Stem cell debate...

[Goober McTuber]

Cracks me up that in 2006, there's people who still have no clue how a computer works, even though they use it every day.

Terry probably has written directions he consults each morning in order to find the “On” switch.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

Cracks me up that in 2006, there's people who still have no clue how a computer works, even though they use it every day.

Terry probably has written directions he consults each morning in order to find the “On” switch.

That is irrefutably incorrect. It has been quite clear to me for some time now how to turn on (and off) my pc.

-TiC

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Now, as to whether using these embryos is murder - that depends ENTIRELY on your RELIGIOUS view of when human life begins. There isn't a single scientist or even scientific experiment that can determine when "human life" or "ensoulment" can be delineated. Anyone who says there is...is flat-out LYING.

If you believe that the microsecond that sperm fertilizes egg and creates a zygote is precisely when a fully right-entitled human is created, then stem cell research is immoral (and so is IVF, which is why the Roman Catholic Church prohibits its members from using it). However, as I pointed out before, your OPINION is wholly a religious one, with no science to back it up.

1. Wrong, the nature of life does not depend on religion.

No, you're wrong. How we choose to define "human Life" with all of the rights that go with it is entirely a moral/religious domain, and therefore out of the realm of science. Just because it came from a human and could potentially become a full human under the right circumstances does not necessarily mean that it is A human. Hell the same parameters could be set for any cell of your body, since cloning can use diploid cells from wherever. I'm not about to accord the normally high percentage of miscarried humans zygotes/embryos full Constitutional rights either, and some of those buggers are more developed than the embryos that researchers want to use.

One's perception of it might, but life is what life is.

Once again, coming up with a definition of "human life" is not science's job. The fact that the words "morality" come up in discussing this issue, and not in a context of academic integrity, should have tipped you off that we were stepping outside of strict science and into theology. So should the fact that we experiment on the embryos of other species without the same moral qualms.

And as for the science part, not yet.

Once again - NEVER. Science will NEVER dabble in the realm of the nature of the soul. That is supernatural, and by definition, outside the rightful scope of science. Criminy, even my ninth-grade bio students know enough to not even suggest that science could or should study "ensoulment."

As has been nicely pointed out elsewhere on the thread, if the anti-embryo stem cell people were 100% confident in the correctness of their cause, they would not only not fund the research with federal funds, but would seek to completely ban it inside and outside of the U.S. and utterly refuse to accept/allow treatments resulting from the research.

[Atomic Punk]

Since I now have permission to post the wytched pic . . .



I'd rack the person who sent it to me, but he wants to remain anonymous.

Yeah, Luther can ruin a perfectly fine picture of Nurse Ratchett (sp?) and you think I'm offended? Why don't you tell Luth to man up and get off the porch and start crying about shitty posters such as yourself?

It's at least a start. :goodpicjobLuth:

[Jimmy Medalions]

Rack MGO.

You missed a few commas, as well as paragraphs. Otherwise, well done.

[Tom In VA]

Once again - NEVER. Science will NEVER dabble in the realm of the nature of the soul. That is supernatural, and by definition, outside the rightful scope of science. Criminy, even my ninth-grade bio students know enough to not even suggest that science could or should study "ensoulment."

Who said they should study it ? How many discoveries of what exists already have occurred in science .... as an indirect consequence ?


You're discounting a possibility, while at the same time, trying to include one in your justification. I'm just keeping an open mind.

The bottom line is, if there is a God, and this God determines that the "ensoulment" of Human beings takes place at conception, then all your .....

"It's a religious opinion" b.s. goes right out the window. It's a fact of life and the only subjective thing about it is .... who lies to themselves and who doesn't.

Furthermore, God has revealed to science many things. Answer me this, did gravity exist or not long before Sir Isaac watched crap fall from trees ?

Exactly.

But please, don't give me this "Now, as to whether using these embryos is murder - that depends ENTIRELY on your RELIGIOUS view of when human life begins"

No it does not. It is exactly what it is and the problem here is, nobody knows what it is. Where's your objectivity ? One side is correct in their assessment and one side is mistaken. I know you'd never try tell me that gravity is a matter of opinion and consensus as well. And that's all I'm saying about the nature of human life and "ensoulment".

If there is a God, there will be a time when all is revealed.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Who said they should study it ? How many discoveries of what exists already have occurred in science .... as an indirect consequence ?

Souls are supernatural and outside the realm of science. Period. To even try to claim otherwise shows an ignorance of science and how it is done.

You're discounting a possibility, while at the same time, trying to include one in your justification. I'm just keeping an open mind.

Open minds are great...just don't try to rewrite the rules for science in your religious zeal...

The bottom line is, if there is a God, and this God determines that the "ensoulment" of Human beings takes place at conception, then all your .....
"It's a religious opinion" b.s. goes right out the window. It's a fact of life and the only subjective thing about it is .... who lies to themselves and who doesn't.

Bullcrap. It is still only a religious opinion. Period. Souls are supernatural. Period. Science does not study the supernatural. Period.

Furthermore, God has revealed to science many things.

Actually, I'd say that scientists after much study, observation, and experimentation have revealed many things.

Answer me this, did gravity exist or not long before Sir Isaac watched crap fall from trees ?

Yeah, but gravity is a natural force. We're talking about souls. Apples and spectres. Real things that obey natural law vs. speculative ephemeral (and possibly imaginary) souls...

But please, don't give me this "Now, as to whether using these embryos is murder - that depends ENTIRELY on your RELIGIOUS view of when human life begins"

No it does not. It is exactly what it is and the problem here is, nobody knows what it is. Where's your objectivity ?

If life begins at conception -which, contrary to your belief, is not a settled scientific, legal or moral fact- then IVF itself is morally questionable at best and embryonic stem cell research is murder.

However, since the jury is out legally and morally and will ALWAYS be out scientifically, the matter is not as simple as you would like to believe.

No one is "lying to themselves," they just have different religious beliefs than you. The fact that you believe that anyone who thinks differently is lying to themselves shows an extreme arrogance typical of the über-religious.

[Tom In VA]

The fact that you believe that anyone who thinks differently is lying to themselves shows an extreme arrogance typical of the über-religious.

Some scientist you are. Use the scientific method and provide anywhere, where I claim to be religious at all. I don't even follow your "Catholic Lite" program.

I believe in God. I believe that He is God and that you, me, or any scientist is not God. I believe that this God, either is, or isn't. If HE is, then all your justification and rationalization as to when life begins and when it does not, is moot. He defines that.

You seem to think there are no fundamental truths when it comes to the spiritual world. I disagree.

And last I checked we're not talking about "souls", we're talking about human life. Tell me, Mr. Scientist, at the moment of conception what is the probablilty a cheese sandwich will develop ?

[Atomic Punk]

The moment of conception is a religious notion. At that point, I don't think the religious views of anybody matters.

It is a simple/complex anatomical process. The big religious question is "Why?"

[Tom In VA]

When sperm fertilizes egg, how's that.

What is the probability a cheese sandwich will develop at that moment ?


Save your answers, it's NONE.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

You seem to think there are no fundamental truths when it comes to the spiritual world. I disagree.

Where we truly disagree is that I classify the argument as to whether a ball of cells dwarfed by the eye of a needle is a "human life" a wholly religious one, unanswerable by science.

Science has limits on what it can and should do. Defining humanity is one of them.

And last I checked we're not talking about "souls", we're talking about human life.

They are one and the same.

Tell me, Mr. Scientist, at the moment of conception what is the probablilty a cheese sandwich will develop ?

Never, but tell me this, Mr. Doesn't-Understand-Science....if that microscopic ball of cells IS fully human, then why don't we consider the almost 50% of fertilized eggs that die a national tragedy? Why don't we investigate miscarriages of this sort as possible homicides? Never mind the fact that many/most of these women may not have even known they were preggers...THE EMBRYOS WERE PEOPLE, DAMMIT!!!

The embryos that are being used for stem cell research will not "develop normally into humans" if left on their own. They were freaking mixed with sperm on a Petri dish. Left on their own, they'd die.....just like the 50% of zygotes that wind up normally swirling down the crapper from most women.

The entire argument as to whether that smaller-than-a-period-at-the-end-of-this-sentence embryo is a person is wholly and completely religious. Trying to claim otherwise is just silly.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

BTW, my saying that the decision on whether a zygote is a person is wholly a religious one in no way is meant by me to ridicule or lessen the value of that decision...I'm just saying that any claims that the embryos are "people" cannot be rendered or backed with any scientific authority.

If someone sincerely believes that those embryos are people, than the decision to not federally support (or even ban) embryonic stem cell research makes sense and is logically consistant from that POV.

[Tom In VA]

The entire argument as to whether that smaller-than-a-period-at-the-end-of-this-sentence embryo is a person is wholly and completely religious. Trying to claim otherwise is just silly.

Oh c'mon, I understand it, I'm just not good at it, and no it is not silly to question these things and engage in the discussion.

All I've been saying is that in the end, there are objective answers to these questions. For instance, "Is there a God" ? I believe there is, but I'm pretty sure I'll find out for sure when I die.

I believe in searching for the objective truth. As humans, some believe we have both a spiritual and corporal nature. Some don't. But there has to be an objective answer as to when that soul-less or soul-ful "thing" becomes a human. I think we can agree that both sides reach their conclusions on subjective reasons, for now.

But seriously, think about it, what the hell else is the product of this bio-chemical reaction ?

Never, but tell me this, Mr. Doesn't-Understand-Science....if that microscopic ball of cells IS fully human, then why don't we consider the almost 50% of fertilized eggs that die a national tragedy? Why don't we investigate miscarriages of this sort as possible homicides? Never mind the fact that many/most of these women may not have even known they were preggers...THE EMBRYOS WERE PEOPLE, DAMMIT!!!

The embryos that are being used for stem cell research will not "develop normally into humans" if left on their own. They were freaking mixed with sperm on a Petri dish. Left on their own, they'd die.....just like the 50% of zygotes that wind up normally swirling down the crapper from most women.

Some people do find these things a national tragedy Mike. And the most die-hard of ... following 'NATURE'S LAWS' don't believe we should be fucking around with IVF and things anyway. Either way, I yield to your scientific knowledge and am grateful for the discussion.

[Atomic Punk]

Why is this an issue? Women are born with a set number of ova and the hormonal process dishes the ova out for a possible fertilization.

What I'm getting at is that not every egg is going to be fertilized. There is this thing called menstruation that sets itself up in case that egg doesn't get fertilized.

Is the religious rationale that all available eggs should be Mormonized and set free? The religious "view" kcks its own ass. Although Mexicans, Hmongs, and the other breeders have a lot of offspring, does that mean they pump out a child every time they throw a Graafian follicles haymaker?

[Dinsdale]

What is the probability a cheese sandwich will develop at that moment ?


Save your answers, it's NONE.

We disagree.

Sin,
Cinder's Parents



Oh, and btw-I'm pretty upset I didn't get either the love or hijacking I was looking for with the Sepultura lyrics.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Some people do find these things a national tragedy Mike. And the most die-hard of ... following 'NATURE'S LAWS' don't believe we should be fucking around with IVF and things anyway. Either way, I yield to your scientific knowledge and am grateful for the discussion.

Same here. I was in no way trying to devalue or diminish the views of yourself or others who deeply believe these embryos to be people. All I was trying to say, perhaps badly, is that science is deeply limited in what it can study, and one of its limits is in deciding the moral question of whether these embryos are people.

[Mikey]

I always figured once it's been given a name, then it's a person. Anything that doesn't have a name yet can't very well be a person, can it?

[BSmack]

Since I now have permission to post the wytched pic . . .



I'd rack the person who sent it to me, but he wants to remain anonymous.

Yeah, Luther can ruin a perfectly fine picture of Nurse Ratchett (sp?) and you think I'm offended? Why don't you tell Luth to man up and get off the porch and start crying about shitty posters such as yourself?

It's at least a start. :goodpicjobLuth:

Is it me, or does AP look like the bastard child of Bob Hope in drag?

[Mikey]

I don't know. I never met the bastard child of Bob Hope. You have any pics?

[Terry in Crapchester]

Yeah, Luther can ruin a perfectly fine picture of Nurse Ratchett (sp?) and you think I'm offended?

You obviously don't get it, so I'll dumb it down for you.

Luther sent that to me as a private message. You see, when I get one of those, I assume the sender intended for it to be confidential, and therefore, I don't repost any of the information on the board unless I have that person's permission (and even then, only when it might arguably be of interest to the entire board and relevant). Not surprising that a personal information whore would fail to grasp that concept.

Why don't you tell Luth to man up and get off the porch and start crying about shitty posters such as yourself?

Pot meet kettle/glass houses/etc.

I'll tell you what. The day I ever compare my looks to those of another poster on this board, you have my permission to shoot me on the spot, no questions asked. In fact, if my existence ever becomes that pathetic, I'd consider it an extreme act of kindness to be put out of my misery at that point. Until then, however, if I were you, I wouldn't be running "bad poster" smack on anyone.

Just sayin'.

[Tom In VA]

Same here. I was in no way trying to devalue or diminish the views of yourself or others who deeply believe these embryos to be people. All I was trying to say, perhaps badly, is that science is deeply limited in what it can study, and one of its limits is in deciding the moral question of whether these embryos are people.

Let's throw morals out the window for a second Mike, I think I too could have stated my opinion and position much better.

The fact is, I don't know what these embryos are, does science ? When does science acknowledge a human presence ? I mean even the most non-religious individual can at one point say .... "That there biological entity is a human being".

Exclude notions of "ensoulment", or any notion of the spirit, science, must have a position on when a human being is a human being. When is that ?:

[Dinsdale]

I'll tell you what. The day I ever compare my looks to those of another poster on this board, you have my permission to shoot me on the spot

You shouldn't be so hard on yourself. If you ever start comparing your looks to those of another poster when you have absolutely no idea what he looks like, you should probably give us permission to have you committed on the spot.

[The Whistle Is Screaming]

Let's throw morals out the window

IN!

-Dins

The fact is, I don't know what these embryos are, does science ? When does science acknowledge a human presence ? I mean even the most non-religious individual can at one point say .... "That there biological entity is a human being".

Exclude notions of "ensoulment", or any notion of the spirit, science, must have a position on when a human being is a human being. When is that ?:

Science has not (or can not) define that instance, similar to the debate of brain-dead and dead-dead.

You can have a scientific discussion on the "beginning" of life or a theological one, just don't mix them together. Oil & water. :D

[Tom In VA]

Science has not (or can not) define that instance, similar to the debate of brain-dead and dead-dead.

You can have a scientific discussion on the "beginning" of life or a theological one, just don't mix them together. Oil & water. :D

I'm trying to ignore the "theological" discussion of the beginning of life and find the cold hard scientific discussion, thanks.

[Mikey]

Science has not (or can not) define that instance, similar to the debate of brain-dead and dead-dead.

You can have a scientific discussion on the "beginning" of life or a theological one, just don't mix them together. Oil & water. :D

I'm trying to ignore the "theological" discussion of the beginning of life and find the cold hard scientific discussion, thanks.

I would suggest that you first define what you mean by "the beginning of life".
But maybe that's what you're looking for somebody else to do for you.

Technically, there is no "beginning" of life. You can't make life out of something that isn't already alive. At least they haven't figured out how to do it yet.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

The fact is, I don't know what these embryos are, does science ?

Most of the scientists involved in the research seem to believe that these embryos are multcellular balls, created by artificial means in a Petri dish, that have the potential (if stimulated by various chemicals) to become various tissues. To be honest, I sincerely doubt any of the researchers honestly believe that these microscopic balls of cells are people in any way, shape, or form.

When does science acknowledge a human presence ?

Science doesn't. That's wholly an issue for ethicists. Any definition(s) science comes up with are arbitrary: brainwaves? if so, of what type? DNA? no way, since that threshold means that potentially any/all 70 trillion cells of your body are in the same league. developmental stage? if so, where is the "start line?"

Science doesn't currently have, nor will it ever have, a definitive demarcation point defining a human life. It sure as hell doesn't go for the "human life begins at conception" bit, since it is aware of the completely normal 50% miscarriage rate of human zygotes.

I mean even the most non-religious individual can at one point say .... "That there biological entity is a human being".

But not at a stage in which the alleged "person" is a ball of cells that is literally dwarfed by the eye of a needle.

science, must have a position on when a human being is a human being. When is that ?:

It doesn't, and it won't. And that's precisely the way it should be. You give science far too much credit, and potentially too much power if you allow scientists to draw that line.

[BSmack]

Science has not (or can not) define that instance, similar to the debate of brain-dead and dead-dead.

You can have a scientific discussion on the "beginning" of life or a theological one, just don't mix them together. Oil & water. :D

I'm trying to ignore the "theological" discussion of the beginning of life and find the cold hard scientific discussion, thanks.

Has a scientist ever once taken a non living thing and made it living?

[Wolfman]

come on 88 --
if they use that thing on a store dummy
and it comes to life--
then we have something !!

[mothster]

Science has not (or can not) define that instance, similar to the debate of brain-dead and dead-dead.

You can have a scientific discussion on the "beginning" of life or a theological one, just don't mix them together. Oil & water. :D

I'm trying to ignore the "theological" discussion of the beginning of life and find the cold hard scientific discussion, thanks.

Has a scientist ever once taken a non living thing and made it living?

yes--------

vr mary shelley

[Tom In VA]

Mike,

Thanks for the response. It's funny seeing words such as "believe" being used in conjunction with scientific discussion. I suppose to a pure scientist, we are nothing more than "multcellular balls, created by artificial means in a Petri dish, that have the potential (if stimulated by various chemicals) to become various tissues." As well.

Science doesn't. That's wholly an issue for ethicists. Any definition(s) science comes up with are arbitrary: brainwaves? if so, of what type? DNA? no way, since that threshold means that potentially any/all 70 trillion cells of your body are in the same league. developmental stage? if so, where is the "start line?"

Science doesn't currently have, nor will it ever have, a definitive demarcation point defining a human life. It sure as hell doesn't go for the "human life begins at conception" bit, since it is aware of the completely normal 50% miscarriage rate of human zygotes.

Much appreciated. And here's why I think my original premise was mis-stated. You've introduced a new dimension into the discussion though, ethicists. Another thread perhaps, but it seems ethics, can stand alone outside of any religious doctrine. What influences their conclusions ?

But not at a stage in which the alleged "person" is a ball of cells that is literally dwarfed by the eye of a needle.

.....
It doesn't, and it won't. And that's precisely the way it should be. You give science far too much credit, and potentially too much power if you allow scientists to draw that line.

I think here's where we tend to break ranks, and not because I'm some great religious being or anything, I'm not. It's just it seems the credit has already been given to science to justify the termination of something. Why is that something "not human" ? It's essence is human. It isn't the product of a union of horse sperm and human egg, is it ?

Our arguments, are constructed in a manner that is most convenient to our belief system. Sure. I'll buy that. My only point in any of this discussion is that there is an objective reality, these balls of cells are either human or they are not. One day, we might get to know the answer to that question.

Until then, all we have are arbitrary arguments one way or another. Proponents of stem cell research and ironically abortion, will continue to view a collection of tissue, such that they can carry on with their agenda. Religious opponents will continue to say "They're human beings" such that they can carry on with their agenda.

I just wanted to clarify that my point is probably more philosophical and perhaps "semantics" than anything else. Can we agree that the essence, the nature of this tissue, is undeniably human. For if it were not, then we wouldn't really be needing this debate.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Has a scientist ever once taken a non living thing and made it living?

Do unintended "experiments" resulting from lack of cleaning or leftovers during college count?

[quacker backer]

RACK

[BSmack]

Has a scientist ever once taken a non living thing and made it living?

Do unintended "experiments" resulting from lack of cleaning or leftovers during college count?

I plead the 5th.

[velocet]

You've introduced a new dimension into the discussion though, ethicists. Another thread perhaps, but it seems ethics, can stand alone outside of any religious doctrine. What influences their conclusions ?

Well, in this thread so far morality from the religious standpoint was emphasized, so MtLR didn't introduce anything novel strictly speaking. Of course the religous ethicist relies upon revealed knowledge for justification of any moral pronouncements. I'm sure you know there are secular systems out there and some on the fence as it were: still seeking metaphysical foundations but not beholden to any theology.

So as an exercise we could use the utilitarian formulation (a secular system) given by JS Mill, commonly understood by the phrase "the greatest good for the greatest number". Does stem cell research (and subsequent applications) provide a satisfactory fulfillment of this criteria?
We'll see. But what's problematic is that "ethicists" are dependent on knowledge from other disciplines to make such determinations as "when human life begins".

While philosophical ethics has certain advantages in some areas, the schools of thought are so massively fractured that it is no wonder people gravitate toward either religion or science as these modes at least give a better impression of conceptual terra firma.





velocet

[Tom In VA]

You've introduced a new dimension into the discussion though, ethicists. Another thread perhaps, but it seems ethics, can stand alone outside of any religious doctrine. What influences their conclusions ?

Well, in this thread so far morality from the religious standpoint was emphasized, so MtLR didn't introduce anything novel strictly speaking. Of course the religous ethicist relies upon revealed knowledge for justification of any moral pronouncements. I'm sure you know there are secular systems out there and some on the fence as it were: still seeking metaphysical foundations but not beholden to any theology.

So as an exercise we could use the utilitarian formulation (a secular system) given by JS Mill, commonly understood by the phrase "the greatest good for the greatest number". Does stem cell research (and subsequent applications) provide a satisfactory fulfillment of this criteria?
We'll see. But what's problematic is that "ethicists" are dependent on knowledge from other disciplines to make such determinations as "when human life begins".

While philosophical ethics has certain advantages in some areas, the schools of thought are so massively fractured that it is no wonder people gravitate toward either religion or science as these modes at least give a better impression of conceptual terra firma.





velocet

I just dig reading that. Nourishing post as always.

RACK velocet.

[velocet]

Yeah, well you and MtLR did all the heavy lifting to make this thread what it is. So I'll see your rack and raise BODE you two.


So there.



velocet

[Terry in Crapchester]

I'll tell you what. The day I ever compare my looks to those of another poster on this board, you have my permission to shoot me on the spot

You shouldn't be so hard on yourself. If you ever start comparing your looks to those of another poster when you have absolutely no idea what he looks like, you should probably give us permission to have you committed on the spot.

That's part of it.

Then there's the other part of it in the thread I linked. Reader's Digest version: if you are an adult male, and you find any adult male -- whether it is someone else or yourself -- physically attractive, you are gay. Period.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Looks like the poster child for bedwetting, PC liberal handwringers is outting himself as a homophobic bigot.

Good job, hypocrite. Stop the hate.

Where did I say anything about hating homosexuals? Just said that a grown man comparing his looks to another grown man on an internet board struck me as a bit gay.

Not that there's anything wrong with it . . .

[Terry in Crapchester]

You didn't have to say it. Your entire attitude seethes with hatred for homosexuals.

Whatever.

This is a smack board. While I think that, in general, the homosmack card is overplayed, there are situations that just beg for it. The situation I described was one.

Dumbfuck.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Homosmack? Is that what you're calling it? The only thing that came through was your unfocused rage at homosexuals.

Read more, post less.