So then, based on that, your comment should read: "If we didn't have a single fossil, evolutionary theories would still be the only scientific way to explain DNA similarities between species, structural similarities, the results of selective breeding, etc."
But, there are things that are outside of the bounds of empirical science that hold just as much claim to truth as empirical science does. This is to say that empirical science doesn't hold the sole claim to truth. Philosophy, for example, holds as valid a claim to truth as empirical science (maybe even more so, perhaps, considering that our scientific method is itself a philosophy; it doesn't prove itself). This being the case, I personally don't see how it is that the theory of evolution should be placed in such a high position that it is, and "protected" as it is from competing claims. It seems to me that any competing claims are being eliminated on a philosophical level, and further that those claims are, in fact, possibilities that should be considered. One may not believe those claims to be true, but both claims to truth require a level of unverifiable trust, and thus should be at least brought up for discussion as possibly being the correct answer.
This is not to say that I necessarily think the government should be teaching a particular religion or philosophy as true, but that our schools should still be presenting competing claims for truth. Our finite minds will never reach a point where we know all truth absolutely, and I think it serves us well to be exposed to countering points of view, no matter if one believes in them or not.
I agree that you don't have the right to actually make money. But, and I think you expressed this in your text as well, I do belive one has the right to attempt to make money. Would you agree that this is a right? If so, do you belive that it is less of a right, more of a right, or equal to the right to free speach?
I think it would be equal, at this point anyway. If it is, then one's right to "free speach" wouldn't have the right to impact another's right to attempt to make money.
Keep in mind that the situation I'm referring to is one in which the business is targeted, but has no more control over that which was being protested than the protesters themselves, and, they did incur material damages because of this. I think the protesters might, perhaps, have a leg to stand on if the business' relationship was as you described above.
I'll clue you in to what I am referring to...In Cincinnati there are protesters who are unhappy with the government. In their course of protesting, they have asked entertainers to not come to the city. The result of this is a direct economic impact to a local arts group, which, by the way, is not run by the city (though the city gives it aid as it does other businesses). The arts group cannot change the government any more than the protesters or you or I can, yet they're forced to bear the brunt of the protesters actions, as are many other large and very small businesses. I contend that the protesters have the right to try to change the government, but not at the expense of anyone else's livlihood. In other words, the protesters right to free speach ends where it causes material damage to someone else's right to attempt to make money.
We're not just talking about multi-million corporations here, were also talking about little mom and pop shops that are being damaged by these actions, as well as individuals who have lost their jobs because of the direct impact the protesters have on the local businesses. One may not have any sympathy for the businesses themselves, but those businesses employ people who have the right to try and earn a living, and, to me that right is being directly impacted.
This is where I have an issue with the extent of the protester's "free speach". Where does it rightfully (not legally, laws are made by men and are sometimes arbitrary; not everything that is right is legal, and not everything that is wrong is illegal) end?
Thanks for your comments, by the way. I enjoy discussing issues with people that think rationally! I'm sure I'm mixing something up, or missing something here but I don't see it yet, and this discussion will help me see my position more clearly, if nothing else.
Well, I'll grant you that greed is in there, but that's just a result of selfishness, which I label as evil. In any case, we're in agreement that there's something wrong there!
It seems to me that the majority of the posts miss the fact that our world isn't perfect and that in order to live, and, in some cases, simply survive, one has to take a pragmatic approach to life. They have a very idealistic ring to them, but this world is not ideal and I don't belive it ever will be.
Yes, it would be nice if there were no war, if there were no starvation, if everyone could play nice. A little thing called evil prevents this from happening.
One must have soldiers and nations will go to war because there will always be someone that wants to take over and do harm to other nations and people. To pretend otherwise is to do just that, pretend. It has no place in the real world.
Likewise, it might be nice if everyone could exercise their rightful freedoms without any restrictions, but that's not realistic. We don't live in a world where each of us is in a vacuum, therefore one's personal freedoms require balance with other's personal freedoms. One can argue that, in fact, one's freedoms are not actually legitimate freedoms when they impact another's legitimate freedoms (did I say this right? I hope so...hopefully you'll get the point!).
Call me what you will, but I personally believe that our legislature and court systems don't think deeply enough about this. For example, I recently read about a case where protesters were directly impacting the livelihood of a business (that was targeted though not in control of that which was being protested), and the court system upheld their "right" to do so. My question is, why does their "right" to protest and cause damage overrule the business owner's and employee's rights to do business, make money, and support their families? It seems to me that the court system had it wrong in this instance and in many other cases. Why does one's first amendment "right" in this case include the ability to cause damage to another person? It seems to me that one's first amendment "rights" should end prior to or at that point.
Anybody care to give me a rational, informed thought as to why this should be the way it is (I mean this seriously)?
(just a head's up...I'll be ignoring inflamitory comments. I'm trying to further a rational discussion here and to see someone else's rational point of view.)
The fact that this may be difficult or impossible to do is a sign that granting human being status to a fertilized egg is illogical.
I don't see it as that at all. Yes, it may be difficult, but I don't believe it is impossible, or that this difficulty indicates that it is illogical. I do think it would take quite a bit of work to get it down correctly, but then, ethics is not necessarily the easiest thing to nail down.
ignoring that for folks who don't see fertilized eggs or stem cells as human beings
Are they or are they not? I'm not concerned about the subjective views of others; I'm only concerned about the fact of what it is (please don't take that to mean that I have no compassion for other's suffering, as I've already indicated otherwise). If, in fact, they are not human beings, then there is no moral issue. If they are, then there is. Opinion should not decide this, fact should.
I'll grant that the fact is not clear in this instance, and that I opt toward a conservative approach. Because I believe that we are talking about human beings, I won't concede in their destruction for use in research. Why kill one to save another? What is the gain? However, if you can show me that we are not, in fact talking about human beings (something that I will be very cynical about, by the way, but open to discuss), then I will consider that information. Again, my goal is not to prevent people from getting help, my goal is to maintain as much life as is possible as a whole. Secondary to that goal is the increase of quality of life.
that refusal of public funding is seriously hindering the research
It may in fact be, but I've expressed my reasons why I don't support this funding at this time.
In nature, as many as half of conceptions result in an expelled embryo. The woman usually doesn't even notice. IOW, in the natural system, embryos are made and discarded regularly. What logical course could possibly lead to the conclusion that mimicking this process in the lab to allow couples who cannot have children 'normally' is EVIL?
Simple. I don't equate natural as necessarily good, nor necessarily acceptable. I believe we live in a broken imperfect world, and I don't hold that "natural" is how things should be, simply how things are, and that in some cases nature should not be emulated. For example, tornados are natural and they kill people, would you then suggest that it would be a non-evil to create them (if we could) to the end of destruction of life? An extreme example, granted, but one that illustrates the concept.
However, I do believe that natural effects are amoral (in that nature doesn't make a "moral" decision and cannot do so), so that if we were using the "naturally" discarded embryos (after trying to prevent their loss in the first place, within reason) then that would be OK (of course, the question of if they are even usable at that point comes up).
The evil comes in the willful choice by men to cause immorality to come about. In my view, the willful destruction of an embryo equates to, at the least, manslaughter. Therefore, the process of creating multiple embryos that will almost certainly be destroyed for the sole purpose of satisfying a personal desire for a child is, to me, an extremely selfish and immoral thing to do.
And (since it is the natural course to discard unused embryos) why would it be EVIL to use the discarded ones to try and find cures for disease?
Again, I don't believe that natural equates to good and right. It is natural for men to die, but that doesn't mean that it is moral for us to kill.
And so if a woman drinks too much coffee and has a miscarriage she should be tried the same as if she drowned her infant?
Lets not get into the absurd here. Did she know she would miscarry if she drank the coffee? Did she do it deliberately to miscarry? Was there malice involved? There's so much that would have to be answered to come to a conclusion on this that a simplistic treatment wouldn't do any justice. Suffice it to say that my position is that we should protect the life. Things like the question above bring into play the same types of discussions we have in courtrooms: malice, forethought, intent, etc. I'm certainly not suggesting that all loss of life is murder, or justifiably prosecuted, but I do believe that some probably is.
...but your (collective) actions are also condemning millions to death.
It is doing nothing of the sort. It certainly isn't helping them, but then I believe it is helping others. Research continues to proceed, just not at the pace nor in the manner that you might like to see, but I am not working against all research, just one particular type. You don't even know if the research is going to solve the problem, yet you've come to the conclusion that my (our collective) opposition is eliminating all hopes of a cure. That's quite a stretch.
And, now to the meat of what I want to say:
From my point of view they are cells & it is cells vs. people. From your point of view, it is people vs. people.
No, that's not exactly my point of view. It's much too simplistic.
But first, lets go back to the subject of inflammatory rhetoric. I've pointed this out in your writings a couple of times now, and there was a reason I did so.
I've personally found that such emotional discourse does nothing to further a discussion. Sure, it rallies those that are already on your side, but it very clearly tends to alienate those that aren't, and reduces your chances of making a persuasive argument. Not to mention, it is insulting and doesn't take into account the possibility of a simple misunderstanding between the two parties.
I bring this up, because I want you to see that it can be damaging to your position. It wasn't very much so in our dialogue, because I pointed it out and moved on back to the discussion, but it easily could have been. And, as a matter of fact, I believe there has been a bit of a misunderstanding between us.
When I started discussing ESCR, I was coming from a complete view of the research, from the creation of the embryos to their destruction, to then what to do with the stem cells that result. It appears to me now (correct me if I'm wrong) that you are simply talking about the stem cells themselves, and not how they were acquired.
So, let me clarify my position, then we can continue the dialog, perhaps in a less emotional manner. However, I would like, at this point, to only go a few more layers into the discussion, because I would like to eventually move on to other things. Perhaps we can still learn from each other? I'm sure you have some good arguments to contribute (I mean this seriously).
Here's my position:
I believe that human life begins at the point that the egg and sperm join and a viable result occurs, though we may not be able to prove it. I believe that a very conservative approach should be taken, in either case, with our treatment of this result. This means, to me, that we shouldn't create these embryos for selfish reasons (IVF) and we certainly shouldn't be creating them for destruction. It also means, to me, that we do everything we can to preserve all embryos that already have been created, and furthermore, we should be working to further their lives.
Now, what to do about the stem cells that are the result of the past destruction of embryos? That's not as clear to me, though I do believe there is a correct answer. No, I don't believe that one stem cell equates to one life, so the base issue isn't the use of the stem cells themselves. The issue, to me, is the precedent and overhead that goes along with this, and on this I have not drawn a conclusion. It's the dilemma of benefiting from a past evil, and I've come to no conclusion on it yet. My gut tells me it's not right, but that may simply be a rejection of how the cells were acquired, not an actual problem with the good use of them. And, make no mistake, I (and almost every other anti-ESCR that I've run across) believe it would be good to come up with cures for other's diseases (this is a result of our respect for human life, all human life). As a matter of fact, I work at a children's hospital, that's how much I believe in it (though I'm probably going to end up quitting this job because my boss is a jerk, but I digress). However, these cures will not exist in a vacuum, they have a relationship to other things that must be considered. This needs to be discussed and worked out in order to do justice to the ethical issues.
Individual is part of the definition of human being (an individual of the human species). Without it, the term is meaningless.
It may be in Websters, but I still find it arbitrary. It certainly is a requirement for a human being, but I don't conclude that individuality is a necessary requirement to label an embryo as human life. I still hold that the embryo is no less human than an adult.
1) it is not "at the very least" a human being. In fact, it may well become part of a human being. Human Chimerae with unique DNA from two or more fertilized eggs have been found to be far more common than previously thougth.
In regards to the first part of your statement, I still hold that it is at least one human, with the capability to become more than one human. In regards to the second, I am not a doctor, so I base my decisons on what I know and I try to learn as much as I can. That being said, educate me on the concept and I will attempt to draw a conclusion. In this situation, is there viable life, or is it an unviable mutation (though common)?
3) Human clones will happen one day. These folks will not have unique DNA, but they will still be human beings (right?).
Of course, and I would say we protect them as much as "normal" humans. Do you suggest that they are lesser beings and deserve less than that?
Interestingly, that was the argument Reagan used to justify not spending money on AIDs research.
Is that an attempt at a stab? What's the point in bringing this up? Are you assuming that I am/was against AIDS research? It still doesn't change the fact that it will be the disease that causese the suffering. The difference, however, is AIDS research can be carried out without taking another's life. It is not the "research" part that I am opposed to, it is the method of research I am opposed to. You will find no opposition from me regarding research using adult stem-cells at this time (though you may find me in opposition to a part of that if I find it immoral).
However, anti-ESCR folks are actively fighting a promising path to cures for a variety of diseases for millions of unique individuals of the human species. Preventing those folks from having access to those cures seems much closer to murder than harvesting some cells from a petri dish to me.
Careful, your rhetoric is on very unstable ground here. Anti-ESCR people are not fighting research itself, just the method of research that violates their moral principles. Unique/non-unique personally doesn't make a bit of difference to me. Viable life v. non-life is what matters to me. Murder is a VERY strong word, and your use of it should be, I recommend, extremely selective. From my point of view, those cells in the petri dish are the result of murder too.
The question is the difference between 'human life' in general and an individual human being, I think.
Not to me, and this is probably one reason why we will never agree. I don't belive "individual" has or should have anything to do with it. It is, as I wrote, a "viable human, though it may become more than one, and like all humans may even die." This, to me, is enough, and the futher qualification of "individual" seems to be arbitrary to me.
Again, this redefines "human being": an individual of the human species becomes "anything that might become one or more or several individuals of the human species.
Again, the qualification of "individual" seems to be arbitrary. The fact remains that it is at least a human being, and for me that's enough cause to take the conservative approach.
If you are arguing that _potential_ human beings should be treated as _actual_ human beings, then just say so.
Interestingly, as one should be able to see from what I wrote, I don't belive we are discussing "potential" human beings, I belive we are discussing actual human beings. Just because this being is at a stage where it may be come more than one doesn't invalidate that it still is at the very least a human being. Why do you belive that individuality is a necessary requirement?
But then explain why these potential human beings should not be protected from neglect and abuse as actual human beings are?
Why should I? I don't belive that they shouldn't be protected! How in the world did that statement get in there? Where in my writings did I even begin to imply this?
restricting this research risks causing human beings _for which there is no question whether they are human beings_ to suffer and die.
BZZZT! WRONG! It does NOT cause them to suffer and die, it only delays or prevents them from being cured, for, as I contend, a valid moral position (ie: allows another to retain his/her own life). Their DISEASE causes them to suffer and die. Nice bit of equivocation, but entirely invalid.
There is no question whether these folks are human beings, right?
Just as much human to me as the embryos, who I belive have as much a right to life as the people with a disease. I also belive maintaining their life shouldn't be made at the expense of another's (the embryo).
I think the risk of causing suffering & death of human beings is much higher on the part of the folks who want to stop this research.
Again with the equivocation. The cause is the DISEASE.
Along this train of thought the idea that Abortion up to full-term is legal while using cells from discarded embryonic tissue should not be legal is hypocritical, not amoral.
However, those that typically lobby against using embryonic stem cells are also those that lobby aginst abortion. It has to do with their total perspective on life. That our government supports abortion in no way mandates that our government should support the use of embryonic stem cells. In fact, didn't Pres. Bush campaign on a pro-life ticket as well? It is significantly more difficult to reverse the abortion position of the gov. than to set a new precident with embryonic stem cells.
so good for Bush and the Witch-hunter general, they pander to conservative populations of people for votes, they aren't scientists, and neither are the vast majority of government policymakers. i don't have a problem with peoples' beliefs, but when these beliefs are held by policymakers who, quite frankly don't know anything about the nature of that which they are controlling, and it impacts people who do-then i have a problem.
I get it, the doctors and such are the ones who are infallable experts and if you're not you have no business having an opinion? I don't think this could last very long. In reality, those against (and those for, for that matter) embryonic stem cell research have valid points of view that need to be discussed. They're simply not always a "scientific" point of view, but then, *gasp* science is not the end all of the decision making process!
conservative simpletons tend to answer with "no, never" or "yes, always" and back it up with "just because" or "because it's always been that way."
Nice bit of posturing, but not entirely accurate. What's missing is the little track about commitment to truth. When one has such a commitment to truth, then "no, never" on things that are wrong and "yes, always" on things that are right seem to me to be non-negotiable. In the conversations I have, I rarely encounter people who try to back it up with "just because" or "because it's always been that way", and this myopic simplification is an insult to those who take the time think things through in an attempt to come to the correct conclusion.
The question isn't individual human life, it's human life period. Just because a "group of cells" isn't differentiated doesn't mean that it therefore isn't human life that requires protection. "Clearly" becoming a human life is simply the point at which there can be no doubt (though some do, eg: late term abortion), it does not therefore mean that anything before that is not life, simply that it is unclear as to if it actually is. I contend that it is.
I don't personally know anybody who will ever take the position that a cell from a fully developed human can be catagorized as a human that deserves protection but it most certainly *is* human, though easily recognized as not viable. However, when a human being is soley comprised of a very small amount of undifferentiated cells I think it is proper to say that it is at the least a viable human, though it may become more than one, and like all humans may even die. I honestly don't see why that is brought up as an argument for the research, other than obviously some people belive human life begins at a different point that other people do, when, in fact, dispite all contrived definitions, we **really don't know for sure**.
I believe we should take an approach where we don't harm a life to heal another (keep it on this level, I don't mean that we can't inflict injury on a vuluntary subject to help heal another person, eg: kidney transplants, etc.), even if that life is new, small, vulnerable to failure, and uncertain.
As for brain activity, just because developed life clearly ends at the lack of brain activity, it does not therefore follow that developed life only begins at brain activity. The fact of the matter is, we don't really know when life begins. I belive we should take an extremely conservative approach to this unless/untill we can factually say otherwise (something that I don't belive can ever happen).
Note: spelling and grammar are not my strong points. Debate my argument if you want, not my spelling/grammar. Just a request...
Actually, anyone's children only owe part of their existence to their parents. Parents work within the capabilities they have to create life, but those parents did not create the universe, the earth, air, etc. Those things are well outside of the parent's creative abilities, though just as much a requirement for their children's life as for their own. Parents are contingent beings just like their children are.
Also, nobody would expect children to sing hymns to their parents (being the created, contingent beings that parents are), but your expectation of a voice of appreciation is, in it's own way, a demand for recognition of the truth that you are your daughter's parents, and made a significant contribution to her health and well-being. This recognition of truth is of the same order that I wrote of above. However, I contend that God has a rightful demand, being the sustainer of all existence, to much more than a "thanks". I also contend that he doesn't demand more than he is due, and, furthermore, doesn't even demand that. Notice that one does not immediately cease to exist because one does not recognize God.
As for "eternity in a furnace", modern fundamental Christianity may endorse that view, but it appears that the base of Christianity up until the middle ages did not, and that the concept is one of metaphor, not fact. From my research, it appears that the "burn in hell" view that is popular today originated with Dante's works, not by a literal (read: as it was meant to be read, not "wooden literal", eg: poetry) reading of the text. I do hold, however, that though an actual "burning in hell" concept may not exist, the metaphor points to something even worse, that is, separation from God.
"...an omnipotent, loving God should be even more tolerant and forgiving of our failure to thank Him." I contend that he is, contrary to some of what is preached in churches today. Even if he were not, even if he did demand a recognition of the truth to the (in our view) extreme, I believe that even that is within his prerogative. Fortunately, a complete view of the concept of God that I am presenting does not include his nature of truthfulness to the detriment of other qualities he possesses, such as compassion and mercy, love, etc. The concept is that God holds the attributes that he has in perfection, with perfect balance, and that one is not brought forth to the detriment of the others. This is where the traditional Christian view of a loving, forgiving God comes from.
Lastly, please excuse my spelling and grammatical errors, as I am weak in both.
For example, why would a "stable" diety need to hear hymns about him/her/it-self over and over again? To me, that would suggest an ego problem.
I wondered about this too. Fortunately, there's an answer that is easily seen once one removes the hostility typically associated with the question (if you didn't intend that, then forgive my assumption, but your phrasing seems to indicate it).
Consider that an omnipresent, omnipotoent, etc. being (God) did exist. Being, then, the created, lesser creatures that we are, we would owe our existance to this God. It seems to me that most people/creatures/etc exist in a relatively safe, pain-free environment (generally labeled good). Considering all of this, it seems to be that the only proper response would be worship of this being that we owe our existance to, and, furthermore, it would not be out of line for God to demand it, as it is the only true response to the true God.
This is the normal Judeo-Christian theological point of view.
Hear hear! I was a red-headed step child (now I'm a red-headed step ADULT) and I resent you use of that expression.
Anybody care to start a boycott with me?:)
Slashdot Mirror
So then, based on that, your comment should read: "If we didn't have a single fossil, evolutionary theories would still be the only scientific way to explain DNA similarities between species, structural similarities, the results of selective breeding, etc."
But, there are things that are outside of the bounds of empirical science that hold just as much claim to truth as empirical science does. This is to say that empirical science doesn't hold the sole claim to truth. Philosophy, for example, holds as valid a claim to truth as empirical science (maybe even more so, perhaps, considering that our scientific method is itself a philosophy; it doesn't prove itself). This being the case, I personally don't see how it is that the theory of evolution should be placed in such a high position that it is, and "protected" as it is from competing claims. It seems to me that any competing claims are being eliminated on a philosophical level, and further that those claims are, in fact, possibilities that should be considered. One may not believe those claims to be true, but both claims to truth require a level of unverifiable trust, and thus should be at least brought up for discussion as possibly being the correct answer.
This is not to say that I necessarily think the government should be teaching a particular religion or philosophy as true, but that our schools should still be presenting competing claims for truth. Our finite minds will never reach a point where we know all truth absolutely, and I think it serves us well to be exposed to countering points of view, no matter if one believes in them or not.
But then, that depends on what one considers reasonable, doesn't it?
I'll buy part of that, but not all of it.
I agree that you don't have the right to actually make money. But, and I think you expressed this in your text as well, I do belive one has the right to attempt to make money. Would you agree that this is a right? If so, do you belive that it is less of a right, more of a right, or equal to the right to free speach?
I think it would be equal, at this point anyway. If it is, then one's right to "free speach" wouldn't have the right to impact another's right to attempt to make money.
Keep in mind that the situation I'm referring to is one in which the business is targeted, but has no more control over that which was being protested than the protesters themselves, and, they did incur material damages because of this. I think the protesters might, perhaps, have a leg to stand on if the business' relationship was as you described above.
I'll clue you in to what I am referring to...In Cincinnati there are protesters who are unhappy with the government. In their course of protesting, they have asked entertainers to not come to the city. The result of this is a direct economic impact to a local arts group, which, by the way, is not run by the city (though the city gives it aid as it does other businesses). The arts group cannot change the government any more than the protesters or you or I can, yet they're forced to bear the brunt of the protesters actions, as are many other large and very small businesses. I contend that the protesters have the right to try to change the government, but not at the expense of anyone else's livlihood. In other words, the protesters right to free speach ends where it causes material damage to someone else's right to attempt to make money.
We're not just talking about multi-million corporations here, were also talking about little mom and pop shops that are being damaged by these actions, as well as individuals who have lost their jobs because of the direct impact the protesters have on the local businesses. One may not have any sympathy for the businesses themselves, but those businesses employ people who have the right to try and earn a living, and, to me that right is being directly impacted.
This is where I have an issue with the extent of the protester's "free speach". Where does it rightfully (not legally, laws are made by men and are sometimes arbitrary; not everything that is right is legal, and not everything that is wrong is illegal) end?
Thanks for your comments, by the way. I enjoy discussing issues with people that think rationally! I'm sure I'm mixing something up, or missing something here but I don't see it yet, and this discussion will help me see my position more clearly, if nothing else.
Well, I'll grant you that greed is in there, but that's just a result of selfishness, which I label as evil. In any case, we're in agreement that there's something wrong there!
It seems to me that the majority of the posts miss the fact that our world isn't perfect and that in order to live, and, in some cases, simply survive, one has to take a pragmatic approach to life. They have a very idealistic ring to them, but this world is not ideal and I don't belive it ever will be.
Yes, it would be nice if there were no war, if there were no starvation, if everyone could play nice. A little thing called evil prevents this from happening.
One must have soldiers and nations will go to war because there will always be someone that wants to take over and do harm to other nations and people. To pretend otherwise is to do just that, pretend. It has no place in the real world.
Likewise, it might be nice if everyone could exercise their rightful freedoms without any restrictions, but that's not realistic. We don't live in a world where each of us is in a vacuum, therefore one's personal freedoms require balance with other's personal freedoms. One can argue that, in fact, one's freedoms are not actually legitimate freedoms when they impact another's legitimate freedoms (did I say this right? I hope so...hopefully you'll get the point!).
Call me what you will, but I personally believe that our legislature and court systems don't think deeply enough about this. For example, I recently read about a case where protesters were directly impacting the livelihood of a business (that was targeted though not in control of that which was being protested), and the court system upheld their "right" to do so. My question is, why does their "right" to protest and cause damage overrule the business owner's and employee's rights to do business, make money, and support their families? It seems to me that the court system had it wrong in this instance and in many other cases. Why does one's first amendment "right" in this case include the ability to cause damage to another person? It seems to me that one's first amendment "rights" should end prior to or at that point.
Anybody care to give me a rational, informed thought as to why this should be the way it is (I mean this seriously)?
(just a head's up...I'll be ignoring inflamitory comments. I'm trying to further a rational discussion here and to see someone else's rational point of view.)
Wasn't that:
:)
"What is, is; what will be, will be; what was, WAS but will be again."
I don't remember the exact words, but you *can't* leave out the Horshack emphasis!
The fact that this may be difficult or impossible to do is a sign that granting human being status to a fertilized egg is illogical.
I don't see it as that at all. Yes, it may be difficult, but I don't believe it is impossible, or that this difficulty indicates that it is illogical. I do think it would take quite a bit of work to get it down correctly, but then, ethics is not necessarily the easiest thing to nail down.
ignoring that for folks who don't see fertilized eggs or stem cells as human beings
Are they or are they not? I'm not concerned about the subjective views of others; I'm only concerned about the fact of what it is (please don't take that to mean that I have no compassion for other's suffering, as I've already indicated otherwise). If, in fact, they are not human beings, then there is no moral issue. If they are, then there is. Opinion should not decide this, fact should.
I'll grant that the fact is not clear in this instance, and that I opt toward a conservative approach. Because I believe that we are talking about human beings, I won't concede in their destruction for use in research. Why kill one to save another? What is the gain? However, if you can show me that we are not, in fact talking about human beings (something that I will be very cynical about, by the way, but open to discuss), then I will consider that information. Again, my goal is not to prevent people from getting help, my goal is to maintain as much life as is possible as a whole. Secondary to that goal is the increase of quality of life.
that refusal of public funding is seriously hindering the research
It may in fact be, but I've expressed my reasons why I don't support this funding at this time.
In nature, as many as half of conceptions result in an expelled embryo. The woman usually doesn't even notice. IOW, in the natural system, embryos are made and discarded regularly. What logical course could possibly lead to the conclusion that mimicking this process in the lab to allow couples who cannot have children 'normally' is EVIL?
Simple. I don't equate natural as necessarily good, nor necessarily acceptable. I believe we live in a broken imperfect world, and I don't hold that "natural" is how things should be, simply how things are, and that in some cases nature should not be emulated. For example, tornados are natural and they kill people, would you then suggest that it would be a non-evil to create them (if we could) to the end of destruction of life? An extreme example, granted, but one that illustrates the concept.
However, I do believe that natural effects are amoral (in that nature doesn't make a "moral" decision and cannot do so), so that if we were using the "naturally" discarded embryos (after trying to prevent their loss in the first place, within reason) then that would be OK (of course, the question of if they are even usable at that point comes up).
The evil comes in the willful choice by men to cause immorality to come about. In my view, the willful destruction of an embryo equates to, at the least, manslaughter. Therefore, the process of creating multiple embryos that will almost certainly be destroyed for the sole purpose of satisfying a personal desire for a child is, to me, an extremely selfish and immoral thing to do.
And (since it is the natural course to discard unused embryos) why would it be EVIL to use the discarded ones to try and find cures for disease?
Again, I don't believe that natural equates to good and right. It is natural for men to die, but that doesn't mean that it is moral for us to kill.
First just a couple of notes:
...but your (collective) actions are also condemning millions to death.
And so if a woman drinks too much coffee and has a miscarriage she should be tried the same as if she drowned her infant?
Lets not get into the absurd here. Did she know she would miscarry if she drank the coffee? Did she do it deliberately to miscarry? Was there malice involved? There's so much that would have to be answered to come to a conclusion on this that a simplistic treatment wouldn't do any justice. Suffice it to say that my position is that we should protect the life. Things like the question above bring into play the same types of discussions we have in courtrooms: malice, forethought, intent, etc. I'm certainly not suggesting that all loss of life is murder, or justifiably prosecuted, but I do believe that some probably is.
It is doing nothing of the sort. It certainly isn't helping them, but then I believe it is helping others. Research continues to proceed, just not at the pace nor in the manner that you might like to see, but I am not working against all research, just one particular type. You don't even know if the research is going to solve the problem, yet you've come to the conclusion that my (our collective) opposition is eliminating all hopes of a cure. That's quite a stretch.
And, now to the meat of what I want to say:
From my point of view they are cells & it is cells vs. people. From your point of view, it is people vs. people.
No, that's not exactly my point of view. It's much too simplistic.
But first, lets go back to the subject of inflammatory rhetoric. I've pointed this out in your writings a couple of times now, and there was a reason I did so.
I've personally found that such emotional discourse does nothing to further a discussion. Sure, it rallies those that are already on your side, but it very clearly tends to alienate those that aren't, and reduces your chances of making a persuasive argument. Not to mention, it is insulting and doesn't take into account the possibility of a simple misunderstanding between the two parties.
I bring this up, because I want you to see that it can be damaging to your position. It wasn't very much so in our dialogue, because I pointed it out and moved on back to the discussion, but it easily could have been. And, as a matter of fact, I believe there has been a bit of a misunderstanding between us.
When I started discussing ESCR, I was coming from a complete view of the research, from the creation of the embryos to their destruction, to then what to do with the stem cells that result. It appears to me now (correct me if I'm wrong) that you are simply talking about the stem cells themselves, and not how they were acquired.
So, let me clarify my position, then we can continue the dialog, perhaps in a less emotional manner. However, I would like, at this point, to only go a few more layers into the discussion, because I would like to eventually move on to other things. Perhaps we can still learn from each other? I'm sure you have some good arguments to contribute (I mean this seriously).
Here's my position:
I believe that human life begins at the point that the egg and sperm join and a viable result occurs, though we may not be able to prove it. I believe that a very conservative approach should be taken, in either case, with our treatment of this result. This means, to me, that we shouldn't create these embryos for selfish reasons (IVF) and we certainly shouldn't be creating them for destruction. It also means, to me, that we do everything we can to preserve all embryos that already have been created, and furthermore, we should be working to further their lives.
Now, what to do about the stem cells that are the result of the past destruction of embryos? That's not as clear to me, though I do believe there is a correct answer. No, I don't believe that one stem cell equates to one life, so the base issue isn't the use of the stem cells themselves. The issue, to me, is the precedent and overhead that goes along with this, and on this I have not drawn a conclusion. It's the dilemma of benefiting from a past evil, and I've come to no conclusion on it yet. My gut tells me it's not right, but that may simply be a rejection of how the cells were acquired, not an actual problem with the good use of them. And, make no mistake, I (and almost every other anti-ESCR that I've run across) believe it would be good to come up with cures for other's diseases (this is a result of our respect for human life, all human life). As a matter of fact, I work at a children's hospital, that's how much I believe in it (though I'm probably going to end up quitting this job because my boss is a jerk, but I digress). However, these cures will not exist in a vacuum, they have a relationship to other things that must be considered. This needs to be discussed and worked out in order to do justice to the ethical issues.
Now, lets see where this takes us...
And now the off topic is into abortion... I'm going to stick to the subject at hand. Regards.
Individual is part of the definition of human being (an individual of the human species). Without it, the term is meaningless.
It may be in Websters, but I still find it arbitrary. It certainly is a requirement for a human being, but I don't conclude that individuality is a necessary requirement to label an embryo as human life. I still hold that the embryo is no less human than an adult.
1) it is not "at the very least" a human being. In fact, it may well become part of a human being. Human Chimerae with unique DNA from two or more fertilized eggs have been found to be far more common than previously thougth.
In regards to the first part of your statement, I still hold that it is at least one human, with the capability to become more than one human. In regards to the second, I am not a doctor, so I base my decisons on what I know and I try to learn as much as I can. That being said, educate me on the concept and I will attempt to draw a conclusion. In this situation, is there viable life, or is it an unviable mutation (though common)?
3) Human clones will happen one day. These folks will not have unique DNA, but they will still be human beings (right?).
Of course, and I would say we protect them as much as "normal" humans. Do you suggest that they are lesser beings and deserve less than that?
Interestingly, that was the argument Reagan used to justify not spending money on AIDs research.
Is that an attempt at a stab? What's the point in bringing this up? Are you assuming that I am/was against AIDS research? It still doesn't change the fact that it will be the disease that causese the suffering. The difference, however, is AIDS research can be carried out without taking another's life. It is not the "research" part that I am opposed to, it is the method of research I am opposed to. You will find no opposition from me regarding research using adult stem-cells at this time (though you may find me in opposition to a part of that if I find it immoral).
However, anti-ESCR folks are actively fighting a promising path to cures for a variety of diseases for millions of unique individuals of the human species. Preventing those folks from having access to those cures seems much closer to murder than harvesting some cells from a petri dish to me.
Careful, your rhetoric is on very unstable ground here. Anti-ESCR people are not fighting research itself, just the method of research that violates their moral principles. Unique/non-unique personally doesn't make a bit of difference to me. Viable life v. non-life is what matters to me. Murder is a VERY strong word, and your use of it should be, I recommend, extremely selective. From my point of view, those cells in the petri dish are the result of murder too.
Just so I don't get slammed on my response, my password was incorrect so it listed it as an AC. I wrote the above response.
woodsma
Whatever.
The question is the difference between 'human life' in general and an individual human being, I think.
Not to me, and this is probably one reason why we will never agree. I don't belive "individual" has or should have anything to do with it. It is, as I wrote, a "viable human, though it may become more than one, and like all humans may even die." This, to me, is enough, and the futher qualification of "individual" seems to be arbitrary to me.
Again, this redefines "human being": an individual of the human species becomes "anything that might become one or more or several individuals of the human species.
Again, the qualification of "individual" seems to be arbitrary. The fact remains that it is at least a human being, and for me that's enough cause to take the conservative approach.
If you are arguing that _potential_ human beings should be treated as _actual_ human beings, then just say so.
Interestingly, as one should be able to see from what I wrote, I don't belive we are discussing "potential" human beings, I belive we are discussing actual human beings. Just because this being is at a stage where it may be come more than one doesn't invalidate that it still is at the very least a human being. Why do you belive that individuality is a necessary requirement?
But then explain why these potential human beings should not be protected from neglect and abuse as actual human beings are?
Why should I? I don't belive that they shouldn't be protected! How in the world did that statement get in there? Where in my writings did I even begin to imply this?
restricting this research risks causing human beings _for which there is no question whether they are human beings_ to suffer and die.
BZZZT! WRONG! It does NOT cause them to suffer and die, it only delays or prevents them from being cured, for, as I contend, a valid moral position (ie: allows another to retain his/her own life). Their DISEASE causes them to suffer and die. Nice bit of equivocation, but entirely invalid.
There is no question whether these folks are human beings, right?
Just as much human to me as the embryos, who I belive have as much a right to life as the people with a disease. I also belive maintaining their life shouldn't be made at the expense of another's (the embryo).
I think the risk of causing suffering & death of human beings is much higher on the part of the folks who want to stop this research.
Again with the equivocation. The cause is the DISEASE.
Along this train of thought the idea that Abortion up to full-term is legal while using cells from discarded embryonic tissue should not be legal is hypocritical, not amoral.
However, those that typically lobby against using embryonic stem cells are also those that lobby aginst abortion. It has to do with their total perspective on life. That our government supports abortion in no way mandates that our government should support the use of embryonic stem cells. In fact, didn't Pres. Bush campaign on a pro-life ticket as well? It is significantly more difficult to reverse the abortion position of the gov. than to set a new precident with embryonic stem cells.
so good for Bush and the Witch-hunter general, they pander to conservative populations of people for votes, they aren't scientists, and neither are the vast majority of government policymakers. i don't have a problem with peoples' beliefs, but when these beliefs are held by policymakers who, quite frankly don't know anything about the nature of that which they are controlling, and it impacts people who do-then i have a problem.
I get it, the doctors and such are the ones who are infallable experts and if you're not you have no business having an opinion? I don't think this could last very long. In reality, those against (and those for, for that matter) embryonic stem cell research have valid points of view that need to be discussed. They're simply not always a "scientific" point of view, but then, *gasp* science is not the end all of the decision making process!
conservative simpletons tend to answer with "no, never" or "yes, always" and back it up with "just because" or "because it's always been that way."
Nice bit of posturing, but not entirely accurate. What's missing is the little track about commitment to truth. When one has such a commitment to truth, then "no, never" on things that are wrong and "yes, always" on things that are right seem to me to be non-negotiable. In the conversations I have, I rarely encounter people who try to back it up with "just because" or "because it's always been that way", and this myopic simplification is an insult to those who take the time think things through in an attempt to come to the correct conclusion.
There is no single truth and anyone claiming to know about The Truth is one to walk away from.
Is that a single truth? It certainly looks like you think so. Self defeating statements are interesting things...
The question isn't individual human life, it's human life period. Just because a "group of cells" isn't differentiated doesn't mean that it therefore isn't human life that requires protection. "Clearly" becoming a human life is simply the point at which there can be no doubt (though some do, eg: late term abortion), it does not therefore mean that anything before that is not life, simply that it is unclear as to if it actually is. I contend that it is.
I don't personally know anybody who will ever take the position that a cell from a fully developed human can be catagorized as a human that deserves protection but it most certainly *is* human, though easily recognized as not viable. However, when a human being is soley comprised of a very small amount of undifferentiated cells I think it is proper to say that it is at the least a viable human, though it may become more than one, and like all humans may even die. I honestly don't see why that is brought up as an argument for the research, other than obviously some people belive human life begins at a different point that other people do, when, in fact, dispite all contrived definitions, we **really don't know for sure**.
I believe we should take an approach where we don't harm a life to heal another (keep it on this level, I don't mean that we can't inflict injury on a vuluntary subject to help heal another person, eg: kidney transplants, etc.), even if that life is new, small, vulnerable to failure, and uncertain.
As for brain activity, just because developed life clearly ends at the lack of brain activity, it does not therefore follow that developed life only begins at brain activity. The fact of the matter is, we don't really know when life begins. I belive we should take an extremely conservative approach to this unless/untill we can factually say otherwise (something that I don't belive can ever happen).
Note: spelling and grammar are not my strong points. Debate my argument if you want, not my spelling/grammar. Just a request...
Actually, anyone's children only owe part of their existence to their parents. Parents work within the capabilities they have to create life, but those parents did not create the universe, the earth, air, etc. Those things are well outside of the parent's creative abilities, though just as much a requirement for their children's life as for their own. Parents are contingent beings just like their children are.
Also, nobody would expect children to sing hymns to their parents (being the created, contingent beings that parents are), but your expectation of a voice of appreciation is, in it's own way, a demand for recognition of the truth that you are your daughter's parents, and made a significant contribution to her health and well-being. This recognition of truth is of the same order that I wrote of above. However, I contend that God has a rightful demand, being the sustainer of all existence, to much more than a "thanks". I also contend that he doesn't demand more than he is due, and, furthermore, doesn't even demand that. Notice that one does not immediately cease to exist because one does not recognize God.
As for "eternity in a furnace", modern fundamental Christianity may endorse that view, but it appears that the base of Christianity up until the middle ages did not, and that the concept is one of metaphor, not fact. From my research, it appears that the "burn in hell" view that is popular today originated with Dante's works, not by a literal (read: as it was meant to be read, not "wooden literal", eg: poetry) reading of the text. I do hold, however, that though an actual "burning in hell" concept may not exist, the metaphor points to something even worse, that is, separation from God.
"...an omnipotent, loving God should be even more tolerant and forgiving of our failure to thank Him." I contend that he is, contrary to some of what is preached in churches today. Even if he were not, even if he did demand a recognition of the truth to the (in our view) extreme, I believe that even that is within his prerogative. Fortunately, a complete view of the concept of God that I am presenting does not include his nature of truthfulness to the detriment of other qualities he possesses, such as compassion and mercy, love, etc. The concept is that God holds the attributes that he has in perfection, with perfect balance, and that one is not brought forth to the detriment of the others. This is where the traditional Christian view of a loving, forgiving God comes from.
Lastly, please excuse my spelling and grammatical errors, as I am weak in both.
And you are? Oh, an AC...
Screw off, jerk. The smilie indicates that it was a JOKE you moron.
For example, why would a "stable" diety need to hear hymns about him/her/it-self over and over again? To me, that would suggest an ego problem.
I wondered about this too. Fortunately, there's an answer that is easily seen once one removes the hostility typically associated with the question (if you didn't intend that, then forgive my assumption, but your phrasing seems to indicate it).
Consider that an omnipresent, omnipotoent, etc. being (God) did exist. Being, then, the created, lesser creatures that we are, we would owe our existance to this God. It seems to me that most people/creatures/etc exist in a relatively safe, pain-free environment (generally labeled good). Considering all of this, it seems to be that the only proper response would be worship of this being that we owe our existance to, and, furthermore, it would not be out of line for God to demand it, as it is the only true response to the true God. This is the normal Judeo-Christian theological point of view.
Hear hear! I was a red-headed step child (now I'm a red-headed step ADULT) and I resent you use of that expression. Anybody care to start a boycott with me? :)