Case #503 against blind faith--Stem Cell Research

Einherjar wrote:

I don't think kicky is into magic lines rl, a tadpole is not a frog though there are no magic lines separating them.

Personally i find consciousness a natural requirement for personhood.

Hi Einherjar,

A child is not an adult, but they are both human. To say that a frog is not a tadpole is simply recognizing an artificial distinction that we have made in our language to describe a stage of development. Both frog and tadpole are alive and members of the same species. One is simply older and more developed physically than the other.

If consciousness is required for personhood, do those in a coma lose their personhood? Your test is faulty here, as is Terry's poorly thought out criteria:

Terry wrote:

.......personhood also requires the ability to interact with other human beings

Yes apparently Kickycan is into magic lines because if human life does not begin at conception then there must be a point at which the unborn passes from 'non-person' to 'person' and from 'non-living' to 'living'.

I would like for Kickycan to take a stab at defining at what point that magic line is, but I am not holding my breath.

0 Replies

Terry Wrote:

[quote]If he cannot put the welfare of the country ahead of his personal beliefs, he should not be president. Even if he is a fundamentalist Southern Baptist, he must overcome his desire to require that all women in the country wear skirts. He must ignore his belief that God created everything 6000 years ago when signing a budget authorizing funding for a museum display of million-year-old fossils. If he believes that God approves of blacks being lawfully owned as slaves, he must still execute civil rights laws. He must not restrict any citizen from lawfully exercising their own beliefs, such as loving someone of the same sex, objecting to religious incursions into government, controlling what happens to their own body, advocating peace, or doing medical research on embryonic stem cells. [/quote]

When he ran for President, his religious beliefs were well known. He was voted in anyway. You cannot expect anyone, whether a believer or not, to totally discard the basis for their morals, ethics, principles, etc. These are the things that make up that person.

I think the president has a lot more important things to worry about then evolution right now, don't you? I don't think he said a single thing about he wanted a law that said you couldn't love someone of the same sex. I think what he said was he believed marriage was between a man and a woman and he feels any other kind of marriage is wrong.

Terry, all this is, is the world wanting to do just what it wants to do. Doesn't want any restrictions. It's all about the "if it's right for me" mentality. Well, sorry. There are basic rights and wrongs and just because you or someone else does not agree with them, doesn't change it.

Like I said, it all comes down to this, you vote your conscience. I vote mine. Until you or anyone can show me in the Constitution of the United States, etc., that I must base my voting decision on or not on a specific thing, then you just have to deal with it, just as I have to deal with your opinions, votes, etc. That's just the way it works.

It's not up to me to judge you for why you vote the way you do. It's not up to you to judge me for why I vote the way I do. You want what you think is right and so do I. Same thing. We just want something different. :wink:

0 Replies

Unbelievable. Look at how those who claim to be on the side of cold, hard, rational decision-making offer little more than bratty, insolent rhetoric. If there is any real evidence in all of that, I'm afraid you buried it so deep that I missed it.
Your whole argument seems to be that this 'glob of cells' is not actually a viable human life, so who cares? But beyond that you, yourselves, can find no consensus. Some think it's okay to kill before 24 weeks gestation; some think it's fine a half second before birth. The fact that you can't even find agreement within your own group is evidence that your reasoning is flawed.
Your position on this is clearly motivated by wishful thinking for all the sick people who might benefit. You sound like a bunch of religious freaks. Emotional blabbering is not evidence. You have said it enough in other threads; why can't you get it, yourselves.
This is a debate forum, and your feelings of intellectual superiority are not enough to garner you a pass. You still have to present evidence to support your claim. Calling your opponents Bible-thumpers aint gonna cut it.
You're the ones on this thread whose opinion is based on faith. You believe that common sense is enough to cement your position, but your common sense means **** if you can't back it up.
Good luck.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

However, this opens up an entirely new can of worms. We can potentially create a thousand human lives from the one blastocyst. Technically it isn't possible because we don't have the means, but theoretically it is.

Theoretically, this one "human being" can become millions. What of the soul? If the soul exists and was placed into the "potential human being" at conception, then these millions have no soul.

However, if we say that, then identical twins are soulless too or at least, they only have a whole soul between the two of them.

To say that the human being is created from the point of conception opens up one particular can of worms. To say that it isn't opens up another. Neither are very appetising and both raise philosophical questions of a rather intense and difficult nature.

And quadruplets have only a quarter soul each?

There is no logical rationale for believing that souls are instilled at conception, since 2/3 of fertilized eggs fail to implant and grow (about half due to genetic flaws) and 15% of pregnancies end in spontaneous miscarriage. What would be the point of bestowing a soul on cells that would never achieve awareness?

IMO, the only "soul" that could possibly exist is the mind/ego/spirit generated by the electrochemical processes in a physical brain. This soul cannot survive independently of the brain that produces it, and simply ceases to exist when we die. Those who believe in magical souls and eternal life despite the scientific evidence against it are real optimists.

0 Replies

Echi, your diatribe makes no sense and is a gross misrepresentation of what has been posted here. How about trying it again when you sober up?

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

Echi, your diatribe makes no sense and is a gross misrepresentation of what has been posted here. How about trying it again when you sober up?

Terry,

I thought echi did a very good job of getting his views across clearly. :wink:

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

Echi, your diatribe makes no sense and is a gross misrepresentation of what has been posted here. How about trying it again when you sober up?

How about pointing to something specific instead of just tossing around wild accusations?

0 Replies

Momma Angel, I was referring to presidents in general, not one specific one. There was some concern that JFK would put his allegiance to the Pope ahead of his country (he didn't). Jimmy Carter's unquestioned morality did not make him a good president. Clinton's church attendance did not inhibit him when it came to immoral behavior.

All I'm saying is that personal morality (or lack thereof) should not be the deciding factor when making official decisions.

It is not that we don't want any restrictions. It's that we don't want your personal version of morality to be imposed on everyone, especially when it is based on the superstitions of ignorant nomadic tribesmen thousands of years ago and is often not applicable to the problems of modern society.

Of course you can vote any way you want. But just because your religion has designated something as "right" or "wrong" does not make it so.

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

Momma Angel, I was referring to presidents in general, not one specific one. There was some concern that JFK would put his allegiance to the Pope ahead of his country (he didn't). Jimmy Carter's unquestioned morality did not make him a good president. Clinton's church attendance did not inhibit him when it came to immoral behavior.

All I'm saying is that personal morality (or lack thereof) should not be the deciding factor when making official decisions.

It is not that we don't want any restrictions. It's that we don't want your personal version of morality to be imposed on everyone, especially when it is based on the superstitions of ignorant nomadic tribesmen thousands of years ago and is often not applicable to the problems of modern society.

Of course you can vote any way you want. But just because your religion has designated something as "right" or "wrong" does not make it so.

Terry,

I believed homosexuality was wrong long before I became a Christian. I believed abortion was wrong long before I became a Christian.

So, instead, I should accept what I consider someone's godless morals and ethics be foisted upon me? Whether you believe or don't believe in God, whatever you personally believe in as your standard of morals and ethics WILL ALWAYS play a part in your decision making process. If you have ethics and morals, you believe they are correct. So, why would you toss that aside just because someone disagrees with you? Or would you?

I wouldn't. So, your argument of just because my religion has designated something as right or wrong, such as in the case of same sex marriage, has flaws. I believed it was wrong before I became a Christian. I didn't believe it was wrong because someone or something told me so.

Again, you cannot hold it against me IMO because I base my morals on what I base my morals on. I cannot hold it against you for what you base your morals on either.

0 Replies

Most laws, if not all, are morally based.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

bratty, insolent rhetoric

And how would you characterize yours?

Quote:

Your whole argument seems to be that this 'glob of cells' is not actually a viable human life, so who cares?

I never said that no one cares, but that embryonic stem cell research does not destroy human beings while it may save many.

Quote:

The fact that you can't even find agreement within your own group is evidence that your reasoning is flawed.

No, it is evidence that we are not in complete agreement on a complex issue. We agree on many points and disagree on others, as is true of those with opposing views.

Quote:

Your position on this is clearly motivated by wishful thinking for all the sick people who might benefit.

Yes, we care that lives could be saved, and the potential benefits of embryonic stem cell research are not just "wishful thinking."

Quote:

You sound like a bunch of religious freaks. Emotional blabbering is not evidence.

Religious freaks? Where do you get that? And just who is doing the emotional blabbering here?

Quote:

This is a debate forum, and your feelings of intellectual superiority are not enough to garner you a pass. You still have to present evidence to support your claim. Calling your opponents Bible-thumpers aint gonna cut it.

Do you feel intellectually inferior, that you must resort to ad hominum attacks? I can back up all of my factual assertions with references.

Quote:

You're the ones on this thread whose opinion is based on faith. You believe that common sense is enough to cement your position, but your common sense means **** if you can't back it up.

My opinions are flagged as such. Everything else is based on scientific facts and logic. So you do not feel that common sense should be accepted in informal debates? That would certainly cut down on the number of post in this forum! Very Happy

echi wrote:

Most laws, if not all, are morally based.

Remember the Golden Rule? "He who has the gold, makes the rules." Why else do you think that this country allowed its citizens to be bought and sold, denied rights to women, and resisted attempts to protect workers for so long?

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

echi wrote:
bratty, insolent rhetoric

And how would you characterize yours?

Before this post... courteous and civil. But the lack of reciprocation led me to frustration and irritation (regrettably).

Quote:

Quote:
Your whole argument seems to be that this 'glob of cells' is not actually a viable human life, so who cares?

I never said that no one cares, but that embryonic stem cell research does not destroy human beings while it may save many.

You said it, but you haven't proven it.

Quote:

Quote:
The fact that you can't even find agreement within your own group is evidence that your reasoning is flawed.

No, it is evidence that we are not in complete agreement on a complex issue. We agree on many points and disagree on others, as is true of those with opposing views.

No one in opposition, on this thread, has stated anything other than "life begins at conception".

Quote:

Quote:
Your position on this is clearly motivated by wishful thinking for all the sick people who might benefit.

Yes, we care that lives could be saved, and the potential benefits of embryonic stem cell research are not just "wishful thinking."

No, the "wishful thinking" is that an embryo is not a human being deserving of respect.

Quote:

Quote:
You sound like a bunch of religious freaks. Emotional blabbering is not evidence.

Religious freaks? Where do you get that? And just who is doing the emotional blabbering here?

You sound like religious freaks because you offer little evidence to substantiate your claims. You seem to base everything on the opposition's lack of common sense, which is similar to Christians who sometimes cite others' views as a lack of faith.
And by "emotional blabbering", I mean lots of emotion and no point.

Quote:

Quote:
This is a debate forum, and your feelings of intellectual superiority are not enough to garner you a pass. You still have to present evidence to support your claim. Calling your opponents Bible-thumpers aint gonna cut it.

Do you feel intellectually inferior, that you must resort to ad hominum attacks? I can back up all of my factual assertions with references.

What factual assertions have you made concerning the condition of an embryo?

Quote:

Quote:
You're the ones on this thread whose opinion is based on faith. You believe that common sense is enough to cement your position, but your common sense means **** if you can't back it up.

My opinions are flagged as such. Everything else is based on scientific facts and logic. So you do not feel that common sense should be accepted in informal debates? That would certainly cut down on the number of post in this forum!

echi wrote:
Most laws, if not all, are morally based.

Remember the Golden Rule? "He who has the gold, makes the rules." Why else do you think that this country allowed its citizens to be bought and sold, denied rights to women, and resisted attempts to protect workers for so long?

I don't see any disagreement here.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

I would like for Kickycan to take a stab at defining at what point that magic line is, but I am not holding my breath.

I already gave you my criteria twice. If you can squash it into nothingness with less than a thumb, it ain't a living human being. Applying a thumb to some pressure point to kill someone is not the same as squashing that person into nothingness.

Not that any of this has anything to do with what I'm arguing here, but I like this game, so what the hell.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Terry Wrote:

[quote]If he cannot put the welfare of the country ahead of his personal beliefs, he should not be president. Even if he is a fundamentalist Southern Baptist, he must overcome his desire to require that all women in the country wear skirts. He must ignore his belief that God created everything 6000 years ago when signing a budget authorizing funding for a museum display of million-year-old fossils. If he believes that God approves of blacks being lawfully owned as slaves, he must still execute civil rights laws. He must not restrict any citizen from lawfully exercising their own beliefs, such as loving someone of the same sex, objecting to religious incursions into government, controlling what happens to their own body, advocating peace, or doing medical research on embryonic stem cells.

When he ran for President, his religious beliefs were well known. He was voted in anyway. You cannot expect anyone, whether a believer or not, to totally discard the basis for their morals, ethics, principles, etc. These are the things that make up that person.

I think the president has a lot more important things to worry about then evolution right now, don't you? I don't think he said a single thing about he wanted a law that said you couldn't love someone of the same sex. I think what he said was he believed marriage was between a man and a woman and he feels any other kind of marriage is wrong.

Terry, all this is, is the world wanting to do just what it wants to do. Doesn't want any restrictions. It's all about the "if it's right for me" mentality. Well, sorry. There are basic rights and wrongs and just because you or someone else does not agree with them, doesn't change it.

Like I said, it all comes down to this, you vote your conscience. I vote mine. Until you or anyone can show me in the Constitution of the United States, etc., that I must base my voting decision on or not on a specific thing, then you just have to deal with it, just as I have to deal with your opinions, votes, etc. That's just the way it works.

It's not up to me to judge you for why you vote the way you do. It's not up to you to judge me for why I vote the way I do. You want what you think is right and so do I. Same thing. We just want something different. :wink: [/b][/color][/quote]

Momma Angel has a valid point, Terry.

President Bush made no secret of his views and of his moral, religious and philosophical positions on these issues.

He was re-elected by a winning margin of over 8,000,000 more votes than his opponent. He received the largest number of votes in American history by several million. He received nearly 10,000,000 more votes than in his first election as President. Clearly this is a mandate.

These are the views he espoused and these are the views that people voted for him to put in action as President.

To claim that he should somehow run away from the positions that the American people voted for is ludicrous.

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

real life wrote:
I would like for Kickycan to take a stab at defining at what point that magic line is, but I am not holding my breath.

I already gave you my criteria twice. If you can squash it into nothingness with less than a thumb, it ain't a living human being. Applying a thumb to some pressure point to kill someone is not the same as squashing that person into nothingness.

Not that any of this has anything to do with what I'm arguing here, but I like this game, so what the hell.

Actually , it has everything[/u] to do with what you are arguing, because you began the thread with your claim that the unborn at this early stage is not a living human being. You initiated this line of 'reasoning' but have so far refused to back it up with anything of a definitive nature.

You are running from your assertion, but it keeps catching up to you.

You have several times vaguely described when you still think it is NOT[/u] a living human being, but have feverishly dodged spelling out when you DO[/u] think the unborn becomes a living human being.

Do you have to attempt your squash test before you know? And if he survives then he is alive?

Don't tell us when it ain't a living human, tell us when it is.

So tell us, how many cells DOES[/u] it require to be a living human being? Let's have a number.

Since you are certain that 150 is NOT[/u] a valid number, tell us what is the number?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Momma Angel has a valid point, Terry.

President Bush made no secret of his views and of his moral, religious and philosophical positions on these issues.

He was re-elected by a winning margin of over 8,000,000 more votes than his opponent. He received the largest number of votes in American history by several million. He received nearly 10,000,000 more votes than in his first election as President. Clearly this is a mandate.

These are the views he espoused and these are the views that people voted for him to put in action as President.

To claim that he should somehow run away from the positions that the American people voted for is ludicrous.

I won't debate you anymore on stem cell research, but I will call you on your ignorance!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2004

Bush 62,040,610...50.7%
Kerry 59,028,111...48.3%
-----------------------
............3,011,499....2.4%

Not 10 Million Vote Difference
In Percentage of total vote 2.4%

It came down to the last state to decide the outcome! If Bush had lost the state of Ohio, we'd be talking about President Kerry!!
Mandate only in the mind of the most wishful dreamers !!!!

Anon

0 Replies

anon--

Why won't you debate stem cell research?

0 Replies

echi wrote:

anon--

Why won't you debate stem cell research?

Because I've said all I have to say about it .. fini!!

Anon

0 Replies

Anon-Voter wrote:

echi wrote:
anon--

Why won't you debate stem cell research?

Because I've said all I have to say about it .. fini!!

0 Replies

This is what I have pointed out before. The discussion is over when one decides they are right and everyone else is wrong.

0 Replies

Case #503 against blind faith--Stem Cell Research

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know