We're agreed that the middle class gets screwed, but the rich get screwed harder. Problem is (see here) that in fact, while the rich receive 19% of all income, they pay 55% of all income tax.
Only one problem with that analogy, though: we already do that. As
this article documents, the top 1% of earners in the US receive 19% of the income, but pay 55% of all taxes.
Doesn't make as good a story, I know, but that's how it is...
No, it's like a man who's so `free' that you have an armed guard standing by to make sure he doesn't buy himself lunch, in case that might result in him being enslaved...
<sarcasm>Hmmm, yes. How silly of the administration to try to claim that the September 11 attacks are a sign that there are terrorists in the world who want to attack us.</sarcasm>
Quite seriously, though, can you provide any evidence of either of your claims -- that is that a.) that Cheney is exaggerating the dangers from terrorism that we still face, or that b.) this is being used to push a political cause?
Please present one. I would be happy to discuss it.
OK, the crux of the problem which many conservatives have with harvesting of human embryos from research goes something like this:
We already agree, as a society, that taking a life is killing, and is only acceptable in a very limited set of circumstances. So if (and that is what shall have to determine) an embryo is life, then destroying it is killing, and we are agreed that killing live humans for research purposes is not acceptable.
So now we need to determine when life begins. Let's look at a couple of possibilities:
birth -- this is perhaps the hardest position to defend. The problem with saying that `life begins at birth' is that it is a purely geographic argument -- a just-born baby is alive, but five minutes earlier, when he was identical for all intents and purposes, but was still in the womb, he was not.
some point during development -- this is perhaps the most tempting argument, as it solves a lot of legal problems, but the devil is in the details. At what point in development? How do you determine if the fetus has reached this point? Is it a concrete line, such that at one moment the baby is not alive, and the next moment it is?
implantation -- this is certainly another tempting argument, but again, this seems to me to be geographic in nature, for it says an identical cell is or isn't alive based on it's location relative to the womb's wall. This definition also falls apart as soon as we can raise infants in a lab environment, for then a human will grow to age without ever implanting, yet surely such a human would be `alive'.
conception -- this seems to be the best bet, for it can be clearly defined, and is the discrete start of the development process. Before this state, the specific dna of the infant does not exist. After this state, the specific dna, including all genetic characteristics and predispositions, is present, and need only develop.
This is why many of us believe, quite rationally, that life begins at conception, which is to say when the fertilized egg, with complete dna, begins to exist.
And if life begins at conception, then of course it is killing to destroy an embryo. And, as I said, we are already agreed that killing humans for research purposes is wrong.
Which is all very well, except that you still haven't provided any justification for judging all religious individuals by Falwell's statements but not judging all `scientific' individuals by the statements of the flying-saucer crowd.
Certainly no one (and least of all our current president, if you actually listen to his statements is suggesting that religion is the direct source of policy. However, you have to acknowledge that neither can science suggest policy to us. Science can help us observe society, and make predictions about what outcomes various policies will lead to. It cannot make moral judgements about what outcomes we should favor or what means are acceptable to achieve those outcomes.
And this is where ethics and morality come in. And the fact remains that the proving grounds of which ethical theories actually produce desirable results are history and tradition, and religion is one part of that tradition.
What you call `magic' is the fact that an embryo is already a developing human with it's own DNA. If you do not draw the line at the embryo, where do you draw it? There are certainly clearer arguments for considering an embryo a life as opposed to other cells than there are for considering a baby a life as opposed to a late-term fetus, for example...
Ah, but this is not an opinion born of dogma--it is an opinion born of observation. -- the origin of the opinion is irrelevant once you begin sticking to it dogmatically and refusing to rationally discuss alternatives. To say it again: if you set yourself in your opinion, and refuse to believe that anyone could rationally reach another opinion, you are being dogmatic, not scientific.
Every one which I've seen is clearly borne from religious belief, not reason. Therefore it is logical to conclude that most people, if not all, who believe life begins at conception believe so from religious fervor not rational thought --`every elephant I've seen was in a zoo, therefore all elephants are in zoos'. Your argument especially falls apart in light of how quickly you declare other people's views to be `religious' without considering that they may be rationally reached conclusions.
Yes, *eventually* the embryo will develop differentiating characteristics--but it does not yet have them, and that's the whole point. -- and that's the main problem I have with your position, and where I think it falls apart: you speak of this as a `future' difference, but the fact remains that in all the history of the world, there is not one case on record of a human embryo allowed to mature which matured into anything but a human being. So, in fact, speaking of this as a `future' distinction is nonsensical.
semen will become a human life in the future if certain conditions are met -- yes, but that semen could become any number of different human beings depending on the egg it combines with, or could fail to combine at all. In contrast, an embryo is already a human being with full dna, whose genetic traits and dispositions are already present.
To believe otherwise one must be bringing some sort of religious viewpoint into the equation, since science and reason do not distinguish this embryo as a human life, but merely a very early step in the long process which results in a human life. -- there you go again with your dogmatism. To repeat, science can't tell us whether anything at all is a human life -- these are ethical distinctions which we must decide upon. After all, science provides no guidance against killing adults or born infants, never mind embryos. That's just not what science does, as any scientist could tell you.
To quote Webster's: "The act of conceiving in the womb; the initiation of an embryonic animal life. -- and isn't the second of those definitions exactly the definition we have been discussing?
I repeat, there is *no difference* between a human embryo and that of most other mammals, except on the molecular level -- this is obviously false. Again, the clearest difference is that only the human embryo will develop into a human (and a human whose genetic code is already completely present in the embryo, no less), while the other mammalian embryo will not. To pretend this is no distinction is nonsensical. After all, by your argument, a nuclear missile on its way to a major city isn't anything to worry about, because it only has the `potential' to `someday' become a nuclear explosion.
I said before that there are many opinions on this subject which could be based on reason. Yours are not, as I have continually demonstrated. -- and again, here we come to the crux of the matter, and why I say that it is your view that is dogmatic and religious, not scientific at all. To believe that only people who agree with you could have reached their opinion rationally is the opposite of science, and an indication of a pathetic misunderstanding of what reason is.
What I did say, and stand by, is that the notion that human life begins at conception is a religiously-derived opinion rather than a rational one -- this is exactly what I'm talking about. You have decided canonically that life begins some time after conception, and refuse to believe that anyone who disagrees with you could be making a rational argument.
we can create human embryos by processes other than what we generally call "conception"; therefore it is irrational to say that human life begins at conception, unless you'd consider cloned or otherwise artificially produced embryos to not become human -- this is just to say that there are more than one way in which conception (the combination of cells into an embryo) can occur, not that an embryo can be formed without conception at all.
it is irrational to say that human life begins at conception because a human embryo is completely indistinguishable from embryos of most other mammals by any means and on any level excpet the molecular -- on the contrary, there is a very clear difference between a human embryo and an embryo from another mammal -- the human embryo, if allowed to develop, will develop into, well, a human. It is called a `human' embryo for a reason, after all...
We can therefore clearly state that just because something is a cell that contains human DNA does not qualify it as a human life. So, what other traits does an embryo have which are uniquely human? None. -- again, one clear example of such a trait is the ability to develop into a complete human, if given a suitable environment -- a human whose genetic identity is already present in that cell.
That is the difference here. I make observations, and then form my opinions around them. -- indeed, but having formed those opinions, you refuse to accept that anyone else could rationally form different opinions, and that is what I have a problem with.
They will if their nuclei are properly implanted into a woman's womb. That's what cloning is, you yutz.
-- no, they will not. I suggest you go read up on the matter. What
can be done is to extract the dna from them (or from any other cell), and combine it with a human egg which has had its dna removed. This will result in an embryo, which is as alive as any other embryo.
Something like 80% of fertilized eggs never come to term -- and a huge percent of adults don't live past thirty. That doesn't mean we should implement `Logan's Run'.
head... ass... etc -- and this is the crux of the matter. You want to be seen as the rational, scientific one in this debate, yet your mode of argument is shouting insults at anyone who doesn't believe exactly what you believe. Looks to me like you're the dogmatist here...
This is largely on point -- remember, people who oppose embryonic stem cell research are not opposed to research using stem cells in general (well, except for some of the wacky green-left types, who are opposed to anything with the word `genetic' in it:-) ), they are opposed to killing human beings to get those stem cells.
There is lots of useful research being done with non-embryonic stem cells, after all.
First off, it's not `illegal', you just can't get government funding for research involving destroying embryos. This hardly seems a major imposition, unless you believe that you have a God-given right to have the taxpayers fund your research...
Secondly, people are doing all sorts of useful things with stem cells, just not with embryonic stem cells. In fact, there are plenty of ways to get stem cells without destroying embryos, which is why it seems clear that this whole topic is purely political, and not about what's needed for research at all.
But much of this is exactly what I'm saying. That is, that these are decisions to be made rationally by humans trying to reach an ethical conclusion -- not questions which can be answered by observation and hypothesis (i.e. science).
And again, the main problem I have with your view is a.) that you refuse to acknowledge that anyone who disagrees with you could have reached their opinion rationally, and b.) you hold to the arrogant claim that `science' backs up your opinion (or any opinion at all).
Again, the fact that you like discussing pubic hair doesn't add anything to your argument. No matter what conditions they are given, your public hair folicles will not develop into a human. Unless prevented, and embryo will. I'd say the distinction is obvious.
Again, the problem with your argument is your assumption that stem cells can only be gotten by destroying embryos, when in fact other sources such as lipids have proven to be much better sources of stem cells so far.
Another problem is that if anyone disagrees with you on what means are justified by the ends you name, they must be an `idiot', not someone who honestly disagrees with you.
This incident illustrates perfectly why we should not permit religion any role in the regulation of our polity.
So I suppose the nuts who call themselves scientists and tell us about UFOs and ancient astronauts demonstrate why we shouldn't permit science any such roll? Come now...
That's exactly my point. However, the belief that human life begins at conception and must be protected at that point is an entirely religious or philosophical belief, not a scientific one. Aside from which, again, I pointed out that we can use science to make embryos without what we'd term conception actually taking place--so where does that leave us?
Now that sounds like dogmatism. No true scientist would tell us that `science' makes any such judgement. There are very important ethical considerations here, and science can inform the debate, but not settle it -- for science can no more tell us when life begins than it can tell us not to kill or not to steal. These are ethical decisions, not scientific ones.
Well, if you (as many people in this thread) define `religious fanatic' as `someone who disagrees with something I said', there are a lot of us here, yes.:-P
On the one hand, yes. On the other hand, we already have morals. If we believe that an embryo is a human being, then this falls under the existing law, hence the policies in question.
Now, you assert that no one could have a non-religious belief that life begins at conception, but then where do you draw the line? At birth? But surely this is an even less rational position -- for five minutes before birth, the infant is exactly as he will be after birth, and just as viable -- but by your distinction, could be killed. Does this type of purely geographical (inside or outside the womb) make sense?
And if we agree that it does not, then where do we draw the line? Anywhere we place it, this is a legal and ethical dispute, and need not include theology at all.
But if you make `sentience' your measure, then don't you make it legal to take comatose patients off life support without their or their families consent? After all, they are not, strictly speaking, `sentient'.
Slashdot Mirror
That second number should be 33%. Still grossly disproportionate. (The top 5% paid 55% of all taxes)
That second number should be 33%. Still grossly disproportionate. (The top 5%, paid 55% of all taxes)
We're agreed that the middle class gets screwed, but the rich get screwed harder. Problem is (see here) that in fact, while the rich receive 19% of all income, they pay 55% of all income tax.
Only one problem with that analogy, though: we already do that. As this article documents, the top 1% of earners in the US receive 19% of the income, but pay 55% of all taxes.
Doesn't make as good a story, I know, but that's how it is...
No, it's like a man who's so `free' that you have an armed guard standing by to make sure he doesn't buy himself lunch, in case that might result in him being enslaved...
<sarcasm>Hmmm, yes. How silly of the administration to try to claim that the September 11 attacks are a sign that there are terrorists in the world who want to attack us.</sarcasm>
Quite seriously, though, can you provide any evidence of either of your claims -- that is that a.) that Cheney is exaggerating the dangers from terrorism that we still face, or that b.) this is being used to push a political cause?
Umm, care to provide any credible cite for that claim? If not, I'd strongly recommend that the mods mod parent down as `-1 (wrong)'.
Please present one. I would be happy to discuss it.
OK, the crux of the problem which many conservatives have with harvesting of human embryos from research goes something like this:
We already agree, as a society, that taking a life is killing, and is only acceptable in a very limited set of circumstances. So if (and that is what shall have to determine) an embryo is life, then destroying it is killing, and we are agreed that killing live humans for research purposes is not acceptable.
So now we need to determine when life begins. Let's look at a couple of possibilities:
- birth -- this is perhaps the hardest position to defend. The problem with saying that `life begins at birth' is that it is a purely geographic argument -- a just-born baby is alive, but five minutes earlier, when he was identical for all intents and purposes, but was still in the womb, he was not.
- some point during development -- this is perhaps the most tempting argument, as it solves a lot of legal problems, but the devil is in the details. At what point in development? How do you determine if the fetus has reached this point? Is it a concrete line, such that at one moment the baby is not alive, and the next moment it is?
- implantation -- this is certainly another tempting argument, but again, this seems to me to be geographic in nature, for it says an identical cell is or isn't alive based on it's location relative to the womb's wall. This definition also falls apart as soon as we can raise infants in a lab environment, for then a human will grow to age without ever implanting, yet surely such a human would be `alive'.
- conception -- this seems to be the best bet, for it can be clearly defined, and is the discrete start of the development process. Before this state, the specific dna of the infant does not exist. After this state, the specific dna, including all genetic characteristics and predispositions, is present, and need only develop.
This is why many of us believe, quite rationally, that life begins at conception, which is to say when the fertilized egg, with complete dna, begins to exist.And if life begins at conception, then of course it is killing to destroy an embryo. And, as I said, we are already agreed that killing humans for research purposes is wrong.
Which is all very well, except that you still haven't provided any justification for judging all religious individuals by Falwell's statements but not judging all `scientific' individuals by the statements of the flying-saucer crowd.
Certainly no one (and least of all our current president, if you actually listen to his statements is suggesting that religion is the direct source of policy. However, you have to acknowledge that neither can science suggest policy to us. Science can help us observe society, and make predictions about what outcomes various policies will lead to. It cannot make moral judgements about what outcomes we should favor or what means are acceptable to achieve those outcomes.
And this is where ethics and morality come in. And the fact remains that the proving grounds of which ethical theories actually produce desirable results are history and tradition, and religion is one part of that tradition.
What you call `magic' is the fact that an embryo is already a developing human with it's own DNA. If you do not draw the line at the embryo, where do you draw it? There are certainly clearer arguments for considering an embryo a life as opposed to other cells than there are for considering a baby a life as opposed to a late-term fetus, for example...
Again, to respond to a few points:
Again, to respond to a few points:
To respond to your post, not your tone:
- They will if their nuclei are properly implanted into a woman's womb. That's what cloning is, you yutz.
- -- no, they will not. I suggest you go read up on the matter. What
- can be done is to extract the dna from them (or from any other cell), and combine it with a human egg which has had its dna removed. This will result in an embryo, which is as alive as any other embryo.
- Something like 80% of fertilized eggs never come to term -- and a huge percent of adults don't live past thirty. That doesn't mean we should implement `Logan's Run'.
- head
... ass ... etc -- and this is the crux of the matter. You want to be seen as the rational, scientific one in this debate, yet your mode of argument is shouting insults at anyone who doesn't believe exactly what you believe. Looks to me like you're the dogmatist here...
Please try to have a rational discussion here...This is largely on point -- remember, people who oppose embryonic stem cell research are not opposed to research using stem cells in general (well, except for some of the wacky green-left types, who are opposed to anything with the word `genetic' in it :-) ), they are opposed to killing human beings to get those stem cells.
There is lots of useful research being done with non-embryonic stem cells, after all.
Two points:
First off, it's not `illegal', you just can't get government funding for research involving destroying embryos. This hardly seems a major imposition, unless you believe that you have a God-given right to have the taxpayers fund your research...
Secondly, people are doing all sorts of useful things with stem cells, just not with embryonic stem cells. In fact, there are plenty of ways to get stem cells without destroying embryos, which is why it seems clear that this whole topic is purely political, and not about what's needed for research at all.
You aren't seeing the replied-to post, as it has been modded down. Check your settings.
But much of this is exactly what I'm saying. That is, that these are decisions to be made rationally by humans trying to reach an ethical conclusion -- not questions which can be answered by observation and hypothesis (i.e. science).
And again, the main problem I have with your view is a.) that you refuse to acknowledge that anyone who disagrees with you could have reached their opinion rationally, and b.) you hold to the arrogant claim that `science' backs up your opinion (or any opinion at all).
Again, the fact that you like discussing pubic hair doesn't add anything to your argument. No matter what conditions they are given, your public hair folicles will not develop into a human. Unless prevented, and embryo will. I'd say the distinction is obvious.
Again, the problem with your argument is your assumption that stem cells can only be gotten by destroying embryos, when in fact other sources such as lipids have proven to be much better sources of stem cells so far.
Another problem is that if anyone disagrees with you on what means are justified by the ends you name, they must be an `idiot', not someone who honestly disagrees with you.
This incident illustrates perfectly why we should not permit religion any role in the regulation of our polity.
So I suppose the nuts who call themselves scientists and tell us about UFOs and ancient astronauts demonstrate why we shouldn't permit science any such roll? Come now...
That's exactly my point. However, the belief that human life begins at conception and must be protected at that point is an entirely religious or philosophical belief, not a scientific one. Aside from which, again, I pointed out that we can use science to make embryos without what we'd term conception actually taking place--so where does that leave us?
Now that sounds like dogmatism. No true scientist would tell us that `science' makes any such judgement. There are very important ethical considerations here, and science can inform the debate, but not settle it -- for science can no more tell us when life begins than it can tell us not to kill or not to steal. These are ethical decisions, not scientific ones.
OK, if it's not human life, do tell what kind of life it could possibly be...
Well, if you (as many people in this thread) define `religious fanatic' as `someone who disagrees with something I said', there are a lot of us here, yes. :-P
On the one hand, yes. On the other hand, we already have morals. If we believe that an embryo is a human being, then this falls under the existing law, hence the policies in question.
Now, you assert that no one could have a non-religious belief that life begins at conception, but then where do you draw the line? At birth? But surely this is an even less rational position -- for five minutes before birth, the infant is exactly as he will be after birth, and just as viable -- but by your distinction, could be killed. Does this type of purely geographical (inside or outside the womb) make sense?
And if we agree that it does not, then where do we draw the line? Anywhere we place it, this is a legal and ethical dispute, and need not include theology at all.
But if you make `sentience' your measure, then don't you make it legal to take comatose patients off life support without their or their families consent? After all, they are not, strictly speaking, `sentient'.