1
   

Case #503 against blind faith--Stem Cell Research

 
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jan, 2006 08:57 pm
Reasonable debate is only possible if you remove the religious fanatics from the equation. I would urge you to start up an ethics based Topic in the Medical News and Health Forum where it can be discussed without the religious hysteria and dogma based hardheadedness.

Anon
0 Replies
 
echi
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jan, 2006 09:09 pm
Anon--

As I see it, there are basically two positions, here. One states that a real human being exists at conception, the other states that it's at some other point. The fact that Christians tend to hold the former view while non-Christians tend to hold the latter, does not IMO mean that this is a "faith vs. no faith" issue.
That said, I think you make a valid point in that Christians (here at a2k, at least) seem to have enormous difficulty getting a point across without quoting the Bible.
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jan, 2006 09:16 pm
Ethics is an area that need to be considered seriously. I think these kind of guidelines need to be delineated and adhered to!

Anon
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jan, 2006 10:09 pm
Anon-Voter wrote:
Reasonable debate is only possible if you remove the religious fanatics from the equation. I would urge you to start up an ethics based Topic in the Medical News and Health Forum where it can be discussed without the religious hysteria and dogma based hardheadedness.

Anon


I see.

Free speech for you, but not for anyone who disagrees with you.

For them, you want marginalization and isolation, apparently.

If you want reasonable debate, why don't you drop the name calling and discuss the medical facts of the embryo's existence which lead you to believe he is not a living human being?
0 Replies
 
Im the other one
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jan, 2006 12:12 am
real life wrote:
kickycan wrote:
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...


Hi Kickycan,

I can well understand your position, and I think it is a fair one.

You do not know when life begins. It is not unreasonable to say so and I think the vast majority of Americans would make the same statement.

I believe life begins at conception. I think there are good medical reasons for believing this and no evidence to indicate otherwise.

But I could be wrong.

So could you.

So, if we say that NO ONE truly knows when life begins, let me ask you : doesn't it make sense, if we are to err, to err on the side of life and caution instead of on the side of death and reckless disregard?

If I come upon an accident victim and I don't know if he is alive, should I assume he is not and act accordingly?

If a firefighter comes upon a burning building, does he assume no one is inside? No. They always assume someone MAY BE inside and act accordingly to save a life that they don't know for certain is there. They go so far as to risk their own lives doing so.

That's the American way.

There are countries filled with Buddhists instead of Christians, if you want to live in one. I hope you stay, but if you think you'd be happier -- well good luck and best wishes.

You seem to show a genuine respect for science, so maybe you should check out http://www.physiciansforlife.org/ and find out that medical science doesn't all come down on the side of embryonic experimentation and abortion. There are skilled, knowledgable physicians on the pro-life side who base their position on their medical experience.


Thank you for answering my question to kicky RL.
0 Replies
 
Im the other one
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jan, 2006 12:15 am
Einherjar wrote:
For the religious crowd:

How many lives does a chimera have?


Not sure, but I know how many lives a chia pet has however.
0 Replies
 
echi
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jan, 2006 12:21 am
Remember when chimera got his ass beat by godzilla? That was cool.
0 Replies
 
Im the other one
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jan, 2006 12:25 am
That reminds me echi, have you seen the new King Kong movie?
0 Replies
 
echi
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jan, 2006 12:30 am
Haven't seen it.
0 Replies
 
Im the other one
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jan, 2006 01:31 am
I've been swaying off topics lately.

Forgive me everyone.

I like Narnia.
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jan, 2006 07:01 am
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.


You don't see it?

How many lives are you "killing" when you destroy a blastocyst to harvest its ES cells for medical purposes? One? Well, not necessarily. The blastocyst could have, if left naturally, split into two.

In fact, you're not killing very much. You're only killing the outer layer of cells that make up the trophoderm (I think that's how it's spelt). What makes up the normal human being has been extracted in the form of ES cells.

These ES cells are still alive. They still have the potential, if you create some trophoderm cells, to create a human being. For the purposes of medical use, they will be grown indefinitely and the majority of them kept as ES cells.

Ironically, this potential human being will exist forever. It is immortal. It will forever be a potential human being. Theoretically, it will never die. The biggest irony, of course, would be the fact that this potential human being isn't conscious enough to enjoy its immortality.

Later, if you really wish, you can take these ES cells and implant them into an empty blastocyst. Implant it into a mother's womb and let it grow into a human being.

At the time being, this is only theoretical because we have no way to create an empty blastocyst without removing the ES cells from another.

Also, at this time, we can only create chimeras. I've worked in a lab where this has been done. The ES cells were modified and then transplanted into a blastocyst that had a few ES cells removed. This grew into a chimera, with the qualities of two mice.

What was once two potential mice became one. What would have been two separate lives are now one?

What are the ethical problems involved in that? I tell you this, the philosophical conundrums I talked about are linked to the ethical ones because they both address the same problem: that it is possible that these ES cells are nothing more than building blocks and that potentially none of us are really who we think we are and that our personalities and mental behaviours are merely the survival mechanisms of a biological machine and nothing more.

All of this raises the question of whether our concepts of individuality are merely illusions created by our biological bodies to satiate us and comfort us so we don't go insane and potentially harm the biological machine in our insanity.

Do you still not see what I'm getting at?

The very nature of a chimera draws up the ethical problem itself. Two become one. What happened to the second potential human being? It lives on within the other, but at what cost? At the cost of its individuality, its thoughts, its own memories and personality? Or is such a thought ridiculous, in which case it doesn't matter what happened to the ES cells?
0 Replies
 
echi
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jan, 2006 10:54 am
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
I tell you this, the philosophical conundrums I talked about are linked to the ethical ones because they both address the same problem: that it is possible that these ES cells are nothing more than building blocks and that potentially none of us are really who we think we are and that our personalities and mental behaviours are merely the survival mechanisms of a biological machine and nothing more.

All of this raises the question of whether our concepts of individuality are merely illusions created by our biological bodies to satiate us and comfort us so we don't go insane and potentially harm the biological machine in our insanity.


I completely agree that it is possible (I'd say likely) that we are not what we think we are, and that our individual sense of self is illusion. However, I am not willing to concede from that point that we are then, perhaps, nothing but machinery.

This reasoning is insane. And the suggested conclusions are sociopathic.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jan, 2006 01:05 pm
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
What was once two potential mice became one. What would have been two separate lives are now one?

What are the ethical problems involved in that? I tell you this, the philosophical conundrums I talked about are linked to the ethical ones because they both address the same problem: that it is possible that these ES cells are nothing more than building blocks and that potentially none of us are really who we think we are and that our personalities and mental behaviours are merely the survival mechanisms of a biological machine and nothing more.

All of this raises the question of whether our concepts of individuality are merely illusions created by our biological bodies to satiate us and comfort us so we don't go insane and potentially harm the biological machine in our insanity.

Do you still not see what I'm getting at?

The very nature of a chimera draws up the ethical problem itself. Two become one. What happened to the second potential human being? It lives on within the other, but at what cost? At the cost of its individuality, its thoughts, its own memories and personality? Or is such a thought ridiculous, in which case it doesn't matter what happened to the ES cells?


I think I need to take some LSD before I attempt an answer to these questions.

Got any?
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jan, 2006 05:27 pm
echi wrote:
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
I tell you this, the philosophical conundrums I talked about are linked to the ethical ones because they both address the same problem: that it is possible that these ES cells are nothing more than building blocks and that potentially none of us are really who we think we are and that our personalities and mental behaviours are merely the survival mechanisms of a biological machine and nothing more.

All of this raises the question of whether our concepts of individuality are merely illusions created by our biological bodies to satiate us and comfort us so we don't go insane and potentially harm the biological machine in our insanity.


I completely agree that it is possible (I'd say likely) that we are not what we think we are, and that our individual sense of self is illusion. However, I am not willing to concede from that point that we are then, perhaps, nothing but machinery.

This reasoning is insane. And the suggested conclusions are sociopathic.


To say the reasoning is insane is rather presumptious, subjective and baseless. To say that the conclusions are sociopathic, however, is quite true. You can take the entire thought to the extreme and go into the dark realms of Nazism, which is, I guess, the reason why you refuse to concede to that point.

kickycan wrote:
I think I need to take some LSD before I attempt an answer to these questions.

Got any?


Not really. When it comes to these particular possiblities I have no answers, only the questions themselves.

To tell you the truth, the very questions and possible answers frighten me no to end. I don't like thinking about it too much.
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jan, 2006 06:00 pm
kickycan wrote:

I think I need to take some LSD before I attempt an answer to these questions.

Got any?


You're dating yourself!!

Anon
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jan, 2006 09:35 pm
echi wrote:
....... I am not willing to concede from that point that we are then, perhaps, nothing but machinery........


A machine cannot think beyond the boundary of it's programming.
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jan, 2006 09:37 pm
real life wrote:
echi wrote:
....... I am not willing to concede from that point that we are then, perhaps, nothing but machinery........


A machine cannot think beyond the boundary of it's programming.


Now, THAT sounds like a Christian!!!

Anon
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jan, 2006 09:44 pm
Anon-Voter wrote:
kickycan wrote:

I think I need to take some LSD before I attempt an answer to these questions.

Got any?


You're dating yourself!!

Anon


Oh crap. Really? So what is the drug of choice for pondering crazy mind-bending questions these days?
0 Replies
 
echi
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jan, 2006 11:45 pm
Klonopin and fresh air work for me.
0 Replies
 
Doktor S
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 02:21 am
real life wrote:
echi wrote:
....... I am not willing to concede from that point that we are then, perhaps, nothing but machinery........


A machine cannot think beyond the boundary of it's programming.

Exactly.
Humans operate within a very narrow spectrum of potential behaviors.
There are irregularities(serial killers and the lot), but machines malfunction.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.31 seconds on 11/13/2024 at 09:19:15