Case #503 against blind faith--Stem Cell Research

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?

Whatever you say, Momma.

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

real life wrote:

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?

Okay, let me just give you a real answer, since you're so persistent on this meaningless point. I believe[/b] that a microscopic bundle of 150 cells is not a living human being. I believe this very strongly. I also believe that only a person who has willfully blinded himself with religious dogma (with a few exceptions like Echi...if he's telling the truth) could possibly believe otherwise. I also (hold onto your hat--I think you're going to like this!) don't know the exact point at which life begins. My guess would be when it's heart first beats. Up until that point, it's just a glob of cells to me. But, as I've said before, this is not the main point that I'm arguing. I also believe that anyone who claims to know definitively is either a scientific genius, or an arrogant religious fool. Guess which one I think you are.

There, you have what you wanted now. Your more certain than I am. Boy, that must mean you're right.

Not

You see, I don't have to know. I'm not a scientist. And neither are you, I'm guessing. Neither is George Bush, nor are most of the Christians who oppose this stem cell research on the basis of, "oh my god, those 150 cells no bigger than the gunk in the corner of my eye and with no organs or even a hint of any functioning bodily systems are a human life! That little clump of cells has a soul! Murderer!"

The fact that you are so certain about this issue, which even real live scientists have trouble defining, just shows your arrogance. I love when people who are armchair scientists tell real scientists how and what they should do in their work.

Now I'm done arguing the actual particulars of what I believe, because, as I said many times before, it doesn't change my argument one whit, which is, as I have said before, in different ways in this thread...

Religious dogma has no place in the world of science. It is a hindrance to progress.

Science is about rational empirical evidence. Religion is based on totally irrational blind faith. And ne'er the twain shall meet.

If only we were living in a perfect world...or maybe if America was filled with Buddhists instead of Christians...

.....it is unconscionable to restrict any research on untenable "moral" grounds.

Seriously... The reason I say that a blob of cells should be recognized as a human being is because I can't find any reason to think otherwise. I see where you're coming from, and I wish I could find a good place to draw that line. (I'm not yet sold on your squish test.) But, as of right now, all we know is that this little blob has all the makings of a real person. All it needs to do is bake a while, and no one has the right to deny it.

BTW It always seems a little strange to me that the teams are split up this way. Shouldn't the religious folks be on the side claiming that life begins at some indeterminate point? You know, "In the seventh week God said, 'Let there be life!', and it was so."
My position, on the other hand, seems like the scientific one. (And NO, I'm not a professional scientist.)

For the religious crowd:

How many lives does a chimera have?

You see, the problem I have with echi's view is that you can split the "blob of human cells" twice and create two human beings. You can theoretically destroy the entire thing and grow the ES cells until you have enough to make four or five or ten or a hundred etc. human beings. You can take two and merge them together to get a chimera and form one human being.

Does anybody else see the philosophical conundrum this raises?

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

You see, the problem I have with echi's view is that you can split the "blob of human cells" twice and create two human beings. You can theoretically destroy the entire thing and grow the ES cells until you have enough to make four or five or ten or a hundred etc. human beings. You can take two and merge them together to get a chimera and form one human being.

Does anybody else see the philosophical conundrum this raises?

I don't see any philosophical conundrum... only a lack of ethics.
I am not arguing for the existence of a "soul".
I don't know, maybe I missed your point.

echi wrote:

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

You see, the problem I have with echi's view is that you can split the "blob of human cells" twice and create two human beings. You can theoretically destroy the entire thing and grow the ES cells until you have enough to make four or five or ten or a hundred etc. human beings. You can take two and merge them together to get a chimera and form one human being.

Does anybody else see the philosophical conundrum this raises?

I don't see any philosophical conundrum... only a lack of ethics.
I am not arguing for the existence of a "soul".
I don't know, maybe I missed your point.

Echi,

Ethics is a whole different ballgame, and has nothing to do with blind faith!!

Ethics is not only a worthy question, but should be a Topic of it's own. Bioethics and guidelines of what is allowed with stem cell research are very importrant issues!!

Anon

Echi,

Ethics is a whole different ballgame, and has nothing to do with blind faith!!

eth·ic
n.

A set of principles of right conduct.

A theory or a system of moral values: "An ethic of service is at war with a craving for gain"; (Gregg Easterbrook).

ethics (used with a sing. verb) The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person; moral philosophy.

ethics (used with a sing. or pl. verb) The rules or standards governing the conduct of a person or the members of a profession: medical ethics.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English ethik, from Old French ethique(from Late Latin thica, from Greek thika, ethics), and from Latin thic(from Greek thik) both from Greek thikos, ethical, from thos, character. See s(w)e- in Indo-European Roots.]

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Stem cell research utilizes cells from a blastocyst, which is a cluster of up to 150 embryonic cells, that could potentially be of use in the treatment of spinal cord injuries, cancer, blindness, heart and muscle damage, among others.

It is my contention that the only reason the U.S. government has not already jumped at the chance to fund research in this area is because of belief in the invisible man in the sky, and the thought that this cluster of 150 cells--smaller than the tip of your eyelash, this little bundle of cells--is a little person. Blind faith, once again getting in the way of science and possible advances that might save thousands of lives. Blind faith, rearing it's ugly head and once again f*cking up our world.

How many people will die this year alone, because of this stunting of progress by those who follow blindly the ridiculous tenets of their religious foolishness?

150 cells is a human life. Gimme a f*cking break.