Stem cells nurture damaged spine: study

[Coyote]

Still nothing, huh bucky?

Like I said. If you were worthy of any sort of respect, you might hurt my feelings. You haven't demonstrated that you even understand the subject so what exactly makes you think that you know who is winning.

Tell you what. How about you review the thread and bring forward any points that you believe coyote has scored and explain why they are more valid than my rebuttals or why his rebuttals are more valid than my points. That would give you the chance to prove that you understand the subject matter and that I am losing. It's a win win for you if you can do it. Of course if you can't do it, you get the chance to prove to everyone that you are the loser I already know that you are.

Before you start reviewing though, maybe you should discuss this with coyote. He is up against the ropes and he knows it.

Armchair General actually made some very good points in this debate - I wouldn't knock him

All of this has me thinking.

 

[palerider]

Your post deserves some serious thought on my part before responding - I'm not avoiding, just need to think and things have been too hectic lately - I will reply, never fear

No sweat. I am getting ready to take a long weekend and go fishing. I will be around tomorrow but then will be gone until tuesday.

 

[Coyote]

You have stated repeatedly that you would not want to stand in a court where literal legal definitions were not used and where philosophical arguments were accepted in lieu of fact and yet, you stand here in judgement...life and death judgement over unborns arguing by standards that you have stated you would not want to be judged by.

Tell me. How exactly do you justify that? Before we continue, I want an answer to that question. I want to know how you rationalize your argument that it is OK to kill unborns when your arguments for killing them are of the very sort (philosophical and less than literal interpretation of legal terms) that you have admitted repeatedly that you would not want to be judged by. And don't tell me that it is because you don't consider a blastocyst to be a human being because your rationalization for that opinion is both philosophical and ignores the literal legal definition of what a person is.

The question that defines the issue for me is:

What is it that makes a person different from any other animal, and worth preserving above other animals?

I think the answer you have given is the Law. When questioned further about what makes Law right - in other words, not just a bunch of cultural rules that we live by, you reference a fundamental Truth of some sort.

Law (where you derive your literal legal definition) must be based on something. Either it's cultural and subject to interpretation by the standards of the society or it represents some sort of fundamental moral Truth. Right?

If it's cultural and represents no higher moral truth - then it's arbritrary, subject to society's whims. More then that, it means that there is nothing special about human life that makes it more valuable then any other animal.

If it does indeed reflect a higher moral Truth then we have overstepped the bounds of hard science and we have to use the language of religion or philosophy to understand it because science does not have the necessary vocabulary.

My feelings - my beliefs - are that there is something in a person that seperates him from other animals. I call that "personhood" - another might call it Consciousness, Nefesh or Soul.

The difficulty I have with your argument is you are basing it on science (ok - we can establish that a blastocyst is without a doubt a human being - of the species homosapiens) and the letter of the law. But the rightness of the law comes from ... what? I am thinking that that "what" is what also defines a "person" and seperates us from other animals. Because of these questions - how can I accept your argument based on the literal word of the law as an argument when it could just be arbritrary, different in different societies? Accepting it means that there is nothing inherently more valuable about human lives then say, chicken lives.

 

[Coyote]

No sweat. I am getting ready to take a long weekend and go fishing. I will be around tomorrow but then will be gone until tuesday.

Going for tuna? I'll be going out Saturday to work sheep again but that's a one-dayer. Always fun though

 

[palerider]

The question that defines the issue for me is:

What is it that makes a person different from any other animal, and worth preserving above other animals?

I think the answer you have given is the Law. When questioned further about what makes Law right - in other words, not just a bunch of cultural rules that we live by, you reference a fundamental Truth of some sort.

Law (where you derive your literal legal definition) must be based on something. Either it's cultural and subject to interpretation by the standards of the society or it represents some sort of fundamental moral Truth. Right?

If it's cultural and represents no higher moral truth - then it's arbritrary, subject to society's whims. More then that, it means that there is nothing special about human life that makes it more valuable then any other animal.

If it does indeed reflect a higher moral Truth then we have overstepped the bounds of hard science and we have to use the language of religion or philosophy to understand it because science does not have the necessary vocabulary.

My feelings - my beliefs - are that there is something in a person that seperates him from other animals. I call that "personhood" - another might call it Consciousness, Nefesh or Soul.

The difficulty I have with your argument is you are basing it on science (ok - we can establish that a blastocyst is without a doubt a human being - of the species homosapiens) and the letter of the law. But the rightness of the law comes from ... what? I am thinking that that "what" is what also defines a "person" and seperates us from other animals. Because of these questions - how can I accept your argument based on the literal word of the law as an argument when it could just be arbritrary, different in different societies? Accepting it means that there is nothing inherently more valuable about human lives then say, chicken lives.

You didn't answer my question. You sidestepped it. Again. Since you have stated that you would not want to stand in a court where literal definitions of the law were not adhered to and philosophical arguments could be used in lieu of fact to convict you; how do you justify standing in life and death judgement against unborns using the very sort of arguments that you would not want used against you in a court?

How valid is your argument when the very sort of argument you are making, by your own admission, would not be acceptable to you in a court?

 

[palerider]

Going for tuna? I'll be going out Saturday to work sheep again but that's a one-dayer. Always fun though

It may be a bit late for tuna now. Dolphin (mahi mahi) and wahoo are in now. We may stop over a wreck or two and see if we can catch a snapper or grouper or two, but mainly we troll the gulf stream.

 

[Coyote]

You didn't answer my question. You sidestepped it. Again. Since you have stated that you would not want to stand in a court where literal definitions of the law were not adhered to and philosophical arguments could be used in lieu of fact to convict you; how do you justify standing in life and death judgement against unborns using the very sort of arguments that you would not want used against you in a court?

Well, I would say then for the same reason I am able to euthanize a dog - it's not a person, and we're not in a court of law.

How valid is your argument when the very sort of argument you are making, by your own admission, would not be acceptable to you in a court?

Because we are not in a court of law.

Can you answer my questions?

 

[palerider]

Armchair General actually made some very good points in this debate - I wouldn't knock him

All of this has me thinking.

Maybe you can bring one foreward.

 

[palerider]

Well, I would say then for the same reason I am able to euthanize a dog - it's not a person, and we're not in a court of law.

And how do you make the comparison of an unborn to a dog without making the same sorts of arguments that you would find unacceptable if they were made against you in a court? Your point relies on disregarding a legal definition which your lawyer would object to in any case against you. And be sustained.

Because we are not in a court of law.

You have taken sides in a life and death question. The quality of your arguments for the death of those humans should be such that you would find their nature acceptable to be argued against you should your life ever hang in the balance.

Can you answer my questions?

Not until we get this hashed out. I believe we have reached a point where, if you are honest with yourself and me, you have to admit that you can't make an argument that supports killing unborns (at any stage) that you would accept as a sound argument if it were your life in the balance. You woud have to admit that if it were your life, you would want your defense to sound more like my arguments and you wouldn't accept or deserve anything less.

I understand that you have this belief but if you can't put together an argument supporting killing them that would satisfy you if your life were on the line, why do you still hold the position? You stated explicitly that it is your feeling...your belief that there is a differece between a person and other animals (I noted that you didn't say a difference between a person and a human being). Would you wan't to be convicted and killed based on someone's feeliings or beliefs and are you genuinely arguing that a whole class of human beings should be denied the protection of the law because of the "feelings" and "beliefs" of another group? When you get to the essential truth of the argument, feelings and belief is all that is there.

 

[Coyote]

And how do you make the comparison of an unborn to a dog without making the same sorts of arguments that you would find unacceptable if they were made against you in a court? Your point relies on disregarding a legal definition which your lawyer would object to in any case against you. And be sustained.

I see no appreciatable difference between a blastocyst and egg or a sperm. They are potential life or "partial life". You draw the line in one place, I draw the line in the other. There is nothing you have shown me that convinces me they are any different then the dog I have to euthanize. You keep citing a legal definition - but what gives it any power beyond an arbritary rule? You are asking me to make decisions based on a premise I might not be able to accept.

It would be as if I were in a court of law facing murder charges because I chose to use an IUD despite the fact that there is no body and in my mind no victim and no "person" killed.

You have taken sides in a life and death question. The quality of your arguments for the death of those humans should be such that you would find their nature acceptable to be argued against you should your life ever hang in the balance.

I have taken sides in a life and death question of a person. We don't agree on our definition of person. If I don't regard a blastocyst as a person - what makes it different then euthanizing my dog? If my life hung in the balance - well, I'm already a person. I would expect different arguments. Just saying something is a "person" doesn't make it a person - there has to be some substance behind it.

Not until we get this hashed out. I believe we have reached a point where, if you are honest with yourself and me, you have to admit that you can't make an argument that supports killing unborns (at any stage) that you would accept as a sound argument if it were your life in the balance. You woud have to admit that if it were your life, you would want your defense to sound more like my arguments and you wouldn't accept or deserve anything less.

If I adhere to the restrictions you impose on this argument then you are right. But in order to accept that, I must likewise accept that I can not condone the deliberate killing of any living creature because without the concept of "person" there is nothing that makes a human life any greater then any other life but some sort of arbritray legal termonology.

I understand that you have this belief but if you can't put together an argument supporting killing them that would satisfy you if your life were on the line, why do you still hold the position?

Because you're drawing a false dichotomy here...if I am supporting killing them, I am not supporting killing a person while if my life is on the line - I am a person. Because I also don't see it as a clear cut issue of total rights vs. no rights. I see the mother's rights as greater than what she carries at the beginning. As the fetus develops (and becomes a persons) it's rights gradually rise and hers diminish. The fetus does not have equal rights to life until it is born because - if there should be a life/death decision between one life or the other, we place a higher value on the mother.

You stated explicitly that it is your feeling...your belief that there is a differece between a person and other animals (I noted that you didn't say a difference between a person and a human being). Would you wan't to be convicted and killed based on someone's feeliings or beliefs and are you genuinely arguing that a whole class of human beings should be denied the protection of the law because of the "feelings" and "beliefs" of another group? When you get to the essential truth of the argument, feelings and belief is all that is there.

I didn't say between a person and a human being - specifically because I see no difference between a human being and any other animal.

 

[DrWho]

I see no appreciatable difference between a blastocyst and egg or a sperm. They are potential life or "partial life". You draw the line in one place, I draw the line in the other.

The egg is part of the mother - consisting of half her DNA. The sperm is part of the father - consisting of half his DNA. But the blastocyte is a separate collection of a whole set of DNA. It is distinct from the mother or the father.

Clearly it is alive (the life of the flesh)

As soon as it has a soul it will be a person like you. The courts have no choice but to delve into the realm of what is typically religion in make a determination. Looking at R v. W. they did just that but they relied on incomplete science too much. Now that the science ismore complete it is time to revisit R v. W.

If wombs had windows there would be no abortion.

Because the debate is really not about blastocytes, blobs of flesh, or usually even embryos. Most women who get abortions don't even know they are pregnant until they have missed a period. By this time the child is well developed and usually a fetus.

Outlawing abortions of feti, who can feel pain, have brain activity, have blood and are shaped like the rest of us, would effectively outlaw almost all abortion.

Permitting the abortoin of those first few cells would effectively allow virtually no abortions.

But allowing abortion of the first few cells and outlawing the aborting of feti sounds like a great place to compromise until more data is in.

 

[palerider]

I see no appreciatable difference between a blastocyst and egg or a sperm. They are potential life or "partial life". You draw the line in one place, I draw the line in the other. There is nothing you have shown me that convinces me they are any different then the dog I have to euthanize. You keep citing a legal definition - but what gives it any power beyond an arbritary rule? You are asking me to make decisions based on a premise I might not be able to accept.

Once again, you are telling me what you do rather than how it is that you justify it. I know that your claim is that blastocysts are this and blastocysts are that or they aren't this and they aren't that but how do you justify reaching that conclusion when the mental route that you take to get there is built on logic and arguments that you would not accept if the same sort of thinking were used against you?

You seem to also be suggesting that sound, reasoned, and well thought out arguments are only necessary if one is in a court of law and since we aren't in a court, it is not necessary for you to put together such a defense of your postion.

I have taken sides in a life and death question of a person. We don't agree on our definition of person. If I don't regard a blastocyst as a person - what makes it different then euthanizing my dog? If my life hung in the balance - well, I'm already a person. I would expect different arguments. Just saying something is a "person" doesn't make it a person - there has to be some substance behind it.

I didn't say that. I said that you have taken a side in a life or death question. I didn't mention "persons" at all. I don't think that even you would suggest, however, that this is not a life or death question for the unborns in question. You argue that you are already a person, but when did you become a person. Draw me a bright line. Tell me an exact time that you became a person.

If I adhere to the restrictions you impose on this argument then you are right. But in order to accept that, I must likewise accept that I can not condone the deliberate killing of any living creature because without the concept of "person" there is nothing that makes a human life any greater then any other life but some sort of arbritray legal termonology.

Once again. Since this is a life and death question and beings are being killed while we hash it out, when exactly did you become a person. Do you remember when it happened? Can you tell me a date? Can you tell me how you were different on the day that you became a person than you were on the day before when you were not a person.

And if you can't answer these questions, then I would suggest that your argument with regards to personhood are not adequate to deterimine a life or death question.

Because you're drawing a false dichotomy here...if I am supporting killing them, I am not supporting killing a person while if my life is on the line - I am a person. Because I also don't see it as a clear cut issue of total rights vs. no rights. I see the mother's rights as greater than what she carries at the beginning. As the fetus develops (and becomes a persons) it's rights gradually rise and hers diminish. The fetus does not have equal rights to life until it is born because - if there should be a life/death decision between one life or the other, we place a higher value on the mother.

She has the right to defend her life or long term health shoud her unborn threaten either. Short of that, no human being has the right to kill another for reasons that amount to no more than convenience.

 

[Coyote]

Once again, you are telling me what you do rather than how it is that you justify it. I know that your claim is that blastocysts are this and blastocysts are that or they aren't this and they aren't that but how do you justify reaching that conclusion when the mental route that you take to get there is built on logic and arguments that you would not accept if the same sort of thinking were used against you?

How do I justify coming to that conclusion? Not all human beings are persons. If I were a fertilized egg - I certainly wouldn't care what logic was used against me as I have no sentience. I would except the same arguments used against me. I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at - we are sliding past one another and not quite connecting.

You seem to also be suggesting that sound, reasoned, and well thought out arguments are only necessary if one is in a court of law and since we aren't in a court, it is not necessary for you to put together such a defense of your postion.

No...I am only saying that depending on an arbritary legal defintion that is limited to an American court of law does not enought to make those decisions on. My defense of my position is based on the fact that I do not accept that limited definition.

 

[Coyote]

Originally Posted by Coyote View Post
I have taken sides in a life and death question of a person. We don't agree on our definition of person. If I don't regard a blastocyst as a person - what makes it different then euthanizing my dog? If my life hung in the balance - well, I'm already a person. I would expect different arguments. Just saying something is a "person" doesn't make it a person - there has to be some substance behind it.​

I didn't say that. I said that you have taken a side in a life or death question. I didn't mention "persons" at all. I don't think that even you would suggest, however, that this is not a life or death question for the unborns in question. You argue that you are already a person, but when did you become a person. Draw me a bright line. Tell me an exact time that you became a person.

All right then...a life and death decision. Ethically I should err on the side of life. I should always err on the side of life. But, without bringing in the idea of "person", I would have to err on the side of every living creature unless my life were threatened. I can't get around that - it is either all or none. And law gives me no good reason to believe otherwise because it's the same impartial law that criminalizes jay walking.

When did I become a person? The thing is - not everything has a "bright line", a moment of escape from darkness to light, a yes/no answer. I would say when the brain first starts to function. But there is no hard cut off like 3am on day 126. On the other hand, it is also very clear that a microscopic mass of cells with absolutely no neural structure is not a "person" while a fetus in it's 6th month of development is.

Once again. Since this is a life and death question and beings are being killed while we hash it out, when exactly did you become a person. Do you remember when it happened? Can you tell me a date? Can you tell me how you were different on the day that you became a person than you were on the day before when you were not a person.

Of course not. Can you tell me the exact date you were conceived - that you became a human being? Do you remember it?

And if you can't answer these questions, then I would suggest that your argument with regards to personhood are not adequate to deterimine a life or death question.

Again...I'll go back to this: without being able to argue personhood, how can you justify then, the killing of any sentient creature? It's life and death of an individual living functioning and thinking life.

She has the right to defend her life or long term health shoud her unborn threaten either. Short of that, no human being has the right to kill another for reasons that amount to no more than convenience.

So...I will say this.

According to the logic of your arguments, I can not ethically kill a human being in any stage of development. And I can not ethically kill any other sentient creature. Which actually...is something I might be able to live with.

 

[palerider]

How do I justify coming to that conclusion? Not all human beings are persons. If I were a fertilized egg - I certainly wouldn't care what logic was used against me as I have no sentience. I would except the same arguments used against me. I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at - we are sliding past one another and not quite connecting.

And exactly how do you reach that conclusion (that all human beings are not persons) if you must use reasoning that you would find acceptable if it were your life on the line?

When you were a newborn, you also woud not have cared what logic was used against you but you did enjoy the protection of the law.

No...I am only saying that depending on an arbritary legal defintion that is limited to an American court of law does not enought to make those decisions on. My defense of my position is based on the fact that I do not accept that limited definition.

Those are the only guidelines that we have. Would you consider the rules of evidence, or your miranda rights arbitrary legalisms subject to being taken only in part, or not at all if your life was on the line?

All right then...a life and death decision. Ethically I should err on the side of life. I should always err on the side of life. But, without bringing in the idea of "person", I would have to err on the side of every living creature unless my life were threatened. I can't get around that - it is either all or none. And law gives me no good reason to believe otherwise because it's the same impartial law that criminalizes jay walking.

Your idea of a person? Nothing firm? Nothing substantive? Nothing that can be proven or corroborated? Your idea of what a person is and what a person is not is reason enough for you to support killing an entire group of human beings? Again. How do you justify that sort of thinking?

The thing is - not everything has a "bright line", a moment of escape from darkness to light, a yes/no answer. I would say when the brain first starts to function. But there is no hard cut off like 3am on day 126. On the other hand, it is also very clear that a microscopic mass of cells with absolutely no neural structure is not a "person" while a fetus in it's 6th month of development is.

The moment those human beings die is a bright line that can be measured down to the nanosecond. If you can't draw a bright line, how can you know that every one who is killed does not constitute a murder as surely as every black who was enslaved constituted a gross human rights violation?

Of course not. Can you tell me the exact date you were conceived - that you became a human being? Do you remember it?

I don't need to remember it. I was concieved in the US and according to the founding documents of this nation, I came into being with certain inalienable rights and the founders of this country believed that the only legitimate function of government was to protect those rights. You are the one arguing that it is perfectly fine to kill a human being before he or she reaches the seemingly undefinable stage of "personhood"

Again...I'll go back to this: without being able to argue personhood, how can you justify then, the killing of any sentient creature? It's life and death of an individual living functioning and thinking life.

They (creatures) are not human beings and the laws that relate to killing are for the protection of human beings against other human beings. Since our legal system defines person as "a human being" it stands to reason that the word and its definition may be used interchangably.

According to the logic of your arguments, I can not ethically kill a human being in any stage of development. And I can not ethically kill any other sentient creature. Which actually...is something I might be able to live with.

Since the word person is defined as "a human being" and the laws that relate to killing protect persons which are human beings without qualification, then animals which are non human beings are not protected. You accused me of playing semantics a while back. It turned out to be you who was playing, but this is your most blatant example yet.