Bush proves he's not the brightest -- again.

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

Uhhh..you want fries with that?

No fries......Those two come with cherry pies though right?
"It's OK because I like the abuse!"-Offspring

[FallingMarc 0]

"Research cloning would contradict the most fundamental principle of medical ethics -- that no human life should be exploited or extinguished for the benefit of another."
It sounds like this is the major point. If this is a religious issue and should not be legislated because of the separation of church and state, then shouldn't we also get rid of any laws involving one human harming another? Theft, rape, murder? Just because the Christian God said "Thou shalt not steal" doesn't mean everybody should believe it.
There is a major difference between religion and ethics. You don't have to be Christian to believe that it is wrong to take a life.
Granted, my original statement was very general, but my point stands... if you believe that, *unless there is NO way to help both lives*, it's wrong to hurt one innocent person in order to help another, then making a clone of me and killing it for its stem cells is morally wrong.
Marc

[Sinkster 0]

How about I just point out the fact that you wouldn't be around right now if someone had decided you were nothing more than a bunch of cells at that point and decided to go ahead and terminate you because it was convenient.
Also, how do you define when "life" begins? If it's not conception then what is it, when consciousness begins? And if it is consciousness then how do you measure it? I mean heck, if there are measurable brain waves at 6 weeks is does that mean the fetus is conscious?
As someone who has done research into artificial intelligence, cognitive science, and philosophy of the mind, I can tell you that you will get a different version of what consciousness is depending on who you ask.
Better to err on the safe side.
One last argument, each fetus and embryo also has the potentiality to grow to an adult given that nothing abnormal disrupts them. A sperm or egg does not have the same potentiality, but because normally they will not become anything (given a passive approach allowing nature to run its course and because only the critical combination of genes allows a human to be created) there is no reason to worry about lost eggs or spilled seed. However, a fetus or embryo will surely become an adult so long as the due course is allowed to occur for that to happen. Why can it then be right to rob someone of their potential?
(above argument could otherwise be known as the "Teleological Argument Against Abortion or Cloning" for you philosophers.)
-Sinkster

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

The elderly also die spontaneously every day. Does that mean then that it would be OK to kill them if it would help out somebody else?

"Ma'am....Your children are getting tired of paying your nursing home bills. So, they thought it best we just kill you"
LMAO....
"It's all about the BOOBIES!"

[quade 3]

Quote

How about I just point out the fact that you wouldn't be around right now if someone had decided you were nothing more than a bunch of cells at that point and decided to go ahead and terminate you because it was convenient.

Pretty obvious. Then again, would I have cared? I'm thinking no.

Quote

Also, how do you define when "life" begins?

Some say life begins at 40. On the other hand, I can't even begin to tell you when life begins. There are some out there that claim it begins at the point of conception -- what makes them right and others wrong? A belief?
Why should my life or any one else's be dictated by those people's beliefs?
Why should their beliefs be more important than the actual facts of having to live on a respirator and in a wheel chair?
What, in fact, serves the greater good? Some people's beliefs or a cure for a hellish existence?
No. It's not "Better to err on the safe side." That's clearly the weak way out.
quade
http://futurecam.com

[lazerq3 0]

Quote

No fries......Those two come with cherry pies though right?

BAAAWWWAAHAHAHA!!!!_____________________
As for the qusetion of when to consider something a life,,, I fee and this is just my opinion that life truly begins when it can sustain life on its own......meaning it is breathing, and functioning without the help of anything......Now i'm talking about the begining of life ...not if someone is hooked up to a ventilater becuase there having coplications....like if a babies born and it can function it is a life and it is alive....however if it cannot stay alive without the help of something then yes it is still a "life" but technically it is not alive......it is being kept alive but not on its own........Its kinda hard to explain but can you kinda see what I'm getting at!???
jason

[FallingMarc 0]

Quote

On the other hand, I can't even begin to tell you when life begins. There are some out there that claim it begins at the point of conception -- what makes them right and others wrong? A belief?
Why should my life or any one else's be dictated by those people's beliefs?
Why should their beliefs be more important than the actual facts of having to live on a respirator and in a wheel chair?
What, in fact, serves the greater good? Some people's beliefs or a cure for a hellish existence?
No. It's not "Better to err on the safe side." That's clearly the weak way out.

So instead of your life being dictated by their beliefs, you dictate the life of that unborn baby by *your* beliefs. I'm sure the baby will understand.
Would any of you be willing to sacrifice the life of your child so that someone might not have to use a respirator? If it was made legal to start cloning for stem cells, every single baby cloned and killed could have become a new life, and somebody's child...
Marc
Marc

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"Research cloning would contradict the most fundamental principle of medical ethics -- that no human life should be exploited or extinguished for the benefit of another"
Wish someone had mentioned that to Dr Mengele......
Damn, I promised myself I wouldn't get into political discussions here
Cya
D

[quade 3]

Quote

So instead of your life being dictated by their beliefs, you dictate the life of that unborn baby by *your* beliefs. I'm sure the baby will understand.

Wow. It's amazing how the semantics of this get twisted around.
But sure let's play that game for a second. (I'll probably regret this, but what the hell.)
Isn't a "baby" the result of bringing together a sperm and an egg?
It wouldn't be my "baby". At most it would be an extention of "me". I'm perfectly fine with "me" growing another part of "me" to be used in "me".
What could be more simple?
quade
http://futurecam.com

[Sinkster 0]

In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretty obvious. Then again, would I have cared? I'm thinking no.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well I would have cared because then I wouldn't have gotten to experience the wonders of skydiving. =)
In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why should my life or any one else's be dictated by those people's beliefs?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider the following experiment: I take a normal US quarter, flip it, and let it rest in the back of my hand. Yet, I do not see whether it ended up heads or tails. I just stick it right back into my pocket. Let's also say that you believe that it was heads while I believe that it was tails. Now, there is no way that we will ever be able to know what the truth really is no matter how vehemently we both believe that we are right. Nonetheless, there is still a fact of the matter about whether or not the coin was heads or tails up. In other words, just because it might not be possible to know the truth about something doesn't mean there is no truth about it.
The fact that someone has a belief about something says nothing about the truth or falsity of that claim. Yet, there is still a truth value.
Many people believe that murder is wrong do you think those beliefs are valid? If not, why? The same applies to this cloning issue except we need to know why we either consider it right or wrong. I have given reasons for my belief but I have yet to hear a compelling one from the other camp.
In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. It's not "Better to err on the safe side." That's clearly the weak way out.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it really so weak to not want to accidentaly kill an innocent human being? If that is weakness then so be it.
Furthermore, if morality is simply serving the greater good can you tell me what that really means? Is that an average or an overall value? For example, if the murder of 1 million people results in a greater overall happiness (they were depressives you see) would it be right? In this way, the doctrine of morality as the greatest good for the greatest number (otherwise known as act or rule utilitarianism) destroys the very notion of individual rights and justice as I said before.
As for the having to live life in a wheel chair because we didn't clone humans, I can honestly say that I would rather stay crippled than condone such an immoral act as murder. But then again, to me, a moral life is more important (not that I am perfect, far from it) than convenience or happiness. Emmanuel Kant put it best when he said "Do that through which thou becomest worthy of being happy."
-Sinkster

[ECVZZ 0]

I came in on this a little late, but I'm going to put in my 2 cents worth anyway.
First off, I agree that G.W. is mixing his politics with religion. But then, he has the same right as every one of us to do that.It just happens that he is in a much more influential position than any of us.
Can anyone of us honestly say that our personal belief system doesn't bias decisions that we make every day?I don't think that would (or should!) change about any of us even if we were to become President today. That's a small part of what makes us all unique individuals.
Second off, I think that it's ALL Fukkered up that we as a society aren't allowed to take full advantage of stem cell research to help those with damaged spinal cords, or Alzheimers diesease, or any number of conditions that afflict people around the globe!
I don't have any answers for this dilemma, but these are some of my thoughts.
Quade, great topic. I can see it has inspired much debate and hopefully it will stimulate the thought process in some people enough to take action on it, regardless of their position (anybody thinking of their congressman about now?).
Third (and last) off, Betsy: What the hell is wrong with running around saying "Boobies"!? Or thinking about them... or looking at them...... or playing with them.................
G. Jones
"Why don't they have a light bulb that only shines on things that are worth looking at?"

[quade 3]

Quote

Is it really so weak to not want to accidentaly kill an innocent human being?

Again, I do not believe this is another human being.
I understand that you and others do. I respect that. I just don't agree with it.
Yes, there may be a greater underlying truth here, but neither you nor I can possibly know what that is.
I do know what the truth of not helping people with spinal injuries is. That's a cold, hard fact. When life begins is not. So, guess which side I'm going to remain on no matter how different people may twist the wording on this.
quade
http://futurecam.com

[Lindsey 0]

I haven't read all the posts here, but as I skim through, the big religious debate is going on. If we back off of that a little bit....there's still the issue of stem cell research involving stem cells from live, usually grown, donors. I don't know how his proposal would affect research that is being done on non-embryonic stem cells.....anyone who's more informed than me want to address this? In fact, speaking of spinal cord, most recently, we learned that there are stem cells in the CNS that, throughout our lives, produce new, differentiated cells.... I realize that these stem cells are still, by far, more differentiated than embryonic stem cells.....but I'm just wondering where this line would be drawn if the Idiot (I will show respect by using a capital I.....or is it capitol......(as I speak of idiots)....) were to succeed on thwarting our scientific efforts.....
sorry to blabber....
Lscribblescribble
Eve was framed!
http://home.earthlink.net/~linzwalley

[Sinkster 0]

While I agree that neither of us is going to prove to the other one whether or not a cloned embryo is really a person, I believe that we can know the greater underlying truth (although many people will argue that nothing can be *totally* proven (i.e. does the world even exist or are we in The Matrix (although I can prove that indeed the physical world exists and is not a deception based on pure reason and a LONG argument :)) and that we can reasonably decide when life truly begins. Of course, as you pointed out, why should anyone care what I believe unless I can give some rational reason for those beliefs?
However, I have given you numerous arguments as to why cloning and abortion are morally wrong and why life should be defined as beginning at conception. These arguments are based on not only the philosophical implications, but also scientific evaluations. Yet, even if I am mistaken scientifically, my philosophical arguments are still critically damaging because they are independent of whether or not I'm right about what we still don't know scientifically.
The burden of proof is on your side because of your challenge to the fact that even though every properly functioning embryo will become a baby you still don't want to define an embryo as a life.
Just saying that there is no fact of the matter as to when life begins is not a very good argument.
-Sinkster
"Just because we can doesn't mean we should."

[Sinkster 0]

In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
haven't read all the posts here, but as I skim through, the big religious debate is going on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So where is the religious debate again? If you're referring to me know that I am arguing from a purely rational standpoint.
Ethics and religion are not necessarily bound.
-Sinkster

[FallingMarc 0]

Ok, I really don't think I'm twisting anything around here--our entire disagreement here is about the definition of "life".

Quote

Isn't a "baby" the result of bringing together a sperm and an egg?
It wouldn't be my "baby". At most it would be an extention of "me". I'm perfectly fine with "me" growing another part of "me" to be used in "me".

I'm sorry, but just because it came from you and has your DNA doesn't mean it's not an independent life. I'm really trying to understand that logic, and I'm seriously not trying to be difficult, but under your last statement, if you cloned yourself, let your clone grow up for 20 years, then decided you wanted his kidneys and heart, you don't think it would be wrong to kill him and take them?
However, I do agree that we're not going to change anybody's belief here... I believe that life should be protected and is worthy of a chance to survive once it's concieved. Apparently others disagree.
Marc
P.S. Sinkster- I'm curious as to your proof that the world exists... I've tried for a long time and done a bit of research, and can't seem to find any real evidence...

[Lindsey 0]

The "religious debate" portion of my comment was not a key point....and it really has no bearing on what the rest of the post was about.....I understand both sides of that argument, and resolving that difference is going is definately going to be drawn out....and will have implications that in many ways define our society.....it's a very important issue, obviously. Short of the issue of embryonic existance as life or tissue.....my question is about how far-reaching the implications of Bush's plan will be, should it be realized. Would he like to ban ALL stem-cell research? Even research involved with stem cells of adults who consent to let science use their stem cells? That's where I'm going....
Eve was framed!
http://home.earthlink.net/~linzwalley

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

if you cloned yourself, let your clone grow up for 20 years, then decided you wanted his kidneys and heart, you don't think it would be wrong to kill him and take them?

[British accent] "Pardon me sir.....We need your liver."
"Aren't you supposed to die first?" [/British accent] - Monty Python
"It's all about the BOOBIES!"

[Sinkster 0]

To answer FallingMarc's question:
One argument for the "realness" of the physical world comes from Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy and is based on the following chain of reasoning. First Descartes proves he exists (cogito ergo sum), then he goes from there and proves the existence of God based on the principle that an effect cannot be more perfect than a cause and since we have the idea of God, only God can be the cause. (SUPER simplified btw obviously and Descartes provides other proofs as well)
Then, Descartes argues that the properties of God are not arbitrary and that to be a perfect being would mean to be perfectly good since evil implies imperfection and is in fact only brought to light in the context of a standard of good. Therefore, since God would have to be perfectly good He would not deliberately deceive us about the nature or truth of the existence of the physical world.
That's one "proof" in a super nutshell. =)
heh

[skyhawk 2]

you should move to australia we have basicly just passed laws alowing it, for once we are acctually doing something about it.
1. most people are getting everything confused last night on tv was a moleculer scientist person (it was a funny talk showy thing) so it was also very open etc, this same person was the one thatg convinced /explained to our prime minister eg what was what from what he said
a. cloning and stem cell research are miles apart and he doesnt agree with cloning (which has been banned in australia) the media probobly just to make things easier has put them both as the same thing when infact they are tottally different.
b. we can only use stem cells we already have. i.e that are in clinics, on a side note they would of been destroyed anyway, and the person who "donates" has to sign saying that they understand agree etc
also ppl are saying "where do you draw the line" well he also has i line which he wont cross for personal reasons and he is incharge so i think mayby australia will be the pioners
it is kinda sad that the person that controls the most powerful country/army in the world is a.and idiot b. following his own agdenda c. most of his own country disagrees with him
Opinions are like a-holes everyone has one, the only one that does you any good is yours and all that comes out is shit

[Lindsey 0]

I'm thinking that most of the people who are up in arms about
stem cell research don't know what the hell stem cells are!
Eve was framed!
http://home.earthlink.net/~linzwalley

[rgoper 0]

**his brother Neal convinced the Argentinan government that the Bush (SR) administration would appreciate it if the privatized natural gas line was sold to "Enron" at lower cost than the legal bidders. the're all fucks**
Ramon:
i KNOW you just didn't! i guess you know the secret service, and the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. are monitoring these forums, right? watch ure ass!
Richard
"Let Her Cry, For She's A Lady, Let Her Dream, Cause She's A Child"

[skyhawk 2]

what are you talkingg about everyone knows what they are - its when you make a new person i.e a clone then what till they are almost born then massacre them in the most brutal why take there organs etc then start again Opinions are like a-holes everyone has one, the only one that does you any good is yours and all that comes out is shit

[Lindsey 0]

laughing inside, but still horrified....
Lscribblescribble
Eve was framed!
http://home.earthlink.net/~linzwalley

[SudsyFist 0]

Wow...
AWESOME THREAD!
Waaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy touchy subject, yet no messy shite-slinging...
Two things:
1. I'd hate to get in an argument with Sinkster. Unless it was categorically imperative to do so...
2. Quade, I think you just bumped rhino and clay down in a surprise upset for troll-of-the-year !
Steve