Well, Godwin’s Law refers to gratuitous mention of Nazis, and I don’t believe my reference was gratuitous. Indeed, the comparison seems quite apt.
Eye of the beholder, I know. Still, if you check out my posting history as a whole, you’ll notice that I’m not someone who invokes Hitler every chance he can.
[Office Space]You know, the Nazis had pieces of flair that they made the Jews wear.[/Office Space]
Not really, if you think about it. That’s a big if.
Evidently, your beliefs are correct and righteous enough to be imposed on all by Federal edict, while those which you don’t share (i.e. Judaism, Islam) or which don’t directly impinge upon you are not worth considering?
Although I gotta admit that’s a gem of a quote.
Nope. I wouldn’t presume that my views were automatically correct. However, if my views are in the electoral majority, they should prevail, as they would be an accurate reflection of values broadly held in American society.
My actions aren’t intended to impose my views, merely to cause them to be enacted through the democratic process.
If you feel I’m in error, then I encourage you to convince others so, so your viewpoint can prevail come election day.
Fair enough. I’m through. One final word, if you’ll indulge me. This thread might be a diverting little intellectual exercise for you and many others. Consider yourself lucky.
And thus, the circle is closed. Shall I reopen by asking how you would feel if the majority chose to reestablish slavery?
You have stated your “moral” position. When people have tried to point out the inconsistency of it, you have fallen back on twisted versions of various moral frameworks, including calling on Hitler and the popular libertarian notion of natural rights. You have failed to support your postion successfully using ANY of these frameworks.
Called on for that, you fall back to the position that you just hope others will vote the way you want them to. Maybe by maintaining a reasonable tone, and using reasonable-sounding argument fragments, you may have convinced a few non-participants that there is something to the intellectual puffery you have submitted here.
But I sure hope not. I prefer to think that more people are willing to honestly question their own positions, as opposed to dishonestly trying to do debate them.
-VM
Have you questioned your own positions, or are you just reciting your party line.
And incidentally, in the past year some of my family members have died of heart disease and diabetic complications. (I mentioned this above, and I wonder why you ignored it.) So you can bet this isn’t just an intellectual exercise for me.
I will, unhappily, admit that there are issues where the reflex not to question myself is strong, particularly when there is a debate to be won. However, this is not one of them. My “line” on this issue is not party-based. My opinions about what it means to be human, and what the value of that is, are not cribbed from anyone’s book or brochure. The questions that I have asked you, which you have largely ignored, are in fact the ones that I am asking myself in considering your posts. It is annoying to me that, in contrast, your posts give every indication of someone who is not considering the content of the debate. Rather you appear to be throwing arguments against the wall. When they don’t stick, you just try to find another without acknowledging any of the reasons why the previous one didn’t stick.
Regardless of your feelings on the issue, your approach to the discussion DOES appear to be an intellectual exercise. You seem to be picking moral frameworks, such as “respect for individual rights”, and trying to find a way to use them to support your position, without appearing to actually rely on that framework as a central part of your ethical worldview.
Whether it is true or not, you give every appearance of someone whose position is based on religious dogma, but you are trying to disguise it as being based human rights or “respect for life”. Reasonable people can disagree on what a respect for human life means in practice. I have given you a number of reasons why I disagree with your conclusions on this. You are repeatedly throwing it out as if it is not possible for someone who respects human life to be in favor of embryonic stem cell research.
-VM
No. I’m saying that someone who believes that life begins at conception (a concept not limited to the religious) would have a hard time approving embryonic stem cell research with a clear conscience.
You, obviously, don’t feel life begins at conception, so the moral issue for you is entirely on the side of the research.
I understand your side quite well, and respect it (though I do disagree with it). You don’t seem to be showing me similar understanding or respect.
When I used the examples I did, it was to frame how I thought of the moral and ethical implications, not to demonize my opposition.
In practical terms, what would embryonic stem cell research entail? Which embryos would be used and what would happen to that life if they’re not selected for research?
I’m uncomfortable with the destruction of embryos period, and I find efforts to justify this by experimenting on the embryos even more disturbing.
We are in ‘Debates’ forum, not ‘Save the World’ forum.
What would happen to all the dumb unwanted animals in shelters and pounds? Should the gov’t subsidize their usage in vivisection?
The whole issue is upside down. “Let’s use embryos for unspecified experiments to may be develop unspecified cures for unspecified diseases!” It’s like we have a resource we gotta make use of. Shouldn’t it be another way around? Group of scientists working on specific problem, developing specivic drug or procedure, requiring access to specific new materials. That’s how things normally work.
Where, exactly, are you getting your in-depth “knowledge” about how science is done? First-hand experience or re-runs of “Ghost Busters”?
This is the “Debates” forum, not the “Let’s see what I can pull from one of my dark, moist orifices” forum.
Here’s a link to a cite on researchers dicking around with unspecified experiments to develop unspecified cures for unspecified diseases.
Ripped from today’s (ok…yesterday’s) headlines.
And while they’re “dicking around”, there’s a man, not a monkey, who has had his Parkinson’s symptoms nearly entirely relieved, using adult stem cell therapy.
Testimony of Dr. Dennis Turner to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.
Uh…not any more, according to
I’ll be the first to admit that this in no way implies that embryonic stem cells will fare any better in the long run. However, it shows that adult stem cell therapy for Parkinson’s is not quite the slam-dunk that you would make it out to be.
Agreed. Though which is closer to actual implementation clinically, the Lavesque work or those experiments with the monkeys?
Keep in mind that introduction of embryonic cells in vivo is a risky proposition right now, given the teratoma risks that I detailed earlier.
Small first-hand experience, combined with a number of my aquaintances experiences, combined with endless books and movies about true scientific discoveries. Give me just one example of scientific breakthrough story that begins with a check from a gov’t.
Experiments on mice and monkeys embryos do show promise, but the same scientists conducting those experiments are first to warn that human applications are long years away yet.
The embryos currently used in stem cell research are those that are to be destroyed by the parents by thawing. These are embryos that are created during IVF and there is full informed consent with the parents. Currently there are no good estimates of the number of embryos destroyed annually, but one can guess that there are thousands this country alone.
**Mr. Moto **, let me tell you what. All mammalian cells are difficult to work with for a variety of reasons. One of the biggest problems is that the cells have a lot of nutritional requirements. Unlike Bacterial cells, where we know that they’re happy as clams to grow in everything including sewage water, mammalian cells don’t grow well in atmospheric oxygen, they stick to the sides of containers, they like to stick together, and because of their picky nature, they tend to get contaminated before cells lines can be fully researched, so for clones you have to freeze and thaw. This has problems of its own because of a loss in viability after thaw.
Stem cells tend toward tumor growth because of a lack of “contact inhibition”. However, this is not necessarily a problem, and in fact, can be quite an asset. Contact Inhibition is the tendency of cells to stop growing when they touch a neighbor. A chemical signal is sent through the cell membrane that essentially tells the cells to stop reproducing. If this contact inhibition is lost the cells grow uncontrollably, and the cells start to “stack” forming tumors. Some naturally lack contact inhibition, like many reproductive cells, and these are quite useful in recombinant protein production.
I think the idea that adult research will suffer if embryonic goes forward is ridiculous. I know that what I do will be archaic in five years. I also know that others are doing cooler stuff. That doesn’t mean we’re going to change research. We get funding years in advance. Moreover, my research on human cadaver cells will be a great asset to folks working on recombinant or stem cells. Science works hand-in-hand, not at odds.
You must realize that federally funded stem cell research is going to happen, it’s just a matter of when.
The anti embryonic stem cell people remind me a lot of the animal rights people. They are against the research because of some fuzzy reasoning, and then try to sell it with an argument of how there are better ways of doing the research without using their protected. Well I’m not buying. Researchers must have ethics, but the ethical standards of the few can not harm the heath of the many.
The interesting point of the debate for me is can be summed up in the phrase “but the embryos will be destroyed anyway, so isn’t it better to gain from them” or something to that effect. Mr Moto has countered this with various comments about repressive regimes and the like, and both sides get into a little name calling.
After much thought (a good 5 minutes or so) I’d like to frame that a different way using a most likely poor analogy. ExampleGuy 1 is about to shoot and kill ExampleGuy 2, after which he will burn Example Guy’s body to ashes. I come along and say, “Hey if he’s gonna die anyway, how bought you let me take his wallet before you burn him. That way at least there will be some benefit!”
What I am trying to get at is that salvaging a good from a immoral act, could also be viewed as profiting from an immoral act, which in turn would be immoral.
As a side note, I believe that Mr Moto is sincerely trying to express what he feels is a valid opinion, and is not unduly employing sophistry beyond the levels acceptable on these Boards. I think it can be tough to be a conservative around here, so we should treat them nicely (destroy their argument, yes, but treat them nicely)
Full disclosure: I support embryonic research, I think it’s wrong to ban federal funding, but realize that one way or another the research will get done, so in the end humanity wins the battle (which can be of small consolation to those who need treratments now).
btw; I have some sort of Qualyle disease and keep typing out “embryoes” like “potatoes”. :smack:
The flaw in your analogy is that many people don’t consider destroying these embryos immoral in the fist place. Thus the comparison with both theft, desecration and murder, all of which are clearly immoral, is invalid.
I agree. But some people do. So for them…
And at least for now the Administration tends to side with that subgroup of the population.
What is encouraging to me is to see how the states (like California) and private enterprises (like Harvard and a couple of corporations) are not taking this lying down, and are moving forward as fast as they can. The downside of that is, if private money does somehow manage to fill the gap, it sets (imho) a bad precedent for future federal funding (“see, they didn’t need our money anyway!”).