Political Crossfire Forums

[Todd D.]

Quote: Regardless of which has greater potential (which is debatable), they are available and should be used. That said, it is beyond doubtful (unless one is paranoid and looking for a "cause") that 'baby farms' (as indicated previously in this thread) will ever exist.
If you consider an embryo to be a human life, and science begins storing and creating embryos for the explicit purpose of harvesting those embryotic stem cells, then in a certain sense of the word they are creating "baby farms". It's emotionalism, to be sure, but it's not paranoid nor is it "looking for a cause" (at least not unless you don't consider "saving human life" to be a cause worth fighting for).

Quote: I personally find it odd (maybe sad) that many people look for causes such as this to occupy their time and, in may cases, justify their faith. "Mountains out of mole hills" the saying goes.
But that is neither here nor there - only a personal observation.
Says the person that has almost 1500 posts in less than 6 months here?

[toddytodd]

Todd D. wrote: Quote: Regardless of which has greater potential (which is debatable), they are available and should be used. That said, it is beyond doubtful (unless one is paranoid and looking for a "cause") that 'baby farms' (as indicated previously in this thread) will ever exist.
If you consider an embryo to be a human life, and science begins storing and creating embryos for the explicit purpose of harvesting those embryotic stem cells, then in a certain sense of the word they are creating "baby farms". It's emotionalism, to be sure, but it's not paranoid nor is it "looking for a cause" (at least not unless you don't consider "saving human life" to be a cause worth fighting for).

Quote: I personally find it odd (maybe sad) that many people look for causes such as this to occupy their time and, in may cases, justify their faith. "Mountains out of mole hills" the saying goes.
But that is neither here nor there - only a personal observation.
Says the person that has almost 1500 posts in less than 6 months here?

Quote: If you consider an embryo to be a human life, and science begins storing and creating embryos for the explicit purpose of harvesting those embryotic stem cells, then in a certain sense of the word they are creating "baby farms". It's emotionalism, to be sure, but it's not paranoid nor is it "looking for a cause" (at least not unless you don't consider "saving human life" to be a cause worth fighting for). I am not sure if you missed the point or consciously over looked it. What I see is/are people making so much more out of this than current reality shows to be true. I see many religious people getting climbing up to their moral high ground and looking down on others from their lofty perch. I see a relatively small area of science being attacked from a relatively large group of society with limited (to no) understanding of what is actually happening.
Is it important not to take (farm if you will) lives? If you consider life special, than the answer is yes. However, I haven't seen, nor have been provided with any proof of baby farms. In addition, not using something that would have been disposed of anyway (IVFs that no longer necessary for example) is irresponsible of an intelligent species.
Quote: Says the person that has almost 1500 posts in less than 6 months here? Other than a immature personal jab at my expense, a (failed) attempt at humor and an indication to your personality, what purposes does this comment serve? Personal observation I suppose :roll:
If you don't like my personal comments or observations, you are in no way obligated to respond.

[Todd D.]

Quote: I am not sure if you missed the point or consciously over looked it. What I see is/are people making so much more out of this than is current reality shows to be true. I see many religious people getting climbing up to their moral high ground and looking down on others from their lofty perch.
Some people view the preservation of what they consider to be human life as a very important issue. If you don't, that's fine. It has nothing at all to do with "moral superiority" or "looking down from their high ground" (as if you could only view murder or rape as wrong if you yourself were perfect). You seem to think that any time a person who happens to have faith opposes something, they must be doing so out of a feeling of superiority.

Quote: I see a relatively small area of science being attacked from a relatively large group of society with limited (to no) understanding of what is actually happening.
Why do you believe that they have limited understanding? I personally oppose stem cell research and have done a fair amount of research in to the subject.

Quote: Is it important not to take (farm if you will) lives? If you consider life special, than the answer is yes. However, I haven't seen, nor have been provided with any proof of baby farms.
Demand begets supply, it's that simple. The current stock of unused embryos utilized by in vetro fertilization would be insufficient to meet the demand that embryotic stem cell research would require should widespread funding become commonplace. Where would the extra embryotic stem cells come from? That's where the objection lies. It's not that they currently do exist, it's the concern that by funding it, we would be allowing such a thing to exist in the future.

Quote: In addition, not using something that would have been disposed of anyway (IVFs that no longer necessary for example) is irresponsible of an intelligent species.
It's nice to pretend that it's that simple, but it's not. An HIV+ person is "going to be disposed of anyway", they are going to die, after all. Same goes for so-called "Vegetables". Does that mean it makes us "irresponsible" for not testing drugs on them whether they consent or not? Of course not. They are a human life worthy of respect and dignity, and in the absence of consent you must assume that you do NOT have it.

Quote: Other than a immature personal jab at my expense, a (failed) attempt at humor and an indication to your personality, what purposes does this comment serve?
You have an amazing ability to believe that I am personally attacking you when I am not. I simply was pointing out it's a bit ironic that someone with so many posts in such a short time would question someone else's choice of how to channel their energy. That's all.

[toddytodd]

Todd D. wrote: Quote: I am not sure if you missed the point or consciously over looked it. What I see is/are people making so much more out of this than is current reality shows to be true. I see many religious people getting climbing up to their moral high ground and looking down on others from their lofty perch.
Some people view the preservation of what they consider to be human life as a very important issue. If you don't, that's fine. It has nothing at all to do with "moral superiority" or "looking down from their high ground" (as if you could only view murder or rape as wrong if you yourself were perfect). You seem to think that any time a person who happens to have faith opposes something, they must be doing so out of a feeling of superiority.

Quote: I see a relatively small area of science being attacked from a relatively large group of society with limited (to no) understanding of what is actually happening.
Why do you believe that they have limited understanding? I personally oppose stem cell research and have done a fair amount of research in to the subject.

Quote: Is it important not to take (farm if you will) lives? If you consider life special, than the answer is yes. However, I haven't seen, nor have been provided with any proof of baby farms.
Demand begets supply, it's that simple. The current stock of unused embryos utilized by in vetro fertilization would be insufficient to meet the demand that embryotic stem cell research would require should widespread funding become commonplace. Where would the extra embryotic stem cells come from? That's where the objection lies. It's not that they currently do exist, it's the concern that by funding it, we would be allowing such a thing to exist in the future.

Quote: In addition, not using something that would have been disposed of anyway (IVFs that no longer necessary for example) is irresponsible of an intelligent species.
It's nice to pretend that it's that simple, but it's not. An HIV+ person is "going to be disposed of anyway", they are going to die, after all. Same goes for so-called "Vegetables". Does that mean it makes us "irresponsible" for not testing drugs on them whether they consent or not? Of course not. They are a human life worthy of respect and dignity, and in the absence of consent you must assume that you do NOT have it.

Quote: Other than a immature personal jab at my expense, a (failed) attempt at humor and an indication to your personality, what purposes does this comment serve?
You have an amazing ability to believe that I am personally attacking you when I am not. I simply was pointing out it's a bit ironic that someone with so many posts in such a short time would question someone else's choice of how to channel their energy. That's all.

Quote: Some people view the preservation of what they consider to be human life as a very important issue. If you don't, that's fine. It has nothing at all to do with "moral superiority" or "looking down from their high ground" (as if you could only view murder or rape as wrong if you yourself were perfect). You are right. Then why is it this happens to so many people?
Quote: You seem to think that any time a person who happens to have faith opposes something, they must be doing so out of a feeling of superiority. Not true much of the time. The problem is when people 'get full of themselves' (which happens a lot especially within religious circles).
Quote: Why do you believe that they have limited understanding? I personally oppose stem cell research and have done a fair amount of research in to the subject. Good for you. More people should study up on issues such as this. Many christians apply the 'band wagon' approach on issues without much (or any) research, much less thinking for themselves. The 'because it is wrong' answers that so many like to use, in my opinion, shows limited to no understanding of the topic at hand, what ever that may be.
Quote: Demand begets supply, it's that simple. The current stock of unused embryos utilized by in vetro fertilization would be insufficient to meet the demand that embryotic stem cell research would require should widespread funding become commonplace. Where would the extra embryotic stem cells come from? That's where the objection lies. It's not that they currently do exist, it's the concern that by funding it, we would be allowing such a thing to exist in the future. That is an understandable concern. No doubt there will be some 'people' that do just that. These type of things happen all the time; it isn't a perfect world. The issue of funding should be a gov't vs secular issue only.
Quote: It's nice to pretend that it's that simple, but it's not. It most certainly is - I thought you said you did research?
Quote: An HIV+ person is "going to be disposed of anyway"... Not always true. Many HIV+ people live long healthy lives currently. TO compare the two is a error on your part.
Quote: ...they are going to die, after all. Aren't we all....
Quote: Does that mean it makes us "irresponsible" for not testing drugs on them whether they consent or not? If a legalized human being gives consent to experiment on them or take their parts, no one should have any say in that decision. When it comes to IVFs, they are legalized people. Again, the two don't compare in more ways than one.
Quote: They are a human life worthy of respect and dignity, and in the absence of consent you must assume that you do NOT have it. Ah, now there in lies the problem. What constitutes that legally and scientifically (not spiritually)? Once this issue is determined, it may cause for a change of course in current medical research.
Quote: You have an amazing ability to believe that I am personally attacking you when I am not. I simply was pointing out it's a bit ironic that someone with so many posts in such a short time would question someone else's choice of how to channel their energy. That's all. Uh huh... :roll: It doesn't bother me in the least. A suggestion: if I were you, I would be concerned about how such an unnecessary statement reflects on you and your views. That's all. So let's move on from personal attacks here, please.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: If a legalized human being gives consent to experiment on them or take their parts

You realize the concept of "legalized human being" within a value relative context has some dire ramifications, don't you?

How would you feel if people decide that homosexuals were not legal human beings, and therefore it was ok to grind them up and make stuff out of them?

I know I would certainly oppose that for the exact same reason I oppose embryonic stem cell research.

Perhaps you don't realize how much some characteristics of "religious" moral absolutism benefit you personally.

[ieatfood]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: If a legalized human being gives consent to experiment on them or take their parts

You realize the concept of "legalized human being" within a value relative context has some dire ramifications, don't you?

How would you feel if people decide that homosexuals were not legal human beings, and therefore it was ok to grind them up and make stuff out of them?

I know I would certainly oppose that for the exact same reason I oppose embryonic stem cell research.

Perhaps you don't realize how much some characteristics of "religious" moral absolutism benefit you personally.

you can never prove that god opposes stem cell research
can you?

as for religious moral absolutism, that concept itself is immoral
religious moral absolutism implies that you are imposing your religion on others. that violates the concept of religious freedom.

[cap'n queasy]

Put it this way, would you oppose a type of research if the segment of society you belonged to was deemed the perfect source of research material and that this potential were being wasted unless they were utilized in such a manner?

It goes back to do onto others as you would have them do onto you.

[ieatfood]

cap'n queasy wrote: Put it this way, would you oppose a type of research if the segment of society you belonged to was deemed the perfect source of research material and that this potential were being wasted unless they were utilized in such a manner?

It goes back to do onto others as you would have them do onto you.

but we are not talking about a segment of society
we are talking about a bunch of cells that has the potential to become a segment of society

some people believe that this potential has moral significance because their religion says so
others do not
whether a potential for life has moral significance is not actually quite clear if you are not religious and cannot rely on the argument that "god said so"

thus, when you demand a ban on stem cell research you are imposing your religious beliefs on others

this is why moral absolutism makes sense only if you are religious. The only reason why you are pro-life or anti-stem cell research is because you think god opposes it. If you are not religious, then god is not a part of your life and thus there is no reason to hold these morals.

[John]

Quote: The only reason why you are pro-life or anti-stem cell research is because you think god opposes it.

So the only reason people do not do evil things is because they think that God opposes it?

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: this is why moral absolutism makes sense only if you are religious. The only reason why you are pro-life or anti-stem cell research is because you think god opposes it. If you are not religious, then god is not a part of your life and thus there is no reason to hold these morals.

By that logic society could rightfully decide that the blob of cells that is you could be better utilized as dog food. After all, values are relative and subject to arbitrary change according to whim, good and evil are subjective concepts subject only to contemporary opinion. In such a paradigm arguments of consciousness etc have absolutely no bearing whatsoever. There is no logical reason to hold to that as a moral standard if a perceived need comes up.

And you have inexplicably left yourself with absolutely no valid logical argument to oppose the decision of society to convert you into animal fodder.

How can you say it is evil to kill a conscious person, when the concept of evil is obsolete?

How can you say something is for the greater good, when the concept of good is obsolete?

:lol:

[Todd D.]

Quote: Not true much of the time. The problem is when people 'get full of themselves' (which happens a lot especially within religious circles).
So you really think arrogance is more prevelent in religious circles than in others? Please.

Quote: Good for you. More people should study up on issues such as this. Many christians apply the 'band wagon' approach on issues without much (or any) research, much less thinking for themselves. The 'because it is wrong' answers that so many like to use, in my opinion, shows limited to no understanding of the topic at hand, what ever that may be.
Proof of this? Where's the proof that more Christians take the bandwagon approach than those on the opposite side?

Quote: That is an understandable concern. No doubt there will be some 'people' that do just that. These type of things happen all the time; it isn't a perfect world. The issue of funding should be a gov't vs secular issue only.
We're not talking about funding. I only brought up funding because if/when the issue gets funded, the supply will expand by leaps and bounds, again dealing with the widespread harvesting of these embryos for the specific purpose of using them for stem cells. To dismiss this as "It's not a perfect world" is every bit as morally bankrupt as me punching you in the face and saying "Well, you can't complain, it's not a perfect world".

Quote: It most certainly is - I thought you said you did research?
Quote: Not always true. Many HIV+ people live long healthy lives currently. TO compare the two is a error on your part.
Are you having trouble reading? You said that for us to not use ANYTHING that is going to be disposed of anyway is irresponsible, yet conveniently ignored the point of the "vegetable" on life support that we keep alive. They are eventually going to be disposed of, why not experiment on them even if you don't have their consent?

(As an aside, no, by definition, an HIV+ person can not live a "healthy" life. They have HIV. They can live a "normal" life with little to no symptoms affecting their day to day activities. Don't confuse the two.)

Quote: If a legalized human being gives consent to experiment on them or take their parts, no one should have any say in that decision. When it comes to IVFs, they are legalized people. Again, the two don't compare in more ways than one.
We are not talking about consent. We are talking about LACK of consent. Should I have the right to harvest organs from someone in a coma and just assume that I have their consent? Of course not.

Quote: Ah, now there in lies the problem. What constitutes that legally and scientifically (not spiritually)? Once this issue is determined, it may cause for a change of course in current medical research.
Exactly. And until that date comes, I believe that you must err on the side of caution and say that an embryo is a life. Much better to not kill something that wasn't alive than to kill something that was.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: I believe that you must err on the side of caution and say that an embryo is a life.

It is a well known scientific fact that fertilization of an egg by a sperm cell is what begins a new life. This being a concrete fact I see no logical reason to suppose that this is not the point at which life begins.

The argument that an embryo is not conscious yet is specious, because what concrete value can assigned to consciousness in a value relative paradigm? None whatsoever.

If someone's body parts are needed for the greater good, why let a little thing like human consciousness get in the way?

It's a mighty slippery slope we are standing on.

[Shady]

John wrote: Quote: The only reason why you are pro-life or anti-stem cell research is because you think god opposes it.

So the only reason people do not do evil things is because they think that God opposes it?

Some do. It's the same principle behind fear of the punishments imposed by the justice system.

[toddytodd]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: If a legalized human being gives consent to experiment on them or take their parts

You realize the concept of "legalized human being" within a value relative context has some dire ramifications, don't you?

How would you feel if people decide that homosexuals were not legal human beings, and therefore it was ok to grind them up and make stuff out of them?

I know I would certainly oppose that for the exact same reason I oppose embryonic stem cell research.

Perhaps you don't realize how much some characteristics of "religious" moral absolutism benefit you personally.

What I realize or not isn't the issue here. This subject isn't about me, now is it? This is one of the main sticking points in the abortion issue - when is a life considered human and thus, when does it deserves rights. Which was the point you missed (consciously I would hope).
Your "comparison" is ridiculous to say the least (not to mention quite assumptious and judgmental) on too many levels to list.

Currently, it doesn't matter what your (or my) religious or spiritual belief is. What matters, currently, is the legal aspect of the situation.
Is a two day old conceived mass of cells a person have legal rights or not? That is the bearing of the question here. Could this change one way or the other? Of course. If it does, then that would be the new standard. But until then, we really should stick to the current legalities and rights given to life in our society.
Quote: Perhaps you don't realize how much some characteristics of "religious" moral absolutism benefit you personally. I think it more likely you are clueless about what I realize. I know much about religious moral absolutism, and how it effects me and others around me, regardless of orientation, individual religious beliefs, race, sex, age, economic standing, (etc). All we need to do is look around and see the 'fruits' of their labors.
It is all about perception and desire. But let us stay on topic.

[toddytodd]

Todd D. wrote: Quote: Not true much of the time. The problem is when people 'get full of themselves' (which happens a lot especially within religious circles).
So you really think arrogance is more prevelent in religious circles than in others? Please.

Quote: Good for you. More people should study up on issues such as this. Many christians apply the 'band wagon' approach on issues without much (or any) research, much less thinking for themselves. The 'because it is wrong' answers that so many like to use, in my opinion, shows limited to no understanding of the topic at hand, what ever that may be.
Proof of this? Where's the proof that more Christians take the bandwagon approach than those on the opposite side?

Quote: That is an understandable concern. No doubt there will be some 'people' that do just that. These type of things happen all the time; it isn't a perfect world. The issue of funding should be a gov't vs secular issue only.
We're not talking about funding. I only brought up funding because if/when the issue gets funded, the supply will expand by leaps and bounds, again dealing with the widespread harvesting of these embryos for the specific purpose of using them for stem cells. To dismiss this as "It's not a perfect world" is every bit as morally bankrupt as me punching you in the face and saying "Well, you can't complain, it's not a perfect world".

Quote: It most certainly is - I thought you said you did research?
Quote: Not always true. Many HIV+ people live long healthy lives currently. TO compare the two is a error on your part.
Are you having trouble reading? You said that for us to not use ANYTHING that is going to be disposed of anyway is irresponsible, yet conveniently ignored the point of the "vegetable" on life support that we keep alive. They are eventually going to be disposed of, why not experiment on them even if you don't have their consent?

(As an aside, no, by definition, an HIV+ person can not live a "healthy" life. They have HIV. They can live a "normal" life with little to no symptoms affecting their day to day activities. Don't confuse the two.)

Quote: If a legalized human being gives consent to experiment on them or take their parts, no one should have any say in that decision. When it comes to IVFs, they are legalized people. Again, the two don't compare in more ways than one.
We are not talking about consent. We are talking about LACK of consent. Should I have the right to harvest organs from someone in a coma and just assume that I have their consent? Of course not.

Quote: Ah, now there in lies the problem. What constitutes that legally and scientifically (not spiritually)? Once this issue is determined, it may cause for a change of course in current medical research.
Exactly. And until that date comes, I believe that you must err on the side of caution and say that an embryo is a life. Much better to not kill something that wasn't alive than to kill something that was.

Quote: So you really think arrogance is more prevelent in religious circles than in others? Please. I don't recall ever saying 'more prevalent'...
Arrogance should never happen within any religious circle that speaks of love and humility. Once is twice too often.

Quote: Proof of this? Where's the proof that more Christians take the bandwagon approach than those on the opposite side? My opinion is based upon my experiences. Any time (allow me to repeat: Any time...) I hear an answer of only 'just because' or 'God says so', to me, points to a person with little to no self worth or knowledge of the subject at hand. I would only need to show proof of this if I was concerned about convincing everyone of my opinion. Which I am not.

Quote: We're not talking about funding. Well see, I am. I can't (nor won't) try to convince someone to change their belief(s) to mine. That is not my place and quite frankly, arrogant on my part.

Quote: They are eventually going to be disposed of, why not experiment on them even if you don't have their consent? Why not experiment on people who have a terminal illness and going to die and if they give consent? The issue, as I relayed to Cap'n, is that human adults have legal rights - day old masses of cells don't.
People with HIV can live a healthy life. Many have HIV for years without any sysmtoms. Even still, others live their entire lives with HIV dormant within their body. To say that just because someone is HIV+ they are not healthy is beyond ignorant. Not everyone with HIV dies because of it (for anyone to think so seems rather judgmental, biased and short sighted).
Quote: We are not talking about consent. We are talking about LACK of consent. Should I have the right to harvest organs from someone in a coma and just assume that I have their consent? Of course not. Re-read previous response. Comparing a legal human being to a mass of cells isn't valid.
Quote: Exactly. And until that date comes, I believe that you must err on the side of caution and say that an embryo is a life. Much better to not kill something that wasn't alive than to kill something that was. You are free to have that opinion of course. What you seem as erring on the side of caution others sees as protecting a 'what if' (mass of cells) to a 'what is' (a living person).

[ieatfood]

John wrote: Quote: The only reason why you are pro-life or anti-stem cell research is because you think god opposes it.

So the only reason people do not do evil things is because they think that God opposes it?

look at it this way
lets take catholics for example

all catholic priests are pro-life
now this seems very strange--indeed if you look at the US population as a whole, there is a mix of pro-lifers and pro-choices and yet all catholic preists are pro-life. This cannot possibly be a coincidence. Clearly, something about being a catholic priest makes them pro-life. Hmmmmmm, what could that be?

I'll offer a suggestion--catholic priests are pro-life because that is what their religion teaches them. Sound reasonable? IF they weren't religious, many of them would not be pro-life.

And because all religious teaching derives from god, thus the reason why catholic priests are pro-life is because god told them so.

In the same way, many religious people are pro-life because thats what their religion teaches them.

[ieatfood]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: this is why moral absolutism makes sense only if you are religious. The only reason why you are pro-life or anti-stem cell research is because you think god opposes it. If you are not religious, then god is not a part of your life and thus there is no reason to hold these morals.

By that logic society could rightfully decide that the blob of cells that is you could be better utilized as dog food. After all, values are relative and subject to arbitrary change according to whim, good and evil are subjective concepts subject only to contemporary opinion. In such a paradigm arguments of consciousness etc have absolutely no bearing whatsoever. There is no logical reason to hold to that as a moral standard if a perceived need comes up.

And you have inexplicably left yourself with absolutely no valid logical argument to oppose the decision of society to convert you into animal fodder.

How can you say it is evil to kill a conscious person, when the concept of evil is obsolete?

How can you say something is for the greater good, when the concept of good is obsolete?

:lol:

well in a sense, you are right
society will do whatever it wants, and history has shown that it has
if i were to bring us back to the time of slavery, it was perfectly moral to keep slaves around
if you were to go back in time and try to convince a white slaveowner than slavery were immoral, he would laugh in your face. You see, morals are based on emotion, not logic. Sure, we try and established logical rules by which to govern our morals and many of our moral principles do seem to follow logical rules. But these are loose rules and if you put them to any careful scrutiny, they quickly fall apart.

For example, there is no logical moral reason why we kill pigs but not babies. We just do it because our emotions tell us that it is ok to kill pigs but not babies. But logically, it doesn't make any sense. (you may think that this example is absurd, but we can debate the logic behind this)

now i never said that the concept of evil or good are obsolete. Indeed, evil and good exist, but only to each individual. And it is up to society as a whole to decide how we reconcile differences in our perceptions of what is good or evil.

Thus, you are right in that I would have no logical argument to prevent others from grinding me up into animal fodder. But if I really lived in a society where every single person felt morally ok to do that, I don't think that would matter.

[ieatfood]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: I believe that you must err on the side of caution and say that an embryo is a life.

It is a well known scientific fact that fertilization of an egg by a sperm cell is what begins a new life. This being a concrete fact I see no logical reason to suppose that this is not the point at which life begins.

The argument that an embryo is not conscious yet is specious, because what concrete value can assigned to consciousness in a value relative paradigm? None whatsoever.

If someone's body parts are needed for the greater good, why let a little thing like human consciousness get in the way?

It's a mighty slippery slope we are standing on.

firstly, the slippery slope argument is the most overly abused argument there is--you can use the slippery slope argument to advocate everything from stem cells to kyoto. It is equally applicable and equally wrong in all cases.

As for stems cells, I must ask you--why is it immoral to kill a stem cell? Clearly, you don't think that consciousness matters. Thus, what is it that does matter? What about a stem cell makes it different than any other cell?