View Full Version : Cloning...your thoughts
Speaks for itself.
Ready...set...go!
I'm game. I'm all for it. Why the hell not?
Bring it T.
Holden Pike
11-28-01, 10:13 PM
No thanks.
Haven't you people ever seen The Boys From Brazil (http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0784012717.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg), fer chrissakes?!? Cloning baaaad.
Otay then: why do you support it? Do you support it because you don't think these things are human, or do you support it because you think we can properly regulate it (doubtful) to avoid creating (and subsequently destorying) human life?
Why do I support? It is the one critical step that will lead to any sort of success in saving millions upon billions of peoples. Why should I be opposed to it should be the question.
Do you support it because you don't think these things are human
"these things"?!? "THESE THINGS"!!?!? Any clone would be just as human as you or I. They would live, breath, talk, walk, think and anything else a human does. They aren't inanimate objects, they ARE humans Chris.
do you support it because you think we can properly regulate it (doubtful) to avoid creating (and subsequently destorying) human life?
Why would "we" be unsuccesful in regulating it? "subsequently destroying"? Guns exist, they save lives just as easily as they take them, yet you addvocate them.
"these things"?!? "THESE THINGS"!!?!? Any clone would be just as human as you or I. They would live, breath, talk, walk, think and anything else a human does. They aren't inanimate objects, they ARE humans Chris.
I don't think we're on the same page, brotha'. I'm referring to embryos...not full-grown clones. They are being killed in the cloning process. I think you're misinterpreting my question...I believe they're completely human, which is one of the reasons I'm scared to death. I'm a religious wacko, remember? Of course I think they're human. Judging by the way most people treat me, I think every batch of cells is human. :)
Why would "we" be unsuccesful in regulating it? "subsequently destroying"? Guns exist, they save lives just as easily as they take them, yet you addvocate them.
Why would we be unsuccessful? Well, for one, didn't they have to paddle their way out into the middle of the ocean to do this? This is a sensitive issue. It's quite a bit like the issue of abortion, really: when is it a full-grown human? If we're fertilizing an egg, that's conception, my friend. If we then use it for anything else other than to grow a human, it's wrong. If we use it for testing or to grow body parts, it's wrong.
Yes, guns exist. They can save lives, or they can take lives. Taking a life with a gun unlawfully will land you in a courtroom, a prison cell, or in the electric chair. I'm worried about us allowing humans to be fertilized, and then killed or used for other humans, in a completely legal manner. That's what I'm afraid of.
I don't think we're on the same page, brotha'. I'm referring to embryos...not full-grown clones. They are being killed in the cloning process. I think you're misinterpreting my question...I believe they're completely human, which is one of the reasons I'm scared to death. I'm a religious wacko, remember? Of course I think they're human. Judging by the way most people treat me, I think every batch of cells is human. :)
An embryo is not a person. As much as you want to believe it is, it's simply not. Notice how everyone says "It has the POTENTIAL to be one". Thats all it is, potential. Now you can get all moral, and say you don't want to take away that potential, but its a risk I'm willing to take. Hell, I have the potential to turn into a serial killer. Just because that potentials there, doesn't mean I am one.
Would you rather spare these embryos that most likely will be destroyed anyway, which most likely would result in a loss of a cure of thousands of diseases?
Why would we be unsuccessful? Well, for one, didn't they have to paddle their way out into the middle of the ocean to do this? This is a sensitive issue. It's quite a bit like the issue of abortion, really: when is it a full-grown human? If we're fertilizing an egg, that's conception, my friend. If we then use it for anything else other than to grow a human, it's wrong. If we use it for testing or to grow body parts, it's wrong.
The vaccine for polio was first tested on its creator. You gotta take risks to advance. If they have to keep paddling out into nowhere, I'm fine with it. Doesn't matter where its done. A fertilized egg is conception...but whats wrong with that?
And for the growing humans to harvest their body part issue, thats just idiotic. That simply won't happen. If cloning a human ever becomes successful, and it won't with such strong opposition, then I guarantee you a person will not be used for body parts. If cloning a human is done, then that means scientists have perfected the cloning of specified cells, which means you could just grow organs, which means no removal of an organ from anyone is necessary.
Yes, guns exist. They can save lives, or they can take lives. Taking a life with a gun unlawfully will land you in a courtroom, a prison cell, or in the electric chair. I'm worried about us allowing humans to be fertilized, and then killed or used for other humans, in a completely legal manner. That's what I'm afraid of.
As said above, it won't happen.
An embryo is not a person. As much as you want to believe it is, it's simply not. Notice how everyone says "It has the POTENTIAL to be one". Thats all it is, potential. Now you can get all moral, and say you don't want to take away that potential, but its a risk I'm willing to take. Hell, I have the potential to turn into a serial killer. Just because that potentials there, doesn't mean I am one.
Well, your reasoning there at the end is certainly correct...but it doesn't apply to me, at least, because I'm not mad because of the POTENTIAL to be a human. It IS a human. If you can find a better point at which it becomes a human, let me know. First kick? First breath? First visible finger? When the cord is cut? I say it's conception...it's better safe than sorry.
Would you rather spare these embryos that most likely will be destroyed anyway, which most likely would result in a loss of a cure of thousands of diseases?
I would rather they not be created at all if they don't intend to let them grow and live. If the embryo for some reason cannot in any way get a chance to live after all, then yeah, use it for as much good as possible...but don't create them in the first place for these things.
The vaccine for polio was first tested on its creator. You gotta take risks to advance. If they have to keep paddling out into nowhere, I'm fine with it. Doesn't matter where its done. A fertilized egg is conception...but whats wrong with that?
Conception is life. Human life. Why are you comfortable with that? If a fully grown human wants to test it on themselves, that's their choice...they have free will. The unborn and newly conceived children have no control over whether they're stuck inside a womb and given birth to, or if they're flushed down the toilet.
And for the growing humans to harvest their body part issue, thats just idiotic. That simply won't happen. If cloning a human ever becomes successful, and it won't with such strong opposition, then I guarantee you a person will not be used for body parts. If cloning a human is done, then that means scientists have perfected the cloning of specified cells, which means you could just grow organs, which means no removal of an organ from anyone is necessary.
No offense (I doubt you'll be offended anyway), but your personal assurance doesn't make me any more comfortable. :) Keep in mind, now, that I'm not talking about people growing a human and then chopping it up, or something like that. I'm talking about fertilizing the egg, then growing specific body parts. In short: fertilizing the egg, and using it for research or organs or anything other than the womb.
Well, your reasoning there at the end is certainly correct...but it doesn't apply to me, at least, because I'm not mad because of the POTENTIAL to be a human. It IS a human. If you can find a better point at which it becomes a human, let me know. First kick? First breath? First visible finger? When the cord is cut? I say it's conception...it's better safe than sorry.
It isn't a human, man. An embryo, composed of a whole 46 chromosomes, isn't a human. It has the potential to become one. Look up the word human in the dictionary, because an embryo does not fit the description. If you ask me when a human forms...well I say its as soon as its about 1/3 of a way through the fetal stages, when it takes on human characteristics. Thats when it becomes human, thats when it starts to live.
I would rather they not be created at all if they don't intend to let them grow and live. If the embryo for some reason cannot in any way get a chance to live after all, then yeah, use it for as much good as possible...but don't create them in the first place for these things.
The embryo's being used in stem-cell research and cloning research are embryo's that have been prechosen for this purpose simply because they were targeted for execution. Yes, they may fail in trying to research it, but it is trial and error. They are simply using peoples leftovers, sorry if that sounds gross.
Conception is life. Human life. Why are you comfortable with that? If a fully grown human wants to test it on themselves, that's their choice...they have free will. The unborn and newly conceived children have no control over whether they're stuck inside a womb and given birth to, or if they're flushed down the toilet.
"The unborn and newly conceived children" have nothing to do with cloning. They aren't being used for the process. Well if you want to consider an embryo an unborn, then that argument is valid. But that brings it back to just potential. Potential hasn't reached, or begun to reach, its end state.
Think of it another way if you like. An embryo has a potential to become a fetus, which has the potential to become a person. But it also has the potential to become the subject of research of the smartest minds in the world, which has the potential to save not only one life, but thousands other, and even create thousands others.
Analyzing stem-cells, and embryos will allow for scientists to distinguish and cure diseases that will plague people in the future. This will let them stop a disease in its track, in the womb. You want to protect that potential to become a human, well this is what their doing. They are protecting that potential for life, but not of a single individual, but of masses of people.
No offense (I doubt you'll be offended anyway), but your personal assurance doesn't make me any more comfortable. :) Keep in mind, now, that I'm not talking about people growing a human and then chopping it up, or something like that. I'm talking about fertilizing the egg, then growing specific body parts. In short: fertilizing the egg, and using it for research or organs or anything other than the womb.
I can tell you why this won't happen. Do you know why they haven't cloned a human yet? It's not because they are being held back by moral opposition, or ethics, or any mental constraint, they just simply can not do it. This latest attempt wasn't extremely succesful, but it was a huge, huge, HUGE step. All cells start off the same, but turn into specialized cells at some point, this point remains unknown. But scientists are much closer to pinpointing how to clone these specialized cells. This means no whole human needs to be birthed just take a kiddney so Johny can play in his little league game. That kiddney could be grown specifically for Johny, at no cost of human life. Nothing would die in the process, except for the kidney being removed. It's a win win situation.
It isn't a human, man. An embryo, composed of a whole 46 chromosomes, isn't a human. It has the potential to become one. Look up the word human in the dictionary, because an embryo does not fit the description. If you ask me when a human forms...well I say its as soon as its about 1/3 of a way through the fetal stages, when it takes on human characteristics. Thats when it becomes human, thats when it starts to live.
1/3rd? What, to the second? Does this go for all children? See, what I think we need to realize here is that we're talking about the law. We need to be precise. We can't say "Oh, I think it becomes a human with all the rights we enjoy 2 months into the pregnancy." We need to nail it down...because we can't take chances with something like this. Conception is basically as early as you can get...if we use that standard, we're safe. That is, unless you have a precise moment you can nail it down to?
The embryo's being used in stem-cell research and cloning research are embryo's that have been prechosen for this purpose simply because they were targeted for execution. Yes, they may fail in trying to research it, but it is trial and error. They are simply using peoples leftovers, sorry if that sounds gross.
Trial and error is all well and good if trying to spell "Mississippi," or playing basketball...but it's not acceptable when it involves humans.
"The unborn and newly conceived children" have nothing to do with cloning. They aren't being used for the process. Well if you want to consider an embryo an unborn, then that argument is valid. But that brings it back to just potential. Potential hasn't reached, or begun to reach, its end state.
Yes, I do consider the embryo unborn. No other time makes sense...every other moment VARIES too much, with things like the maturity and development of the fetus (child, as far as I'm concerned, but I'll use fetus to be more descriptive). As for potential: I still don't think that's an accurate word or argument...I don't subscribe to the "potential" argument, for many reasons, some of which you've mentioned.
Think of it another way if you like. An embryo has a potential to become a fetus, which has the potential to become a person. But it also has the potential to become the subject of research of the smartest minds in the world, which has the potential to save not only one life, but thousands other, and even create thousands others.
This is DANGEROUS territority: sacrifice one human life to help others? So where does it end? All innocent human life needs to be treated with the same kind of sanctity. Hitler thought he was making a sacrifice that would help the world in the end, after all.
So, you kill one to cure cancer? Well, more than one, actually. Probably thousands, or many, many more, in reality. How many would you have to kill before it's not worth it anymore? IMO, it's 1. You just don't do it that way.
Now, I know what you'll say: you don't think it's a human...but here's my point: curing people with it is irrelevant, because there's no logical stopping point, and it's really a sick way to do things. All that matters is whether it's human or not...if it's not really human, then it should be allowed. If it is, then it shouldn't, regardless of the disease argument...so the disease argument is moot, really.
Analyzing stem-cells, and embryos will allow for scientists to distinguish and cure diseases that will plague people in the future. This will let them stop a disease in its track, in the womb. You want to protect that potential to become a human, well this is what their doing. They are protecting that potential for life, but not of a single individual, but of masses of people.
See above. :)
I can tell you why this won't happen. Do you know why they haven't cloned a human yet? It's not because they are being held back by moral opposition, or ethics, or any mental constraint, they just simply can not do it. This latest attempt wasn't extremely succesful, but it was a huge, huge, HUGE step. All cells start off the same, but turn into specialized cells at some point, this point remains unknown. But scientists are much closer to pinpointing how to clone these specialized cells. This means no whole human needs to be birthed just take a kiddney so Johny can play in his little league game. That kiddney could be grown specifically for Johny, at no cost of human life. Nothing would die in the process, except for the kidney being removed. It's a win win situation.
Yes, they cannot do it. But they will be able to. So what you're essentially saying is that it won't happen NOW.
Take a kidney? From what? If it comes from a fertilized embryo, it's no different than stabbing someone in the stomach, pulling out their kidney, and giving THAT to Johnny. Just because you can't see the human look at you, and blink at you, it doesn't make it any less alive.
I'm about to go to sleep, but I can't let this one go overnight.
Now, I know what you'll say: you don't think it's a human...but here's my point: curing people with it is irrelevant, because there's no logical stopping point, and it's really a sick way to do things. All that matters is whether it's human or not...if it's not really human, then it should be allowed. If it is, then it shouldn't, regardless of the disease argument...so the disease argument is moot, really.
Straight up what the ****?!?! "irrelevant"? The disease argument is not "moot". i'll just put it out there, because you've been avoiding it: What do you think they are going to be doing with these clones? It's a simple enough question. What do you think is going to be the purpose of cloning? Because its pretty obvious to me you don't think it will solve any problem, but merely create more.
"irrelevant"?!? I don't get that at all. "All that matters is whether its human or not"?!?! Is that really all that matters to you? Whether it is a human or not? It doesn't bother you that you are opposing something that will save this world? And to respond to your pending question, no it doesn't bother me that I'm in favor of the taking of a "life", even though it is not", to better mankind. You may think this is out of line, but tought titties. Jesus gave his life, his human life, for the rest of the world. He sacrificed his life, to save thousands of people, his people. Do you oppose him, or his logic? No, you simply don't. What is the difference between the two, both are sacrificing one to save countless others. Is it that Jesus made a concious decision to do so, is that what seperates the two? To further drive it home that an embryo is not a human, which should allow you to make this much needed seperation, I put forth the age old saying; I think therefore I am.
I don't think you're following my line of reasoning here.
Straight up what the ****?!?! "irrelevant"? The disease argument is not "moot". i'll just put it out there, because you've been avoiding it: What do you think they are going to be doing with these clones? It's a simple enough question. What do you think is going to be the purpose of cloning? Because its pretty obvious to me you don't think it will solve any problem, but merely create more.
"irrelevant"?!? I don't get that at all. "All that matters is whether its human or not"?!?! Is that really all that matters to you? Whether it is a human or not? It doesn't bother you that you are opposing something that will save this world?
First off, you say it with certainty. Save this world? Uh, no.
Secondly, yes, I oppose research which involves killing humans (probably thousands) in hopes of curing thousands more of diseases. What, you don't? You think it's just fine to kill thousands of humans in hopes of curing others? Pick-and-choose? I don't think you want that at all.
THAT is why it only matters if it's human. If they are indeed humans, then there's no argument: it must not be allowed. No sane person with any sense of morality would defend killing thousands to try to find a cure for a disease. Therefore, if they are humans, it needs to be stopped, making the disease aspect irrelevant to our discussion.
And to respond to your pending question, no it doesn't bother me that I'm in favor of the taking of a "life", even though it is not", to better mankind. You may think this is out of line, but tought titties. Jesus gave his life, his human life, for the rest of the world. He sacrificed his life, to save thousands of people, his people. Do you oppose him, or his logic? No, you simply don't. What is the difference between the two, both are sacrificing one to save countless others. Is it that Jesus made a concious decision to do so, is that what seperates the two? To further drive it home that an embryo is not a human, which should allow you to make this much needed seperation, I put forth the age old saying; I think therefore I am.
VERY poor reasoning: Jesus made a choice. A human embryo cannot choose...neither can a fetus. So where's the problem with your reasoning? My little brother Jack can't make that decision...he can, however, walk...and make some noises, and smile, and laugh. He's a living, breathing human. As is a newborn infant. If your definition of a human is someone who can think and make decisions, then the value of an infant's life can't be worth much.
What about people who are in comas, or essentially vegetables? Are all their rights tossed out the window, too? How about people with a mental disability so severe that they can't do anything on their own? What kind of thinking would satisfy you?
Jesus, a grown man, made a choice. Children cannot...especially those that have been recently conceived. Pardon the bluntness, but using "thinking" as your measure of what first makes us a real human doesn't fit.
By the way, it is not simply "an emybro." It's a human embryo. It's not a chicken embryo we're talking about. If a human embryo were not a human...not human life...then I wouldn't care about this. But they are...and even if you don't agree with that, I defy you to come up with an accurate, reliable measure of when they become human. If you cannot, I see no logic in taking the chance that we could potentially be killing thousands (more, really, I'd guess) of humans.
The Silver Bullet
11-29-01, 02:07 AM
Jesus was a clone.
Just thought I'd throw THAT spanner into the works.
I'm with OG on everything else though.
Um, what? :) And yeah, way to pull a Steve. :D
spudracer
11-29-01, 11:26 AM
How was Jesus a clone???
Jesus just wasn't there all of a sudden. His mother, Mary, was inpregnated by a godly force, she carried the baby to term.
Ok, I'm not going to get into this argument, because I don't know enough about the subject matter to make any valid points. But I want to ask you TWT, why you feel it's acceptable for animals to be killed so that you can have steak for dinner. THEY don't have a choice, do they?
Originally posted by TWTCommish
And yeah, way to pull a Steve. :D
LOL :laugh: :laugh:
I think what silverbullet meant is that Jesus was God - a clone of him. I disagree, but that's what I got out of it.
Ok, I'm not going to get into this argument, because I don't know enough about the subject matter to make any valid points. But I want to ask you TWT, why you feel it's acceptable for animals to be killed so that you can have steak for dinner. THEY don't have a choice, do they?
I don't regard animal life to have the same value as human life. I think we should do what we can to treat them humanely when possible and reasonable (which is most of the time), but we should not give their lives the same reverence as ours. I'm sure you'll agree that a human's life is worth more than that of an animal's, so the only issue left there is one of degree.
That's a semi-secular answer. My real, straight-out answer, however, would be that I believe the animals are here for us to eat and use in the first place. :)
I think what silverbullet meant is that Jesus was God - a clone of him. I disagree, but that's what I got out of it.
Yeah, perhaps. He might just be reminding us that the word "clone" can have a broader meaning. Could be. :)
First off, you say it with certainty. Save this world? Uh, no.
Sorry if you don't realize it Chris, but the world is dying. It needs to be cured.
Secondly, yes, I oppose research which involves killing humans (probably thousands) in hopes of curing thousands more of diseases. What, you don't? You think it's just fine to kill thousands of humans in hopes of curing others? Pick-and-choose? I don't think you want that at all.
You aren't getting at all what I'm saying, embryos are not human. They just are not. Pulled straight from Dictionary.com
em·bry·o (mbr-)
n. pl. em·bry·os
An organism in its early stages of development, especially before it has reached a distinctively recognizable form.
An organism at any time before full development, birth, or hatching.
The fertilized egg of a vertebrate animal following cleavage.
In humans, the prefetal product of conception from implantation through the eighth week of development.
hu·man (hymn)
n.
A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.
A person: the extraordinary humans who explored Antarctica.
adj.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of humans: the course of human events; the human race.
Having or showing those positive aspects of nature and character regarded as distinguishing humans from other animals: an act of human kindness.
Subject to or indicative of the weaknesses, imperfections, and fragility associated with humans: a mistake that shows he's only human; human frailty.
Having the form of a human.
THAT is why it only matters if it's human.
They aren't human. Wanna see a picture of one?
http://www.stanfordivf.com/pictures_embryo.html
Doesn't look like a human to me. And again, I think therefore I am. Embryo's do not think, humans do, and only untill a certain stage in pregnancy does a fetus become independent of it's host. I believe its at 6 weeks, when it develops from being a lump of cells, into a human.
http://www.bartleby.com/107/15.html
If you ask me, thats when an embryo becomes a person. I do agree that abortion, or anything really, shouldn't really be performed after this period. Because after this stage, the organs of the fetus begin to work independtly of the mother, not only is it showing physical characteristics of a human, but it is showing mental characteristics as well. ONLY after the fifth week does this begin to develope.
VERY poor reasoning: Jesus made a choice. A human embryo cannot choose...neither can a fetus. So where's the problem with your reasoning? My little brother Jack can't make that decision...he can, however, walk...and make some noises, and smile, and laugh. He's a living, breathing human. As is a newborn infant. If your definition of a human is someone who can think and make decisions, then the value of an infant's life can't be worth much.
My point exactly, a human can make the choice, the embryo can not. Which bring backs to the point I originally made a few posts back, I think therefore I am.
What about people who are in comas, or essentially vegetables? Are all their rights tossed out the window, too? How about people with a mental disability so severe that they can't do anything on their own? What kind of thinking would satisfy you?
People in commas have obviously passed the fifth week mark, and thus this argument is actually irrelevant. Not only that, but people in commas do think, and do carry out brain activity.
Jesus, a grown man, made a choice. Children cannot...especially those that have been recently conceived. Pardon the bluntness, but using "thinking" as your measure of what first makes us a real human doesn't fit.
Yes, I agree completely about the child statement, which is why I never once said anything about doing anything to children of anysort.
Thinking does fit, and fits well. If you don't think so, please define what sperates a human from any other animal on this planet.
By the way, it is not simply "an emybro." It's a human embryo. It's not a chicken embryo we're talking about. If a human embryo were not a human...not human life...then I wouldn't care about this. But they are...and even if you don't agree with that, I defy you to come up with an accurate, reliable measure of when they become human. If you cannot, I see no logic in taking the chance that we could potentially be killing thousands (more, really, I'd guess) of humans.
No, it is simply an embryo. If one were so motivated, one could change a human embryo, and form a donkey out of it. Just because its a "human embryo", doesn't make it a human.
Sorry if you don't realize it Chris, but the world is dying. It needs to be cured.
The world is not dying. Some people in the world are dying. The solution is not to kill more of them to prevent it. It's like selling your soul to live forever. If they're humans, then we shouldn't do it. It's that simple.
You aren't getting at all what I'm saying, embryos are not human. They just are not. Pulled straight from Dictionary.com
Even using your own definitions, there is no conclusion! Look at the definition:
An organism in its early stages of development, especially before it has reached a distinctively recognizable form.
It doesn't say it's not a human. Not at all...I see no point made by your posting the definitions.
They aren't human. Wanna see a picture of one?
Doesn't look like a human to me. And again, I think therefore I am. Embryo's do not think, humans do, and only untill a certain stage in pregnancy does a fetus become independent of it's host. I believe its at 6 weeks, when it develops from being a lump of cells, into a human.
Your first words are very telling: doesn't LOOK like one? Who cares what it looks like? That's a shallow way to approach it.
If you ask me, thats when an embryo becomes a person. I do agree that abortion, or anything really, shouldn't really be performed after this period. Because after this stage, the organs of the fetus begin to work independtly of the mother, not only is it showing physical characteristics of a human, but it is showing mental characteristics as well. ONLY after the fifth week does this begin to develope.
So, because we can't measure these things yet, or might not be capable of of it, we're to assume it's definitely not a human?
My point exactly, a human can make the choice, the embryo can not. Which bring backs to the point I originally made a few posts back, I think therefore I am.
Ask an infant to make that choice. They can't. They're still human. So how can you use that as a measure?
"I think therefore I am" is a catchphrase...and one, I believe, intended to prove the existence of each of us...NOT originally used to imply that anything that did not think did not exist. You may be using it that way, but I don't believe that's how it originated, BTW.
People in commas have obviously passed the fifth week mark, and thus this argument is actually irrelevant. Not only that, but people in commas do think, and do carry out brain activity.
Well, then maybe you need to refine what you say. Just because it can't make a decision, it doesn't mean it's not human.
Yes, I agree completely about the child statement, which is why I never once said anything about doing anything to children of anysort.
Thinking does fit, and fits well. If you don't think so, please define what sperates a human from any other animal on this planet.
Gladly. Animals do not improve their way of life, for one. The horses today live under the same standard of living that horses did 500 years ago. Humans imagine...we create. We do things out of more than instinct...that much is obvious. I won't even go into the religious side of it, because, most likely, you won't give any weight to that.
Thinking doesn't fit. You need to refine it, for one. Are we talking about ANY brain activity? A person in a comma has brain activity, as you mentioned, but they can't answer any questions of yours. They can't make that decision.
No, it is simply an embryo. If one were so motivated, one could change a human embryo, and form a donkey out of it. Just because its a "human embryo", doesn't make it a human.
Um, whatcha talking about, man? :) A FERTILIZED human embryo is a human embryo. It can't be made into a donkey unless they essentially kill that human life.
sadesdrk
11-29-01, 07:33 PM
I want Chris to pay close attention here.
There's this new medical breakthrough, where scientists can take aborted embryos, and use the cells to heal terminally ill patients. Say a man has a damaged artery in his heart. The scientists take the cells from the embryo and put them in a petri dish, where they then " wash" the cells in the proper hormone solution that will change the cells into the kind that would repair the man's damaged artery.
Chris, is this "bad" science? Or "good" science? Just out of curiosity.
I am not against this kind of science, so long as human life is not killed. I agree with what Bush has allowed: if the damage has already been done, do whatever you want with what's left to benefit others. If a child has already been aborted, and there's nothing we can do to save it, then yes, do what you can with it to save someone else. I'm not so crazy as to say that the whole thing is messed up. Science is wonderful. Unlike some of my fellow Believers, I think we're SUPPOSED to discover the secrets of the world, and learn to manipulate things...just not at the cost of human life...and I don't think anyone can say with any certainty that an egg fertilized with sperm is not sacred human life. As such, we need to play it safe.
sadesdrk
11-29-01, 07:44 PM
Well it sounds like you and I are on the same side of the fence.Sort-of. I just won't go as far as claiming to be Pro-Life, because the Pro-Lifers have given that stand a bad name.
I am Pro-Life for me. That's the only decision I have the authority to make. I am not going to make that decision for anyone else. Hence, I have to fall just inside the ranks of Pro-Choice. I'd rather be on THAT side, and still stand by MY choice, than stand on the OTHER side, and make choices for everyone. Make sense?:)
Sir Toose
11-29-01, 07:59 PM
I'll weigh in lightly...
A human embryo can only be created by two human beings, therefore it is human. Should these embryos be used for research.. probably but I haven't reached a comfort level with it yet.
Cloning: This is a bad idea. Way too much room for abuse and we as humans are self destructive in nature. I can foresee black market organs etc. Mary Shelley summed it up in her little book "Frankenstein". Some things are not ours to mess with.
sadesdrk
11-29-01, 08:06 PM
it's going to happen whether people protest it or not. What scientific breakthrough can you think of, has been shoved to the back burner because a few groups of people thought it wasn't "right"? There are women having their eggs frozen, so that if they die before bearing children, grandma and grandpa can unfreeze her eggs and still have the benefits of grandchildren. Is there anything that says this can't happen? Is it natural for a dead woman to bear children? Nope. Can we do anything about it? I don't think we can.
The world is not dying. Some people in the world are dying. The solution is not to kill more of them to prevent it. It's like selling your soul to live forever. If they're humans, then we shouldn't do it. It's that simple.
Go somewhere other than PA. You obviously have some blindside to whats going on in the world. It is plain and simply being destroyed because of carlessness for human life. Rainforrests, gone. Oil, vanishing. Entire species, dead. I never said cloning will fix all this, but its a damn huge step.
It doesn't say it's not a human. Not at all...I see no point made by your posting the definitions.
You are literate aren't you? Those deffinitions further prove the seperatin between an embryo and a human. You even requoted it yourself:
"An organism in its early stages of development, especially before it has reached a distinctively recognizable form"
especially before That means it hasn't become, which means it is not yet, which means it isn't.
Your first words are very telling: doesn't LOOK like one? Who cares what it looks like? That's a shallow way to approach it.
Then I guess I'm just a shallow person. If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck, and smells like a duck, then its probably a duck. Well, none of the above can relate and embryo to a human, which means it is something other than human.
Your probably thinking these sayings I keep relating are just dumb and irrelevant, but they easily apply.
So, because we can't measure these things yet, or might not be capable of of it, we're to assume it's definitely not a human?
Um, we can measure them..you saw the chart right? They didn't pull that out of their ***, it is known information....
Ask an infant to make that choice. They can't. They're still human. So how can you use that as a measure?
Go ahead, ask em, I could care less since I never said anything about an infant and cloning.
"I think therefore I am" is a catchphrase...and one, I believe, intended to prove the existence of each of us...NOT originally used to imply that anything that did not think did not exist. You may be using it that way, but I don't believe that's how it originated, BTW.
Did I ever say anything that does not think does not exist? Don't think I did. I used it to prove the existence of a human being; A living, breathing, thinking person. The quote itself, call it a catchphrase if you want doesn't make it any less true, is used to prove the existence of a human mind, which is what makes a human, human. Anything lacking that component can not be human.
Well, then maybe you need to refine what you say. Just because it can't make a decision, it doesn't mean it's not human.
Never said that just because something can't make a decision, that it isn't human. Where are you coming up with this stuff?
Gladly. Animals do not improve their way of life, for one. The horses today live under the same standard of living that horses did 500 years ago. Humans imagine...we create. We do things out of more than instinct...that much is obvious. I won't even go into the religious side of it, because, most likely, you won't give any weight to that.
There was a test done with a group of monkeys living on a riverbank in Africa. The monkeys were tossed a handful of rice, everyday at the sametime for 3 weeks. Every monkey would end up eating rocks, pebbles, dirt and a number of other things and would end up throwing up the rice. Untill on the 5th day when one monkey began to scoop up handfuls of the sand containing the rice, and throwing it in the water. The rice would float, and she would pick it out and eat it, no throwing up. Soon every monkey on the beach was doing this. Point is, they do improve their way of life, many even develope culture. But **** em, I'm hungry!
Horses have been living the same way, yes, but also do not have the mental capacity to improve, and to boot have been opressed by man since their domestication.
Thinking doesn't fit. You need to refine it, for one. Are we talking about ANY brain activity? A person in a comma has brain activity, as you mentioned, but they can't answer any questions of yours. They can't make that decision.
They can't answer a question because they are in a state of temporal paraylsis. Not physically, but their mind won't allow them to react. Doesn't mean they aren't thinking. And for determing the difference between an embryo and a person, ANY brain activity counts. Embryo's don't have brains, Chris.:)
Um, whatcha talking about, man? :) A FERTILIZED human embryo is a human embryo. It can't be made into a donkey unless they essentially kill that human life.
Read up on the matter, take a biology class or something because it is possible to manipulate an embryo into forming something else.
A human embryo can only be created by two human beings, therefore it is human.
A computer can only be created by a human, therefore it is human?
Sades, I respect you more than ever. :) I completely agree...I hate having to call myself Pro-Life sometimes. I'm proud of it in a way, but upset in another. Far too many anti-progress/anti-science wackos on that end of the spectrum.
As for Toose: I agree that there's too much room for abuse. It is GOING to be abused...no doubt about it. If there's the potential for abuse, you'll always have it...so that needs to be taken into account. Many good things are abused, so I'm not saying that anything that will/can be abused should be stopped...but it needs to be a factor.
I don't think we can stop it...but I do hope we can slow it down.
sadesdrk
11-29-01, 08:33 PM
Originally posted by TWTCommish
Sades, I respect you more than ever. :)
I don't think we can stop it...but I do hope we can slow it down. Thanks T. That means a lot to me. I hope we could slow it down too. The most we could hope for.:)
Go somewhere other than PA. You obviously have some blindside to whats going on in the world. It is plain and simply being destroyed because of carlessness for human life. Rainforrests, gone. Oil, vanishing. Entire species, dead. I never said cloning will fix all this, but its a damn huge step.
Will it? Perhaps. I won't even bother to respond to your first two sentences...said out of frustration and/or anger, I'll assume. We have a lot to fix, but "the world is dying" is melodramatic, and, IMO, far from accurate. I don't think we could destory this world, even if we wanted to.
You are literate aren't you? Those deffinitions further prove the seperatin between an embryo and a human. You even requoted it yourself:
"An organism in its early stages of development, especially before it has reached a distinctively recognizable form"
especially before That means it hasn't become, which means it is not yet, which means it isn't.
Read the end of it: especially before WHAT? Especially before it has reached a recognizable form. I'm arguing that it doesn't have to be in a recognizable form to be human.
Then I guess I'm just a shallow person. If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck, and smells like a duck, then its probably a duck. Well, none of the above can relate and embryo to a human, which means it is something other than human.
Your probably thinking these sayings I keep relating are just dumb and irrelevant, but they easily apply.
I don't really know or care if they're dumb...just whether or not they make sense. Looking like a human is only one aspect of it. A 10-week fetus doesn't look much like, smell much like, or act much like a human, but it is a human nonetheless.
Um, we can measure them..you saw the chart right? They didn't pull that out of their ***, it is known information....
Oh, I saw the chart. Did you see the second link there? Points to a heart forming at 15 days. Upon even closer inspection of the links there, I see nothing that acts as a measure. It simply shows you what happens, and when. What you seem to be missing here is that we disagree on the very fundamentals: you're telling me such and such shows up at this number of days/weeks, and I'm telling you I think it's a human before such-and-such. See what I mean?
Go ahead, ask em, I could care less since I never said anything about an infant and cloning.
Did I ever say anything that does not think does not exist? Don't think I did. I used it to prove the existence of a human being; A living, breathing, thinking person. The quote itself, call it a catchphrase if you want doesn't make it any less true, is used to prove the existence of a human mind, which is what makes a human, human. Anything lacking that component can not be human.
Less true? Well, what it means is that it's essentially saying "I think this..." It's not evidence. It's a famous saying. That's the point I was trying to make. I think that a fertilized embryo is human life. It is not a fully functional human...but then again, some born humans are not. Neither are many fetuses which you say you consider to be human.
The summary: you're skating on thin ice, because this could be a very dangerous thing, and people like you are supporting it when it's plainly obvious that there is no monopoly on evidence from either side of the debate.
Never said that just because something can't make a decision, that it isn't human. Where are you coming up with this stuff?
Go read your last posts. If not said, then it was implied. Perhaps by accident.
There was a test done with a group of monkeys living on a riverbank in Africa. The monkeys were tossed a handful of rice, everyday at the sametime for 3 weeks. Every monkey would end up eating rocks, pebbles, dirt and a number of other things and would end up throwing up the rice. Untill on the 5th day when one monkey began to scoop up handfuls of the sand containing the rice, and throwing it in the water. The rice would float, and she would pick it out and eat it, no throwing up. Soon every monkey on the beach was doing this. Point is, they do improve their way of life, many even develope culture. But **** em, I'm hungry!
Horses have been living the same way, yes, but also do not have the mental capacity to improve, and to boot have been opressed by man since their domestication.
Hey, animals can learn how to use this tool, or that, but like you said, they cannot improve. Animals are about instincts above all else, with some emotions thrown into the mix. By improve their way of life, I'm not referring to anything to make them immedietly comfortable. I'm talking about long-term goals. I'm talking about considering the future...not just immediate gratification.
And, as nice as horses may be, our domestication of them is not what's holding them back: they're brains are what's holding them back.
They can't answer a question because they are in a state of temporal paraylsis. Not physically, but their mind won't allow them to react. Doesn't mean they aren't thinking. And for determing the difference between an embryo and a person, ANY brain activity counts. Embryo's don't have brains, Chris. :)
Nope, fertilized human embryos do not have brains. That much is obvious. I think they're lives need to be protected nonetheless.
Read up on the matter, take a biology class or something because it is possible to manipulate an embryo into forming something else.
Not without killing the life you've already created. I've got a scientist for a stepmother who's B.S. included an emphasis on embryology (wow, a Christian who likes science...a real shocker, eh?), if I'm not mistaken. I'm not some Priest talking out of his a**, acting as if The Bible can weigh in on the technical aspects of it.
A computer can only be created by a human, therefore it is human?
Not true. A computer can be created by another computer, which can be created by a human. I imagine monkeys can be taught to create computers...though through us. There's a level of abstraction there. I'm not taking sides with that comment...just pointing that out.
I'd say the summary of my argument, in case anyone is interested, is that life needs to be sanctified. Sades is right: people now have the idea that it's perfectly fine to freeze a FERTILIZED, GROWING human embryo and stick it in your freezer. It's a cheapening of any kind of life which we cannot see.
It's a narrow view, IMO. It doesn't have to move, or talk, or watch movies, to be a human, or at least human life (which should also be treated for what it is...PRICELESS).
I'd still like to ask you, though, Peter, at what moment it becomes a human. It seems like, right now, you're saying you don't know, but you have a general idea, and you don't think it can possibly be human before X number of days. That right?
The Silver Bullet
11-29-01, 08:57 PM
Yeah, I don't believe Jesus was a clone.
I just thought I'd say that to see the reactions we'd be getting.
And yes, I meant a clone of God.
:D
I'll stop skimming and read the whole convo later and give my opinions. I'm for it still.
OG, you will rue the day you lead me here.
TWT, I swear zu gott man, its not often I meet someone with so much confidence that they feel comfortable insisting on things which every scrap of evidence says is wrong. Rigid minds make for good soldiers but stay out of anything that involves presenting evidense other than what you personally feel.
Bottom line, a human is an organism. Yes?
Organisms are made up of organ systems.
Organ Systems are made up of organs.
Organs are made up of tissue
Tissue is made up of cells
Cells are made up of organelles
Organelles are made up of proteins and other such stuff.
How far up on this list can you get with an embryo consisting of less cells than 4 digits of cells? Maybe you can get to tissue, but thats the limit.
A human embryo is no different from a chicken embryo or a horse embryo or a fish embryo at such early stages. And these are the early stages the experiments are being held on. Do you know why you have no problem eating animals? I bet its not truely because you beleive they were put here to be brutalized, most people tend to rationalize this later on in their life, its because you don't beleive them sentient or intelligent. To be perfectly honest, I don't even value the life of humans...but thats another story.
You could get all moral and religious and say that even embryo's have a soul and what not...but I don't beleive in the soul, or at least not as you would....but this again is another story.
Takes as what it is, the embyo's that have been used in research thus far, at least according to my knowledge, were litterally just lumps of cells and nothing more. Without further inspection of the number of chromosomes, for all we know they could have been embryo's for a rat that would live under my front porch.
Now I would conduct these experiments on embryo's up until the point where their brain begins to function. But only because I'm afraid of the public backlash. I'd be content to use embryo's for quite some time, until their brains are fully developed, but that takes years and they would no longer be useful for stem cell research seeing as how they don't HAVE any.
Which does make me think....once an embryo HAS its organs, and could be classified as an organism, which I think is around the beginning of the 2nd trimester as OG said, it would no longer be USEFUL for stem cell research.
And really, that is the only use for a soon to be terminated fetus, to have the early stem cells manipulated during research, afterwords its not an issue anymore. Since they are no longer useful, they would either be put down, or allowed to fully mature...though most likely put down.
So in short, the embryo's wouldn't be kept alive long enough to be considered human because they would not be useful anylonger. Yeah...I probably went on too long....
Without further inspection? That's irrelevant. Just because you can't tell it's a human with your naked eye, doesn't mean it's not a human. That doesn't matter in the least.
I'll say this right away, though: you say you don't necessarily even value human life. If that's true, then there's nothing I can say to you. This issue is clearcut for anyone who doesn't consider human life to be precious. If you don't value human life, then there's really nothing I can say to you. I think that problem is fundamental enough that everything above it is fruitless.
Don't tell me why I eat animals, thank you very much. I eat them because I believe that's what they are here for. One of the reasons I believe that is because it "fits" for me...as I'll bet it does for most people.
The human mind is the most paradoxical thing I've ever tried to figure out.
People, more often than not, start with an action, an impulse, and then rationalize it later, they make it seem right, they make it fit. But the most amazing part, unless they really think about it, and try to remember, they just assume the rational came first. Few people realise this sadly, as it requires a great deal of introspection and the ability to admit you are not as far above an animal as you once thought you were. I'd say its a sad thing...but the rule of common usage rather negates this.
But that was interesting how you dodged everything I said. I was attempting to explain things as plainly as possible, and instead of addressing the facts, you mearly said I was hopeless. Bravo!
But serious, how do you confront that heirarchy or life I listed for you? That is fact. An Embryo is no different in terms of complexity than a layer of intestinal lining. You act as though me feeling of the matter somehow make these facts less valid, even though I kept them quite seperate.
So I suppose I shall ask you again, how do you magically invalidate the facts I listed?
I dodged nothing...though I readily admit that I declare you hopeless. It is, quite frankly, of no use, if you morals don't even include any kind of sanctity for human life (disturbing, to say the least).
My argument in response would consist of the following:
1) Yes, I believe in a soul. You don't. That's a shame...but I do. I don't expect you to believe me, naturally.
2) A fertilized embryo is growing. It's working it's way towards becoming a full grown human from that instant forward, unless we disturb it. Just because it's made of some of the same materials, it does not matter. It's not identical...it's different. If simply being made of the same material made something identical, you and I would have no disagreements.
It goes back to the cheapening of human life: we create a human life, and we hold it in limbo. Hey, it can't think, and it can't talk...it can't say "Hey, get off me," so we find it easier to go ahead with it. IMO, it's the same mental process that has a murderer telling his or her victim to turn around, so they don't have to see their face when they blow their brains out.
My turn for a question: when do you think that fertilized human egg becomes a human that ought to enjoy the same rights and privelages that we do? Have it nailed down, do you?
Will it? Perhaps. I won't even bother to respond to your first two sentences...said out of frustration and/or anger, I'll assume. We have a lot to fix, but "the world is dying" is melodramatic, and, IMO, far from accurate. I don't think we could destory this world, even if we wanted to.
Assuming only makes an *** out of you an me. I said nothing out of anger, or fruststration. I really think you need to see the world, you need to read about the world, you need to experience it. Your last line is one of pure ignorance. The world is being destroyed, apparently unwantingly, but since people know what they are doing to the environment and yet continue to do it then it could be wantingly.
Read the end of it: especially before WHAT? Especially before it has reached a recognizable form. I'm arguing that it doesn't have to be in a recognizable form to be human.
What makes it human then?
I don't really know or care if they're dumb...just whether or not they make sense. Looking like a human is only one aspect of it. A 10-week fetus doesn't look much like, smell much like, or act much like a human, but it is a human nonetheless.
A 10 week fetus is human, because it isn't a fetus anymore, but is now an unborne. Theres no argument from me here.
Oh, I saw the chart. Did you see the second link there? Points to a heart forming at 15 days. Upon even closer inspection of the links there, I see nothing that acts as a measure. It simply shows you what happens, and when. What you seem to be missing here is that we disagree on the very fundamentals: you're telling me such and such shows up at this number of days/weeks, and I'm telling you I think it's a human before such-and-such. See what I mean?
Oh I know the heart forms at 15 days, I've taken bio for three years. I get what you mean, I'm just trying to drive it on home that you need to understand that only after 5 weeks does it become a human.
Less true? Well, what it means is that it's essentially saying "I think this..." It's not evidence. It's a famous saying. That's the point I was trying to make. I think that a fertilized embryo is human life. It is not a fully functional human...but then again, some born humans are not. Neither are many fetuses which you say you consider to be human.
That isn't what it is essentially saying, and it is evidence. It was a phrase created by a psychologist, who used it to describe what differentiates humans and other animals. It is a human characteristic, and thus anything that lacks it isn't a human.
The summary: you're skating on thin ice, because this could be a very dangerous thing, and people like you are supporting it when it's plainly obvious that there is no monopoly on evidence from either side of the debate.
Yes there is, there is a monopoly on my side, and a considerable one. I've posted tons of facts, you've posted none. What I see happening is you ignore any evidence, discredit it, and go back to your opposition is that it kills a "human". Is that the only reason you are not infavor of cloning? Because it kills a human?
Hey, animals can learn how to use this tool, or that, but like you said, they cannot improve. Animals are about instincts above all else, with some emotions thrown into the mix. By improve their way of life, I'm not referring to anything to make them immedietly comfortable. I'm talking about long-term goals. I'm talking about considering the future...not just immediate gratification.
Didn't ever say they cannot improve. You always complain of people misconstruing your words, and not reading your posts, your apparently doing the same to mine. If you want to talk about the future, and also say that they can not improve, then go do this for me. Turn off your monitor, let it fade to completely black, and look at your reflection in it. Everything your seeing is a result of an animals ability to improve.
And, as nice as horses may be, our domestication of them is not what's holding them back: they're brains are what's holding them back.
I believe I said that, glad to know where on the same page here.
Not without killing the life you've already created. I've got a scientist for a stepmother who's B.S. included an emphasis on embryology (wow, a Christian who likes science...a real shocker, eh?), if I'm not mistaken. I'm not some Priest talking out of his a**, acting as if The Bible can weigh in on the technical aspects of it.
No, your not, but your also not displaying any evidence to support your ideas.
Ok, so a monkey makes a computer, does that mean the computer made is a monkey?
[quote]
I'd say the summary of my argument, in case anyone is interested, is that life needs to be sanctified. Sades is right: people now have the idea that it's perfectly fine to freeze a FERTILIZED, GROWING human embryo and stick it in your freezer. It's a cheapening of any kind of life which we cannot see.
I'm failing to see how a direct preservation of life is killing it.
It's a narrow view, IMO. It doesn't have to move, or talk, or watch movies, to be a human, or at least human life (which should also be treated for what it is...PRICELESS).
I'd still like to ask you, though, Peter, at what moment it becomes a human. It seems like, right now, you're saying you don't know, but you have a general idea, and you don't think it can possibly be human before X number of days. That right?
Doesn't look like a human to me. And again, I think therefore I am. Embryo's do not think, humans do, and only untill a certain stage in pregnancy does a fetus become independent of it's host. I believe its at 6 weeks, when it develops from being a lump of cells, into a human
I already answered that question.
Ah, namcrack is here, time for some very stimulating conversations.:) Love this mans logic. Namcrack is a genious.
I never said I don't beleive in the soul...I just don't beleive in it the same way as you do. I don't beleive people are born with a soul given to them by some divine force....as I don't beleive in a divine force. I beleive that people over time develope a soul, an energy that slowly fades away and loses sentience over a period of time. My basis behind this is a rather interesting peice I read on the astral plane and how your mind makes an impression upon it.... It might sound strange...but to me it sounded more rational than what you hear in church. It even described how you can read the astral plane through meditation which I attempt to do occasionally. You can tell this just drips with an Indian perspective. Naturally I'll reserve judgement until I see experience it myself, but since at this juncture I'm simply not strong willed enough to accept the fact that there will be nothing left to me after I die, I'll go with that.
But WOW have I gotten off topic...
So basically you reply by saying none of those facts are true by your solitary definition of Human? Wow, thats just fantastic. Like I said, it must be great to be so confident that you are right without having to rely on those petty things like proof. I wish I could just know things because they feel right. Unfortunately, what feels right to one person often doesn't to another, so its better to go on something more....concrete.
Sir Toose
11-29-01, 09:55 PM
Originally posted by OG:A computer can only be created by a human, therefore it is human?
You're mixing apples and oranges here and you know it. I'll revise to say "physiologically created" binding to the natural process of reproduction. I didn't know I had to qualify that for you... :rolleyes:
Assuming only makes an *** out of you an me. I said nothing out of anger, or fruststration. I really think you need to see the world, you need to read about the world, you need to experience it. Your last line is one of pure ignorance. The world is being destroyed, apparently unwantingly, but since people know what they are doing to the environment and yet continue to do it then it could be wantingly.
FYI: one of the co-founders of GreenPeace says that there's tons of rotten science out there. He discussed incredibly flawed methods of measuring global warming, and he stated that we have more rainforests now than we did 16,000 years ago. But no, go ahead: choose to believe the other reports, that tell you the sky is falling.
Pure ignorance? What I want to know is how you can reconcile this chicken-little-esque view of our planet, and still believe in evolution. Oh yeah, 65 billion years...and it's all about to fall apart. Forgive me if I'm skeptical.
What makes it human then?
The fact that it is a human egg fertilized with sperm, and at that very moment, working to become a full-grown human.
Oh I know the heart forms at 15 days, I've taken bio for three years. I get what you mean, I'm just trying to drive it on home that you need to understand that only after 5 weeks does it become a human.
And why is it 5 weeks, pray tell? It's heart can have begun to form, and as far as you're concerned, it might as well be an old fingernail clipping?
That isn't what it is essentially saying, and it is evidence. It was a phrase created by a psychologist, who used it to describe what differentiates humans and other animals. It is a human characteristic, and thus anything that lacks it isn't a human.
Walking is a human characteristic. Some people can't walk. I'd recommend, once again, that you refine some of what you're saying. I'm not going to put words in your mouth, but it seems as if you're declaring thought as an ESSENTIAL characteristic...IE: if you ain't got it, you're not one of us.
Yes there is, there is a monopoly on my side, and a considerable one. I've posted tons of facts, you've posted none. What I see happening is you ignore any evidence, discredit it, and go back to your opposition is that it kills a "human". Is that the only reason you are not infavor of cloning? Because it kills a human?
The facts you have posted may indeed be true...they just don't conflict with what I'm saying. That's what you fail to understand. This is not a "let's see who can find the most reports on the subject" contest. The only facts that you would do well to post are ones that somehow backup what you're saying: that a fertilized growing human embryo is not an actual human.
Didn't ever say they cannot improve. You always complain of people misconstruing your words, and not reading your posts, your apparently doing the same to mine. If you want to talk about the future, and also say that they can not improve, then go do this for me. Turn off your monitor, let it fade to completely black, and look at your reflection in it. Everything your seeing is a result of an animals ability to improve.
I believe my response to that would be "no." And no, I never said you said that. Nice little web of words we have here. Anyway, the rest of the paragraph can be summed up in "I believe in evolution."
No, your not, but your also not displaying any evidence to support your ideas.
And you are? Your evidence consists of this: you don't think it's a human because it doesn't have a brain, basically. That's an opinion, my friend.
Ok, so a monkey makes a computer, does that mean the computer made is a monkey?
Uh, you might wanna rephrase that. I think you forgot a word or two. If I understand your meaning anyway, I'd say that it depends on how you want to use the word "made." Technically, it may have been a monkey that put it together...but in a broader sense, the monkey was just creating something from a blueprint a human put together.
I'm failing to see how a direct preservation of life is killing it.
I didn't say it was killing it. I would hardly call it a preservation of life, however. That implies some kind of saving or mercy, I'd say.
Doesn't look like a human to me. And again, I think therefore I am. Embryo's do not think, humans do, and only untill a certain stage in pregnancy does a fetus become independent of it's host. I believe its at 6 weeks, when it develops from being a lump of cells, into a human.
6 weeks, eh? 5 weeks and 6 days, and it's not human? What about the second before the stroke of midnight? This issue is too important to guesstimate with. This needs to be precise...if it can't be precise, we have no business risking it.
Lol, I was just giving you a hard time.:)
And to maybe give T a better understanding of evidence, and to not discredit anything Namrok is saying, I have a very similiar attitude to life as he, doesn't make anything I've said less true.
I never said I don't beleive in the soul...I just don't beleive in it the same way as you do. I don't beleive people are born with a soul given to them by some divine force....as I don't beleive in a divine force. I beleive that people over time develope a soul, an energy that slowly fades away and loses sentience over a period of time. My basis behind this is a rather interesting peice I read on the astral plane and how your mind makes an impression upon it.... It might sound strange...but to me it sounded more rational than what you hear in church. It even described how you can read the astral plane through meditation which I attempt to do occasionally. You can tell this just drips with an Indian perspective. Naturally I'll reserve judgement until I see experience it myself, but since at this juncture I'm simply not strong willed enough to accept the fact that there will be nothing left to me after I die, I'll go with that.
Very educational. Thank you. You wanna have a go at religion? Be my guest. It's surely an issue I'm at home with.
So basically you reply by saying none of those facts are true by your solitary definition of Human? Wow, thats just fantastic. Like I said, it must be great to be so confident that you are right without having to rely on those petty things like proof. I wish I could just know things because they feel right. Unfortunately, what feels right to one person often doesn't to another, so its better to go on something more....concrete.
What you don't seem to realize is that there is no proof. This all comes down to how careful you or I think we should be with human life. Now, naturally, I believe there is an absolute truth present, but I don't have my crystal ball handy, so I can't tell you what it is. I can only try to go on what I've heard and try to decide what I think makes the most sense, and to me, treating a growing, fertilized human egg with reverence and respect is what makes the most sense.
If you're trying to say that you need proof to believe in something, you won't be believing in much.
And to maybe give T a better understanding of evidence, and to not discredit anything Namrok is saying, I have a very similiar attitude to life as he, doesn't make anything I've said less true.
No, but it means that some of our arguments just won't apply. If my whole argument is that we need to stop this because it destorys human life, and you don't care much about human life, then it doesn't matter even if I manage to convince you that it is indeed a human. I waste a LOT of time arguing like this, but I'm just giving it away here. I'll argue as long as I feel there's some good reason to.
Sir Toose
11-29-01, 10:06 PM
You make some good points OG. I also think TWT makes some strong ones. As I have said, I have not found a comfortable place in all of this yet. I certainly can see how genetic engineering could be beneficial to the human race, those benefits are obvious. It's the use of human cells to do it that makes me edgy.
On the other hand, there is no other way and you can't have it both ways.
I'm sittin' on the fence for a while... I'll listen to all those smarter than me to hear what they have to say before I pick a side.
Well, I hope you'll show a genuine respect for both sides, regardless of which you pick, Toose. It's more than some people hold for others with conflicting viewpoints, as I'm sure you've noticed. I wouldn't say you're any less intelligent than us, however. If I'm not mistaken, we're all younger than you, for one.
Sir Toose
11-29-01, 10:15 PM
I have nothing but respect for most people.
Oh.... I was referring to those smarties in the scientific/religious communities as the ones I was looking to for guidance:)... not that I don't think you guys are smart too but I don't think any MoFo's have 1/4 of the facts pertaining to this (including myself) we're all just arguing our gut feelings.
FYI: one of the co-founders of GreenPeace says that there's tons of rotten science out there. He discussed incredibly flawed methods of measuring global warming, and he stated that we have more rainforests now than we did 16,000 years ago. But no, go ahead: choose to believe the other reports, that tell you the sky is falling.
Other reports? Did I ever post a report, or anything for that matter that says the sky is falling. Sure didn't. I've already debated the validity of what he said before, maybe you forgot.
Pure ignorance? What I want to know is how you can reconcile this chicken-little-esque view of our planet, and still believe in evolution. Oh yeah, 65 billion years...and it's all about to fall apart. Forgive me if I'm skeptical.
You seem to think I'm talking about something that will result in the world falling apart or something. I'm talking about an ending of the world humans have created, I admit I may not have made that specifically clearer before. Humans are killing themselves off, and much more rapidly than 65 billion years ago. It's not going to happen overnight, but it will happen. Trying to stop it won't be effective either, but it will delay it.
And why is it 5 weeks, pray tell? It's heart can have begun to form, and as far as you're concerned, it might as well be an old fingernail clipping?
Again, I already answered this question.
Walking is a human characteristic. Some people can't walk. I'd recommend, once again, that you refine some of what you're saying. I'm not going to put words in your mouth, but it seems as if you're declaring thought as an ESSENTIAL characteristic...IE: if you ain't got it, you're not one of us.
Walking is a phyisical characterisitic, thinking is sociological. And it is an ESSENTIAL characterisitic, for without it you are not a human. When a person dies, they loose all of those characteristics, and are not human anymore, but are now just a pile of dead cells.
The facts you have posted may indeed be true...they just don't conflict with what I'm saying. That's what you fail to understand. This is not a "let's see who can find the most reports on the subject" contest. The only facts that you would do well to post are ones that somehow backup what you're saying: that a fertilized growing human embryo is not an actual human.
They aren't conflicting with them because you are indirectly avoiding them. I've already posted those facts many a times, you've just posted that you think it just isn't true.
Anyway, the rest of the paragraph can be summed up in "I believe in evolution."
So?
And you are? Your evidence consists of this: you don't think it's a human because it doesn't have a brain, basically. That's an opinion, my friend.
My evidence consits of proving to you that it is not what I think and that it actually is not a human.
Uh, you might wanna rephrase that. I think you forgot a word or two. If I understand your meaning anyway, I'd say that it depends on how you want to use the word "made." Technically, it may have been a monkey that put it together...but in a broader sense, the monkey was just creating something from a blueprint a human put together.
I didn't leave anything out, you may have just read it wronger. And all that is being said here, and what I origninally intended, is that no matter who is making it, the resultant isn't necessarily equal to the creator.
I didn't say it was killing it. I would hardly call it a preservation of life, however. That implies some kind of saving or mercy, I'd say.
Yes it does involve some kind of saving, and that is exactly what preservation is.
6 weeks, eh? 5 weeks and 6 days, and it's not human? What about the second before the stroke of midnight? This issue is too important to guesstimate with. This needs to be precise...if it can't be precise, we have no business risking it.
I'm not talking about guesstimating, I'm saying anytime before the fifth week and it is not human, the simple make up of it does not make it human.
No, but it means that some of our arguments just won't apply. If my whole argument is that we need to stop this because it destorys human life, and you don't care much about human life, then it doesn't matter even if I manage to convince you that it is indeed a human. I waste a LOT of time arguing like this, but I'm just giving it away here. I'll argue as long as I feel there's some good reason to.
Every argument I have made thus far is backed by facts, I can't say the same for you, except for the world ending, which is a matter of opinion based on human nature.
You are quite right, there is not a great deal I beleive in with 100% confidence. And now I reliase that perhaps I was argueing the wrong points with you, so I will refocus.
Fundamentally, I don't beleive a potential human deserves the same reverence for life as a human being. Though, to be honest, there isn't a great deal of respect for fully grown human lives either if you look at it realistically. The rule of common usage among the 6 billion people on earth pretty much means that human life is cheap. Of the 250 Million in the US (that number might be off....a lot...can't even remember where I heard it) and populations about the same in about a dozen countries makes up a minority of the people who care about human life AT ALL! Life is especially cheap in South America, China, the Middle East, Eastern Europe and parts of Russia. Hell, if a chick in Mexico gets raped, more often than not their significant other will just hire a hitman to get the rapist. Thats how cheap life is. Comparitively, you value life TOO much.
In addition, I personally value human life based on the potential for that person to contribute in SOME way. Chicks who just keep pumping out kids to live off of welfare clearly deserve to be shot, as not only are they screwing themselves over, but the children they bring into this world. And the cycle only repeats as the kids learn to just do the same thing.
On the other scale, The people who invented the artificial heart have made possibly one of the most important contributions to medical science EVER! Think about it, a completely mechanical heart, sort of negates the need for Stem Cell research doesn't it. Clearly those people's lives are worth more than others.
But since I'm losing my focus and cohearancy....I'll just hit Submit Reply and cut my loses....
Other reports? Did I ever post a report, or anything for that matter that says the sky is falling. Sure didn't. I've already debated the validity of what he said before, maybe you forgot.
You seem to think I'm talking about something that will result in the world falling apart or something. I'm talking about an ending of the world humans have created, I admit I may not have made that specifically clearer before. Humans are killing themselves off, and much more rapidly than 65 billion years ago. It's not going to happen overnight, but it will happen. Trying to stop it won't be effective either, but it will delay it.
Indeed. I did not at all realize you were referring to our modern civilization.
Killing themselves off? We're growing in population all the time. There are over 6 billion of us. What, specifically, are you worried about? What do you see happening if things continue this way? I'm genuinely curious...not just trying to be a smart-a** here.
Walking is a phyisical characterisitic, thinking is sociological. And it is an ESSENTIAL characterisitic, for without it you are not a human. When a person dies, they loose all of those characteristics, and are not human anymore, but are now just a pile of dead cells.
That's what I thought you meant. Well, I'd say it's an essential characteristic for being a complete human being. I wouldn't say it's essential to a human life, however. I don't think that thought is required to deserve some form of protection and respect, either. If anything, we need to be THAT much more careful with the human egg, because it's incapable of defending itself the way a grown man is.
They aren't conflicting with them because you are indirectly avoiding them. I've already posted those facts many a times, you've just posted that you think it just isn't true.
No, I've posted that it doesn't conflict with them. If you tell me the brain is formed at 6 weeks, and I tell you I don't think it's brain needs to have formed for it to be a human life, then the facts you've posted do not conflict with what I'm saying.
So?
So? So it's another subjective matter. One we've been through before, I might add.
My evidence consits of proving to you that it is not what I think and that it actually is not a human.
Well, it's certainly not a complete, full human. It's a human life, and it's growing, though...and IMO, that's enough. We should not treat it as an animate object that we can throw away or use in any way at our leisure.
I didn't leave anything out, you may have just read it wronger. And all that is being said here, and what I origninally intended, is that no matter who is making it, the resultant isn't necessarily equal to the creator.
Well, obviously. I'm not saying that the result necessarily has to be equal. Though, again, we'll have to define some things: equal how? In strength? In sacredness? I'd say no, and then yes, to those two.
Yes it does involve some kind of saving, and that is exactly what preservation is.
Pardon me: saving as in saving a life. Not saving as in a penny in a piggy bank. I think it's being flippant with human life.
I'm not talking about guesstimating, I'm saying anytime before the fifth week and it is not human, the simple make up of it does not make it human.
And, as I said to you before, is it EXACTLY at that moment? I imagine it would vary a bit from child to child, for one thing. My basic point is that I don't think you can nail it down any better than I can.
Every argument I have made thus far is backed by facts, I can't say the same for you, except for the world ending, which is a matter of opinion based on human nature.
Blatantly false. The central argument is this: is it human? More specifically, the question is: is the human life human enough to treat as if it were a complete human? I say yes, you say no. Like I said, that's an opinion. It's not backed my facts. It's backed by your own definition of what human life is, and how we should treat it.
Fundamentally, I don't beleive a potential human deserves the same reverence for life as a human being. Though, to be honest, there isn't a great deal of respect for fully grown human lives either if you look at it realistically. The rule of common usage among the 6 billion people on earth pretty much means that human life is cheap. Of the 250 Million in the US (that number might be off....a lot...can't even remember where I heard it) and populations about the same in about a dozen countries makes up a minority of the people who care about human life AT ALL! Life is especially cheap in South America, China, the Middle East, Eastern Europe and parts of Russia. Hell, if a chick in Mexico gets raped, more often than not their significant other will just hire a hitman to get the rapist. Thats how cheap life is. Comparitively, you value life TOO much.
Comparetively to whom? To rapists and slave-traders? Oh, surely. Compared to them, I'm insane with compassion. I wouldn't think of them as an ideal measuring stick, though.
Fundamentally, I believe we have no choice but to treat all unborn human life the same. What other humans do once they are born is a seperate issue. Life is indeed cheap to some people...but that is a problem that needs to be fixed...it is not a reason for which to justifyness cheapening human life in other ways. A thief can't point to a murderer and argue that his crime is lesser, so he should be forgiven. They're both wrong.
In addition, I personally value human life based on the potential for that person to contribute in SOME way. Chicks who just keep pumping out kids to live off of welfare clearly deserve to be shot, as not only are they screwing themselves over, but the children they bring into this world. And the cycle only repeats as the kids learn to just do the same thing.
Well, they don't deserve to be shot, but they're certainly making things difficult on all of us. I suppose I'd agree with you on a more fundamental level: I respect people much more if I find they are dilligent and productive, and anxious to become successful (which almost always involves giving the rest of the world something it wants, or needs). However, there is still a floor in terms of their value that I think any law-abiding citizen, no matter how lazy or rude, cannot go below. As much as I may hate so-and-so for having 20 kids and draining money out of everyone else, as well as raising kids in poverty and (potentially) sadness, they still have value.
On the other scale, The people who invented the artificial heart have made possibly one of the most important contributions to medical science EVER! Think about it, a completely mechanical heart, sort of negates the need for Stem Cell research doesn't it. Clearly those people's lives are worth more than others.
Are they? If you measure human worth in contribution to the rest of the world and the well-being of the species and planet, then yeah, they've done more than their share. Wouldn't feel comfortable declaring them as more valuable than someone lesser known, however. Lot of immeasurable involved, I'd imagine.
And yes, it is amazing. I marvel at our technology. It's a blessing, AND a curse, however. It's a blessing that we can save so many lives, and learn so much about the world around us, but it is a curse as well, for with such power, comes new ways for us to screw it all up, and abuse it. Power corrupts. We need to keep it under control.
Why don't we just focus on creating an artifical human with a working anatomy? If we can avoid creating growing human eggs, I'll be thrilled. I'm definitely not proposing that we stop doing that, and give up in our quest. I'm merely advocating that we take a less objectionable road.
But since I'm losing my focus and cohearancy....I'll just hit Submit Reply and cut my loses....
It's inevitable. I already missed "The Tick" because of this thread.
spudracer
11-29-01, 11:21 PM
Don't feel too bad, I missed the Tick Too.
Cloning is morally wrong. Why call it cloning if you're taking a cell from something dead and putting life back into that cell just for the use of say putting hair on a bald man's head.
Sorry...loose analogy, but seriously, why call it cloning. What do you think of when you hear the word Cloning? You think of copying a lifeform or tissue to make an identical copy of something. If they're not doing cloning...then would someone please explain to me why they use this term?
There are several methods of cloning, or I should say, several processes of manipulating embryos which are considered cloning. The first is injected genetic material from one animal into an embryo so that an exact copy grows. The 2nd is when you take an embryo in the early stages and split it in two so that two grow. It basically forces what happens with twins. This is useful for stem cell research because you end up with more stem cells I beleive.
Or I could be completely wrong...
I am not completely against cloning but for what purpose? Are we talking cloning organs? food? because I am all up for that but not people. People can still make good people. Cloning people serves no purpose but to drain our already dwindling resources. I would believe cloned people would still be people, just as I still think IVF babies, etc (not created by the traditional sexy times) still people. Even cloning someone's genetics would still be an entirely new being not a recreation of the person you were. You are shaped by experiences as well as genetics.
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.