When someone miscarries, they cry because they have an unfulfilled emotional
attachment to the idea of having a baby, not because they think the rights of
the embryo have been violated or that the embryo has suffered in any way.
Just the "idea of having a baby"? Right. Posit that to any woman who has miscarried, and see for yourself the veracity of that nice little theory. Posit that to the woman (have you every known any?) who has held in her hand the miscarried fetus, watching him die and sobbing intensely. Ask her what she did with the "tissue," with the "potential human," with the "idea of having a baby." Ask her if she flushed it, like a fish, down the toilet or if she buried it. Ask her if she discarded it, like a tampon, in the garbage. Ask her if she sobbed similarly for a tampon, reflecting the failed attempt to have a baby. Cute theory, but fundamentally disconnected with reality, and heartless.
What about the friends who are relieved they miscarried, because their religious parents won't let them get an abortion, and they don't want to be doomed to a life of poverty (and don't want to doom an innocent child to poverty) just because their condom broke?
Doom? My friend you only show by your words how aweful our society has become. First of all, it is a lie that having a child will doom one to a "life of poverty." Sure, you might not be able to have the SUV and the vacation home you want, but that is a far cry from poverty. That is simply selfish materialism, and to sacrifice one's child on the altar of such self gratification is reprehensible. Second, you speak of "doom[ing] an innocent child to poverty." Even if he/she were to be born into poverty, you are dooming the child to death. I would rather choose poverty than death any day, as would any person. Simply ask any person who is in poverty if they would rather have their life of poverty or death and you will encounter only one answer. Even if you personally believe that death is better than poverty (demonstrating an absolutely disgusting materialism and snobbery), who are you to decide for that child? By the same token we should put other poor people out of their misery. Sure, they will object, but we certainly know best.
So we can breed cattle to kill them, but cloning them directly would be wrong?
No, I have no problem with either. You mean that I am okay with the killing of innocent animals to reasonably provide for human needs but not the killing of innocent human beings? Yes, that is exactly what I mean.
Not young humans, potential humans. These things aren't humans yet and, since lab created embryos are generally not even viable (wouldn't survive to full term), these things aren't even really potential humans.
When do they become humans? When the "scientists" from Harvard tell us so? You are right that they are not viable yet (cannot survive outside the womb at this point), but that is not to say that they are not humans. Babies today are viable much, much earlier than they were 50 years ago, because of medical technology. According to your logic, that means that babies at six months were not human then, but they are now. What if babies who are not viable now (and therefore not human, you would say) become viable 50 years from now, thanks to advances in medicine? Would they be therefore be human?
How many friends friends have you had that have miscarried after a few weeks? As they cried over the loss of their babies, did you reassure them that they had only lost some "tissue," no different from, as you say, as "liver"?
Have you all missed the fact that this is not a case of "scientists" (all bow to the title) just using embryos left over at fertility clinics; these scientists from Harvard (all bow to the school) are CLONING these embryos in order to have a limitless supply. This is functionally no different from couples being paid to produce as many embryos as they can. In the analogy given, this would be like bombing Hiroshima every few years, each time saying afterward, "Well, you know, it's a shame that this happened, but we can at least use this for some good and not let these people die in vain."
From the article: "By cloning human embryos to extract stem cells... 'you are creating life precisely to destroy it. You are making young humans simply to strip-mine them for their desired cells and parts.'"
The mark of any truly civilized society is parents sacrificing their lives for their children, not sacrificing their children for the sake of the parents' health and welfare.
[P]laying cards don't have the same properties as amino acids, wherein the molecular properties cause the viable links to hold together while the nonviable links tend to fall apart.
I'm afraid you've only dug your own grave here. Actually, amino acids have the curious property of preferring not to link as such. So, the case worsens. Now, you've got 20 players each getting these hands, but in addition, 3 of Hearts doesn't like 4 of Hearts, and so on.
Then, should you somehow get these contentious chums to link up, you've got the second law of thermodynamics working against you, preventing these miraculous chains from joining with other chains in order to form organized life.
I wonder if these same philosophers look down at their Bridge hand (13 cards) and conclude that the odds of them being dealt that particular hand are less than 1 in 6 billion, so they couldn't possibly have been dealt that hand by chance. The dealer must have given them a seemingly random crappy hand on purpose.
That's a terrible analogy. More like 20 Bridge players (each with the name "Amino Acid") look down and each finds that he has Ace through King of the same suit, thus allowing them to link all of their hands together in a chain we'll call "Protein." Your analogy presupposes that any hand will do, and so the probability of getting it doesn't matter. My (correct) analogy posits that only one hand will do and so the probability of getting it and getting it repeatedly is improbable to the point of absurdity.
but one thing I can "see" is the bacteria that have grown resistant to antibiotics
Well now, you've managed to say nothing at all. No serious person doubts natural selection, nor does ID. But you can't exactly get from amoeba (a few genes) to man (a lot more genes) by selecting among the gene pool. To get there you need to introduce lots of completely unproven, unverified, completely speculative and theoretical concepts, such as speciation by mutating genes being passed on (which they never are) to subsequent generations. Then, you've got to explain where the additional genes come from. Then, you've got to explain how things like eyes, wings, and lungs "evolve." Then... well, there are lots of theories to fill to try to fill in such gaping holes. But wait, those aren't "theories;" they're facts! Right, I forgot.
Actually, what Ballmer is doing is true capitalism; it's just the extreme of it. Capitalism is great, but this is exactly what it turns into when allowed to go unchecked. That is why we have governmental controls. Too much government = communism; too little = ruthless Capitalism (e.g. Ballmer).
While I agree that Ballmer's strategy is maniacal and disgusting, you can't reproach him by saying that he isn't true to Capitalism, as though Capitalism is this machine turning out benevolence and fairness.
This is akin to saying that all we need is true Democracy. Democracy is great too, but pure Democracy is pure majority-rule and no protection of minorities. If 51% wanted to ostracize blacks, then, hey, that's democracy. Fortunately, we don't live in a pure democracy. We have very undemocratic institutions such as the Constitution and the Courts.
Thus, you can't condemn Ballmer as though he's not following "true" Capitalism. He is; that's the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
When someone miscarries, they cry because they have an unfulfilled emotional attachment to the idea of having a baby, not because they think the rights of the embryo have been violated or that the embryo has suffered in any way.
Just the "idea of having a baby"? Right. Posit that to any woman who has miscarried, and see for yourself the veracity of that nice little theory. Posit that to the woman (have you every known any?) who has held in her hand the miscarried fetus, watching him die and sobbing intensely. Ask her what she did with the "tissue," with the "potential human," with the "idea of having a baby." Ask her if she flushed it, like a fish, down the toilet or if she buried it. Ask her if she discarded it, like a tampon, in the garbage. Ask her if she sobbed similarly for a tampon, reflecting the failed attempt to have a baby. Cute theory, but fundamentally disconnected with reality, and heartless.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viability
What about the friends who are relieved they miscarried, because their religious parents won't let them get an abortion, and they don't want to be doomed to a life of poverty (and don't want to doom an innocent child to poverty) just because their condom broke?
Doom? My friend you only show by your words how aweful our society has become. First of all, it is a lie that having a child will doom one to a "life of poverty." Sure, you might not be able to have the SUV and the vacation home you want, but that is a far cry from poverty. That is simply selfish materialism, and to sacrifice one's child on the altar of such self gratification is reprehensible. Second, you speak of "doom[ing] an innocent child to poverty." Even if he/she were to be born into poverty, you are dooming the child to death. I would rather choose poverty than death any day, as would any person. Simply ask any person who is in poverty if they would rather have their life of poverty or death and you will encounter only one answer. Even if you personally believe that death is better than poverty (demonstrating an absolutely disgusting materialism and snobbery), who are you to decide for that child? By the same token we should put other poor people out of their misery. Sure, they will object, but we certainly know best.
So we can breed cattle to kill them, but cloning them directly would be wrong?
No, I have no problem with either. You mean that I am okay with the killing of innocent animals to reasonably provide for human needs but not the killing of innocent human beings? Yes, that is exactly what I mean.
Not young humans, potential humans. These things aren't humans yet and, since lab created embryos are generally not even viable (wouldn't survive to full term), these things aren't even really potential humans.
When do they become humans? When the "scientists" from Harvard tell us so? You are right that they are not viable yet (cannot survive outside the womb at this point), but that is not to say that they are not humans. Babies today are viable much, much earlier than they were 50 years ago, because of medical technology. According to your logic, that means that babies at six months were not human then, but they are now. What if babies who are not viable now (and therefore not human, you would say) become viable 50 years from now, thanks to advances in medicine? Would they be therefore be human?
How many friends friends have you had that have miscarried after a few weeks? As they cried over the loss of their babies, did you reassure them that they had only lost some "tissue," no different from, as you say, as "liver"?
Have you all missed the fact that this is not a case of "scientists" (all bow to the title) just using embryos left over at fertility clinics; these scientists from Harvard (all bow to the school) are CLONING these embryos in order to have a limitless supply. This is functionally no different from couples being paid to produce as many embryos as they can. In the analogy given, this would be like bombing Hiroshima every few years, each time saying afterward, "Well, you know, it's a shame that this happened, but we can at least use this for some good and not let these people die in vain."
... 'you are creating life precisely to destroy it. You are making young humans simply to strip-mine them for their desired cells and parts.'"
From the article: "By cloning human embryos to extract stem cells
The mark of any truly civilized society is parents sacrificing their lives for their children, not sacrificing their children for the sake of the parents' health and welfare.
Actually, what Ballmer is doing is true capitalism; it's just the extreme of it. Capitalism is great, but this is exactly what it turns into when allowed to go unchecked. That is why we have governmental controls. Too much government = communism; too little = ruthless Capitalism (e.g. Ballmer).
While I agree that Ballmer's strategy is maniacal and disgusting, you can't reproach him by saying that he isn't true to Capitalism, as though Capitalism is this machine turning out benevolence and fairness.
This is akin to saying that all we need is true Democracy. Democracy is great too, but pure Democracy is pure majority-rule and no protection of minorities. If 51% wanted to ostracize blacks, then, hey, that's democracy. Fortunately, we don't live in a pure democracy. We have very undemocratic institutions such as the Constitution and the Courts.
Thus, you can't condemn Ballmer as though he's not following "true" Capitalism. He is; that's the problem.
Where did you go to school?