.
Guess what? You're about to be proven wrong. When? Well, as soon as life *is* recreated in a lab. In other words, any time now. You can just file your "act of god..union of man and woman" nonsense in the same folder as "the universe was created in seven days", "the sun rotates around the earth," and the countless other religious canards that have been disproven in the past few centuries.
Sustaining the misguided fiction of your 2,000-year-old cult is not the responsibility of science, and no matter how far deep you bury your head in the sand, reality will catch up with you.
In the meanwhile, enjoy your fantasy.
Bah 2 U!
.
If I had a disease which could potentially be cured through some kind of research, but someone else wants to prohibit that research on religious grounds, they are as guilty of murder as "christian" "scientist" "parents" who withhold treatment from their sick children (won't someone please think of the children?) for religious reasons.Bah
What research? As another stupid poster bluntly pointed out, "research on stem cells gathered from aborted fetuses" - that research
Your granny, or superman, or anyone else is a valued human being. They should be helped through research. But gee, the knowing destruction of unborn babies is wrong - then using those body parts, fresh from the slaugter... that's just a bit too far.
If superman, or your grandparent are to be helped without regard to human life killed while doing so, that is far worse than not helping at all.
One last thing - like your grandmother, my paternal grandma died of Alzhimers. This fact does not make either of us any more virtuous, or our arguments any stronger. And yes, in the afterlife, I am prepared to tell both grannies what I just wrote.
Awesome.
One moderator with a +1 'Funny' managed to do what several eloquent, educated individuals (plus me) couldn't--that is, put this sort of statement in the right light.
I am awed.
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
Can't we just clone the ones that voted 'yes'?
If it's a choice between your survival or mine, take a wild guess where you rank.
Now imagine that it's a choice between me and some dead unthinking pile of cells scraped out of some woman's uterus...? (Hint: if my girlfriend ever wanted/needed an abortion, I sure as hell wouldn't let a law stand in the way of it.)
Now try again.
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
but why not just fix both the unreferenced "he" and the errant apostrophe after "said?" (in, "We will continue to work for a total ban,' he said.' I was just wondering what everyone thought about this.") Many /. posts require but half a moment to make readable.
Why not do so?
In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.
Can't the UK just do what the US does, and veto any UN resolution it doesn't like?
you can't place science above gods. science exists.
we need to examine what constitutes a living human being and I am convinced that experiencing thought is not a prerequisite for life; there is much more to us than experiencing thoughts, far more.
First off, if human life is so sacred, there sure are a whole lot of really *horrible* diseases trying to take it away. And to make it worse, there are genetic conditions which basically mean you're born to die in pain, or destined for total paralysis, or whatever. Sacred? Yeah right.
Second off, we're not talking a human being here. We're talking embryos. This is a collection of cells which certainly could, under the right circumstances, grow into a human being. At that point though they are just another bundle of cells. In case you think that even a "potential human being" has a "right to life", think again: most embryos miscarry in the first days of pregnancy without implanting in the womb, and this is unnoticed by the mother because it happens as part of a normal period. If you believe that creation of life through pregnancy is designed by God, you must also accept that an embryo has no value until it is implanted in the womb, because that's the way God has explicitly designed it.
I won't even get into IVF and other techniques designed to allow infertile men/women to have children - presumably this is evil bcos God ordained that those people shall not have children?
Grab.
Just a small note here -- in a "true democracy", should the majority decide that they wish for the state to be religious, it will be. Therefore, this statement cannot be applied properly even in theory.
As some communists have said (yes, I know Stalin was one of them, and he was quite correct), true democracy breeds socialism.
thanks for making me laugh out oud in front of my computer! got some weird looks from passing-by colleagues :)
(quote)
Sadly, many scientists feel (correctly or otherwise) their careers can be threatened if word gets out their ideas are inviable. Something that is far less likely a risk for a Christian.
(end quote)
That happens to be your belief. My belief is that your religion is unethical and your beliefs are unfounded superstitions.
In a democracy, we settle those differences through voting. We seem to have settled it so far in favor of therapeutic cloning and legalized abortions. Sorry if you don't like that, but your legal options are limited to deciding what you do with your own body.
The question is whether nuts like you will accept that middle ground and accept the tenets of our democracy. Or will we see more Christian terrorism, bombing stem cell research labs in addition to woman's health clinics?
Cloning of complete human beings is experimentation on humans who didn't consent. Cloning has a very high failure rate, with the failed cases resulting in miscarriages or life-ending deformities. I can't see how anyone can claim that human cloning is ethical if it results in 200 or more severely deformed babies for every healthy birth.
Maybe the failure rate could eventually drop to being close to the rate experienced by normal conceptions. But how would we get there? It is almost certain they would have to refine the cloning techniques by repeatedly failing on humans, because the differences between species indicates that you can't automatically make a jump from one species to an equal or better success rate with another. For example, years after the cloning of Dolly the sheep which took 297 attempts, it took 800 attempts to clone a horse despite the advantage of all the knowledge gained since Dolly.
Cloning of isolated organs or stem cells is a different matter which I don't have a problem with.
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
"this helps maintain the sacredness of human life" And the sacredness of human death, disease, and suffering? While I respect your opinion, please realize its not only to "create life." It's to make life more bearable for many individuals: including Cancer , Alzheimers and Parkinson's patients and thier families. Openmindedness of everyone will help in curing many ills, and alleviating the suffering of millions of people.
Oh no, the invisible man in the sky said no. Listen, the portion of the population that isn't completely insane is trying to solve real problems that praying wont fix. So stop using superstition as a reason to halt progress.
Oh no, look: another scientist-type insufferably arrogant about atheism.
Grow up - the portion that prays also solves real problems and help real people. You know, people like Newton, Pasteur, Faraday, Boyle, Larry Wall...
Once upon a time, there was a flood on a big river. Let's call it the Mississippi, for sake of argument. The flood waters approached a town, and as a family hurredly packed their car to get out of town, they noticed their neighbour wasn't doing anything. They offered to give her a place in the car, to get her out of harm's way.
"No need" she said "God will help me"
Not willing to endanger their children by staying to argue, the family drive off.
The flood waters arrive, and the woman is forced to the top floor of her house.
The local sherrif, patrolling in a boat, sees that the old woman is still in her house. He steers the boat up to the house, and shouts at her to climb out of the window, they'll take her to dry land.
"No need" she said "God will help me"
Unwilling to endanger the other people in the boat by staying to argue (the flood is flowing quite strongly, and they are running low on fuel), the sherrif heads off to dry land.
The floodwaters rise, and the woman is forced to the roof.
Overhead comes a helicopter, and a man is winched down. He urges the woman to grab on, the floodwaters are rising, but they can take her to safety. Once again, she replies
"No need" she said "God will help me"
Since the helicopter only has a limited amount of fuel, they aren't going to hang around to argue for too long, and forcibly grabbing old women from the tops of rooves isn't in the winch mans job description, so they fly off.
The flood waters rise. The woman is drowned.
She finds herself infront of St Peter at the gates. She is rather surprised that St Peter complains that she is early
"But God chose not to help me, surely that means it was my time?" she asks.
"Didn't help you?" hoots St Peter "We sent a car, a boat and a helicopter. What more did you want?"
I take it donations to the US president's campaign from the odder churches have exceeded those from biotech companies thus far.
ha ha
:)
you just summarised in few sentences why i don't believe in politics!
thanks for once more confirming that i am right in being pessimistic about these matters
Erm, because if you use his cloned organs he'll request that you pay 699 dollars for them as they'd be copyright infringment. Or something.
WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
The body parts, fresh from the slaughter, would be incinerated just like any other medical waste. These phoetuses exist without the research that uses them. So should we let the phoetus be lost instead of furthering medical research that could help less phoetuses be aborted? Yes, not all abortions are from a knowing destruction. The ethics of this topic are loaded, but I think that if we can use these things, it is better than throwing them away. Nobody wants to rip unborn children from the womb to research them.
Languages aren't inherently fast -- implementations are efficient
Is there a plural for fetus? I dunno, anyways..
is a journal entry I did a few days before this article because I was thinking about this very subject.
I would LOVE stem cell research. To those that say the earth is overpopulated BOO HOO! Maybe the earth needs a few more superhumans and a few less troglodytes.
We have a ready waiting supply for stem cells. Say it with me now folks, ABORTED FETUSES. The fetus didn't make it to term? Tough luck, that's natural selection. What do you think dogs and other wild animals do with their stillborn? They eat them of course! No self respecting carnivoire on the food chain is going to let that tasty bit of protien go to waste. Why should we as humans, the smartest creatures on the planet allow perfectly good stem cells that could SAVE LIVES become ground up and flushed down the drain?
I see stem cell research leading to more than saving lives, I see a future with unimaginativable body modifications. As a side result I would imagine learning how to keep a fetus alive outisde the womb would be a major part of the research, which could lead to healthier babies being born.
To tell the truth, I didn't know that the US was pushing so hard to ban stem cell research all together
How the hell is it possible to be this non-political? So utterly ignorant of what is going on in your own country?
Who runs the US at present? Answer; the fundamental christian far right of the republican party. Now, I'm sure you knew this. So why does it surprise you that they push for banning of stem cell research?
How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
- The issues with regard to cloning cannot be brought down to a single yes/no answer, they are legion and complex.
- The religious issues around cloning are for the most part also moral and ethical issues which would be of interest even to an atheist.
- Your suggestion that facts are somehow independant of ethical, moral and religous matters is ludicrous. Facts alone, without some kind of value context, cannot lead to a decision.
- The fact that there is an issue that is encouraging a debate about ethics, morals, and religion is actually an increadibly healthy thing for society. Science is a tool, and they [ethics, morals, and religion] are the hand that guides the tool. The more powerful the tool is, the more important that it be handled with skill.
Honestly, I'd argue that the problem in the USA is that most of the ethical, moral and religious thinking that guides our policy is not driven by very thorough thinking. If the populace as a whole spends more time grappling with these issues, perhaps they'll get past the rather shallow analysis that tends to drive policy.sigs are a waste of space
I think it's most amusing reading articles about how the more educated a person is, the less likely they are to believe in some christian god. hehe. Something we've all known forever, it's nice to see it in a journal...
Please do not equate moral viewpoints with religious viewpoints. It's quite possible to have morals without subscribing to any religion, and as has been seen over centuries it's equally possibly to subscribe to a religion without having any morals.
Cheers,
Ian
Exactly. Banning therapeutic cloning is denying everyone medical treatment just because one group of people has an ethical problem with it. If insert_religious_group_here thinks therapeutic cloning is wrong, they are free to not partake in it.
Yes, maybe they were religious, but Newton's theory wasn't that things accelerate toward the ground because god said so. Boyle didn't say that pressure goes up when when volume goes down because lower volumes anger God. They didn't do thier work because they thought God said so, and they didn't make thier contributions to human knowledge by asking or trusting God to do it for them.
Science has made more progress in a few hundred years than religion has made in a few thousand. Religion has no place telling science what to do. You're sitting at a computer, which is culmination of tons and tons of science. We didn't pray for it, we researched and we built it. Life expectancies have almost doubled thanks to science, you will live twice as long as you would if you had been born a few hundred years ago. There is no religious equivelant, there are no measurable results.
Everything seemed to be going so nice
'till the end of all beings punched right through the ice
For decades scientists and medical ethicists debated studying and using the results of experiments performed by Dr. Josef Mengele on concentration camp prisoners. One side argued that the manner through which the knowledge was gained made it so tainted that it was morally bankrupt to make any use of it. The other side argued that what was done was done and if there was knowledge in Mengele's notes that could save lives and ease suffering, it should be used, else the suffering and unwilling sacrifices of his victims would be for naught.
Both sides have a point, and that's the "sticky wicket" of medical ethics... that both sides of a touchy issue can be "right" in their own ways.
I am disgusted by the concept of harvesting stem cells from aborted fetuses. But I am heartened that stem cells might one day cure Parkinsons or Alzheimers.
Genetic engineering on humans puts me in mind of Hitler and his master race. At the same time, I inherited a predisposition to tendinitis and arteriosclerosis from my forebears, and if I could avoid passing those on to my children... give them the best of my genes, but not the worst... it's very tempting.
Start a happiness pandemic
It's what happens when you get a religious zealot as President, he's as bad as the towelheads in that respect. For f**k's sake, the man doesn't consider atheists to be real Americans. Grow up as a bloody country, this is the 21st century not the 11th....
I am a Christian. Now before you start flaming me for believing in stuff, just hear me out. Another guy came off all rightous in response to this story, attracting some well-deserved flames for his views. I would like to offer the rational Christian view. I believe God created the universe, with all the physics that hold it together. However, I do not deem to tell God how He should do stuff. If He works through evolution, that's cool. It makes His design cooler for being self-modifying. If he works through subatomic particles that we haven't even discovered yet, that makes it evel cooler that He started it all.
Having said that, I think it's crazy how some fundamentalists still think they know that God is against science of any kind. They are OK with breeding dogs and horses to suit their needs -- even good with masturbating bulls to get their semen for artificial insemination. Some of them start to get squeemish when I mention these things, but we have been playing with genetics for the longest time, and have reaped the benifits. Now, I can't figure out how cloning or even forming living cells from nutrient-rich baths can be 'playing God' more than any other science.
In fact I can -- people use life as a 'proof' that God exists. Unfortunately, any proof of God's existance would negate the need for faith, so it is doubtful whether such will ever exist. In these people's lives, they need to be able to say: 'Look at that foal -- it is proof that God exists'. If we can create life, therefore, we will be like God. This is flawed, for God is so much more than just something that creates life.
Languages aren't inherently fast -- implementations are efficient
If it's a choice between your survival or mine, take a wild guess where you rank.
...
Now try again.
Oh no, the "youre-wrong-because-im-really-selfish" argument again.
I thank God that my survival is *not* in your hands. It's in God's. And he's chosen to put an effective government in charge for my protection. Not you.
So, no... I won't "try again". You need to try again though.
This is something I feel pretty strongly about--I find any religious argument against the reduction of suffering or extension of life to be anti-humanist, ignorant and intolerant. Live how you will, but don't deny me and others the fundamental right to live what we see as better lives through the advancement of medical science.
However, you're not in a morally superior position compared to them. You're calling them anti-humanist, in other words, you're accusing them of not following the same moral code as you do. The very same thing you blame them of. Your arguement depends on the assumption that the reader agrees with your values. Circular logic. See how you use the word "fundamental right". According to whom? Not according to them.
It's a very real problem, how to deal with people who have mutually incompatible moral systems and the solution you suggest (non-interference) just doesn't work. Why? Consider a situation of incompatible "fundamental rights". What if I consider it to be fundamental right that my property doesn't get violated (absolute no tresspassing) That doesn't sound so bad does it? Now what then if your house is in middle of my territory and you consider your right to travel freely to be the one that cant be violated by anyone. So, who has the stronger right? And more importantly, who decides it? How can we have judges and laws if everyone carries their own laws and personal codes which are absolute? If you'd like to argue that laws aren't really moral codes I'd to hear your arguements. Just remember that if you claim that they're made for the common good be prepared to answer how can we define "good" without making a moral decision.
I believe that a human is a human from the moment of conception, making cloning (and other research on fertilised embryos) akin mutilating a fully-grown human -- i.e. illegal.
:-).
Is a child only to be considered human after birth? Or in the 23rd week of development? Such an arbitrary limit simply established by "the age required for medical science to help the embryo survive outside the womb" is unacceptable. The limits of science change, making younger embryos eligible for the title "human". But does the reality of the matter change with scientific achievement? No.
This is one of the few cases where we cannot allow science to dictate our definitions. In stead, we may turn to religion. The Baha'i Faith, the most recent complete message from the Almighty, teaches that humans are fundamentally spiritual in nature, and that the soul appears at the moment of conception. So it follows that the title of "human" must be conferred upon an embryo from day one -- or day 0 if you're a C programmer
To a baha'i such as me, there is no contradiction between true religion and science, so some of the answers to questions outside the scope of science may safely be found in Sacred writings.
Who?
Cloning is duplication! They just did it on Enterprise the other week! But seriously, it's true that cloning as we know it today is less like duplication than natural twinning, since even twins share the same mitochondrial DNA, whereas clones do not. Furthermore, all sorts of intrauterine conditions determine many aspects of the development of a fetus. Therefore a clone would be somewhere between a twin and a non-twin sibling.
if we place science above our Creator then the results shall be futile
Right. Great multipurpose statement there. There are so many more eloquent statements that could address the issue of stem cell research instead of hiding in the Christian equivalent of a Zen Koan. I happen to be for research, so I won't help you out. Next time you post about your religion, how about actually saying something about your views?
Languages aren't inherently fast -- implementations are efficient
IAAC.
I don't see why faith/religion should stop us doing cloning. God already gave us a way of creating new human beings, we just came up with another. It's not as if he said "Thou shalt not create new human beings" (in fact he quite explicitly stated the opposite with his famous "fuck off" comment). God gave us a way of getting around - a pair of legs - so should cars be abandoned on religious grounds as well? Just because God gave us one way of doing something doesn't automatically make all other ways of doing the same thing immoral.
My concern is how clones would be treated. If they have all the rights and privileges of a "naturally conceived" person (whether through AI, TT or plain DIF), then I have no problem. But I suspect one of clones' first purposes will be as organ farms, which IMO is just as unethical as harvesting organs of babies "born for that purpose."
I don't buy "life is re-created by an act of God through the union of man and woman" - if that were the case then babies would ONLY develop within the womb and test-tube babies just wouldn't happen. The fact that they do means at most that "life is re-created by an act of God through the union of sperm and ovum".
I have to confess I am rather saddened by many of the responses/arguments made by many slashdotters.
They seem to boil down to either a) people are going to do it anyway so it's pointless outlawing it or b) it will inevitably provide a cure for (insert some unpleasant disease here).
The first argument is trivially despatched. Murder is against the law. People still committ murder ergo by the logic presented here, we should make murder legal.
To deal with the second point. Firstly I think I can make the assumption that everyone agrees with the general principle that the ends don't justify the means? Ie it is possible for the price for some benefit to be too high. Where that balance lies certainly can be and is debated.
Now I could make the theist point of view about life being sacred, procreation being a sacred act etc etc, and whilst I'm largely sympathetic to that view point, I'm not a theist and I realise it's too open to bigoted attacks. So I'll restrict my arguments to a more limited, humanist line.
I think I can safely say that if these much-touted claims for the benefits of experimenting on foetuses/clones (and there is no concrete evidence to support the claim that such experiements will result in these cures, but leaving that aside). If these cures instead required experimenting on hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands Mexicans/Jews/Muslims/Poor people then there we wouldn't even be having this debate. The people arguing for it would be ejected from their cosy academic posts and justly reviled.
So what's different about embryos/clones? In my opinion there is no difference - they're simply another group of powerless humans that can be exploited. The difference is that some people have convinced themselves that embryos are not humans. OK so, for the purposes of this argument let's assume that's the case.
However at some point the embryo becomes a human. No argument there I assume. But when is that ? Is it after the baby is born ? (As the the Chinese might argue - as they perform abortions on the baby as it is born by injecting the formaldehyde into the child's brain). Is it at 20 weeks ? (Despite late term abortions, where the doctor crushes the baby's skull with his hand and the baby is then delivered normally, but dead) ? Or is it sometime earlier? When does that vital spark appear ?
The bottom line is, no-one knows. And in any case, as everyone develops at different speeds, its likely that if it's not at the moment of conception (my own personal belief) then it's at some variable time over the next 9months (or so). Given all that uncertainty - when is the embryo not a human? The answer is nobody knows. Therefore the only safe assumption is to assume that it's from the moment of conception.
The ONLY reason that we're even considering the option of experimenting on powerless human beings (who differ from poor-people/Mexicans/Jews/Muslims etc only in the depth of their lack of power) is because it's easy to ignore the simple fact that either an embryo is a human being right from conception, or becomes a human being at some unknown (and in my opinion unknowable, see Prof Penrose's book 'The Emperors New Mind' for the arguments) moment in time.
Abortion at any time is wrong. Experimenting on humans without their informed and explicit consent - whether Jews in a concentration camp or babys in a lab - is wrong. In fact I would go further than that and state that they are both evil acts.
Edward
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
The gov is oz wanted to ban stem cell research on frozen embryoes from IVF treatment programs that were going to be THROWN AWAY. Stopping that is not defending life or anything. THey are NEVER going to be born.
Besides if we can play god why not.
-- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
Who needs more than one Linus? Why not just clone McBride, and have Linus duke it out with them. The fight could take place in a rainy street, and maybe Linus could beat the McBrides off with an iron pole or maybe just fight the chief McBride and.. oh, wait a minute. Been done.
As subject
Doesn't matter who is in the White House, they will always be unethical to someone. The only time anything can be done about it is when the election rolls around.
It is easiest to measure political, economical, military success not in terms of some abstract 'quality of life' measurement but in degree of difference between the leaders and the followers. The world leaders (The northern hemisphere, the western world, the USA, the business, political, religious leadership of the USA) are quite comfortable where they are right now and have little to gain and everything to lose from anything that changes the political environment.
In any situation those who think they are the leaders have nothing to gain from change even if the change would benefit all. So change is suppressed.
We, the scientists, the technical people, the geeks, the artists, now alter the environment in which our societies exist. Now we may watch how those unpredictable, nebulous things that are human societies respond to changes in their environments.
Is this a good thing?
O new art woe are we.
I am selfish. I freely admit it. I want to live. A long, happy, healthy life. And I don't need you or your "god" in order to do that.
Nor would I ever forbid you from believing what you want to believe. "...fight to the death for your right to say it" and all that.
But I will be damned before I let _anyone_ (you, the pope, whoever) dictate how long or healthy I can or should live due to his personal temporal interpretation of what they see as divine guidance. (Although if you're advising me to find truth at a URL containing "babykillers", I'm probably already damned in your eyes anyway.)
That is all. Now try again.
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
We have things all wrong and backwards. Cancer, Alzheimer's, and Diabetes will affect so many more Americans than terrorism ever could. Our funding needs to be diverted -- stem cells or not, our priorities here are all messed up.
"Genetic engineering on humans puts me in mind of Hitler and his master race."
There always seems to be an undercurrent of this whenever human cloning is discussed.
I shudder to think what would have happened if Hitler had implemented a massive cloning program when he came to power in 1933. By 1939 he'd have been able to invade Poland with an army of terrifying, blond-haired, blue-eyed ...
five-and-a-half-year-olds.
Scary stuff indeed.
Hey, what about the bigotted christian scientists, you insensitive clod?
We (americans that is) live in a republican regime that is about one thing: Of big business, by big business, for big business. NOTHING ELSE matters to the regime. Be it the war in Iraq, epidemic and non ending corruption, pandering to the religious right, the ultimate goal is to profit big business directly or indirectly. The pandering to the religious right serves big business's interest because a poorly educated religiously extreme public is predictable, and tend to vote consistantly republican (which of course consistantly votes tax breaks and other favors back to the very same big business).
Its all really a viscous cycle. Government decimates education, leading to more religous extremism, which leads to more republicans being elected, which leads to more laws favorable to the fortune 500, who then contribute even more money to the same politicians.
Sorry for rant, but thats why education and basic research and things like a trip to mars will never happen with this regime. It just doesnt suit their cronies.
Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
on anyone else...
If the US government has ethical issues and we don't why should we have to sacrifice our competitive edge? Should Europe and the UK care about American pharma companies profits? Does the US give a flying f*ck about our welfare? Nope. So why should WE care what they want...
I'm glad you accept scientists can be Christian.
Science didn't make great progress through disbelief in God. Scientific research is a *great* use of our brain which God gave us. Newton though so, Larry Wall thinks so. Belief in God helped, not hindered, them. I think that it's just that society has hit a certain level of knowledge and that fed itself like a chain reaction. [ Just a note: the 2400 year old Book of Daniel in the Bible says that in the "last days" (which Christians believe is the age we are in) "knowledge shall increase" and people shall travel widely.]
Atheists make scientific discoveries that benefit people - that's great. I don't disagree science has benefited me. I sit typing on a computer and scientists like Newton (physics) to Larry Wall (Slashcode is written in Perl), *and* several atheists, have helped make this possible.
But governments are sometimes perfectly within their rights enforcing what we can or cannot do. Killing human fetuses and using body parts in the name of science, is a *terrible* use of our brains. We should not do it - period. As you examine the facts about abortion, let alone religion, your conscience (which God gave you) should be whispering quietly "hey, this is wrong".
The inhabitants of the earth are of two sorts: those with brains, but no religion, and those with religion, but no brains.
- Attibuted to the blind Syrian poet Abul'-Ala' al-Ma'arri (973-1057)
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
you're accusing them of not following the same moral code as you do
Precisely, I would never claim otherwise. My use of "anti-humanist" refers to the idea of humanism as a system of beliefs centered on the "interests, needs and welfare of human beings." (American Heritage dictionary.) I believe that someone who would limit my life or health directly or indirectly because of his/her religious beliefs to contravene my interests, needs and welfare. So far, no inconsistency there.
See how you use the word "fundamental right"
Yes, in reference to the US Declaration of Independence. "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."
My argument, you will note, does not in any way shape or form refer to anything but the "Life" and "Liberty" bits, although happiness should sort of automatically follow if you're in good shape, no? I do not believe that any man has the right to decide over another's life--and yes, I oppose the death penalty. Drawing property rights into the discussion does not follow--we're talking about the life of a thinking, breathing, conscious individual--IMHO the most important thing in the world.
You're absolutely correct about the "mutually incompatible moral systems". You'll note, though, that I do not make a moral judgment, simply a pragmatic one. I want to be able to live a long and healthy life, and so should you (if you want to.) Is that unreasonable?
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
rephrasing an ac comment after 15 mins and whoring for karma? the ac (and your summary) do make a point though.
the matrix is just some funny sci-fi idea... or is it?
You know, the one where all the elitests hear the dreaded word 'God' and get just as blindly offended as the people they are calling insensitive and ignorant.
Ignorance works in two directions.
I don't believe in your god; I believe in Man.
/should tell you or your doctor that. You don't take one life to give it to another, dribbling colostomy or not.
Your problem is man dies - as you will, someday. Your shining diety has clay feet.
Lets say you don't fear death - but what about God who judges after death? Your disbelief in him won't help a whit on the last day.
don't tell me what my doctor can or cannot do.
Sure, you doctor can do generally what he wants with himself, or with consenting adults.
But the government is within its rights in protecting fetuses/infants who cannot enforce their own rights. And it can
I thank God that my survival is *not* in your hands. It's in God's. Find out who this guy is and don't you ever let him see a doctor :-P
Same applies to those who don't agree with the research. Save them in a database and if they ever need the results of the rechearch to survive... Tell them to pray :-P
Suffering, disease, death. This is the stuff of life. Join the movement. Be PRO-LIFE.
Precisely, I would never claim
Fair enough, but how can we debate morality then if it's just opinions?
You're absolutely correct about the "mutually incompatible moral systems". You'll note, though, that I do not make a moral judgment, simply a pragmatic one. I want to be able to live a long and healthy life, and so should you (if you want to.) Is that unreasonable?
In my opinion it is not. But would you say that you have the right to long, happy and healthy life no matter the cost to everyone else? I certainly wouldn't want a longer and healthier life it'd mean death to innocent and unwilling people (Which is the case if souls exist). Would you?
I can understand the cloning of a human (ie after birth) being controversial, just because no-one knows what could happen to the clone 20 or 50 years down the line. But being against the cloning of embryos is just crazy. That's exactly how identical twins are produced in nature. One embryo splits in two and forms two embryos that have identical DNA (and are therefore clones). The process of cloning an embryo in the lab is basically the same: A single embryo is opened up and the stem cells inside it are divided into two new ebryos. Viola, two new identical embryos (same as in nature). What is unethical about this? Cloning a living human (or animal) envolves something a little different: Cells are harvested from the human, and then, through a difficult (and at the moment highly unsuccesful, percentage wise) process stem cells are grown from these cells. These stem cells are then used to make a new embryo (Embryos only have stem cells in them in the early stages). So you have a new ebryo with the same DNA as the human the other cells were harvested from. Problem is, we don't know yet if that the clone's cells will act like the (say) 25 year old human it came from (ie live for another 50 years only) or do they start from anew?
The whole problem with the word "cloning" is that most people think of Frankenstein and Hitler when you say it. Not many people realise that animal embryos have been cloned for decades now, and humans quite a while.
Is the US government going to start a witch hunt against identical twins in the future then?
All of the therapeutic uses of stem cells use adult stem cells.
This is simply a cloning issue with the people who support embryonic cloning saying it is for the good of man, in much the same way that a 5 year old says he will take care of a dog, if you will get him one.
Get a free ipod.
Excuse me? "shining diety" (sic)? Please point out where I ever mentioned worship of Man or Thing (except for Kylie) and I will gladly retract it.
Your disbelief in him won't help a whit on the last day.
Fair enough, but you just let that be my problem when the time comes, deal?
Cool how you manage to drag infants into this. As for fetuses, well, I don't believe they're human beings yet, and I'll let it stand at that. Nobody's ever convinced anyone to change their mind in the abortion shitfest (which is what this sort of comes down to), so if you don't want one, don't have one, and any other hackneyed cliches you'd care to add to this thread.
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
It happens. By design, we are mortal. I understand the want to be past things like genetic diseases, etc. But what happens when we fix everything? The earth will just collapse under the proverbial weight of billions of consumers, and we'll all die anyhow. Maybe if we can figure out how to be more symbiotic here, or expand across the universe, then there will be a point. But then what happens when the universe collapses back in on itself in a couple billion years? We die anyhow. No way to escape it...
Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
I agree. May God strike all those who participate in stem cell research dead if he doesn't like it.
What? They're still alive. I guess God must be in favour of stem cell research then. Clone away!
You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
their 'gaze' .continually shifts towards yOUR remaining assets/resources.
on first slith they are quite chameleon like, but their motives are obvious, so the infactdead behaviours must follow.
Thats a very smart move on their part, one year isn't long enough for anything too alarming to develop in this arena, but it is long enough for the issues to become less clouded, by holding off the decision the UN gives things time to develop closer to a point at which the issues are clear enough for some thing closer to consensus to emerge.
in my life God comes first.... but Linux is pretty high after that
Francis Smit
Find out who this guy is and don't you ever let him see a doctor :-P Same applies to those who don't agree with the research. Save them in a database and if they ever need the results of the rechearch to survive... Tell them to pray :-P
:)
Heh, here I am. Gee - a religion/atheism benefits race. Mine versus yours. Yay!
By your logic, you should not be at this site.
(Slashcode --> Perl --> Larry Wall)
Or hey, you should not benefits from the research that allows a chip-fab to be built in the first place
(Basic physics--> Issac Newton).
Seriously though, if I am dying, and a doctor says "gee, we've gonna have to use aborted baby parts for stem cells for a transfusion" I'd refuse because of the source of the body parts. And yes, I'd pray.
NOTE:
I don't think all stem cells research is evil (eg: baby cord blood stem cells are just great).
I think cloning is fine IF no human life or fetuses were harmed, and the clonee had no genetic problems due to the cloning.
It's just the killing of babies/fetueses that is evil.
But if God made using stem cells for theraputic cloning possible, then we're allowed to do it.
OK so he made murder possible and yes, we are allowed to do it, it's just that we'll all be judged individually on our actions when he meet Him.
If there is no clear moral reason not to allow theraputic cloning then it should be left for each individuals concience.
You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
Fair enough, but how can we debate morality then if it's just opinions?
Wasn't debating, was stating a view. Your point is taken.
it'd mean death to innocent and unwilling people
As I stated in another post, given the facts at my humble disposal, while I think that there's a big gray area, I don't equate clumps of cells with human beings. I also don't believe in a soul in the religious sense, so that's that for you there. And I won't keep this going by going for the inevitable, lame, cliche'd response--"prove it."
Having said that, "no matter what the cost to everyone else" is a bit of a straw man--if I'm on a lifeboat with another guy, and it's either me or him, well, I hope he's insured. If it's me or 100 people, well, who knows; people have been known to fall on hand grenades. It's not my intention to make absolute statements, I'm simply being honest about my beliefs and perfectly human, egotistical will to live.
To be honest, after yesterday evening's trip to the supermarket, I'm no longer sure whether I consider children in general, or most adults for that matter, to be human beings, but that's a topic for another day.
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
I always though ending a human life was unethical. How can creating a new life be unethical?
the geneva convention for example napalm and certain types of bayonett are used by america, that contavene this, but america never signed, so who cares.
As things stand right now, however, the success rate of clones is quite low. Depending on how you feel about the creation of a number of partially developed but nonviable fetuses, this may bother you (especially if you believe the "Life begins at conception." viewpoint). Human clones that are successfully born may very well face a significantly decreased lifespan if the results of other animal cloning are any indication and are also likely to be more susceptible to illness.
I feel these are all pragmatic concerns even for individuals not guided by religion. Perhaps not reason enough to cut ourselves off from the medical potential of cloning althogether, but I think certainly enough to question the vanity applications of cloning. Hopefully, most people would rather adopt than pass down to a child (and perhaps their bloodline!) the deficiencies that are currently likely to accompany human clones.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
So what's different about embryos/clones? In my opinion there is no difference - they're simply another group of powerless humans that can be exploited.
To clarify, the embryos that are being discussed in relation to this issue are, I believe, all less than 14 days old. The embryos in question are a tiny cluster of a few dozen (or hundred) cells smaller that a pinhead. I think that it's fair to say that such a cell cluster posesses no fundamental quality of human-ness, beyond the merely genetic. Since we regularly dispose of other viable human genetic material in greater quantity (e.g blood, semen, etc), it is, from my viewpoint at least, hard to argue that these stem cells are somehow more morally considerable.
However at some point the embryo becomes a human. No argument there I assume. [snip] When does that vital spark appear ?
The bottom line is, no-one knows. [snip] Therefore the only safe assumption is to assume that it's from the moment of conception.
We have a sense of those qualities of human-ness we value. There is, for one, the human cognitive state that we value above that of other lifeforms. Human foetuses do not generally display uniquely human brainwave patterns until approximately the end of the second trimester (by lucky hap, also the point at which Roe vs. Wade determined that abortion on demand becomes unavailable). Before the end of the second trimester they certainly look human, but then again so do corpses.
I think you have emotionally loaded your argument using terms like 'human being' and 'baby'. I reiterate that the cell clusters we are discussing have no remotely 'human' quality to them - they do not look human, they are not conscious or aware in any meaningful way. All they have is potential, in the same way that an unfertilised egg and a sperm cell do. Simply because we can not say with mathematical certainty the precise instant that a developing embryo/foetus becomes 'human' in a significant way, does not mean that we should rereat right back into "it's human at conception" - common sense tells us, when we look at a 14-day old embryo, that this clump of cells is not significantly human.
I'm going to anticipate the "it's a potential human!" argument now. In the same way that you would not permit a first year medical student (i.e. potential surgeon) to perform complex neurosurgery on you, neither should a potential human (which is what these embryos are) be regarded as an actual human.
In closing, I consider that the needs of actual realised humans are far more morally considerable than the needs of potential humans. If real, live, talking, breathing humans can possibly be helped by this technology, then I think our humanism demands that we make the attempt.
SofaMan -- Occasionally Battling Evil With His Mighty Powers Of Indolence.
I accept that there are people (more than I'd like to admit) that see any comment from the 'God Squad' as beneath contempt. It boils down to the same thing:
People that try artificially simplify arguments into 'yes or no', no matter what their views, are being idiots.
It just so happens that it's the religious people doing it the loudest this time around. They are refusing to look at the facts or even worse trying to manipulate them to support their own views. It's this that I find offensive.
Personally my opposition to human cloning comes not so much from religious reasons as because I feel very very sorry for the clones. What would it be like knowing you are a clone? As stories I've read from people who were adopted show, people have very strong feelings about their origins eg. finding their birth parents. Where you come from is something that weighs heavily on people's minds. Think of how adopted children feel when they get told they aren't their parents' real kid. How would you feel being told you are a clone of your father? Or the clone of a dead brother or sister?
Also it is inevitable that clones will be stigmitised in human society. When they go to school they will be considered freaks of nature, their very existence deemed monstrous. They'd probably be turned down for jobs - essentially they will be marked from birth as societal outcasts. The only people likely to accept them will be the scientists who created them and even then only as experimental subjects.
But even that doesn't matter so much if they were loved, as guidance and acceptance and unconditional love from your parents can help people through the worse of things, but from what I read of the people who want clones as children, they don't seem to be entirely mentally stable. Many of the stories seem to involve a dead child who they literally want to bring back from the dead. Anyone grow up in a family and go to a school where you were continually expected to be as good as your older brother/sister? Same thing, except a million times worse. Your parents will be expecting you to *be* your dead brother or sister. Why else would they have spent tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars cloning them when they could just have had another child? Other reasons also seem bad - as an organ bank for someone. Human bodies put in storage to have organs taken out to be used for spares (I've actually read a manga about that where a doctor feeling sorry for the clone and hating the selfish brat who is the original secretly switches the two so the brat's organs are harvested and the clone 'becomes' the brat albeit with amnesia). And making the child the clone of one of the parents seems to be firstly somewhat egotistical and brings up all sorts of emotional complications and feelings. You'd also have to question the mentality and ego of someone who wants to spend a fortune on a clone of him/herself rather than using a sperm/egg bank or adoption. Essentially all of the people who want clones (with perhaps the exception of those who want a clone to harvest organs for a dying child though even that is morally dubious by any standards) seem to be some of the most selfish mentally unstable people who either seem to have an ego problem (too large) or are too obsessive about the past. There is no way any of them could guide a clone child through a hostile world where their very existence is seen as wrong.
OK so he made murder possible and yes, we are allowed to do it, it's just that we'll all be judged individually on our actions when he meet Him.
If there is no clear moral reason not to allow theraputic cloning then it should be left for each individuals concience.
There's nothing inherently wrong in theraputic cloning itself. If killing of embryos/fetuses is involved - *that* is evil.
I think cloning is fine IF no human life or fetuses were harmed, and the clonee had no genetic problems due to the cloning.
If you find killing of embryos/fetuses an acceptible payment for the benefits of theraputic cloning, your own conscience will condemn you when you meet God.
The US will be slow to adopt it, on religious grounds. Meanwhile, far more pragmatic souls overseas will discover the lucrative market for creating legions of Pam Anderson lookalikes with four boobs...
A possible tinfoil hat explanation is that this technology is deemed of prime strategical importance. Get the UN to ban it and continue to toy with it with black defense budgets. *shrugs*
The problem with Bush's statement that there are enough stem cell lines to work with is this. Most are contaminated with the media they were grown on,, mouse cells.
>Your problem is man dies - as you will, someday.
so what? what exactly has the death of man got to do with the subject at hand?
> Your shining diety has clay feet.
And how exactly? by dying? i thought jesus dies too? dont give me the reawakening crap. and anyways, what exactly does your statement have to do with the subject at hand?
Wake up! Atheists, REALLY DO NOT believe in this GOD thingie.
>Lets say you don't fear death - but what about God who judges after death? Your disbelief in him won't help a whit on the last day.
Repeat after me! Atheists, REALLY DO NOT believe in this GOD thingie.Atheists, REALLY DO NOT believe in this GOD thingie.Atheists, REALLY DO NOT believe in this GOD thingie.
got it? good!
and do the world a favor will ya? stop threating on behalf of your favorite idol and stop warning people about how this idle idol is gonna kick ass on the last day?
A crank is a little thing that makes revolutions
How is parent funny?
Humph
Morons with mod points! Flame me now!
karma: Marianas Trench (mostly blub blub)
Stem cells can be harvested form the umbilical cords after birth, as well as from embryos. This should not be banned, as there may be many cures which could be discovered, and there could be other methods of gathering stem cells, too.
***You learn something Every day. And then you die.***
It all comes down to that blastula having a "soul". Sort of hard to have a rational argument with someone once that meme imprints them. Hey, my cat is possessed by a consciousness from the third planet around Vega. _Prove_ that I'm wrong, dude!
And those who lament "the life that would have been" seem unconcerned about the countless life ended early in agonizing disease. Presumably by rationalizing that God's cancer is the tourist class seat to the good land.
The only thing that the US accomplishes by completely banning embryonic cloning for the purposes of stem cell research is to ensure it's own position behind the rest of the world. As much as the US likes to pretend they are not the world government and they will not be able to stop said research on a global scale. A "second-world" country will end up discovering the secrets and selling it back to the US at heavily inflated prices.
Remember, there was a time when research of the lightning rod was considered unethical because how dare humankind attempt to prevent God from smiting us. Stupid fundamentalist Christian bastards. Just stick yourselves into compounds and wear funny hats so that we can better recognize and ignore you.
What? They're still alive. I guess God must be in favour of stem cell research then. Clone away!
God doesn't work that way. It's much more like a gambling scenario from what I understand of it. If you don't believe in his laws and follow them then there is a chance he exists and you'll be fucked when you die. If he doesn't exist then it doesn't matter either way since you're going to just rot in the ground. Might as well hold out hope for a better afterlife and live well according to his laws in this world "just in case".
Yep, that's precisely the bill that the parent was about. NNI was set up for the very purpose of funding nanotech research as described in the release you've mentioned.
:-)
Yet, not one cent of the money has been allocated to molecular nanotechnology, it's all gone to the megacorps like the chemical industry, which now define themselves as working in nanoscience because after all their molecules are small, LOL. See that reference to nanomaterials and biotechnology? One's got to admire them for their cheek at least.
The president probably doesn't know that he signed all the money over to the old industries instead of into MNT research. Or maybe he does, who knows.
Great. Now I'll have to go all the way to Hong Kong to purchase some flame throwing lungs.
"You have liberated me from thought."
Maybe the humour was too subtle for you.
I guess there was no canned laughter to tell you it was funny.
Very well, I can see now that you didn't intend to post your opinions as absolute facts but I assumed you did. My apologies for that, I just felt like I had to point out how morals aren't that simple and that we also have opinions on them.
As you can guess, I'm a moral relativist and as such I try to avoid making absolute claims and disagree when someone else makes them so easily.
Do you have any links to any NanoTech think tanks or anything which talks about your claims further? I couldn't find any critisms on any nanotech websites... (though I didn't look very long)
It's about letting them die.
The process of natural selection.
It's that simple. If we live longer, there will be more people on this planet. The better medicine becomes at preventing death, the bigger will the population problem become - especially if it is applied in nations with high birth rates and high mortality rates.
We have about five major threats to humankind:
- Lack of resources due to overpopulation
- Climate change
- A really bad pandemic
- Nuclear holocaust
- Meteor impact
(Also, note how terrorism is not part of that list, but it is the primary focus of the powerful nations right now)
Stop the brainwash
Is it just me that finds this stance on cloning at odds with the stance on DNA research and the patanting of genes and genetic sequences.
Now I know the current administration is conservatively christian and while I dont necessarily follow that train of thought I consider a general ban on human cloning a good thing. Note I say general. There should be circumstances where it must be permitted. The research oppertunities for the benefit of us all are too great for an outright ban. And is it so far a step away from the precedence of granting artificial fertility licenses to a couple in the UK for the sole purpose of providing matching tissue for an ill son or daughter?
I digress, sure, the current Bush administrations' stance on an outright ban is on moral grounds? The sanctity of the human body is gods creation and who are we to copy his work. Well I happen to think were just an odd accident that happened but surely by this argument, our genes, our very indivduality and specific beauty are our own? If it is moraly undesirable to clone a human being to the extent that there should be a global ban then does this not extend to the very thing that makes us human,our DNA? And by what right of law, what pious greed and what gauling arrogance does a commercial organisation have to claim patant rights over something so innate in all of us? Would you sell us the air we breath?
It's fucking disgusting
my other sig is written in brainfuck
Big difference.
IANAL(||geneticist||politician) but doesn't cloning humans really screw up the ability of DNA to prove certain crimes? The White House motivation is more likely Orwellian though, in that if you cannot positively identify and track every person, you lose power and control over them.
What is it about the oppression types that just love banning science that would better the lives of people all over the world. So, I'm confused by their stance on scientific research here. The White House clearly supports the research and manufacture of new and bigger weapons but says that cloning embryos is unethical?
Bush, 1984 called and wants its doublethink back.
Join Tor today!
What does infants have to do with abortions? Abortions are not murder. The embryos that are aborted are not even self-aware for crying out loud! It's more or less similar to cutting down a tree of picking a flower. No sentient creature is harmed. Hell, eating a hamburger is alot worse than aborting an embryo!
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
I don't disagree with your point (that they shouldn't bomb stem cell research labs), but I think that if you condemn such actions on purely legal grounds -- i.e., hey, that's the way democracy works -- you'd also have to condemn actions like those of anti-slavery activists, working prior to the time when slavery was made illegal, who would illegally free other people's slaves.
They refused to "accept the tenets of our democracy" too... but I don't think I would condemn them for it.
That doesn't include the Raelian nation.
This post patent pending.
Don't forget that the Bush administration has a great reputation for telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
As for organ harvesting, well that's not a cloning thing really, that has to do with the idea of organ and tissue farming, like grow bodies (no mind brain etc), just for tissues/organs, or even grow organs and tissues discreetly, looks sort of promising too.
But to do this with clones (in the proper sense of the word clone) would be Murder, that would be wrong.
in my life God comes first.... but Linux is pretty high after that
Francis Smit
just one more reason why U.S. science and technology has lost it's edge.
One would think the UN would actively pursue any attempts to mass manufacture terrorists, tyrants, slaves and soldiers.
Isn't that kind of what the UN does for a living? Well let's just flip through the Qoran and see what their benevolent insect overlords have to say about it?
Of course on the down side, who are all the Islamonohilists going to STONE TO DEATH if the clone breeders aren't married?
Maybe the motto of the UN should be
"We used to have fire but we killed the inventor"
Oh for Pete's sake. To seek to ban this kind of thing, which could conceivably lead to significant medical breakthroughs, is wrong. It is bad enough that certain groups in the US try to inflict their idea of morality on other groups in the US, but to try to inflict that on the rest of the world as well is outrageous.
This isn't an issue like the GM food debate where the consequences of something going wrong might affect everyone - if a stem cell experiment goes wrong it's just a failed experiment, confined to a laboratory incinerator; whether or not to do that experiment should be up to the conscience of the individual researcher, and attempts to ban other people from pursuing such research are mere moral busybodying.
The embryos in question are goners anyway...
"'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
- JRR Tolkien.
I have only two words:
Christopher Reeves
(Live one day in his shoes; remember that he was able to breath unassisted by a machine for the first time just this year.)
Yea... liberating 51 million people, using expensive satellite-guided missiles to reduce civilian casulaties... what monsters they are.
All the permanent Security Council members (USA, UK, France, Russia and China) have broken or ignored UN resolutions over the years, as have many other countries for good reasons and bad.
I think the UN is generally a good thing, but it does come up with questionable policies from time to time. This is one of those times. There is no reason for the UN to get involved in the cloning debate at this stage. If individual countries want to encourage or ban cloning, then it should be up to them. This is not really a global matter.
I think you're missing the point. Your argument would make sense if i23098's religion was lobbying to ban the development of software or transistor research, but s/he's not. So, posting on slashdot isn't hypocritical. The problem with so many of today's technophobes, is that they want all of the benefits of past research but refuse to accept the risk incurred by current research.
If you are being honest about refusing to be helped by the tech yielded from stemcell research, then I respect your consistency. Just I respect the Amish more than SUV driving Cassandras.
You still duck the point that it's not for one person or group to dictate morality for another group. If the president were a Jehovah's Witness (unlikely, given their mistrust of all government, but for the sake of argument...) and believed blood transfusions were wrong, do you not think there would be an outrage if he tried to ban all surgery requiring blood transfusions, for everyone?
If you don't believe stem cell research is good, feel free to refuse treatments based on it.
Your point 4 makes no sense to me. Religion the hand that drives science? When has that ever been true? Moreover, on the occasions that religious bodies have tried to guide science, when has it ever done any good?
"'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
- JRR Tolkien.
You think if someone's father is a rapist, the son should be killed because of the father's crimes, but the father shouldn't be killed?
That's some seriously twisted logic like you would find in Germany during the early 1940s.
So the question is, when computing technology reaches the (now mind-boggling) level where it's possible to transfer consciousness to another body... Would it be illegal then?
:-D
Just curious what your moral views are about that, because my atheist ass is counting on it happening sometime in the next 60-70 years.
the united nations... what me worry?
I know you are psychotic, but please make an effort.
Personally, if I truly believed that I was immortal (in the sense that I would be magically teleported to heaven at the point of my death) I would beg people to kill me, and I would refuse all lifesaving medical treatment.
i will not go into the whole issue of morality here which would a. take ages to discuss, and b. we wouldn't agree upon (likely)
:)
"religious thinking" is a funny expression though
unlike how you formulate it, i would rather say that ethics, moral, and religion are the boundaries which restrict the application of science in society. their role is passive, not a hand that guides the tool.
like the other reply to your post, i agree that the idea of 'religion being the hand that drives science' is a bit silly.
this all IMHO of course
I should have hit preview.
sigs are a waste of space
If the US gets its way, the limited existing cell line(s) becomes a scarce resource and pricing and control becomes a US choice. Its all about power and money.
If human life is so sacred to the US, then why are they still:
1. The largest designers/builders/users of WMD in the world (get rid of big mean weapons... then talk from the moral high ground... right now the US is a playground bully complaining about fair play)
2. Seeking to deny basic human rights to non-sanctioned immigrants (note... I don't use the word illegal... for obvious reasons... to be illegal, you need to have legal standing... and these folks simply don't)
3. Executing global strategies that seek to dominate not support or educate... (If you've ever seen the way american religious charities work you'll know exactly what I mean)
Give me secular over religious any day... at least when the secular maniac is killing people, he's honest about the reason why (but... you'll probably note that most homicidial maniacs are 'driven by God')
Your suggestion that facts are somehow independant of ethical, moral and religous matters is ludicrous. Facts alone, without some kind of value context, cannot lead to a decision.
Facts are entirely independent of ethics, morals and religion. That is not to say that decisions should be made solely on facts; far from it. Ethics and morality are definitely important in the decision making process. Religion isn't, however, unless someone can prove that one particular religion is correct.
The fact that there is an issue that is encouraging a debate about ethics, morals, and religion is actually an increadibly healthy thing for society. Science is a tool, and they [ethics, morals, and religion] are the hand that guides the tool. The more powerful the tool is, the more important that it be handled with skill.
Religion is definitely not the hand that guides science. Religion has stood in the way of science for hundreds of years. You do have a point about ethics and morality though. A society driven solely by cold-hearted logic would not be much of an improvement over what we have now.
Honestly, I'd argue that the problem in the USA is that most of the ethical, moral and religious thinking that guides our policy is not driven by very thorough thinking. If the populace as a whole spends more time grappling with these issues, perhaps they'll get past the rather shallow analysis that tends to drive policy.
I agree. Good luck getting the general public to concern themselves with these issues. Maybe we need some kind of "American Scientist" competition along the lines of "American Idol" to get people interested.
Simon: Your theory was terrible, I mean really awful.
The difference is that science is proven to work and religions is just wishful thinking.
The stem cells that are under the most debate, are coming from fertilization centers, where they take several of the mother's eggs and father's sperm and create embryos to implant in the mother. After a certain time period, these are either destroyed, or used for research. And actually, there are significantly less chances of finding stem cells in a fetus. By the time it's developed that far, most of the stem cells will have become specialized.
Another interesting point is that stem cells are available from fully grown adults. There are large amoutns of adult stem cells in the fat tissues. If you were to donate your fat after a liposuction, would people get upset? (Of course adult stem cells are not AS useful as embryonic stem cells. But any stem cells are better than no stem cells. And what is to say with a little research we couldn't get them to be as useful?)
There seems to be a lot of hysteria and misinformation involved in stem cells and similar research. Politicians who are Christian tend to jump to conclusions based on what they've heard about how stem cell research kills babies, and that's just not true. Anyway, take a couple of minutes to look at some stem cell stuff. Educate yourself, and know what you're talking about.
Point in case: There are more than one source for stem cells. Christian ideals or not, it's not about killing babies, it's about extra embryos with no purpose. (Christians usually believe that it is not right to create these embryos in the first place... but people are going to do it anyway... so we might as well make the best of it) Disclaimer: I am a Catholic Christian, and a Genetics major.
Ok first thing is there's nothing explicit in his word, so clearly he's not as steamed by this as some would say, now with this sort of thing we're really talking stem cell research not cloning, you could use a clone as a source of stem cells, and you could hunt rabbit with a bazooka too, I mean yeah it would be murder to make clones just to harvest organs and stem cells, but why bother anyway, there are easier and more promising ways on the horizon.
As for the other case of using stem cells from aborted fetuses well, yeah I believe thats wrong, not wrong to use them but wrong to abort, but thats an whole other debate. The main thing is I believe it will not work well, it's a dirty short cut, the only truly safe stem cells, that your body will not reject are your own, we need to be able to get those, or even switch normal cells back into stem cells, what ever it's all early days yet.
As for the parent post yeah science has a place but God is greater, thats kind of obvious isn't it, but how does the help this debate?? it really doesn't tell us much about where God sets the boundaries on what we may or may not do.
in my life God comes first.... but Linux is pretty high after that
Francis Smit
The problem with all of that is that it flies in the face of Leon Kass. A lot of bioethics hate Leon Kass, though he is a university professor, philosopher, founding member of the Hastings Center, fellow at the American Enterprise Institute ... you name it. The main problem all those bioethicists despise about Kass is that he eloquently and forcefully believes that human life has intrinsic moral value simply because it is human. This flies in the face of the predominate ideology of contemporary bioethics that disdains human exceptionalism as arbitrary, irrational, human-centric, and indeed, an act of discrimination against animals known as "speciesism."
BTW, everyone dismisses Kass a "Southern Baptist" neo-con right-wing whacko, yet he's Jewish.
Neither Kass nor Bush has advocated outlawing embryonic-stem-cell research. (Both do wish to ban all human cloning, including for biomedical research. But cloning is not the same thing as embryonic-stem-cell research, although many cloning advocates strive mightily to blur the distinction.)
Also, a lot of those issues you cite are banned in a lot of Europe, so it's not like it's unique to the "evil Bush administration".
would you care to explain "the Sceintific Method" to me?
what you are describing (empirical science) is just one end of the spectrum of methodology.
for example: have you ever heard of philosophy? the dialectic method, introduced by plato? or are you one of those people who think that science should be deterministic by definition? if so, you're wrong.
whatever. i don't even feel like discussing this.
bah
Do you have any links to any NanoTech think tanks or anything which talks about your claims further? I couldn't find any critisms on any nanotech websites
The primary MNT websites (primary because the people who really invented nanotech work there) are those of the Foresight Institute and the Institute for Molecular Manufacturing. Their people are the editors of the Slashdot-like MNT discussion site Nanodot. Here are a couple of news articles they've posted there about the NNI funding issue:
TNT Weekly: deletion of MNT study from nano bill is "a farce"
Nanobusiness Alliance spokesman attacks MNT
Also, do we really need to give ourselves another reason for discrimination?
I agree with you that there are many more important issues to discuss on this matter than the ones people seem to bring up.
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
I think some of the opposition against cloning is because of the fear that dictators would misuse the tech to clone themselves. As in the film The boys from Brazil .
To understand why this notion is flawed, try to find the problem in:
Ein Volk
Ein Reich
321 Fuhrers
)9TSS
You are attempting to credit religion for the benefits of scientific research done by someone who happened to have religious beliefs. This is obviously moronic. The benefits we gained from Newton's theories are the result of science, not religion. The benefits of Perl are the results of technical skill, not religion. We gain these and other benefits despite religion, not because of it.
Western civilization tried religious rule. We now call that time period the Dark Ages.
They are waiting for Bush to be out of office. I think it's that simple. It will be a cold day in Hell if Bush is re-elected.
It's undoubtedly going to happen or at least is happening somewhere in the world. There is too much to gain from human cloning, all legal issues aside, to stop it.
In human history, every time there has been some block or ban put on a technology it was continued forward anyway. It will be the same here.
When you consider that stem cells can be used to grow ANY OTHER BODY TISSUE, the use for them becomes clear. Currently there are scientists researching how to use stem cells to grow spcific body parts. This means that, if one day you loose an arm or need a kidney, that it will be a simple matter (okay, not so simple) to grow one from your existing cells.
The Bush administration is being blind on this and is taking the typical "We shouldn't play God" stance. it will only hold up for so long.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
But we could discuss forever and neither of us would convince himself to change his mind. The future shall show which path was correct...
Why wait 'till the future? Why not instead study Christianity's LONG HISTORY of disease management, control and curing.
Black death plague, anyone?
Rampant disease in Europe in the 1600s-1800s?
Hell, for that matter rampant disease through all of Christianity's history. Yep, let those Christians decide what to do next. Nevermind that it was Science that finally cleaned up disease and starting making serious inroads to eliminate it completely. With Christianity fighting it every step of the way.
Nope, I think History shows us quite clearly what our proper course should be at this time.
Send in the clones!
Like what I said? You might like my music
i don't believe in politics!
What's there to disbelieve? Politics are real, and one of the longest-standing methods of making decisions for a group of people. How you can you deny the existence of politics?
Like what I said? You might like my music
You're calling them anti-humanist, in other words, you're accusing them of not following the same moral code as you do. The very same thing you blame them of. Your arguement depends on the assumption that the reader agrees with your values. Circular logic.
No, he's not. The vital point you're missing is that his views are not affecting those he is addressing directly. Their views ARE affecting him directly.
It's a very real problem, how to deal with people who have mutually incompatible moral systems and the solution you suggest (non-interference) just doesn't work. Why?
Because one of the sides believes their viewpoint should be able to impact the other side?
Consider a situation of incompatible "fundamental rights". What if I consider it to be fundamental right that my property doesn't get violated (absolute no tresspassing) That doesn't sound so bad does it? Now what then if your house is in middle of my territory and you consider your right to travel freely to be the one that cant be violated by anyone. So, who has the stronger right?
This is just a plain dumb analogy based on a false pretense. If it is your property, someone else's house would not be in the middle of it.
And more importantly, who decides it? How can we have judges and laws if everyone carries their own laws and personal codes which are absolute?
It is very simple: The right to swing your fist ends at another man's nose.
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
DONUM VITAE
(translated "The Gospel of Life")
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
INSTRUCTION ON RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE IN ITS ORIGINAND ON THE DIGNITY OF PROCREATIONREPLIES TO CERTAIN QUESTIONS OF THE DAY
FOREWORD
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has been approached by various Episcopal Conferences or individual Bishops, by theologians, doctors and scientists, concerning biomedical techniques which make it possible to intervene in the initial phase of the life of a human being and in the very processes of procreation and their conformity with the principles of Catholic morality. The present Instruction, which is the result of wide consultation and in particular of a careful evaluation of the declarations made by Episcopates, does not intend to repeat all the Church's teaching on the dignity of human life as it originates and on procreation, but to offer, in the light of the previous teaching of the Magisterium, some specific replies to the main questions being asked in this regard. The exposition is arranged as follows: an introduction will recall the fundamental principles, of an anthropological and moral character, which are necessary for a proper evaluation of the problems and for working out replies to those questions; the first part will have as its subject respect for the human being from the first moment of his or her existence; the second part will deal with the moral questions raised by technical interventions on human procreation; the third part will offer some orientations on the relationships between moral law and civil law in terms of the respect due to human embryos and foetuses* and as regards the legitimacy of techniques of artificial procreation.
* The terms "zygote", "pre-embryo", "embryo" and "foetus" can indicate in the vocabulary of biology successive stages of the development of a human being. The present Instruction makes free use of these terms, attributing to them an identical ethical relevance, in order to designate the result (whether visible or not) of human generation, from the first moment of its existence until birth. The reason for this usage is clarified by the text (cf I, 1).
INTRODUCTION
1. BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH AND THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH
The gift of life which God the Creator and Father has entrusted to man calls him to appreciate the inestimable value of what he has been given and to take responsibility for it: this fundamental principle must be placed at the centre of one's reflection in order to clarify and solve the moral problems raised by artificial interventions on life as it originates and on the processes of procreation. Thanks to the progress of the biological and medical sciences, man has at his disposal ever more effective therapeutic resources; but he can also acquire new powers, with unforeseeable consequences, over human life at its very beginning and in its first stages. Various procedures now make it possible to intervene not only in order to assist but also to dominate the processes of procreation. These techniques can enable man to "take in hand his own destiny", but they also expose him "to the temptation to go beyond the limits of a reasonable dominion over nature".(1) They might constitute progress in the service of man, but they also involve serious risks. Many people are therefore expressing an urgent appeal that in interventions on procreation the values and rights of the human person be safeguarded. Requests for clarification and guidance are coming not only from the faithful but also from those who recognize the Church as "an expert in humanity " (2) with a mission to serve the "civilization of love" (3) and of life.
The Church's Magisterium does not intervene on the basis of a particular competence in the area of the experimental sciences; but having taken account of the data of research and technology, it intends to put forward, by virtue of its evangelical mission and apostolic duty, the moral teaching corresponding to the dignity of the person and to his or
IC XC NIKA
The issues with regard to cloning cannot be brought down to a single yes/no answer, they are legion and complex.
Um, no. It's a simple issue that has opponents that choose to make it appear complex. It really does boil down to a few simple things, which I'll get into in a moment.
The religious issues around cloning are for the most part also moral and ethical issues which would be of interest even to an atheist.
Provide a list. There are no ethical or moral issues involved with cloning, in my mind, and it pisses me off that people keep telling me that there should be.
Your suggestion that facts are somehow independant of ethical, moral and religous matters is ludicrous. Facts alone, without some kind of value context, cannot lead to a decision.
Facts + Morals = Truth. And as we are all aware of, truth leads to war. :)
The fact that there is an issue that is encouraging a debate about ethics, morals, and religion is actually an increadibly healthy thing for society. Science is a tool, and they [ethics, morals, and religion] are the hand that guides the tool. The more powerful the tool is, the more important that it be handled with skill.
Science isn't a tool. It's the way we generate facts about the world around us. Engineering is the discipline that takes the facts presented by science and turns it into tools. For this reason, scientific research into cloning is harmless. What we do with the technology after the research is done is where the moral and ethical debate should be taking place. But in the gathering of facts? No fuckin' way. THAT is why this whole thing is (to quote Jim Carey) "stupid-stupid-stupid".
Like what I said? You might like my music
Who decides what that is? Goverments are trying to abrogue that right for themselves, unfrotunately the current US administration does so based in religious zealotry, which is a wonderful base for the advancement of science.
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Not all who are opposed to certain kinds of stem cell research are religious fanatics. I am an atheist (almost an anti-theist), and I, for one, cannot condone creating an embryo for the sole purpose of harvesting stem cells from it. Read that previous sentence carefully, before you flame me. Sole purpose. Embryoes left over from attempted in vitro fertilization should be used for stem cell research. As I understand it, the "leftover" embryoes will continue to be created whether scientists use them for stem cell research or not. To destroy them would be wasted opportunity, and the benefits of stem cell research are too promising to waste. However, I do not believe that humans should have the hubris to create the beginnings of human life solely to harvest it for scientific research. That first step sets up a long slide down the slippery slope to genetically engineered "drone humans" and a caste system organized on the basis of genetic predetermination. This debate is not just about science and religion, but it is also about liberty and freedom, and how we can enjoy them.
Interestingly, based on our current understanding of space, time, and matter/energy being interdependent, we can conclude that the cause of the universe:
a) Exists outside of time.
b) Exists outside of space.
c) Is not composed of matter or energy (at least in the forms that we understand).
d) (From a, b & c) Is unlikely to be based upon any of the known laws of physics/reality.
This is an argument that, at minimum, makes it reasonably likely that some supernatural something exists (ie. something that cannot be figured out by science, since it is outside of space/time, and not composed of matter/energy). Whether you believe this supernatural something to be God or not should be something decided by examining the evidence.
Alphanos
Tasty fatpeople stem cellss....mmmm....
Blar.
If you find killing of embryos/fetuses an acceptible payment for the benefits of theraputic cloning, your own conscience will condemn you when you meet God.
Here's a piece of advice. When you're thinking of making a statement like that to an atheist, try replacing the word "God" with the words "Santa Claus" and see if you still like the way the phrase makes you look. Because that's how you sound to us when you say things like this.
...yet we have the ailments that make some of us think of doing that.
If we hold life sacred, the _we_ will treat each other better and be better off. Holding the life of a thinking, feeling, person who want to live in good health to be the equal of that of a gastrocyst is demeaning to the former, and idolatrous to the extent that it sets up a thing, living as it is, to be the equal to a being.
The United States oligarchy is reminding me more and more of a muscle-bound drunk at a birthday party. If you don't behave the way prescribed, you will be economically blockaded or physically invaded.
Now they would force ignorance on the rest of the world, when you know full-well that cloning and embryonic stem cell research will continue in cronies' laboratories.
One set of rules for you: another for us. What is that called again?
Oh...what's his name...oh yeah...Jebus!
Blar.
That's silly. He'd never have gotten anywhere invading Poland with five-and-a-half-year-olds.
France, maybe.
In that case, we'll use the scientific method, and conduct an experiment to test the hypothesis that this procedure is against GOd's Will. We'll try it, and if it helps a noticeable number of people, and it doesn't alter society to the extent that babies are being snatched from their cradles (or embryos or foeti from unwilling womens' wombs), I think we'll be able to safely conclude that these procedures have not in fact turned out to be futile, and therefore consonant with the Voluntas Dei.
Lets say you don't fear death - but what about God who judges after death? Your disbelief in him won't help a whit on the last day.
Great, then I'll go straight to hell where I will finally learn the truth of matters while you continue to pontificate in the clouds. Considering the fact that I don't want to spend eternity with the likes of you, and you are representative of what it takes to get into heaven, I can't think of any reason why I should really give a fuck what God thinks of me and how he'll judge me when I'm dead.
And that's all assuming he's really there. If he's not, then not only am I right in not giving a fuck, but you're wasting your entire life worrying about it. Ever think of that?
Like what I said? You might like my music
Scientific research is a *great* use of our brain which God gave us.
Assumption without evidence. Assuming your conclusion.
Killing human fetuses and using body parts in the name of science, is a *terrible* use of our brains. We should not do it - period.
Merely your humble opinion.
As you examine the facts about abortion, let alone religion, your conscience (which God gave you) should be whispering quietly "hey, this is wrong".
Assumption without evidence. Assuming your conclusion.
Your problem is that you really really believe this stuff to be true and you think that because you really really believe this stuff to be true that it should therefore matter to other people and to society in general. It simply doesn't. Society has no business (and the U.S. Government is Constitutionally prevented from) making policy decisions based on bronze-age mythologies. If you want religion to be taken seriously, provide objective evidence of its validity.
stop threating on behalf of your favorite idol and stop warning people about how this idle idol is gonna kick ass on the last day?
All tell you one thing. IF them Christians are even half-right about what they're saying, then I sure in the fuck don't wanna be on the wrong side on Judgement Day.
So I've got me an old-style quill and some parchment, and a knife. I keep it handy just in case the Big Guy decides to pull Judgement Day while I'm still alive. I figger as soon as that happens, I'm gonna write out my contract and sign it in blood.
Jesus comes my way, I'm gon' shoot that mutherfucker.
Like what I said? You might like my music
Posts that blindly assume that the author's personal religious beliefs are true or in any way important are often amusing to those who don't share the author's beliefs.
Hope this helps.
Does this deity that you speak to say anything back to you?
If so, Cool!
I'd sure like to have conversations with gods.
Just like the nuclear non-proliferation treaty has really prevented all those non-superpower countries from figuring out how to build nuclear weapons...
By trying to ban cloning technology, we are just inviting the criminals and black-markets of the world to figure it out themselve and make lots of profit because it's illegal.
Drugs are another example. Drugs are bad (m'key...), but many have postulated that legalizing the most common drugs would destroy the drug market (and most of the abusers as well), since the price would drop tremendously, and there wouldn't be a need to "push" them (no profit in doing so). But, our moralistic big-brother instinct tells us that if something is bad, we should step in and remove the choice from people instead of letting nature deal with it. Hence, people kill one another to buy that one more dose, because it's expensive, and because money is to be made by selling it.
I'm not looking forward to the farms of milk-fed human-clone-cattle with toe-tags for "liver" and "heart". Nor do I really relish the idea of wandering around and seeing myself (if they ever find a way to accelerate growth, people will buy clones to do crimes for them!). BUT, if we don't do it, others will, and we'll be left behind and surrounded by foreign-grown clones sold to us under high tarrifs (or on the black market).
Actually, it's the complete lack of objective evidence for the validity of any known religion or the existence of any god that makes the concept obsolete.
They'll be in for a surprise when they meet Him.
This is the sort of self-confidence-building statement that theists often make when they're not completely confident in their beliefs and fear (deep down inside) that they've been wasting their life on foolishness. People who are confident in their religious beliefs don't need to keep reassuring themselves. How strong is your faith?
No matter how you want to spin it. If you follow that logic then every time a man masturbates he commits mass murder.
Even a very young fetus is not fully human since it has no capacity for abstract thought.
Once that capacity exists (with the formation of the neocrotex in the brain) then we could grant a fetus all the same rights as a fully formed human, as longs as those rights do not enter in conflict with the mother.
This is clearly a moral dilemma, and as such, it should be left to individuals to decide what to do according to their own values.
A goverment in a democratic society should not be dictating values in an issue in which there is patent disagreement.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I once asked my ex-wife: "How many dead babies does it take to achieve clinical imortality?"
Her reply? "As many as necessary".
Let me point some of you "youngsters" to a SF story called "Bug Jack Barron", by Norman Spinrad. In it a 5 year old child had to die for every adult made imortal. The twist to the story is the Bad Guys make Our Hero imortal instead of killing him. It's quite chiling to see the co-opting process go to work when Our Hero finds out he now is one of the lucky few, and how easy it is to rationalize the procedure (now that it's been done).
My point? Don't underestimate human greed and the will to survive. I also believe, along with another poster, that this move by the US is 1) a sop to the religious right at election time, and 2) a somokescreen for the US Pharma industry.
Just call me cynical, I guess ("Well, sure, Mr. Senator, we continued with our research dispite the ban. We only experimented on non-Americans, outside of America. So, do you want us to extend your life so you can run for another term, or not? Remember, you made this an illegal procedure..."). More Life. More seductive than more money.
But cloning is not the same thing as embryonic-stem-cell research, although many cloning advocates strive mightily to blur the distinction.)
True, you can produce stem cells without cloning. However, as far as I know of the research, there are no known means for making general-purpose stem cells (IE, that could become either nerve, heart, or any other kind of cells) identical to Person X without making a clone of person X and harvesting it at around 1000 cells.
And while Bush has not outlawed embryonic stem cell research, he has banned the production of new stem cell lines. Furthermore, last I heard the extant cell lines have a major problem with them.
Now, mind you, I think cloning a human and bring the clone to term at this point would be a BAD thing to attempt. I also think that messing with embyonic-only cloning is something not to undertake lightly. But the blind bans are a Bad Idea.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
This comment is defnitely going to be troll-bait... but what the hell
Oh no... the "I'm a Cristian so you're gonna burn in hell" argument again
Did you euthanize your brain when you (a) became a Krist-Yin and (b) became a comp-ASS-you-n-ate Can-serve-a-tiff
How anyone can truly look at the mess that the US is in, and still think that you have an effective Government is simply astounding!
I expect a better quality of thought from my (admittedly bright) eight year old son... So if you refer to this good ol' kristyin guv'mint as anything but a laughing stock on the world stage... then you, my friend, are hugely delusional
but we knew that already... since you're still Christian & Conservative in the face of all evidence...
For a good article on people trying to save their sick kids, see the Atlantic Monthly's 2001 article Cloning Trevor. It provides a good overview of the intricacies of emotions surrounding the debate, and exactly how misunderstood cloning is; for example, how hard it is to work with and propagate cloned stem cell lines, and how this will eventually force the research overseas.
I'm all for it, dying sucks ;)
What bothers me every time this comes up is 100's of people saying "the bush administration says to hell with all the alzheimer's patients." The simple fact is that ADULT stem cell research has yeilded MANY beneficial results, like this one piece of recent news. Or this about bone marrow derived stem cells. Or this about turning SKIN cells into BRAIN CELLS for alzheimers patients! Why does the news media at large ignore this huge potential and only focus on how the pro-life movement "want's to end stem cell research altogether" ?
I Do C++
Might as well hold out hope for a better afterlife and live well according to his laws in this world "just in case".
The same argument goes for living by the laws of Harvey the Invisible Pink Easter Bunny.
If I had a disease which could potentially be cured through some kind of research, but someone else wants to prohibit that research on religious grounds, they are as guilty of murder as "christian" "scientist" "parents" who withhold treatment from their sick children (won't someone please think of the children?) for religious reasons.
You know...a lot of people wanted nothing to do with the "works" of Josef Mengele, due to how his research was done. I swear...I am not trying to trigger a Godwin's law response here or anything, but you "enlightened" folks are sounding more and more like Nazi's every day...which is funny, because so many of them are the ones screaming bloody murder about the Nazi's trying to stop them.
none could be used in the US
No. None of which could get FEDERAL FUNDING in the U.S. Not none of which could be used.
Get the facts right....and beyond that, I read a German article recently about them fearing a brain drain as so many biotech workers are coming to the U.S. for the better money etc. You'll never see that if all you read is lefty gibberish like Slashdot, unfortunately.
No, he's not. The vital point you're missing is that his views are not affecting those he is addressing directly. Their views ARE affecting him directly.
Because one of the sides believes their viewpoint should be able to impact the other side?
What I'm arguing that it is impossible to avoid it.
This is just a plain dumb analogy based on a false pretense. If it is your property, someone else's house would not be in the middle of it.
No, you just didn't interpret it correctly. I meant an O-shaped but thick area which belongs to my property and a small island at the middle which belongs to the other guy.
While neither principle is unreasonable they are mutually incompatible.
It is very simple: The right to swing your fist ends at another man's nose.
But even that rule has problems. If you mean you cant harm the other person we still have to define harm. What if mine and his view of harm are different? If mr.A thinks looking at him is harmful to him should we prevent other people from doing that? And what if mr.B thinks he is free to look at other people? It is quite difficult to create a society that is based on the principle of noninterference because the concept is so
immaterial and as long as people interact with each others in any way we have to agree on some ground rules (laws). And all rules limit someone, it is something that cannot be avoided.
How would you apply your idea of noninterferance in a case where a wants 1000000$ from b because b watched his flowers and a considers that a breach of his privacy? It simply wont work because all actions affect other people because both action X and action -X can both be interpreted as positive rights.
parts: the clonus horror
George & company must have seen this in the theatre and believe it would come true. So give them some credit - even if they are rich, white men they don't seem to want a clone farm for parts after all.
Unless that's what the want us to think. Maybe they've remodeled Area 51 and it's now a secret clone farm! The horror!
R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
I was with you, man, until this:
If you'd like to argue that laws aren't really moral codes I'd to hear your arguements. Just remember that if you claim that they're made for the common good be prepared to answer how can we define "good" without making a moral decision.
Laws exist to provide "peace", not "common good". They provide a way for people of disparate backgrounds, moral ideologies, religion, and so forth to live beside one another in peace, harmony, and prosperity. That is the sole purpose of law.
Now, my statement has plenty of holes in it as far as creating a government or other group of people to make and enforce law. I haven't addressed that at all, I've only provided a purpose of law, and not even a definition at that. :)
Like what I said? You might like my music
The "we have to have abortions / avoid reproductive cloning to control population growth" argument is specious. Because people in modern cities tend to both have and use birth control for economic as well as personal reasons (children are too much trouble), the populuations growth rate is negative in every modernized country in the world except for America. America's being barely over the sustainability threshold is the effect of our huge inflow of immagrants. Europe is, in fact, facing a population imbalance crisis over the next 20 years that makes the fiscal crush the US is facing with the retiring baby boomers look like easy streets. It is the case that people in undeveloped countries will not use birth control because their personal wealth is correlated to the number of children they have to work the farm, and the only largely undeveloped nations to stem the tide are those that, like China, are practicing essentially involuntary abortions and involuntary sterilizations. The only both viable and tolerable path I have ever heard of toward stemming the population explosion is modernization, which is not a problem in North America or Europe. It, on the surface at least, appears that even the UN has even essentially acknowledged that Malthus was wrong, in that their recently released supposed estimate of world population in the year 2300 says world population will be on the order of 9-10B, which is where previous estimates said we should be right now.
Most of the existing stem lines are either a) Extremely hard to get b) Of inferior quality once gotten. Apparently the rights of a single cell are more important than the rights of an adult with say Cystic Fibrosis to Mr Bush and his right wing mafia.
Why should everybody know one is a clone?
It would not be more than a curiosity regarding your birth, like saying I was born by caesarean section or by in-vitro fertilization. Who will fscking care when it becomes common practice?
How do adopted children feel? I do not know, some great and greatful, some sad, some do not care. So your point is? Cloned individuals certainly would show as amny different responses.
Now you are entering the realms of trolling. By claiming that people wanting clones are mentaly unstable. Who are you? A psychologyst?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Larry Wall prays? That explains quite a bit about Perl, and why it's such a GODAWFUL pain in the ass.
Like what I said? You might like my music
... that a fetus that can't feel or think, is not a human (i.e. during early stages, and certainly an embryo is not a human at all in my book).
So what is it sonny, do I impose my views on you or do you impose yours on me?
Or do we agree to disagree and trust that the goverment will facilitate that both do our own choices without being criminalized in an issue that is far from clear?
You don't want scisnce to dictate the issues, well, I don't want religion to dictate them neither, so once again sonnt, do I opress you or do you opress me?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Let's face it, their beliefs are based up a book written anywhere from hundreds to thousands of years after the events occurred. Add to that the knowledge that they have a hard time looking beyond what a priest tells them the bible means or says (and that priests livelihood is based upon keeping them paying tithes) without checking for themselves.
Great observers. Uh-huh. Right.
What I want to know is how all these people apparently know that God doesn't want stem cell research. Last I heard, God wasn't making direct contact with us after that Episode I debacle.
Nobody has shoved anything down anyone's throat. It's not that we don't want people to get well, but most christians that are outspoken on the subject have never been told the whole story. I don't see any problems with a few cells here and there taken from donated sperm/umbilical chords/etc. Most christians you talk to will have only heard of the killing babies method. So chill out and stop using unproven, outdated slogans that imply the forcing of morals.
excuse my horrible english, it's not my native language... allow me to rephrase:
i do not believe that political methods, as applied nowadays, offer a solution to run governments well.
maybe that's better. it's not complete, but it's a better approximation of how i feel about politics. see what i mean now?
(or were you merely joking?)
btw.(630000) -> wow pretty cool UID nr
Who is more partial to bias, the Christian zealot or the scientific zealot?
Didn't think that was possible.
People fear what they do not understand. Sadly, in this case, it is the leaders of our government who do not understand.
Any time I see debate over anything like this, I see the fear in the "eyes" of one side. For the many who are against this because they fear mankind will play god, I can only extend my deep sadness. They fear for the validity of thier faith by the actions of mankind. Mankind will always strive for perfection and it always seems to create the fear in some that we may succeed. What then of our faith? This is sad, for these people will never know true peace.
Perhaps what they should really fear is the loss of the scientists who do any of this research. If we have a ban in the United States that the rest of the UN does not support, then the research will move to other countries. This is good for the other countries, but bad for the US. How long before other industries and researches follow? If the ban is lifted later, do we really think the scientists will return to our country to continue the research?
Bans on anything have historically been bad ideas (prohibition springs immediately to mind but history is riddled with other, better examples). But bans on scientific research seems to be particularly bad. When that happens, we loose a resource more precious than any metal or gem - the human mind!
Seppuku: Your solution to my problems!
Here's an upcoming movie that looks pretty good! It's called godsend. Rebbeca Stamos(mmmmm) and Greg Kinnear loose their son, Robert Deniro helps them clone him illegally.
LINK
WURD!!
It was a kindof joke, I suppose. :)
People, all too often, decide to use the word "believe" in order to force other people to respect everything that follows. Example:
I don't believe in modern technology.
I don't believe in smacking babies.
I don't believe in masturbation.
Problem is, belief is what you have when you think that something is true without fact. So, using the word "believe" in that context is poor english. ;)
I realize you said that english isn't your first language, but this is a lesson that transcends language. Consider the meaning of the English word "believe" in your own language. Would you still say "I don't believe in politics."?
Like what I said? You might like my music
Leftist editors don't want to think that this could even happen.
Enjoy
As we all know...everyone is smarter than the Mericans! Especially the Bush administration. Now repeat (bleat) the mantra with me...Haliburton! Haliburton! Haliburton!
If he truely believes in it, he'll probably get some kind of feelings or changes in the moods when "talking" to deity.
Too bad it's not the God talking back, but body chemistry triggered by the placebo effect.
Religion would be so much more respectable if 2 things happened. First: people would have to realize that Religion and Spirituality are most definitely not mutually exclusive. Second: Science is fully capable of acting morally without people placing pseudo-Christian laws on its' actions. People often forget that they have a choice in using knowledge from scientific research. If a good Christian has a spinal injury and the only cure comes from stem cell research, he should naturally turn it down for prayer instead. A good Christian, however, should not use legislature to force his principals on others.
I'm just amazed at the number of people who hold such a strong opinion yet have next to no idea of what it involves. They hear stem cells and they think aborted fetuses. They hear cloning and they see cloning a whole human to harvest a liver. Intelligence is like a river, the deeper it runs, the quieter it is. Nobody ever stops to think that further research can tells us how to turn almost any cell into a stem cell, or the ability to clone just an organ or organ group instead of a whole person.
I'm all for using stem cell research for curing diseases...but it's all just a bandaid. Instead of spending millions of dollars figuring out how to fix the diseases, how about studying the causes and dealing with those?
Well with a little luck in the election (or a sniper's bullet...) Bush's rein of terror should soon be over.
Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
This UN document has only one purpose and one purpose only. To swing the balance of power in favour of the US and other sly world governments. If anyone thinks for one moment that such a treaty will stop the US military from carrying out secret cloning experiments, they are completely misguided. This treaty will only apply to non-government entities, and will be fought for in an attempt to give the US governemnt the upper-hand in the technology war with other countries. An agreement in the duplicitous world of world politics means absolutely nothing.
Both the Umbilical Cord and and the Placenta are filled with Stem Cells. They are also both temporary organs ejected from the body after labor (afterbirth). Both are also essentially medical waste.
So, when having our child recently, we said, "Sure, why not donate them to medical science?" and checked the box on her medical forms asking us just that.
Without attaching ANY other arguements, you can reasonably say that if every woman engaging in hospital birth in the US checked that box, there would be more stem cells going around than researchers could use.
I'm mildly curious why I never hear about this tidbit of info in any stem cell debates, since it's the perfect human solution: Group A gets what they want without being in moral opposition to Group B.
The longer I'm a member of the Human Race, the more I believe Apocalypse is a valid solution.
I think it's illogical to fault conservatives for standing by their guns on this. I mean if you believe that an embryo is human, and if you believe killing that human is wrong, then it is only logical to oppose abortion in all forms- even if there are potential benefits from it. Think about it- there are many potential benefits from say, killing all elderly and genetically inferior people. Less world hunger, better gene pool, etc. We could even do research on their bodies and learn alot that could save lives. But most people, for one reason or another, realize that this would be still be wrong.
So, any talk about weighing potential benefits is really a smokescreen for the only real issue: When does human life begin? I'm not saying that's an easy question, but I think it's really illogical and unfair for people to bash those of us who believe it begins at conception and stand by the logical conclusions of that belief.
Yeah, well, there are other sources of stem cells, such as from adult spinal fluid and from umbilical cords.
The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet.
--Aristotle
Well, you ignored the possibility that there is no cause, and the entire Universe is just a random quantum fluctuation that got carried away.
Does anybody have bush's 1\2 & 1/2 stem cell speech in quicktime? Audio or video... the video preferred. The white house has taken the file off the web site... It was Bush's first year I think.
Since when did 'believers' get to be in the majority....is that is the same poll that discovered: all men & women are virgins before marriage; married people refrain from sex outside of marriage; all children go to bed when told; priests are celibate; ministers always work for the best interests of their 'flock'...
BTW: education & intellect may not necessarily render God & religion obsolete... but thinking does!
Sorry to twang the subject, but as a stage 4 cancer tweak, I don't really give a shit about dying, I just hate hanging around 'til I resemble nuked shadow on a wall. Your point is valid.
As a nation we completely suck at making any sense of death or aborting babies. I mean hell, you've already whacked the aborted, what the hell? Respect for the carcass seems a bit tin headed after that.
The reason for T cell research is so we can hypothetically cure some of these screwed up diseases, rather than just keep people chronically alive. We're unintentionally screwing up the whole genome through the use of medication anyway. At some point in the near future, we're going to need to reverse the trend through a genetic annealing processes, or get really used to widespread pandemics.
I know of more than a few Type I diabetic genetic researchers who have taken the understandable step of completely ignoring the law in hopes of developing probable cures. I doubt we can realistically control any researcher with a terminal disease without becoming proactive advocates for their cures rather than being demagogic obstructionists. At least I'd like to hear the guy who has to take 1000 injections a year explain the slow, safe, and save the dead babies idealogy clearly.
Human cloning, gene splicing. It's all gonna happen. I do have one question: Can we patent our own clone?
(sung to the tune Home on the Range)
Oh, give me a clone
Of my own flesh and bone
With its Y-chromosome changed to X
And when it is grown
Then my own little clone
Will be of the opposite sex.
(Chorus)
Clone, clone of my own,
With your Y-Chromosome changed to X
And when I'm alone
With my own little clone
We will both think of nothing but sex.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
Hey, I think the fact that he used "believe" in that slightly idiomatic sense shows a great grasp of the English language. It made him sound like a native speaker. Erm, I mean read like a native writer, I guess.
Laws exist to provide "peace", not "common good". They provide a way for people of disparate backgrounds, moral ideologies, religion, and so forth to live beside one another in peace, harmony, and prosperity. That is the sole purpose of law.
:)
Now, my statement has plenty of holes in it as far as creating a government or other group of people to make and enforce law. I haven't addressed that at all, I've only provided a purpose of law, and not even a definition at that.
However, you must admit that "a way for people of disparate backgrounds, moral ideologies, religion, and so forth to live beside one another in peace, harmony, and prosperity. That is the sole purpose of law." requires moral choices in itself. Such as the decision that peace, harmony and prosperity are morally good things. A certainly agreeable decision? Yes. but a decision regardless. Even the outlawing of thievery requires either the moral decision that humans have right to property OR the decision that since thievery leads to lack of prosperity it is morally bad.
So the question is, when computing technology reaches the (now mind-boggling) level where it's possible to transfer consciousness to another body... Would it be illegal then?
A lot more than just computing technology would have to improve for that to be possible. We don't even really know what consciousness is, much less have any idea how to extract it, digitize it, and put it in a computer. It may not even be possible.
I think a lot of sci-fi geeks would be a lot happier if they realized that some of the things in their favorite show are likely to never happen because they are impossible. FTL travel, quantum teleportation, and tape-recording a human's consciousness are nice ideas, but there is no certainty that any of them are actually doable in practice or even in theory.
its easy to see the bad in ANY type of cloning, for example; there are more horses asses in the white house than horses!
when these mighty decesion makers are on their collective death beds because there is NO organ donor, alive or dead, for them; AND NO CHANCE for tissue regeneration; because we don't know how. i think they'll consider more constructive uses for cloning...
Stem cell research is going to be the most important research this century and to limit it for idealogical (religion) is about about as stupid as thinking the earth is flat. One of the biggest problems with health (as you get older), is the problem of certain cells to have the ability to regerate. Once we have mastered the technology to generate stem cells on demand, then things like spinal-cord injuries will be easy to repair, or when you lose a limb to an accident, you could get a new one make and attached or grown-in-place. A bunch if idealogical zellots are not going to derail this technological advancement.
So the liberals cannot easily reverse his present internal policies.
Just want to second the thought that there is a lot of damage to existing stem cell lines - here at (unnamed medical school with lots of NIH dollars), I had a class on therapeutic stem cell research, and according to the professor, most of the existing human stem cell lines have divided so many times by now that they have serious mutations, making them virtually unusable in some cases - good thing we can't ever make any more and still get government money...
Let us think for a moment what we are saying: If I am in a hospital for 10 years waiting for a liver and there are no tissue matches and they would be able to clone a liver and give me a normal life. I would not have to live in a hospital under terrible pain and terrible conditions, what is unethical about that. I don't think they are talking about cloning entire humans. They are talking about cloaning organs, and tissues. I think the argument that people are using would make blood transfusions, growing skin in vats for burn victoms, and almost all other medical procedures unethical as well. Of course they use human cells and we can't have that! Why don't we just go back to the 16th and 17th century and throw medical science out the door. After all, prollonging death is playing god. After all, is ever sperm that is spilt and every egg lost on the menstral cycle a human; give me a break. Are we going to start counting every skin cell as a life. This is not a Moral or Ethical question. There should of course be guidlines, as with any scientific studies.
I would highly, highly recommend a read of Michael West's The Immortal Cell , especially if you're curious as to where some of the research in therapeutic cloning is going.
Replacement of the egg nucleus with an adult nucleus and spurring on the growth with hormones (to replace the signals the sperm would give) has the potential to give us grown tissue that wouldn't be rejected by the body. What they're finding is that it's tough to coax this zygote to multiply, but findings are that, unlike Dolly's mature cells, the cellular "fuse" (telomeres) are re-extended.
It's a fascinating read.
P.S. If you want to be grossed out by some mutant things the human body does when it decides to re-specialize a bunch of cells in one area, take a Google search for teratomas :)
Binary geeks can count to 1,023 on their fingers
I'm glad you mentioned this in your post. It seems that many people are completely ignorant of how sexual reproduction works. Both the "life starts at birth" and "life begins at conception" camps are completely wrong. Life began millions (billions?) of years ago. The lifeforms present today are simply extensions of the original lifeforms.
Your granny, or superman, or anyone else is a valued human being. They should be helped through research. But gee, the knowing destruction of unborn babies is wrong - then using those body parts, fresh from the slaugter... that's just a bit too far.
We have to deal with realism. Abortion is legal in the US. Many young women unfortuantly use abortion as birth control. I don't agree with that morally, but who am I to dictate morals to other people? Out of this evil(imo), if some good can come by using the stem cells from aborted fetuses...why not? Are they serving a greater good by being thrown into the trash? If you don't allow stem cell research that could save someones life, you are as much a murderer in my eyes as the women who has an abortion as a form of birth control.
Couldn't they be harvested from miscarried fetuses as well?
The Bush Administration policy is just a throwback to the Middle Ages, when the Church prohibited the dissection of cadavers for medical research. Anyone remember that one? Damn near a millennium and a half of such wretched conditions that the population of cities had to be maintained by constant migration from rural areas because chronic disease and filth caused urbanites to die faster than they were being born.
Do we really have to repeat this? Isn't it time to demystify the whole reproductive process and stop attributing some special religious status to the act of ejaculating inside a vagina? Do we really need our scientific and medical priorities hobbled by lunatics who believe in the literal truth of Genesis? Sheesh.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
If it is viable without life support AND it will be able to develop sentience, you can't kill it. Otherwise, it's fair game.
People need to realize we are rapidly approaching a point where we realize what can and cannot be done with medicine and medical care. Certain damage is simply not fixable with drugs - replacements have to be made somehow. Either we do it with stem cells/growing tissues up in culture/etc. or we do it with cybernetic type prosthesis. Either way, many people are going to get pissed, say things aren't natural, etc.
My subject line sums it up though - someone will do this. Period. It's an incredible way to improve medicine and resolve a ton of current treatment issues (i.e. skin grafts, organ replacement, etc.). It has the potential to cure neurological diseases or at the least allow for their treatment.
The really unfortunate thing is that the Bush administration might actually believe that the stem cells we now have are really 'good enough'. If you work in science, you know...it's never 'good enough'. Everything has problems - without the ability to make new stem cell lines with the knowledge you gain from these 'original' lines, nothing will get done anytime soon.
I have nothing against cloning- but when it is perfected, I suspect many people will clone themselves and raise them as children to about 16 years of age... then freeze them so they can be cut apart for organs.
WTF! Get back in the freezer- brb have to lock that door...
uh.. I mean.. -
they are the equivalent of brain-dead humans [until they are proven to be sentient]. They should have about the same rights as those.
#include "GeorgeBushJoke.h"
Fruit from a poisoned tree? Fruit from a posisoned tree?
Gee, that's real sweet of you. Conceptualizing a person as an inert plant, existing solely to produce fodder for someone/something else to eat. Oh, and if they get an abortion---and manage not to get blown up in a clinic bombing or murdered by the enraged ex-father---they're now a poisoned tree!
Mmm. Can you smell the Christian love and fellowship up in here?
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
By making cloning illegal, the money and number of people doing research will be greatly reduced. The advances that allow you or me to live 200 years instead of 80 may be delayed until 100 years after our births.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
"Anna Imroth"
Cross the hands over the breast here - so.
Straighten the legs a little more - so.
And call for the wagon to comes and takes her home.
Her mother will cry some and so will her sisters and brothers.
But all of the others got down and they are safe and this is the only
one of the factory girls who wasn't lucky in making the jump
when the fire broke.
It is the hand of God and the lack of fire escapes.
~Carl Sandburg
Leon Kass is actually a considerably more
t ml
repugnant than Reason describes.
I've read as many of Kass's positions as I've
been able to find, and I've found that he is
consistently the enemy of freedom.
Kass doesn't like anything that gives people
the ability to decide what they are going to
do with their own bodies. Not only does he
not like cloning; Kass doesn't like people to
have choices in reproduction (not only cloning,
but he was an early opponent of in-vitro
fertilization and many other infertility
treatments - even of contraception - he explicitly
doesn't like couples planning wanted children).
Kass doesn't like _either_ life extension _or_
physician assisted suicide. He would give us no
choice to either use technology to extend our
lives nor even to avoid lingering deaths.
Kass dislikes cosmetic surgery, organ
transplantation, gender change surgery...
http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/17/mooney-c.h
As nearly as I can tell, Kass hungers to clamp
chains around us, to thwart every effort we make
to take charge of our own lives.
There were no certainties concerning a very great many "advances" in history. Could humans travel south of the equator? Early Greeks didn't think so.
/will/ take anything more than computing power?
Since you can't say that you know what consciousness is, how can you say that it
I also wonder what you mean by "happier". I've noticed that many people who buy into the wackier bits of sci-fi are perfectly happy: They have hope for better futures. It's the people who are stuck in the misery of their current existance that are miserable.
So go to Germany, go to medical school in Germany, become a researcher in Germany, and stop worrying about what the Bush Administration or the US does.
-It seems unreasonable to automatically assume that quantum fluctuations can occur without space, time, or matter/energy existing.
I didn't provide enough detail in the grandparent post I guess. With our current understanding of the universe, space, time, and matter/energy are interdependent, which means that the only two possibilities in terms of existance are that none of the three exist or all of the three exist. In other words, there was no time when matter/energy did not exist, because prior to that there was no _time_. However, the universe must have had a beginning, because if it did not then according to the laws of thermodynamics (entropy), there would be no remaining energy in the universe right now. Therefore we know that space, time, and matter/energy simultaneously began at some point.
Since nothing can cause itself, it seems reasonable to conclude that a cause outside of the universe was responsible. Sure, we can consider the possibility that there was no cause, if we deny cause and effect. However, if we do deny cause and effect we are forced to question whether there is a universe. At this point we're into philosophy rather than science. Bear in mind that the grandparent post points out that the argument can only prove that it is reasonably likely that the supernatural exists; that's about as good as you can get. You can doubt anything you want.
Alphanos
You still duck the point that it's not for one person or group to dictate the morality for another group.
;-)
Well, morality is a personal thing, so it'd be pretty hard to do that. Sure, for the most part you draw upon ethics when it comes to one's decision making. It is very much the job of the government to decide what things the society deems as right and wrong, as well as deciding what society should care less about. In making those decisions, one needs to call upon one's personal sense of morals, ethics, and yes religion.
Keep in mind that the notion of "seperation of church and state" was in fact a notion derived in the first place from religious thinking.
As for morals, ethics and religion driving science...... This happens every day. Heck, medical research is entirely driven by a complex set of procedures driven from these values. Those notions are why you and I haven't been kidnapped, strapped to a bed, and used as unwilling participants in spinal cord research.
sigs are a waste of space
Not at all. Morality need never come into it. Here's the reason:
Morality is a system of rules that a person uses to make personal choices. Ethics is a system of behavior that a person uses to interact with other people. Unethical is not an absolute certainty any more than immoral is. However:
However, you must admit that "a way for people of disparate backgrounds, moral ideologies, religion, and so forth to live beside one another in peace, harmony, and prosperity. That is the sole purpose of law." requires moral choices in itself.
It is not a "moral" choice for a group of people to decide to create laws to accomplish the goals I gave under the conditions I cited. It's simply a pragmatic choice. Morality is a very personal thing and by its very nature can only dictate what one person does, the person who has the morality. A group of people working together to create law need not be motivated by morality, although I will concede that it is likely that some/all of the individuals in the group will be motivated by morality.
The point is, law doesn't require morality to operate. I think that ethics affect law far more than morality, since ethics define how you should behave towards other people and interact with the world around you. But ethics is still not required for law. Law, morality, and ethics are three separate, but related concepts that are neither mutually exclusive nor dependent on one another.
Like what I said? You might like my music
I disagree with your point with or lack of mutual dependance. Whether or not in theory it would be possible to have a system of laws that would be purely pragmatic ours isn't one in any way because when making laws we are considering both ethics and morality. Consider punishment. to punish someone we're making a moral choice that it is tolerable to remove someone's freedoms in certain situations. And what about torture? It'd certainly decrease the amount of crimes if we'd publicly torture everyone who is found guilty. What about death penalty? Quite a few places are trying to get rid of it because humans have fundamental rights to be alive. That is not a pragmatic view. And what about the fundamental rights that are written into lawbooks world wide?
And besides, you speak of practicality. That implies a goal. But can we have goals without moral decisions? To me that idea seems quite alien.
Dude, all I said was that law didn't require morality or ethics. That doesn't mean it doesn't benefit by either/both. Personally, I don't think an implementation of law should ignore morality or ethics, but it should shy away from such as much as possible for the simple fact that morality and ethics are a variable.
However, determining the consequences of disobeying a law can also be done purely pragmatically. The simple question to answer is "Can this person ultimately contribute to society?" The answer doesn't depend on morality, but if you want to assert that it'd be very difficult to answer it without a sense or morality, I will agree. But I won't agree that the answer depends on morality. The death penalty is simple, from a pragmatic point of view. "This person will not ever contribute anything beneficial, and will continue to cause harm." In this case, "beneficial" and "harm" are both terms to be defined by law.
The thing is, I think we'd be better off pushing law in a direction that abstracts morality into something practical. Start by defining the goals as law, and defining in a pragmatic sense what they are. Move on to taking terms that are usually tied up in morality and provide to them pragmatic definitions, so that in law when you refer to "value of human life" you will have a nonambiguous definition to which you can refer. Much of the existing ambiguity of law revolves around the variances in individual morality.
Consider the numerous laws that have been passed for the purpose of making morality into law. Witchcraft laws, sodomy laws, numerous others. Many of which haven't been repealed across the board in spite of the fact that nobody morally believes in the laws any more, whether they morally believe in the rules themselves.
I have built up my own "sense of morality" by using freedom as a starting point. That is at least somewhat in defiance of the idea that morality requires religion. Would you assert that you must have religion to have morals? If not, what is your own foundation for morality?
Like what I said? You might like my music
The fundamental christian groups, have probably the strongest influence on the current presidency. Yes one could say that there is a lot of corporate interests there as well (actually there is more then have ever been), but these are not random corporate interests. Rather, most of the corporate interests have strong connections to the fundamental christian movement, as well.
Hmm... if we allow direct cloning, it might possibly result in a few thousand extra people on the planet in the next generation. Meanwhile, if we prevent people from having access to contraception, it is known to result in millions of extra people every year.
Priorities?How would you apply your idea of noninterferance in a case where a wants 1000000$ from b because b watched his flowers and a considers that a breach of his privacy?
Because A would have to prove in a court of law that I harmed him by looking at his flowers. You can't just claim harm, you should have to prove it.
I can prove someone punching me has harmed me: look at my medical bills, consult with my medical doctors, examine my x-rays, etc.
I can prove that someone who plowed their car into my home has harmed me -- see this gaping hole here.
No one can prove someone looking at their flowers (which I presume are growing outside in full public view) has harmed them. No one can expect privacy when in full view of people on public property.
You need to work on your analogies, they are fucking horrible.
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
If I had a disease which could potentially be cured through some kind of research, but someone else wants to prohibit that research on religious grounds, they are as guilty of murder as "christian" "scientist" "parents" who withhold treatment from their sick children (won't someone please think of the children?) for religious reasons.
Not religious grounds, ethical grounds. The two frequently overlap but they're not the same thing.
Many medical problems could be "solved" by allowing experiments of dubious ethical character, but the solution is often worse than the problem. We could inject expectant mothers with known toxins to better understand birth defects. No more expensive and time consuming drug trials - we could just sell untested medicines and see what happens to them and their offspring. We could take healthy donor organs from inmates and the mentally defective. We could dunk people in cold water and see how long it takes for them to die. But we might find a cure, so it's ok, right?
But there are reasons why we don't do those things -- and they have nothing to do with which church you choose to attend.
Call this flame bait if you want.
All of the therapeutic uses of stem cells to date use adult stem cells.
Moreover this is simply a cloning issue with the people who will make profit from embryonic cloning saying it is for the good of man, in much the same way that a 5 year old says he will take care of a dog, if you will get him one.
There are lots of people who have bought this line and are too wrapped up in thinking of all the cool possibilities, to completely look at the entire picture.
Science has moved beyond the need of these particular stem cells, we can get all the stem cells we need from adult fat tissue. Now tell me there is a shortage of that.
I really do not care for being made into a disposable commodity.
All the real research is using adult stem cells. Let me say that again, all of the real research is using adult stem cells.
Get a free ipod.
Most people who want restrictions in place are opposed to using _embrios_ or _fetuses_ as the source of the cells; getting stem cells from other sources is OK with most people.
If scientists can change the way they do experiments on animals because of groups like PETA, why can't they just choose a less controversial source of stem cells?
Note the problems with embrionic cells vs adult cells here
science is a religion
In this case, "beneficial" and "harm" are both terms to be defined by law.
My problem with that statement is that in the end law is defined by humans and as such it cannot use objective terms of benefit and harm (No, I dont believe humans can act objectively on a subject as this).
The thing is, I think we'd be better off pushing law in a direction that abstracts morality into something practical.
I dont agree with this either because it'll lead into pragmatic morals which I dont consider a positive thing because I believe that while morality is personal I also believe I should use it universally and not decide what is good and what is wrong according what gives me the greatest advantage. But that's just a personal preference
Consider the numerous laws that have been passed for the purpose of making morality into law. Witchcraft laws, sodomy laws, numerous others. Many of which haven't been repealed across the board in spite of the fact that nobody morally believes in the laws any more, whether they morally believe in the rules themselves.
I consider those to be problems in the process of updating and creating laws, not in the principle they're being founded on.
I have built up my own "sense of morality" by using freedom as a starting point. That is at least somewhat in defiance of the idea that morality requires religion. Would you assert that you must have religion to have morals? If not, what is your own foundation for morality?
You must have misunderstood me at some point if you think I'm holding my viewpoint because of religious reasons. I'm an agnostic. I merely defended the "religious side" in the discussion way back because I disagreed with the statements and their reasoning in the grand^x parent post.
From that you can already guess that I agree that morality does not require religion to back it up (I consider religious and other moral systems to be equal). But I must say your question is quite difficult to answer as I'm not certain that humans as much create their moral systems instead of "discovering" it. But to answer your question I'd have to say that a central point in my moral system seems to be the quest to gain enlightement. A good life (Because in a way your question cannot be answered without answering the question of the meaning of life) is one filled with discovery and thinking. Not because of the goal but because of the journey.
But the problem emerges in a system where everyone defines their own rights. Where do their right of defining their own right end?
And if you look at your arguement closely it could be used to prove that no humans have right to privacy as breach of privacy does not cause physical or monetary losses. The problem arises when the damage done isn't either. If you claim that you cannot mentally harm someone we can only agree to disagree. But would you like to live in a world where stalking is perfectly legal as it causes you no monetary losses or anything that can be checked by a doctor?
While the idea of carrying bubbles around as the define our own land has it's merits it fails because it is impossible to avoid conflicts as long as human contact exists because it is possible to have right A and right B collide in a way that cannot simply be solved with the idea of personal inviolate space. Morality is much more complex then that.
The Bush admin. doesn't mistreat the UN - it ignores it. Instances - Kyoto, International Court (which it kicked up a huge stink about). And yes, Kyoto is flawed, but it's a step forward, even if a little one.
As for Iraq round 2, the US refused to compromise. Ditto with the French. Shame on both of them. In any case the lack of WMD certainly proved the gist of the Iraqi action was somewhat effectual, if overly hard on the populace.
And this of course leads to the whole issue with the United Nations - it is about compromise. Look at the amount of disagreement in politics in your own country - now imagine it with different cultures, different races, many of whom have been fighting for centuries. Is it any surprise that the UN is often ineffectual?
And just how should the UN 'curb these problems'? It has no teeth - which sovereign nation is going to give the UN any power which could result in violation of sovereignty? Further, let us not forget all the resolutions against Israel the US has vetoed - how just is this? Nor the US human rights violations in Guantanamo.
Finally, who blames the US for North Korea? Certainly everyone's favourite idiot Bush did not help with his 'Axis of Evil' rhetoric, but I certainly cannot see how it's the fault of the US. Any rational person would conceed the US has done a lot of good in that region and in the world and continues to work against human rights violations. It just a shame the current administration seems to be more worried with showpieces like Iraq and giving the religious right a hand at the UN than preserving freedom in the US. PATRIOT act indeed....
As I recall, Hawking concluded in _A Brief History of Time_ that the universe didn't have a beginning per se. I don't remember the details, but he didn't seem to think that the existance of the universe implied a creator.
He didn't say Christianity. Way to speculate.
Browse at -1, because trolls are often the most creative part of
Um, no. It's a simple issue that has opponents that choose to make it appear complex.
;-)
;-)
If you'll look around you'll find the folks who are against cloning are actually the ones more likely to try to paint it as a simple, black-and-white issue. The folks in the scientific community recongize that there are many complex issues which come up in the context of cloning.
Provide a list. There are no ethical or moral issues involved with cloning, in my mind, and it pisses me off that people keep teling me that there should be.
Shut up. I'm cloning you, and having that clone claim your property, citizenship, and legal rights, so you no longer have the write to speak. Hmm... perhaps I'll just make a billion clone slaves of myself, and force them to vote me in to office and take away your rights. Nah, what I really want to do is make clones that I can legally kill at will to harvest their body parts to keep me alive well past you. Hmm... maybe I'll just clone a brain so I can harvest cells for my own brain in the event that I start becoming senile. Hmm...
There, you have a list of all kinds of moral and ethical issues (admittedly these are the easy ones) that come up with cloning.
Science isn't a tool. It's a way we generate facts about the world around us.
In what way does that not make it a tool? As you just said, Science is a tool for exploring the observable world.
For this reason, scientific research into cloning is harmless.
Cool, so you won't mind if I kill you so I can conduct my research right?
What we do with the technology after the research is done is where the moral and ethical debate should be taking place.
A lot of the debate is focused there, but a lot of it is focused on whether certain kinds of research are "ok" from an moral, ethical and religious standpoint, and rightly so. Particularly in the are of medical research there has ALWAYS been a huge amount of guidance on how the process is done such that it conform to moral, ethical and/or religious standards. You wonder why drugs are so expensive in the US? If you cut out the moral, ethical and religious constraints which make the development of new drugs an incredibly expensive process, they'd be much cheaper. Of course, the downside would be that the next time you take some meds you'd be more likely to die than not, and you could be unwittingly in a drug dosage study.
sigs are a waste of space
you'd also have to condemn actions like those of anti-slavery activists, working prior to the time when slavery was made illegal, who would illegally free other people's slaves. They refused to "accept the tenets of our democracy" too... but I don't think I would condemn them for it.
Well, there are some substantial differences between the two cases: the US wasn't much of a democracy back then and "freeing slaves" may refer to a non-violent crime, whereas bombing of abortion clinics and research labs is a violent crime. But most importantly, the abolition of slavery was something that was justified and demanded by many philosophies and religions--the justification for it wasn't the religious views of a few religions.
The post above gives a mistaken impression.
The first work cited above refers to the use of adult stem cells to help cure heart disease. This work was not done with embryonic stem cells. There is no ethical objection that I know of to using adult stem cells. In fact, the Bush administration has argued in favor of research using adult stem cells. Further, they have channeled research funds toward researchers using adult stem cells and that has caused irritation amongst some other researchers. (I disagree with many things done by politicians of every stripe, but prefer to criticize with accuracy.)
The second work cited refers to the use of "mesenchymal stem cells". These stem cells can also be harvested from adults. These cells do not require the use of embryos. The work cited does involve genetic modification and that can be dangerous. Sadly, multiple individuals have died in experiments in the US and France that utilized genetically modified cells, hence great care must be taken in testing these therapies.
Research in adult stem cells is exciting and is progressing rapidly. These stem cells can be taken from individuals cultured and them reinjected and there is no danger of immune rejection. Cells taken from existing embryonic cell lines can cause rejection. Patients receiving these cells may be required to take immune-suppressive medicines for the remainder of their lives ( as kidney transplant patients do now.)
The FDA has stated that new adult stem cell procedures require approval before they can be used in humans. Approvals have always been required for new drugs. Stem cell therapy is new and unfortunately some types of stem cells may become cancerous when injected into humans. The FDA position according to a Detroit News article is "extensive animal experimentation and human dosage trials would be needed before Beaumont's procedure would be considered for FDA approval." (Beaumont is the heart researcher.)
I think that the FDA is afraid of another metaphorical "thalidomide". The FDA under any administration would, I suspect, be cautious. The FDA medical panels can and do take into account research done outside the US. Also, adult stem cell research can proceed through human dosage trials and continue forward. Let's all hope for great success!
I can't believe you read my entire post and still came up with this:
Shut up. I'm cloning you, and having that clone claim your property, citizenship, and legal rights, so you no longer have the write to speak. Hmm... perhaps I'll just make a billion clone slaves of myself, and force them to vote me in to office and take away your rights. Nah, what I really want to do is make clones that I can legally kill at will to harvest their body parts to keep me alive well past you. Hmm... maybe I'll just clone a brain so I can harvest cells for my own brain in the event that I start becoming senile. Hmm...
Every single thing you cited is an application of cloning technology. Try again. Why is cloning research bad?
In what way does that not make it a tool? As you just said, Science is a tool for exploring the observable world.
Process != tool. Science is a process, or a method if you prefer. And a discipline. But it's not a tool the way a wrench or a screwdriver might be considered tools. We did not construct science to build or fix things. Engineering, maybe. Not science. Don't mistake one for the other.
A lot of the debate is focused there, but a lot of it is focused on whether certain kinds of research are "ok" from an moral, ethical and religious standpoint, and rightly so. Particularly in the are of medical research there has ALWAYS been a huge amount of guidance on how the process is done such that it conform to moral, ethical and/or religious standards. You wonder why drugs are so expensive in the US? If you cut out the moral, ethical and religious constraints which make the development of new drugs an incredibly expensive process, they'd be much cheaper. Of course, the downside would be that the next time you take some meds you'd be more likely to die than not, and you could be unwittingly in a drug dosage study. ;-)
*sigh* Commercial drug development isn't science, it's engineering. Different ball game. Sure, research is involved in both places. The purpose of commercial drug development is to develop a drug that can be sold to treat a condition or cause a reaction or whatever. Medical research frequently includes researching drugs and the effects of drugs, but the purpose of medical research isn't to manufacture a product that will make money. It's to expand the depth of human knowledge. The purpose of commercial drug development is to develop a product that will be manufactured, marketed, and sold to make money.
I agree that there are certain limits to how scientific research should be conducted, but that's totally different than whether or not the knowledge gleaned from the research is bad.
Say this with me: if any part of knowledge is bad, you need a new government. Censorship is evil no matter where it's applied, and this is a very real censorship issue. The purpose of censorship is to prevent people from knowing, and Bush and Co. are trying to prevent people from knowing.
Like what I said? You might like my music
Anyway, if you find this interesting I highly recommend that you look into the matter further. I find it astonishing how many people assume that no scientific evidence exists to support Christianity, especially on Slashdot. There is actually tons of evidence to support it. This is a topic that I personnally find fascinating, and I've thought about starting a website on the topic, although there are others already:). The most comprehensive site on this topic that I currently know of is this one.
Alphanos
as a student and soon to be part of next generation of gentic researchers I just wanted to contribute what I've seen.
There's been concern about the future of genetic research even before Bush was elected. Most of us knew there would be some repercussions to the research, we just had differing opinions on the severity of such. Now though, things are begining to look tough and no sign of getting better. Many excellent researchers have already left to continue their research in Europe (England in particular) and it looks like more will leave as the bans get tougher. Now, one of the major decisions we, the next wave of researchers, have to make is whether or not to try to continue our studies in Europe or risk oppression in the US. Many of us will soon have to make this choice and it's not an easy one.
If they ban Cloning in their area,
.
the cloning tech, and the money, and the huge profits will simply move to another country.
Push some 'bad cloning' out of the USA - down south it will go, or across the oceans -
I don't understand why any one would want to miss out on the discoveries of the next 100 years...
That's not good business, that's not good capitalism...
The problem with outlawing human cloning is that, religious nuts aside, the legislation is obliqulely targetting the actual concern.
Identical twins are not bad (although they can be kind of spooky), therefore clones are not bad. However, people believe that clones are the first step towards genetic modification of humans, forced organ donation, armies of bounty hunters, etc. Therefore, we should outlaw cloning on a slippery-slope basis.
But if clones are the first step to at least one beneficial thing, wouldn't it make more sense to outlaw what we're actually trying to avoid? Otherwise the mad scientists of the world can go right on modifying genetically unique zygotes, crazy parents can go on forcing siblings to donate organs, and George Lucas can go on making his shitty movies while the world confidently sleeps underneith its anti-cloning laws.
Just about the only significant cost to society of straight cloning that I've heard of is the risk of monoculture. Well why not require that only n humans can be produced using the same DNA or have a rising tax or something?
I'm getting really tired of legislators that paint over liberties with a thick, sloppy brush because they don't have the cognitive powers to figure out what they're actually trying to accomplish.
It's not so much that he needs the religious right. It's more that he knows that God put him in the White House, and he intends to do right by God, and to hell with the consequences (or rather, the consequences will not include Hell). Bush has got Religion.
i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
attempting to credit religion for the benefits of scientific research ... using his own logic to highlight its absurdity.
No, but you just setup and tore down a strawman. I am not attempting to credit religion for science. I am just replying to someone who said:
Find out who this guy is and don't you ever let him see a doctor
Yes, Western religious rule, or any religious theocracy (including Islamic or Hindu) that is run by humans (the Pope, the Dalai Lama, Ayatollahs, Zwingli, Calvin) is a disaster in the making. The problem is it's *men* who rule -- there is no "theo" in those theocracies. As a Christian I believe God will - in the future - and in person - establish his rule on earth. Till then, its best we have a secular government, and have time to repent of our sins and the ability to freely follow our conscience.
Getting back to this topic - governments are put here for our protection. And for the protection of human beings in general - including unborn children. That's the basis of my position in this discussion.
I can't believe you read my entire post and still came up with this:
Your statement was clear an unequivocal:
Provide a list. There are no ethical or moral issues involved with cloning, in my mind, and it pisses me off that people keep telling me that there should be.
I was replying to that statement. As I said, there are issues on both the research and the application side of things. Given that this thread started talking about the actual cloning of a human, and you jumped in on the thread in response to staements I made about cloning (not cloning research), then it perfectly reasonable that I'd interpret your statements as I have.
I agree that there are certain limits to how scientific research should be conducted, but that's totaly different than whether or not the knowledge gleaned is bad.
Check the thread. It started with statements about the act of cloning being bad. I added in some statements about the broader issues around cloning and cloning research. Nobody said that the knowledge was bad.
If you look at Bush's policy, it's very clearly not worded in terms of trying to prevent people from knowing. Indeed, he is trying to weigh the benefits of the knowledge against what he considers the moral, ethical and religious issues around harvesting stem cells (believe me this is far more about the abortion issue than it is about medical research). Their only restriction on funding for the research is based on how the stem cells are obtained, not what they are used for. Furthermore, he isn't restricting all research in the area, merely federal funding of such research. Folks like the Howard Hughes Medical Institute have plenty of funding to continue to operate unfettered because they don't use government funding (btw, you'll find they have guidelines on how they obtain their stem cells too).
sigs are a waste of space
So I've got me an old-style quill and some parchment, and a knife. ... Judgement Day while I'm still alive... I'm gonna write out my contract and sign it in blood.
You can sheath that knife bud - your unclean blood won't do you any good.
All you have to do, and all you can do, is believe on Jesus. Do it while you still have life - you could be dead in an instant and after that is the judgement.
All you have to do, and all you can do, is believe on Jesus. Do it while you still have life - you could be dead in an instant and after that is the judgement.
Jesus comes my way, I'm gonna go medieval on that cocksucker. I've got no love for that piece of shit. I've picked my side of this particular "war".
Like what I said? You might like my music
Personally, if I truly believed that I was immortal (in the sense that I would be magically teleported to heaven at the point of my death) I would beg people to kill me, and I would refuse all lifesaving medical treatment.
Hah - You're not far off from the Christian position.
The only difference is that don't beg to be killed, but strive to do good works to please God.
They are... [ link]Unlike your conscience is irredemably seared, you'd agree the fetus above is human.
The embryos that are aborted are not even self-aware for crying out loud!
Now, at what point did the embryo become human? Answer: it always was - leave it alone.
Is the 'War on Cloning' going to be the US' new 'War on Drugs'?
/sarcasm OFF
Cuz that was hella succesful!
-Nano.
You are too stupid to be allowed to live.
:)
pls die, thx.
Not just yet - sorry.
Good for me that my life is not in your hands, but God's, eh?
hey i wasn't insulted at all :)
:)
:) all in all it has been a nice thought-exercise/wordplay
i my own language (dutch) your point is still valid. i must note, as the AC righfully replied that it is just a figure of speech.
however, following your logic, i have no fact supporting my ideas about politics, just arguments founded on a 'gut feeling' and stuff i read in the papers. maybe that classifies to belief in a certain sense, acceptance of an idea without any real proof or factual information, just hearsay.
one could argue that modern technology is taking the place of god in current society perhaps. masturbation to a lesser extent, and smacking babies not at all. now i could start arguing about your examples being flawed...
but no.
i'm wrong
i won't be able to talk my way out of this
Great, then I'll go straight to hell where I will finally learn the truth of matters while you continue to pontificate in the clouds. Considering the fact that I don't want to spend eternity with the likes of you, and you are representative of what it takes to get into heaven, I can't think of any reason why I should really give a fuck what God thinks of me and how he'll judge me when I'm dead.
Here are some reasons:
God's wrath, eternal flames that don't go out, you on fire, in pain, from the everlasting burnings, held wrath forever...
These sound like big enough sticks to you?
Peace, love, goodwill, a clean conscience, amity, mercy, forgiveness, friendship, everlasting life, the joy of really being beyong reproachable, of no misdeeds.
These nice enough carrots for you?
Well, I hope so, because this is the deal laid out before us - and virtually all of us, once we are no more children - have done enough bad things to warrant the big stick. We get to choose between the two before we die. Choose well.
And that's all assuming he's really there. If he's not, then not only am I right in not giving a fuck, but you're wasting your entire life worrying about it. Ever think of that?
Oh yes, absolutely. I have imperfect faith. And I used to be similar to you, an athiest. But you see - God is quite faithful and loving. All it takes is faith the size of a tiny mustard seed for God to do way way more for us, than we deserve. And God gives me blessing in this life too (see carrots above.) You can't beat it.
Human cloning and other genetic manipulations are inevitable. They're also modern man's Tower of Babel.
With every major dicovery/invention, there's always been the fear factor. It makes even the smartest humans act in the most irrational ways. Granted, rationality has never been man's halmark. However, ingenuity, using our skull muscle to put things together and create new things, is. Man, the creator on Earth, is getting ready to graduate to the next level. And this scares people.
Some people are scared because of the potentional harm we may do to ourselves or the environment. Others are scared because they don't think man should create life, or at least human life.
If we're banning human cloning because of the large risk involved, fine (btw, I haven't read any study that can show a significant risk to the overall population as a result of human stem cell manipulations). But to criminalize scientists because of ethical/moral hangups is a tragedy. Kinda like the tragedy in the Bible where God malevolently strikes down the inspired worshippers of Babylon for trying to build a tower to heaven.
Huh?
That's right. God deliberately punished and confused man for trying to get a peak past the pearly gates. I can't help but think that's exactly what some people are trying to do today: confuse and punish man for trying to be more than he is and reach past his limitations.
I remember reading an article on this a year ago wherein a U.S. researcher was quoted as saying he will simply move to a country that does not prohibit cloning if it comes to that. Also, he said his colleagues will do the same.
If human cloning is relatively harmful, then ban. If not, move over small minds, it's time for the big boys to play.
damaged by dogma
Here's a piece of advice. When you're thinking of making a statement like that to an atheist, try replacing the word "God" with the words "Santa Claus" and see if you still like the way the phrase makes you look. Because that's how you sound to us when you say things like this.
No. Because I used to be an athiest too. And I remember how ridiculous I though it was when that madman told me about Jesus.
But he was right, and I was wrong.
I am selfish. I freely admit it. I want to live. A long, happy, healthy life. And I don't need you or your "god" in order to do that.
Selfishness is human nature. I am selfish too. However, we should always keep selfishness subsevient to the golden rule: do unto others as we would have them do to us.
A baby/fetus/embryo is an "other".
Do you do to it as you want done to you? No.
Would you really be OK with someone piercing your neck and having your brains sucked out? I don't think so.
Ah, the old quote from Voltaire. But I don't believe you. You are the same person who said: "given a choice between your survival or mine, take a wild guess where you rank."
Yes. You're headed for hell. I was headed there too.
But no, don't take spiritual enlightenment secondhand. Read the Bible, deal direct with God and find out for yourself. It's easy.
If you are being honest about refusing to be helped by the tech yielded from stemcell research, then I respect your consistency.
I believe a lot of knowledge was gained by doctors in illegal expirments in Nazi concentration camps, and Japanese POW camps. That is now public medical knowledge.
I don't object to the *knowledge*. I object to benefitting from the artifact of murder.
So yes, if someone came up to me and said - here we aborted a baby, harvested stem cells, so you could be helped. I'd refuse. But if someone said - here, we know that smallpox vaccines are dangerous in XXX condition, lets not give you a shot right now - I'd take the benefit of that knowledge.
Knowledge, by itself, isn't evil. It can be used to choose good, or choose evil.
God's wrath, eternal flames that don't go out, you on fire, in pain, from the everlasting burnings, held wrath forever... These sound like big enough sticks to you?
Peace, love, goodwill, a clean conscience, amity, mercy, forgiveness, friendship, everlasting life, the joy of really being beyong reproachable, of no misdeeds. These nice enough carrots for you?
Who told you? Where exactly did you get this information? Did God tell you himself? Is it in all His marketing brochures? Do you really believe in truth in advertising?
Tell me something. Are you going to take sides in a war of the scale to which the bible claims is going on without hearing what the other side has to say? Have you ever heard the other side?
Since we've been under 2000 years of Christian oppression, I doubt it. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition, except that it was an institution under direct control of the Spanish crown, which was in turn given the right to rule by God. Right?
It's surprisingly easy to reject the Bible after you understand a few marketing basics. Simple. First, always make your product appear to be the best product. Second, lie about your competition, but don't get caught. Take another pass through the Bible with those two rules in mind and tell me what you come up with.
Like what I said? You might like my music
They all voted against reproductive human cloning? That position makes no sense! What the hell is going on here?
I wouldn't mind being a clone one bit. I wouldn't tell anyone about it, because people are stupid in this field. But I am not my mother, I am not my father either. I'm my own person and clones will be too.
This is the first sensible argument against cloning I've heard in my entire life.
Yeah, lots of regions have significantly more people than food. We're eating the earth bare, like a collection of locusts, yet the flood continues.
Natural means is making enough children, why ask for more?
No. Because I used to be an athiest too. And I remember how ridiculous I though it was when that madman told me about Jesus.
I remember what it was like when I first heard about Santa too. What a great guy, gives presents to all the good kids. Then I grew up.
But he was right, and I was wrong.
This is the point at which you're expected to provide objective evidence. Good luck.
No, but you just setup and tore down a strawman. I am not attempting to credit religion for science.
You stated Newton's religious beliefs as though they mattered. It certainly wasn't religion that led him to develop a theory of gravity. "God did it" isn't much of a theory, and Newton understood that.
As a Christian I believe God will - in the future - and in person - establish his rule on earth.
I don't suppose you have any objective evidence for this. It's something of a prerequisite if you hope to be taken seriously.
Getting back to this topic - governments are put here for our protection. And for the protection of human beings in general - including unborn children. That's the basis of my position in this discussion.
The problem is that you equate embryos with children, and this is inaccurate. No one has suggested killing children. But that's a nice strawman on your part.
The US isn't the bush administration is. A seed is not a rose people, and a blob of unspecialized cells is not a person. It doesn't think, it doesn't feel, it doesn't have dreams or aspirations, it doesn't even have a central nervous system. GET OVER IT.
Actually, he concluded that either the universe always was (didn't begin) or was created by a supernatural agency. He didn't like that alternative, so he did not choose to pursue it. It wasn't a question of proof, it was a question of preference. Which he actually says in the book. He is an honest atheist, at least :)
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Therepeutic cloning is the killing babies method.
I don't know many informed Christians who are opposed to stem cell research using adult stem cells, or those from umblicical cord blood. But these methods have nothing to do with therepeutic cloning - therepeutic cloning is a euphamism for what is, essentially, organ farming.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
upon learning of the atrocities of world war II as a youth, I was presented with the moral dilemna question... would I use a medicine that was harvested from the "scientific exploration" of jewish prisoners if it would save my life? I will stop bringing this analogy to the table within the context of this thread when anyone can scientifically and conclusively prove that human beings do not become human beings at the moment of conception. If i could engineer a means to create stem cells from my own embodiment for my own self-centered tissue repair needs, I'd probably do it. after all, my "twin" after my first cell division as a youngster was absorbed into my single consciousness, so he never really was his own individual, he was me. but to cancel another being's potential of life, one that was NOT derived from one of my own cellular divisions, one that has brain wave POTENTIAL genetically coded into its own self-being before cell division #1 and introduced into the world for the purpose of being harvested, is opening the door towards a world where full sized humans are grown with neural tissue growth inhibited for organ transplation, that is until they realize they'll need the brain tissues as well. So then who will be the next Abraham Lincoln? George W.? Probably not, this battle will occur far from now. It is the liberal that believes the definition of a human is that which suits their econonmic or personal needs of the time, just as Roe changed her mind.
I remember what it was like when I first heard about Santa too. What a great guy, gives presents to all the good kids. Then I grew up.
:)
Your analogy doesn't quite hold water does it?
Who told you? Where exactly did you get this information? Did God tell you himself? Is it in all His marketing brochures? Do you really believe in truth in advertising?
God told me, and he's told you too. It's spelt out explicitly in the Bible. I won't call it a marketing brochure. More like a survival guide.
Tell me something. Are you going to take sides in a war of the scale to which the bible claims is going on without hearing what the other side has to say? Have you ever heard the other side?
Well. I *grew up* on the other side. I wasn't born a Christian (and no one really is born one anyway - it's a choice you make when you have the ability to choose). Besides Hinduism, I've dabbled in Buddhism, Wicca, and readup on Islam. But Jesus is the *only* true way - when it cuts to the bone, the competition is just plain wrong.
Since we've been under 2000 years of Christian oppression, I doubt it.
Right. There have been centuries of oppression by the "Church system" - the inquisition, the crusades... but I won't call it Christian oppression (see below why).
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition, except that it was an institution under direct control of the Spanish crown, which was in turn given the right to rule by God. Right?
Wrong - where do you get that from? If that's what Catholics say, you should believe the definitive source instead. Jesus said that at the very beginning in the Bible: "My kingdom is not of this world, if it were of this world, then would my servants fight". The Catholic church system is against God's word in the Bible. It's all spelt out in the Bible.
People are Christian (I understand the word means "christ-like". Countries or empires, by their very definition cannot truly be Christian. The bretheren, the baptists and other congregational assemblies are much closer to what Jesus specified his Church would be.
It's surprisingly easy to reject the Bible after you understand a few marketing basics. Simple. First, always make your product appear to be the best product. Second, lie about your competition, but don't get caught. Take another pass through the Bible with those two rules in mind and tell me what you come up with.
I used to hold notions very similar to yours. I knew of parts of the Bible used to think it outrageous that the Bible attempted to "impose" its morality. But it's opinion is true, and my opinion was wrong.
It's surprisingly easy to think you got something all figured out, but miss the main point completely. I hope you're not just making these statements for the sake of making them - if you search diligently for God without preconcieved notions of what he is like (and also without preconcieved notions of what he is not like), you'll see Jesus and the Bible are the path to God.
Best wishes.
> But he was right, and I was wrong.
This is the point at which you're expected to provide objective evidence. Good luck.
Hmm... I think you're asking for evidence.
Let me first say - you need faith to please God - that is how he sorts out the wheat from the chaff.
Next, let me next say - you'll never be able to disprove God. The evidence with either be neutral, or strongly suggest his presence.
Some evidence:
Firstly, read about the Bible - how it describes history, read how, in the past few hundred years, multiple scholar were proven wrong and the Bible was proven right as archological evidence was gathered. How the Book of Job describes the earth as a sphere. How Genesis describes a supercontinent.
Next look up at creation. See yourself - see how you're put together. See a worm. Note, we still have been able to create even a worm. Note that theories of evolution are in constant flux, trying to account for new information - how bats, birds, and one more species evolved flight separately. How many species evolved various body parts simultaneously. How there is a genetic bottleneck - all of us trace back to one man and one woman (as in "one") - see how this is the position of mainstream evolutionary geneticists. Does this remind you of Noah and his progeny after the flood?
See the sun. See the moon. See how the mooon perfectly covers the sun during a full solar eclipse. Ever wondered about the exactness in apparent size? The Bible says God gave the sun and moon for signs and seasons.
But all this is evidence isn't directly personal.
The most important step is when you, having noticed the evidence does not contradict God, take a leap of faith, and pray to him to help you out. You'll see how a *lot* of very very *personal* evidence accumulates and how that helps you. In addition you'll see blessings about things you needed help in. You'll see chastisement that you didn't like, but that you required, and you'll appreciate it.
And you'll miss out on hell.
Your analogy doesn't quite hold water does it? :)
Sure it does. There's the same amount of evidence for Santa's existence as there is for God's.
Hmm... I think you're asking for evidence.
Yes, you cracked the secret code in my message.
Let me first say - you need faith to please God - that is how he sorts out the wheat from the chaff.
This is putting the cart before the horse. There's no point in discussing methods of pleasing an entity for which there is no evidence of existence.
Firstly, read about the Bible - how it describes history, read how, in the past few hundred years, multiple scholar were proven wrong and the Bible was proven right as archological evidence was gathered. How the Book of Job describes the earth as a sphere. How Genesis describes a supercontinent.
Which scholars? Which peer-reviewed journal describes these archeological finds? Why would think that a book that describes the world as a sphere or describes a supercontinent in earlier times would automatically be non-fiction? Are you honestly claiming that you believe that any book that describes the world as a sphere is non-fiction or are you simply being disingenuous and hoping I was too stupid too notice?
Next look up at creation.
Describing everything as "creation" before you've proven that it was created is an error.
See yourself - see how you're put together. See a worm. Note, we still have been able to create even a worm.
I assume you meant we have not been able to create a worm. Five hundred years ago we couldn't fly. Only an idiot would think that this meant that it required divine intervention for a human to fly.
Note that theories of evolution are in constant flux, trying to account for new information - how bats, birds, and one more species evolved flight separately.
Scientific theories are constantly refined; this is nothing new. What is it about bible-thumpers that makes them think that scientific theories are required to be absolutely correct in every detail the first time they are proposed in order to be correct? Newton's laws have been discovered not to be completely correct at the quantum level or at high (near light) speed. No one with a brain calls them wrong; they're just recognized for what they are: an accurate description of physics in a subset of all cases.
Of course, you're defending a book that thinks bats are birds.
How many species evolved various body parts simultaneously. How there is a genetic bottleneck - all of us trace back to one man and one woman (as in "one") - see how this is the position of mainstream evolutionary geneticists.
Geneticists claim to have found the earliest known ancestors of humanity. They do not claim that these are the first humans; merely that they are the earliest ancestors we've found. Nice try though.
Does this remind you of Noah and his progeny after the flood?
You mean the flood that didn't happen?
See the sun. See the moon. See how the mooon perfectly covers the sun during a full solar eclipse. Ever wondered about the exactness in apparent size? The Bible says God gave the sun and moon for signs and seasons.
The bible says a lot of dumb things for which there is no evidence. Why are you claiming that the seasons involve solar eclipses?
But all this is evidence isn't directly personal.
None of what you've posted is objective evidence.
The most important step is when you, having noticed the evidence does not contradict God, take a leap of faith, and pray to him to help you out. You'll see how a *lot* of very very *personal* evidence accumulates and how that helps you.
Actual, the universe repeatedly contradicts
We try hard to please, O great sharp-tongued one...
> > Let me first say - you need faith to please God
> putting the cart before the horse...
I wrote above how evidence (see below for more evidence) will strongly suggest God's existence, but the final leap is one of faith.
A man is in a building that is on fire.
A firefighter sets out a jump net, and yells for him to jump.
Even though the evidence strongly suggests he will be saved he does not jump.
"Not enough evidence" he says. Besides, I like it here.
The man burns to death.
> > Firstly, read about the Bible -
> > multiple scholar[s] were proven wrong
> > and the Bible was proven right as archological evidence was gathered.
> Which scholars? Which peer-reviewed journal describes these archeological finds?
I don't have it handy. But I'll give you an example, quoting from here:
Now we know it does.
:)
> > How the Book of Job describes the earth as a sphere.
> > How Genesis describes a supercontinent.
> Why would think that a book that describes the world as a sphere
> or describes a supercontinent in earlier times would automatically
> be non-fiction?
1. Spherical World
No - I just put that there to headoff the common misconception that the Bible
describes the world as flat (BTW it is the Catholic church that made that silly claim - *not* the Bible. Use the source Luke, use the source!). By looking at the horizon that the earth is a sphere. Some ancients knew this.
2. Supercontinent
Yes, a book that makes the claims that all land masses were one landmass to begin with, and make that claim 3000 years ago, before geology and cartography could discover it, deserves your attention.
Another thing I forgot to mention earlier:
3. The book of Job also claims God has "hung the earth (previously described as spherical) in nothingness"
Also; not only were claims made in the past about the past, the Bible also makes claims about the future. It claims that "towards the time of the end" , "knowledge will increase" and people will travel much more (as we do now), Israel will be regathered (now, who'd have imagined *that*), and mockers will abound (you would agree especially to the last statement
Now when something correctly predicts the past and the future, it's a theory we should follow.
> > Next look up at creation.
> Describing everything as "creation" before you've proven that it was created is an error.
Eh, "Created" is a common word - as in: "Radon gas is created by the decay of U235".
Stop being so sensitive.
> > Note that theories of evolution are in constant flux,
> > trying to account for new information - how bats, birds,
> > and one more species evolved flight separately.
> Scientific theories are constantly refined;
> this is nothing new. What is it about bible-thumpers
> that makes them think that scientific theories are required
> to be absolutely correct
Nothing. We accept that, many of us being scientists too. The problems are:
1. The rate at which evolutionary theories changing is notable.
2. The changes aren't refinements - like gravity at quantum scales - they outright replace the main mechanism of the theory it replaces (eg: punctuated equilibium v/s gradual change)
3. Theories of evolution (like the theory of punctuated equilibium) have not been proven. Newton's laws hold true and can be experimentally verified, unlike the theories of evolution, which can't be directly proven.
4. They a
Adding to my post above...
this link has a good collection of of facts in the Bible that were considered fiction, but were then backed up by archeological discoveries.
Bah. You can't concede a lost point gracefully, can you? One last time...
... establish his rule on earth.
...
> You stated Newton's religious beliefs as though they mattered.
No - I was talking to another poster, pointing out the *absurdity* of his beliefs, when you stepped in.
> > As a Christian
> I don't suppose you have any objective evidence for this.
No, like every Christian, I live in hope.
BUT there is objective evidence that supports the accuracy
of the person who made that claim.
See my other posts if you are interested.
> The problem is that you equate embryos with children,
> and this is inaccurate.
>
> strawman on your part.
Eh? A strawman?
Fetus, embryos, and children are:
- *human*
- individual beings, seperate in genetic makeup from their parents
Hence they should be treated should be *treated* as such.
That is my position.
This post was labelled a troll, before the modertator presumably ran out of mod points. ...
...
Reposting...
----
If it's a choice between your survival or mine, take a wild guess where you rank.
Now try again.
Oh no, the "youre-wrong-because-im-really-selfish" argument again.
I thank God that my survival is *not* in your hands. It's in God's. And he's chosen to put an effective government in charge for my protection. Not you.
So, no... I won't "try again". You need to try again though.
From the article linked:
----
Naomi Wolf, the high-profile 32-year-old feminist author and Rhodes scholar, recently admitted that her morning sickness--and her seeing the baby inside moving on a scan--has helped her change her mind about abortion.
With her first baby due soon, Wolf said that she now rejects the abortion lobby's claim that a foetus isn't a human life but is merely a mass of tissue.
Bah. You can't concede a lost point gracefully, can you? One last time...
I haven't lost a point. Declaring victory doesn't make it true.
No - I was talking to another poster, pointing out the *absurdity* of his beliefs, when you stepped in.
You weren't doing a very good job. As for me stepping in, if you can't handle a forum where multiple people can post, stick to email.
BUT there is objective evidence that supports the accuracy of the person who made that claim. See my other posts if you are interested.
If the posts to which you refer are in reply to mine, I'm sure I will. Otherwise you'll be expected to provide that evidence in this discussion.
Fetus, embryos, and children are:
- *human*
- individual beings, seperate in genetic makeup from their parents
Hence they should be treated should be *treated* as such.
That is my position.
Embryos and fetii are clumps of cells -- human cells, sure, but so is a fingernail clipping. And for the second (or third) time, no one is talking about children. Your repeated reference to them is a strawman.
I wrote above how evidence (see below for more evidence) will strongly suggest God's existence, but the final leap is one of faith.
:)
You keep saying this. Your mere saying it doesn't make it true.
A man is in a building that is on fire.
A firefighter sets out a jump net, and yells for him to jump.
Even though the evidence strongly suggests he will be saved he does not jump.
"Not enough evidence" he says. Besides, I like it here.
The man burns to death.
What kind of idiot parable is this? This does not relate to your argument at all, as you are the one who is ignoring evidence, not me. A more reasonable analogy for your argument would be something like this:
A man is sitting in his fourth-story apartment when he hears people yelling to them through his window. He goes to the window and hears them say the building is on fire. There's no smoke, no heat, no visible fire, the fire alarms aren't going off and when he calls the fire department for verification they tell him no one has called in an emergency. He explains this to the people on the street and they tell him that has to believe the building is on fire before he'll see the evidence. They hold out their hands and claim they are stretching out a net for him to jump into, and when he protests that he can't see the net they tell him that it's an invisible net and he has to have faith that he will be saved. The man does have faith, so even though he can't see the "net" or the "fire" he jumps down... and dies. That's religion for you.
See? It's real easy to make up dumb stories that would never happen. Doesn't support your point though.
In the previous century, critics of the Bible had great fun mocking the story of Jonah and his preaching trip to Ninevah. They knew, of course, that Ninevah never existed,
Now we know it does.
Wow. I suppose that Gone With The Wind is non-fiction as well because it takes place in an area that actually exists. Why would you even present such a ridiculous argument? It's like you're not even trying.
No - I just put that there to headoff the common misconception that the Bible describes the world as flat (BTW it is the Catholic church that made that silly claim - *not* the Bible. Use the source Luke, use the source!). By looking at the horizon that the earth is a sphere. Some ancients knew this.
The bible claims that satan took jesus up to the top of a mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the earth. Can't do that on a sphere.
Yes, a book that makes the claims that all land masses were one landmass to begin with, and make that claim 3000 years ago, before geology and cartography could discover it, deserves your attention.
You make the mistake of thinking that I've never read the bible or studied christianity. I have. I was raised as a christian. It just didn't take.
Also; not only were claims made in the past about the past, the Bible also makes claims about the future. It claims that "towards the time of the end" , "knowledge will increase" and people will travel much more (as we do now), Israel will be regathered (now, who'd have imagined *that*), and mockers will abound (you would agree especially to the last statement
Wow... these are some amazing predictions. Gee, we'll learn more and travel more as time goes on? Who would have thought that! Amazing! Israel will be reunited? Not much of a prediction considering that the current nation of Israel was created by people who were trying to fulfill what they believed to be a prophecy. And as for that amazing last one, yes, if you claim a bunch of silly stuff that contradicts reality, you will be mocked. That doesn't mean the writers of the bible were prescient, just that they had met other people before.
Now when something correctly predicts the past and the future, i
God doesn't exist, because if he did and your life actually was in his hands, he would have killed you a long time ago for being so stupid as to blindly worship in him.
Oh, and if that wasn't enough to piss him off, you telling people what you think he wants would definately do it.
Of course if that was the case, he would also be killing pretty much everyone except the Athiests, Buddhists, and Hindus (I'm sure there are other belief systems that he wouldn't bother, but these are just the ones I could think of off the top of my head).
I bet that is kind of ironic in your eyes.
I didn't say your inputs were unwelcome. I pointed out the context of the discussion.
I was doing a reductio ad-absurdum on the argument with the other guy.
For evidence, consider this old post.
Embryos and fetuses aren't just clumps of cells. Note how this fetus behaves when you kill it:
link The plural of fetus is not fetii, it is fetuses.
I appreciate your parable is nonsense. Let me concur by saying that believing in Jesus is not likely to kill you physically (at least not in the country you live in). It will be the death knell for your current sinful nature though. Someone once said, those who believe are born twice, but only die once. If you disbelieve, you are born once, but die twice.
If you followed the link, you would see evidence for how we know Ninevah exists. (So follow the link).
The predictions were of the future when they were made (how did the Bible writers know there was a supercontinent?). Unfortunately your personal predictions aren't impressive (doesn't compare to the ones in the Bible).
So you can do your own washing.
You are correct about science -- I mixed up "proven" with "experimentally verified" (and in the same sentence too)
Here's a good link that explains how science works:Note, its the *theory* of evolution, but the *law* of gravity. Evolution that adds information to a genome has not been observed. The answersingenesis.org site elaborate more on this.
If you have contradictory information, state your links.
I'm familiar with the talk origins site, and the page on the flood too. There are many places that rebut most of the points there - answersingenesis.org is one.
Your poor attempt to classify my statement as Pascal's wager is quite inappropriate. The wager states "...if you lose, you lose nothing." As a Christian, we are expected to lose a lot - money, pride, comfort - that the world values. But that loss counts as gain in the life to come. So no, Pascal's wager was not being discussed, unless Pascal redefined loss in a way that is unfamiliar to you.
Pride does not suit anyone - whether or effort applied or not. In your case, your pride (which is obvious by your smart-alecky comments) makes you more foolish.
You aren't a Christian until you've got God's spirit (and this isn't an arbitrary definition - read the Bible, which you are obviously not familiar with enough). You cannot be born or raised as a Christian - it is a *choice* you make. So no, it's unlikely you were ever Christian. (again - this is no arbitrary definition - read the Bible).
Satan showed Jesus the kingdoms of the world, *and their glory* - you don't see very much glory for a high mountain. How do you *know* it wasn't a sound and light show with the mountain chosen for it's 360 degree view?
Atheism is a belief system - just like any other. To actively disbelieve in God is itself a held belief. [top link on Google search for "atheist belief"]. In light of the snippet on science above, it could be said that you believe in the theory of atheism.
Again, in closing I say - who's running away from the peer-reviewed papers - you or me?
Embryos and fetuses aren't just clumps of cells. Note how this fetus behaves when you kill it:
(snip quoted text)
I don't see anything about embryos in this text. You continue to dishonestly blur the issue.
The plural of fetus is not fetii, it is fetuses.
I've avoided pointing out your spelling and grammatical errors (except in one case where the error actually changed the meaning of your sentence) because the actual issues are what is important. It's unfortunate that you don't agree, but then if I were in your position I'd probably have the same problem.
Now who's running away from the peer-reviewed papers - you or me?
Your accusation is unjust. I have not disputed any scientific findings; I am disputing that they in any way support the bible. I explained this in my posting but it does not suprise me that you dishonestly misrepresent my position.
I appreciate your parable is nonsense.
Do you also appreciate that your parable was nonsense and should not even have been included in your original message?
Let me concur by saying that believing in Jesus is not likely to kill you physically (at least not in the country you live in). It will be the death knell for your current sinful nature though.
That's an interesting claim. Most christians believe that only god is without sin, yet you claim that humans can reach that standard of perfection in this life. What branch of christianity teaches human perfection?
Someone once said, those who believe are born twice, but only die once. If you disbelieve, you are born once, but die twice.
Pithy, but it doesn't rhyme. You should make it rhyme; rhyming sayings seem to have more effect on the simple-minded. You know, something like "jesus is the reason for the season" (despite the fact that christmas is a pagan holiday that christianity co-opted).
If you followed the link, you would see evidence for how we know Ninevah exists. (So follow the link).
As I explained in my previous post, my dispute is not over whether or not Ninevah exists, but over whether or not that is signficant. It isn't. Much of the fiction written today takes place in areas that actually exist. It is unsurprising that fiction written long ago takes place in areas that existed then. You did not address this point because you know that it utterly demolishes the idea that this finding is signficant.
The predictions were of the future when they were made (how did the Bible writers know there was a supercontinent?).
No, they were of the past. The prediction was not "in the future people will hypothesize that there was a supercontinent".
Unfortunately your personal predictions aren't impressive (doesn't compare to the ones in the Bible).
Your dodge here does not surprise me.
So you can do your own washing.
No problem; you'd probably try to "faith-clean" the clothes anyway.
Note, its the *theory* of evolution, but the *law* of gravity. Evolution that adds information to a genome has not been observed. The answersingenesis.org site elaborate more on this. If you have contradictory information, state your links.
Note that scientific theories do not have to be instantly completely correct the first time they are offered, and note that you claimed to agree with this. Your continued attempts to belabor this point are dishonest in light of your previous claims to understand this point.
Your poor attempt to classify my statement as Pascal's wager is quite inappropriate. The wager states "...if you lose, you lose nothing." As a Christian, we are expected to lose a lot - money, pride, comfort - that the world values. But that loss counts as gain in the life to come. So no, Pascal's wager was not being discussed, unless Pascal redefined loss in a way that is unfamiliar to you.
Your statement was that I should become a christian to avoid hell. This is the essence of Pascal's Wager, and shares the same inarguable refutation. Your attempt to blur the issue by arguing semantics is dishonest. Your claim that any level of loss in this finite life is comparable to eternal torment is cretinous.
You aren't a Christian until you've got God's spirit (and this isn't an arbitrary definition - read the Bible, which you are obviously not familiar with enough). You cannot be born or raised as a Christian - it is a *choice* you make. So no, it's unlikely you were ever Christian. (again - this is no arbitrary d
Moderator on crack.
"If anyone needs me, I'm in the angry dome."
If he were worried about infection, he could instead, design some kind of centipede-bot to house the electronic brain. Then, instead of sawing open the skulls of his victims, there could be a scene where he shoves a coat hanger hook up their nose to scoop the brains out. Then the centipede bot could just crawl up their nose and take up residence.
Eat at Joe's.
No, by my logic I shouldn't use anything I don't agree made by religious people. I didn't say I disagree with all that religion preach. I for all embrance the "You shall not kill" and many other stuff :-P I don't need to believe in god for that...
Just to refrase my first sentence:
By my logic I shouldn't use anything I don't agree made by people. Religion as nothing to do with it
PS - Sorry for taking so long to answer