I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one. In my opinion, a philosophy that allows for a "sliding scale" of personhood will always lead to horrific abuses, as has been shown throughout human history.
You didn't exactly come out and say, but it seems to me that you are saying that embryos are in fact not human beings. That's a valid point of view, although one I don't agree with. Once you've made that determination, it really shouldn't matter whether or not the embryo is outside a woman's uterus or not.
It is also irrelevant whether or not it takes "positive action" for the embryo to continue to develop; that is also true for newborn infants (they must be kept warm, fed, etc., or they will die quite quickly), but I doubt you would suggest that newborns should be harvested.
And the argument that an unused embryo won't last forever seems specious to me: that argument could be made about any one of us in any stage. Consider the prisoner on death row: if not pardoned they'll either be destroyed (executed) or degrade into uselessness (die a natural death). So why not harvest their organs?
In conclusion, I still think the primary issue with abortion or stem cell research is whether or not an embryo/fetus is a human being, a legal person. All other arguments (and yours were good ones, I might say), just cloud the issue and don't get to the heart of things.
Your statement comparing embryos to sperm is either a demonstration of profound ignorance of the process of human reproduction, or else just a willful disregard of fact. When do you think human personhood actually begins?
Let's try a thought experiment. Let's say that there are 10 embryos, all the product of artificial insemination. Five are used to create stem cells and in the process are killed. The other five are "rescued" and implanted in an adoptive mother's uterus and brought to full term.
Now, ten years later, let's imagine that it is decided that the five surviving embryos (now all ten year old children) need to be killed so that their organs can be harvested. By doing this thousands of people's lives can be saved through some revolutionary scientific discovery.
My question: if you are not comfortable with killing the five 10-year old children, why is there a difference between this and killing the five embryos? I'm guessing it gets down to when you think personhood begins. It has nothing to do with the purpose for which the ten embryos were originally created. If that were the case, you shouldn't mind if the 10-year olds are killed since they were the byproduct of artificial insemination and were planned to be thrown away.
If you don't know when personhood begins, wouldn't it be prudent to have an abundance of caution when dealing with matters of life and death?
No, you are confused. The cells extracted from the embryo are grown in a petri dish into a sheet. But the embryo itself is killed in the process.
This still doesn't answer my original question: when in the process from conception to birth do you think the embryo/fetus become a person? That is the ultimate question that must be answered if we are to determine if embryonic stem cell research is ethical or not.
And if the question cannot satisfactorily be answered, in my opinion we should err on the side of caution and declare embryonic stem cell research unethical.
Not really. It is more like what the Chinese allegedly do to some of their prisoners (killing & harvesting their organs). The difference? Cadavers used for medical research are from people who died from some external effect (disease, accident). Embryos used to make stem cells would not die if they were implanted...in fact, they would grow and be born just like everyone else.
So if an embryo is not a person, then when does "it" become a person, in your opinion? Do you know the answer? If you are not sure, then why are you willing to risk being wrong?
You call both a sperm/egg and a fertilized egg "potential" human life, but by doing so you are displaying your bias against the status of a fertilized egg as a full member of the human family. In my opinion, once an egg is fertilized, something fundamental has changed and a new person has been formed.
If you don't believe that full personhood begins at conception, then when do you believe it begins? If your answer is "I don't know", then shouldn't you err on the side of caution and support the protection of embryos from exploitation or other harm?
No, you're making it more complicated than you need to: a human life, personhood if you will, begins at conception. And yes, if you discard nine embryos, you are murdering them. Perhaps that makes you upset, or maybe you don't care. You have to decide for yourself what you believe.
Actually this is pretty simple...simple enough for a 4-year old to understand. Sperm and eggs, separately, are not human beings. When they join together, they form into a human being. If you remember your high school biology, the sperm and egg each only have half the DNA needed to form a human. Once the egg is fertilized, only then do you have a human.
This is true for any organism that reproduces sexually, by the way.
My 1993 Honda Civic is still going strong (knock on wood) with 186,000 miles. I've had it since it came of the lot, and have had no major repairs to speak of...I had to replace the radiator, axles, and I think that's about it, other than routine maintenance.
Bad example. The first one is a CAT-6 cable, the second is a CAT-5e. And the first one has the same price for pick up or delivery. The second one is is delivery only.
"No offence, but fuck you. Fuck you right in the face, asshole."
You seem to have serious anger issues. Did you ever consider that you might enjoy greater influence and do a better job promoting your causes by refraining from cursing at people with whom you disagree?
That's completely ridiculous. You might argue that a fetus is not yet a human being (I would disagree with you), but to say that it's not even alive makes it clear that you have no idea what you're talking about. What are your criteria for life, and why doesn't the fetus meet it? At what point does a person become alive, in your view? At birth? Are you not alive 5 minutes before birth?
From what I can see, the tests for Down Syndrome are available no earlier than 11 weeks. By that time, the fetus has fingers & toes, hair & nails, and even the beginnings of genitals.
If you think that it's wrong for someone to be "sentenced to a life of hard labour taking care of a grotesque parody of Humanity", then why stop with abortion? Since it appears that you believe that someone with Down Syndrome isn't human, why not round them all up (babies, kids, adults) and kill them?
Um, I hope you realize that there's a big difference between finding a cure for Down's Syndrome and making it easier for them to be killed before they are born.
I don't think so, necessarily. Limited bandwidth is not the only reason Ajax exists. The Ajax technique is also great for providing a "hands-off" user interface. Digg Spy, for example (http://digg.com/spy).
Although I suppose you could implement that by refreshing the whole page every time. But that would also use up a lot more CPU.
Good point...I think that as long as nothing goes wrong with your order, buy.com is probably ok. But woe unto you if anything does go wrong. And maybe that was always true, and I had just gotten lucky up until last year.
I have returned to buy.com after ignoring them for several years. Rotten-looking web site with very poor information about items. But I have found them faster and often less expensive than Amazon.
Just wait until you have a problem with a buy.com order. Their customer service department has become an absolute joke...the reps are completely powerless; either unwilling or unable to solve problems. After getting a terrible runaround on missing items on one order and a double billing on another order last year, I swore that I would never again use buy.com.
buy.com's business model now seems to be: 1. Take order & charge customer's credit card 2. Fail to deliver what's promised 3. Tell customer that problem will be cleared up "next week", etc. 4. Repeat step 3 several times 5. Finally fix customer's order, or give refund if pressed (or wait until customer disputes charge with credit card company) 6. In the meantime you've been earning interest on customer's money... 7. Profit!
I strongly recommend you think twice about continuing to use buy.com. They are not what they once were.
Someone mentioned automatically opening up a shell in the directory that you're looking at in the browser. (I REALLY have wanted that on windows occasionally -- does it exist there?)
Slashdot Mirror
I haven't used it, but I've heard good things about http://www.mvelopes.com/
But this presumes that embryos aren't already persons before they're implanted. Again, my question is: when do you think we become persons?
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one. In my opinion, a philosophy that allows for a "sliding scale" of personhood will always lead to horrific abuses, as has been shown throughout human history.
You didn't exactly come out and say, but it seems to me that you are saying that embryos are in fact not human beings. That's a valid point of view, although one I don't agree with. Once you've made that determination, it really shouldn't matter whether or not the embryo is outside a woman's uterus or not.
It is also irrelevant whether or not it takes "positive action" for the embryo to continue to develop; that is also true for newborn infants (they must be kept warm, fed, etc., or they will die quite quickly), but I doubt you would suggest that newborns should be harvested.
And the argument that an unused embryo won't last forever seems specious to me: that argument could be made about any one of us in any stage. Consider the prisoner on death row: if not pardoned they'll either be destroyed (executed) or degrade into uselessness (die a natural death). So why not harvest their organs?
In conclusion, I still think the primary issue with abortion or stem cell research is whether or not an embryo/fetus is a human being, a legal person. All other arguments (and yours were good ones, I might say), just cloud the issue and don't get to the heart of things.
Your statement comparing embryos to sperm is either a demonstration of profound ignorance of the process of human reproduction, or else just a willful disregard of fact. When do you think human personhood actually begins?
Let's try a thought experiment. Let's say that there are 10 embryos, all the product of artificial insemination. Five are used to create stem cells and in the process are killed. The other five are "rescued" and implanted in an adoptive mother's uterus and brought to full term.
Now, ten years later, let's imagine that it is decided that the five surviving embryos (now all ten year old children) need to be killed so that their organs can be harvested. By doing this thousands of people's lives can be saved through some revolutionary scientific discovery.
My question: if you are not comfortable with killing the five 10-year old children, why is there a difference between this and killing the five embryos? I'm guessing it gets down to when you think personhood begins. It has nothing to do with the purpose for which the ten embryos were originally created. If that were the case, you shouldn't mind if the 10-year olds are killed since they were the byproduct of artificial insemination and were planned to be thrown away.
If you don't know when personhood begins, wouldn't it be prudent to have an abundance of caution when dealing with matters of life and death?
No, you are confused. The cells extracted from the embryo are grown in a petri dish into a sheet. But the embryo itself is killed in the process.
This still doesn't answer my original question: when in the process from conception to birth do you think the embryo/fetus become a person? That is the ultimate question that must be answered if we are to determine if embryonic stem cell research is ethical or not.
And if the question cannot satisfactorily be answered, in my opinion we should err on the side of caution and declare embryonic stem cell research unethical.
Not really. It is more like what the Chinese allegedly do to some of their prisoners (killing & harvesting their organs). The difference? Cadavers used for medical research are from people who died from some external effect (disease, accident). Embryos used to make stem cells would not die if they were implanted...in fact, they would grow and be born just like everyone else.
So if an embryo is not a person, then when does "it" become a person, in your opinion? Do you know the answer? If you are not sure, then why are you willing to risk being wrong?
Your ignorance is astounding. Please brush up on basic human reproduction before commenting here. Here's a hint: unfertilized egg != embryo.
I recommend Evernote
You've been watching too many terrible Kevin Costner movies, methinks.
You call both a sperm/egg and a fertilized egg "potential" human life, but by doing so you are displaying your bias against the status of a fertilized egg as a full member of the human family. In my opinion, once an egg is fertilized, something fundamental has changed and a new person has been formed.
If you don't believe that full personhood begins at conception, then when do you believe it begins? If your answer is "I don't know", then shouldn't you err on the side of caution and support the protection of embryos from exploitation or other harm?
No, you're making it more complicated than you need to: a human life, personhood if you will, begins at conception. And yes, if you discard nine embryos, you are murdering them. Perhaps that makes you upset, or maybe you don't care. You have to decide for yourself what you believe.
Actually this is pretty simple...simple enough for a 4-year old to understand. Sperm and eggs, separately, are not human beings. When they join together, they form into a human being. If you remember your high school biology, the sperm and egg each only have half the DNA needed to form a human. Once the egg is fertilized, only then do you have a human.
This is true for any organism that reproduces sexually, by the way.
OOA (Obligatory Onion Article):
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28694
My 1993 Honda Civic is still going strong (knock on wood) with 186,000 miles. I've had it since it came of the lot, and have had no major repairs to speak of...I had to replace the radiator, axles, and I think that's about it, other than routine maintenance.
Bad example. The first one is a CAT-6 cable, the second is a CAT-5e. And the first one has the same price for pick up or delivery. The second one is is delivery only.
"No offence, but fuck you. Fuck you right in the face, asshole."
You seem to have serious anger issues. Did you ever consider that you might enjoy greater influence and do a better job promoting your causes by refraining from cursing at people with whom you disagree?
That's completely ridiculous. You might argue that a fetus is not yet a human being (I would disagree with you), but to say that it's not even alive makes it clear that you have no idea what you're talking about. What are your criteria for life, and why doesn't the fetus meet it? At what point does a person become alive, in your view? At birth? Are you not alive 5 minutes before birth?
n t1.php
Have you actually looked at pictures of fetuses? Try this page: http://www.pregnancy.org/pregnancy/fetaldevelopme
From what I can see, the tests for Down Syndrome are available no earlier than 11 weeks. By that time, the fetus has fingers & toes, hair & nails, and even the beginnings of genitals.
If you think that it's wrong for someone to be "sentenced to a life of hard labour taking care of a grotesque parody of Humanity", then why stop with abortion? Since it appears that you believe that someone with Down Syndrome isn't human, why not round them all up (babies, kids, adults) and kill them?
Um, I hope you realize that there's a big difference between finding a cure for Down's Syndrome and making it easier for them to be killed before they are born.
Sure it was. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missil e_Treaty:
The treaty was signed in Moscow on May 26, 1972 and ratified by the US Senate on August 3, 1972.
I don't think so, necessarily. Limited bandwidth is not the only reason Ajax exists. The Ajax technique is also great for providing a "hands-off" user interface. Digg Spy, for example (http://digg.com/spy).
Although I suppose you could implement that by refreshing the whole page every time. But that would also use up a lot more CPU.
Good point...I think that as long as nothing goes wrong with your order, buy.com is probably ok. But woe unto you if anything does go wrong. And maybe that was always true, and I had just gotten lucky up until last year.
I have returned to buy.com after ignoring them for several years. Rotten-looking web site with very poor information about items. But I have found them faster and often less expensive than Amazon.
Just wait until you have a problem with a buy.com order. Their customer service department has become an absolute joke...the reps are completely powerless; either unwilling or unable to solve problems. After getting a terrible runaround on missing items on one order and a double billing on another order last year, I swore that I would never again use buy.com.
buy.com's business model now seems to be:
1. Take order & charge customer's credit card
2. Fail to deliver what's promised
3. Tell customer that problem will be cleared up "next week", etc.
4. Repeat step 3 several times
5. Finally fix customer's order, or give refund if pressed (or wait until customer disputes charge with credit card company)
6. In the meantime you've been earning interest on customer's money...
7. Profit!
I strongly recommend you think twice about continuing to use buy.com. They are not what they once were.