So, how does that result in more embryos being destroyed, as you previously claimed? IVF is already very popular, and would easily provide enough embryos for research, without any greater number of people using IVF.
PCs with DVD burners and retail burners are bundled with burning software for free.
No, it's not free. You pay less for a burner that doesn't come with software. Same with the Mac. But when you buy a burner with software included for the Mac, you get a copy of Toast - which is far better than the Windows software included with burners. And how many of those burners come with Linux burning software? After all, you said "PC," not "Windows Box."
Just wait until they start bundling Toast 8 with hardware. You'll be able to get an external DVD recorder with Lightscribe and a copy of Toast 8 for around $100. Sell the drive if you don't need it.
Anyway, who buys a new copy of Toast? Doesn't every Mac user already have a copy, and can qualify for upgrade pricing?
But the statement I was responding to was that abortion is "fundamentally" wrong. This means it should never be performed. So, it should not be performed, even if the mother is likely to die during child birth. It should not be performed in cases of rape, etc. Do you agree with that?
I don't know why people take arguments from definition seriously. A word is just a sound that we've agreed has a certain fuzzy, non-specific meaning. Unless we're talking a specific scientific definition, than the fact is that there is no "dictionary in the sky"
I wish that so much of the argument did not revolve around that. But we need to get terminology straight before we can get down to the real argument. I was just rebutting the argument as put forth by anti-stem-cell proponents. They seem to think it is pretty important to call the embryo a child. Why do you think this is? Could it perhaps be that "child" is a more emotional word, one which people relate to in their lives more than embryo?
And really, this is the only kind of argument that makes sense. There's simply no way to find out what a word really means. It means what we say it means. Appealing to the definition of a word (again, unless the argument is about usage) is non-sensical.
But you're contradicting yourself here. You say we should argue definitions - but then you applaud the above argument, which appeals to the definition of a word on emotional and propaganda grounds. I'm finding your praise of it to be rather cryptic. I don't see what's so interesting or compelling about blatant emotional appeals.
The argument is plainly not "that which supports x is x" (which is what you took it to be).
Further, why is this not plain? If someone calls an embryo (not X) a child (X), they are clearly turning "that which supports X" into "X" - how can they not be, even if they don't mean it that way?
Miserable according to the child. Many people commit suicide or wish they were never born. And it's not the basis of my argument, it's just a philosophical question to get peoiple thinking a bit, instead of all the knees jerking.
Research. Furthering of humanity. Finding treatments that do work.
The whole issue seems to center on finding something so that Michael J. Fox can stop twitching and get back to work making us all laugh. If embryonic stem cells don't work as a treatment for that, then what's the point?
Michael J. Fox and millions of others. What's the point? Advanced medicine and science doesn't just happen overnight. If we don't do the research, then we may never find cures or treatments. Humans would still be in the stone age with that kind of additude.
It seems that with your Michael J Fox crack, you have more respect for a bunch of non-sentient cells, than you have for a human adult. Sadly, this is often the case among the "pro life" people. They insist that people have more babies, and abortions be banned - but after the child is born, lose all respect for that life, treating actual children and adults like crap.
Medical marijuana is a problem because every place that tries to offer medicinal use of this drug ends up selling it to people who are not sick but just want to get high.
And what's wrong with that?
We should not make it legal for people to get wasted just because they want to.
Why not? Are you against freedom? "The pursuit of happiness" is listed as one of the unalienable rights in the US Declaration of Independence. Surely recreational drug use can be considered part of that pursuit?
I don't need you drunk or stoned and driving the car which ends up killing anyone.
So, do you also believe that alcohol should be banned? Studies have been done which show stoned people drive safer than either drunk or sober people. Anyway, driving a car drunk or stoned is already illegal. Why should people who do not drink drunk or stoned be prevented from enjoying intoxicants while not driving? Should guns be banned because some people use them for murder? Should computers be banned because some people use them for child pornography and pedophilia?
My world view says that a powerless, silent person is killed for every IVF failure and abortion and more would be killed to support the possibility of treatments. That is completely unacceptable.
It's also complete nonsense. There would not be more abortions to support research. Nobody is going to say "Hey, those researchers need cells, I'm going to get pregnant and have an abortion."
I tire of the meme that a 'religious minority controls the government.' That's crap. If it was true, there are lots of things that would be handled differently.
I never said they controlled the government. I just said they had close ties to it. And this resurgence of the religious right is fairly recent. I think if Bush didn't get stuck in Iraq, the religious agenda would be much more advanced by now. There is obviously a massive influence there. Otherwise we would never get crap like the Schiavo affair, the idea of an amendment to ban gay marriage, or the ridiculous "faith based iniatives."
Recent surveys show that the majority of Americans find abortion unacceptable for themselves but feel that there is some need for it to be available. Most seem to want to protect the right of others to have abortion... Most of those people are not passionate advocates of that position, but when the issue comes up, they stand for what they believe. This is the phenomenon of the "values voters."
I don't think this is the kind of thing people will answer very honestly in a poll. I think the reality is probably the opposite. Many people like to lecture others on the evils of abortion - but if they came into a situation where they (or a daughter, partner or sister) needed one, they would have an abortion. I don't think it's so much concern for others, but fear of being stuck in that position themselves.
You're being conclusory. Left to its own devices it its natural environment, a child usually results.
I'm being factual. The word "child" has a specific meaning, and an embryo is not a child. It's an embryo. It doesn't matter if it might later become a child.
You assert an embryo is not a child because it supports your own moral preference.
No, I'm saying that because an embryo is not a child.
I assert an embryo is a child because it supports life and the bests interests of the child.
That doesn't even make any sense. Is water human because it supports life, and the best interests of humans?
Even if an embryo is not a child (yet), then protecting its interests until it is a child is preferable to subverting its interests for somebody else's selfish indulgence
What if the child that comes from the embryo was to have a miserable life? Wouldn't it be selfish to keep the embryo alive, when you could prevent the suffering of a child by disposing of it?
If we were talking slavery, I think you would be opposed to subjugating an entire class of people for the selfish indulgence of another. Why is harvesting embryos any different?
Having children is most often a selfish indulgence of the parents. They have children to satisfy their own egos and lifestyle. And it's nothing like slavery, as an embryo is not a sentient individual that can survive outside of the womb.
You also ignore the fact that the embryos used for research would not become children anyway. They either come from abortions, or cells used in IVF labs.
You don't have to like it, but the reality is that if embryotic stem cells weren't considered a child, it would be widespread and paid for already, with Congress easily overridding Bush.
I doubt it. A vocal religious minority with strong ties to the government does not make a majority. If most people really believed that strongly about it, abortion would be illegal by now. The thing is that most people don't have strong opinions about stem cell research, as it doesn't really affect them. So, a vocal minority can easily sway the issue. However, abortion affects a lot more people, and most don't want that right taken away from them.
They do work perfectly well - for research. I never said they worked perfectly well as a treatment for anything. But they do work fine for the purposes they are being used for.
No, it's not a belief, it's a fact. An embryo needs to be fertilised before it even has the chance of becoming a child. But even a fertilised embryo is not a child.
But ask the average street person, they'll say it is.
Frankly, I call BS. Have you done a poll to determine this? Does the average person also believe that a woman is "killing babies" when she menstruates? I don't think so.
But Microsoft ships Windows with the incredibly exploitable Active X, so they contribute to exploits. Sure, Acer could have done it another way, but that's not what I was talking about. ActiveX is a major factor in Windows vulnerabilities.
No. Religion has no bearing on ethics. It would be relevant to questions of religious morals, but ethical questions shouldn't have anything to do with religion.
The cells, found in amniotic fluid, can be harvested without harm to the donor or the donor's unborn child.
The donor's unborn child? An embryo is not a child. Why do we need an "alternative" to embryonic stem cells anyway? Embryonic stem cells work perfectly well, and are usually considered more effective than non-embryonic cells.
Funny how you don't see the anti-stem-cell people protesting IVF and other fertility programmes, even though they "kill" embryos too.
... Look, if there is no slavery, violence, or any other type of coercion, then profits=benefit
How do you figure? Even if oil was sold without any wars being fought over it, or any corruption - it would still pollute the planet. Most industries consume a lot of resources, and produce products that don't help humans much. How much plastic is consumed to produce worthless toys?
Where do you get the idea that profit is always beneficial for humans? It's so obvious in the real world that it isn't.
That is because any additional amount of profit signifies a trade that made both parties better off, otherwise it would not have been made.
No it doesn't. the person buying might be a stupid consumer, or mentally ill or something. And you're not considering anyone other than the two parties. Industry affects more than the people involved directly in it.
Slashdot Mirror
... to suck your dollars.
So, how does that result in more embryos being destroyed, as you previously claimed? IVF is already very popular, and would easily provide enough embryos for research, without any greater number of people using IVF.
Uhhh, what does Apple have to do with it? Roxio and TiVo are independent of Apple.
No, it's not free. You pay less for a burner that doesn't come with software. Same with the Mac. But when you buy a burner with software included for the Mac, you get a copy of Toast - which is far better than the Windows software included with burners. And how many of those burners come with Linux burning software? After all, you said "PC," not "Windows Box."
Anyway, who buys a new copy of Toast? Doesn't every Mac user already have a copy, and can qualify for upgrade pricing?
Sounds great for the vendor. They get to sell five copies of the song, instead of just one.
But the statement I was responding to was that abortion is "fundamentally" wrong. This means it should never be performed. So, it should not be performed, even if the mother is likely to die during child birth. It should not be performed in cases of rape, etc. Do you agree with that?
I wish that so much of the argument did not revolve around that. But we need to get terminology straight before we can get down to the real argument. I was just rebutting the argument as put forth by anti-stem-cell proponents. They seem to think it is pretty important to call the embryo a child. Why do you think this is? Could it perhaps be that "child" is a more emotional word, one which people relate to in their lives more than embryo?
And really, this is the only kind of argument that makes sense. There's simply no way to find out what a word really means. It means what we say it means. Appealing to the definition of a word (again, unless the argument is about usage) is non-sensical.But you're contradicting yourself here. You say we should argue definitions - but then you applaud the above argument, which appeals to the definition of a word on emotional and propaganda grounds. I'm finding your praise of it to be rather cryptic. I don't see what's so interesting or compelling about blatant emotional appeals.
The argument is plainly not "that which supports x is x" (which is what you took it to be).Further, why is this not plain? If someone calls an embryo (not X) a child (X), they are clearly turning "that which supports X" into "X" - how can they not be, even if they don't mean it that way?
Miserable according to the child. Many people commit suicide or wish they were never born. And it's not the basis of my argument, it's just a philosophical question to get peoiple thinking a bit, instead of all the knees jerking.
Research. Furthering of humanity. Finding treatments that do work.
The whole issue seems to center on finding something so that Michael J. Fox can stop twitching and get back to work making us all laugh. If embryonic stem cells don't work as a treatment for that, then what's the point?Michael J. Fox and millions of others. What's the point? Advanced medicine and science doesn't just happen overnight. If we don't do the research, then we may never find cures or treatments. Humans would still be in the stone age with that kind of additude.
It seems that with your Michael J Fox crack, you have more respect for a bunch of non-sentient cells, than you have for a human adult. Sadly, this is often the case among the "pro life" people. They insist that people have more babies, and abortions be banned - but after the child is born, lose all respect for that life, treating actual children and adults like crap.
And what's wrong with that?
We should not make it legal for people to get wasted just because they want to.Why not? Are you against freedom? "The pursuit of happiness" is listed as one of the unalienable rights in the US Declaration of Independence. Surely recreational drug use can be considered part of that pursuit?
I don't need you drunk or stoned and driving the car which ends up killing anyone.
So, do you also believe that alcohol should be banned? Studies have been done which show stoned people drive safer than either drunk or sober people. Anyway, driving a car drunk or stoned is already illegal. Why should people who do not drink drunk or stoned be prevented from enjoying intoxicants while not driving? Should guns be banned because some people use them for murder? Should computers be banned because some people use them for child pornography and pedophilia?
My world view says that a powerless, silent person is killed for every IVF failure and abortion and more would be killed to support the possibility of treatments. That is completely unacceptable.It's also complete nonsense. There would not be more abortions to support research. Nobody is going to say "Hey, those researchers need cells, I'm going to get pregnant and have an abortion."
I never said they controlled the government. I just said they had close ties to it. And this resurgence of the religious right is fairly recent. I think if Bush didn't get stuck in Iraq, the religious agenda would be much more advanced by now. There is obviously a massive influence there. Otherwise we would never get crap like the Schiavo affair, the idea of an amendment to ban gay marriage, or the ridiculous "faith based iniatives."
Recent surveys show that the majority of Americans find abortion unacceptable for themselves but feel that there is some need for it to be available. Most seem to want to protect the right of others to have abortion... Most of those people are not passionate advocates of that position, but when the issue comes up, they stand for what they believe. This is the phenomenon of the "values voters."I don't think this is the kind of thing people will answer very honestly in a poll. I think the reality is probably the opposite. Many people like to lecture others on the evils of abortion - but if they came into a situation where they (or a daughter, partner or sister) needed one, they would have an abortion. I don't think it's so much concern for others, but fear of being stuck in that position themselves.
Yes, Einstein was wrong about many things.
I'm being factual. The word "child" has a specific meaning, and an embryo is not a child. It's an embryo. It doesn't matter if it might later become a child.
You assert an embryo is not a child because it supports your own moral preference.No, I'm saying that because an embryo is not a child.
I assert an embryo is a child because it supports life and the bests interests of the child.That doesn't even make any sense. Is water human because it supports life, and the best interests of humans?
Even if an embryo is not a child (yet), then protecting its interests until it is a child is preferable to subverting its interests for somebody else's selfish indulgenceWhat if the child that comes from the embryo was to have a miserable life? Wouldn't it be selfish to keep the embryo alive, when you could prevent the suffering of a child by disposing of it?
If we were talking slavery, I think you would be opposed to subjugating an entire class of people for the selfish indulgence of another. Why is harvesting embryos any different?Having children is most often a selfish indulgence of the parents. They have children to satisfy their own egos and lifestyle. And it's nothing like slavery, as an embryo is not a sentient individual that can survive outside of the womb.
You also ignore the fact that the embryos used for research would not become children anyway. They either come from abortions, or cells used in IVF labs.
I doubt it. A vocal religious minority with strong ties to the government does not make a majority. If most people really believed that strongly about it, abortion would be illegal by now. The thing is that most people don't have strong opinions about stem cell research, as it doesn't really affect them. So, a vocal minority can easily sway the issue. However, abortion affects a lot more people, and most don't want that right taken away from them.
For what reason?
Also, just being an atheist doesn't make you an ethicist. Atheists can have wacky beliefs too, I'll grant you that.
They do work perfectly well - for research. I never said they worked perfectly well as a treatment for anything. But they do work fine for the purposes they are being used for.
No, it's not a belief, it's a fact. An embryo needs to be fertilised before it even has the chance of becoming a child. But even a fertilised embryo is not a child.
But ask the average street person, they'll say it is.Frankly, I call BS. Have you done a poll to determine this? Does the average person also believe that a woman is "killing babies" when she menstruates? I don't think so.
I hit it with a shovel. If the code doesn't fall apart, I know it's pretty securely attached to my computer. If not, I add more epoxy glue.
But Microsoft ships Windows with the incredibly exploitable Active X, so they contribute to exploits. Sure, Acer could have done it another way, but that's not what I was talking about. ActiveX is a major factor in Windows vulnerabilities.
No. Religion has no bearing on ethics. It would be relevant to questions of religious morals, but ethical questions shouldn't have anything to do with religion.
The donor's unborn child? An embryo is not a child. Why do we need an "alternative" to embryonic stem cells anyway? Embryonic stem cells work perfectly well, and are usually considered more effective than non-embryonic cells.
Funny how you don't see the anti-stem-cell people protesting IVF and other fertility programmes, even though they "kill" embryos too.
... Look, if there is no slavery, violence, or any other type of coercion, then profits=benefitHow do you figure? Even if oil was sold without any wars being fought over it, or any corruption - it would still pollute the planet. Most industries consume a lot of resources, and produce products that don't help humans much. How much plastic is consumed to produce worthless toys?
Where do you get the idea that profit is always beneficial for humans? It's so obvious in the real world that it isn't.
That is because any additional amount of profit signifies a trade that made both parties better off, otherwise it would not have been made.No it doesn't. the person buying might be a stupid consumer, or mentally ill or something. And you're not considering anyone other than the two parties. Industry affects more than the people involved directly in it.
Somehow other browsers and OSes manage to support plug-ins without using Active X.
And if that's too difficult to do on your own, you could ask someone on slashdot to do it for you remotely, using the exploit.