Stem cells nurture damaged spine: study

[9sublime]

Ok lets all get funny and twist everything. For me, it all boils down to the fact that the child as no sense of its own mortality, whilst the mother does, and so the mother has more rights.

 

[Coyote]

The subject at hand is embryonic stem cell research. Disregard all of the human problems that you say the mother might have and address the deliberate creation of a human being that is to be killed for scientific research.

And why should you not use a condom? Your sperm, by itself, is of no more consequence than your toenail clippings. True, they represent potential life, but until one of them successfully fertilizes an egg, potential is all they represent. Once fertilization is complete, however, that potential has been realized.

...that's how I view a blastocyst...potential or partial life...a sperm is a potential fertilization...a blastocyst is a potential embryo...an embryo is a potential fetus...a fetus is a potential baby...or person.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Ok lets all get funny and twist everything. For me, it all boils down to the fact that the child as no sense of its own mortality, whilst the mother does, and so the mother has more rights.

I know 30 year olds with no sense of morality.

 

[9sublime]

Mortality. Not morality.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Mortality. Not morality.

Ew. My bad. But that doesn't change the fact that newborn infants have no sense of mortality either. Where do you draw the line? What day does the lightbulb go off in a child head and he suddently has a sense of mortality?

 

[palerider]

Out of curiosity; can you state with any confidence when you were concieved give or take a month or two?

Yes.

Interesting. I deliberately used the pronoun "you" when I asked that question to see if you considered yourself, at the time of your conception to be something or someone. You didn't correct me by telling me that you knew more or less when the "thing" that later became you was concieved, you answered instinctively that you knew more or less when you were concieved.

There is a difference between something and someone. Some"thing" clearly can not be a person while I don't see how you can argue that someone could ever not be a person. Take any "person" alive today or dead and follow thier lives back and tell me when they stopped being someone and became some"thing".

If you can do that, you have a position that can be defended. If you can't, then you have less than nothing. You are blasting in a mine or burning a house and justifying it by saying that you didn't know that there were people there.

 

[palerider]

Ok lets all get funny and twist everything. For me, it all boils down to the fact that the child as no sense of its own mortality, whilst the mother does, and so the mother has more rights.

An infant has no sense of its mortality and yet, the mother can't kill it because it enjoys the protection of the law so clearly a sense of mortality is not what the protection of the law is based on.

 

[palerider]

...that's how I view a blastocyst...potential or partial life...a sperm is a potential fertilization...a blastocyst is a potential embryo...an embryo is a potential fetus...a fetus is a potential baby...or person.

This is not an area that is subject to philosophical slight of hand however. This is hard science and hard science can PROVE that a blastocyst is a separate entity from its mother and is directing its own development. And science can PROVE that sperm and eggs are part of the parent's body.

And once our lives begin, we are always potentially something else even if that something is nothing more than older and more mature. An infant is a potential toddler but that does not change its essential humanity.

 

[palerider]

Well its the sperms right to choose too, because it could have been fertilised had you given it the choice on wether or not it wanted to.

Sperm is simply a cell from your body. To argue that a sperm cell has a right to choose is to argue that a skin cell has a right to choose. Such an argument is without basis.

And nobodys asked a foetus if it wants to live, because it cant respond and doesnt understand the concept.

No one "asks" a newborn whether it wants to live either and even if they did, it would be incapable of even answering for the better part of a year and the better part of 4 or 5 years before it would be capable of even beginning to understand the question. It can't simply be killed however so clearly the protection of the law is not based on its ability to answer questions about whether or not it wants to live.

And it is the mothers body, because the foetus is incapable of suriving without it.

We all have a right to kill if our lives or long term health are being threatened. We don't have the right to kill for convenience.

 

[Coyote]

This is not an area that is subject to philosophical slight of hand however. This is hard science and hard science can PROVE that a blastocyst is a separate entity from its mother and is directing its own development. And science can PROVE that sperm and eggs are part of the parent's body.

But it is not entirely seperate and it's development is, in part, directed by the maternal controls. That is hard science.

And once our lives begin, we are always potentially something else even if that something is nothing more than older and more mature. An infant is a potential toddler but that does not change its essential humanity.

But when do our lives begin as something seperate from the mother?

 

[Coyote]

Interesting. I deliberately used the pronoun "you" when I asked that question to see if you considered yourself, at the time of your conception to be something or someone. You didn't correct me by telling me that you knew more or less when the "thing" that later became you was concieved, you answered instinctively that you knew more or less when you were concieved.

Now who's playing with semantics?

There is a difference between something and someone. Some"thing" clearly can not be a person while I don't see how you can argue that someone could ever not be a person. Take any "person" alive today or dead and follow thier lives back and tell me when they stopped being someone and became some"thing".

Take anyone back far enough and they will have no recollections of what they were much less who they were.

If you can do that, you have a position that can be defended. If you can't, then you have less than nothing. You are blasting in a mine or burning a house and justifying it by saying that you didn't know that there were people there.

 

[palerider]

But it is not entirely seperate and it's development is, in part, directed by the maternal controls. That is hard science.

Absolutely it is not. In fact, from the time fertilization is complete, the unborn directs its mother's body via chemical communication.

But when do our lives begin as something seperate from the mother?

Our lives are always separate from our mother's. We often have different blood types. At least half of us are of a different sex. Are you arguing that for a time, mom is a hermorphodite? Science doesn't support your argument in any way here, so don't even try that tack. Lack of support from science and the law is what forced you to the camp of the necromancers and gypsys.

 

[palerider]

Now who's playing with semantics?

Not me. I asked a question and you answered instinctually. Perhaps I laid a trap that I knew your subconscious would lead you into, but no semantics were involved.

Take anyone back far enough and they will have no recollections of what they were much less who they were.

Recollections are not a prerequisite for being a human being and a person will run out of recollections while they enjoyed the protection of the law.

It is clear that you are against the wall here and your arguments are becoming weaker and weaker; and you are reverting back to ground that we have already covered and you have conceeded.

 

[Coyote]

Your foundation lays upon the law and logic. But the law is arbritary - this is evident in how often law changes and how it varies from culture to culture. The same "law" that grants you life will turn around and execute you for sodomy.

What authority does it have beyond the here and now? None. Without anything higher or more fundamental to back it - it is nothing more then an arbritrary construct.

Logic can, by itself come up with some pretty weird results. The end result in yours is that there is nothing fundamentally better in human beings to make them worth preserving over any other sentient creature. Human life is worth preserving at any stage simply because "I say so".

You base your foundation on the following:

All person's are human beings (because the American legal dictionary defines a person as a human being)

You go from there and effectively state: Thus all human beings are persons.

You follow that with appeals to the the emotions - also a logical fallacy.

 

[palerider]

Your foundation lays upon the law and logic. But the law is arbritary

The law and logic are arbitrary, but the philosophical slight of hand that your argument is based on is not? You are defending your position with arguments that are simply made up. They have no basis in fact and they are, once again, unprovable, untestable, and unknowable.

- this is evident in how often law changes and how it varies from culture to culture. The same "law" that grants you life will turn around and execute you for sodomy.

You keep covering this ground but you have conceeded it already. A quick bit of research indicates that no one has been executed for sodomy in this country since the 1500's and this wasn't even a country at that time. But even if law was on the books that allowed that you could be executed for sodomy, it would still support my position. In order to forfiet your life for sodomy, law would have to be on the books that enumerated specifically which right was being denied (the right to live), who it was being denied to (sodomites), and why it was being denied (practicing sodomy).

If there were law on the books that specifically denied unborn human beings the right to live until such time as they are born or reach a stage of development at which they could live outside then this argument would not exist as all the "T's" would be crossed and all the "i's" would be dotted. The law might not be right, but the killing would be happening in accordance with our laws. This conflict rages because your side of the argument wants the freedom to operate outside of the law. To deny the fundamental right to live to an entire class of human beings without legislating law that enumerates which right is being denied, who it is being denied to, and why it is being denied.

What authority does it have beyond the here and now? None. Without anything higher or more fundamental to back it - it is nothing more then an arbritrary construct.

And what authority, exactly, are you calling on when you voice your arguments; and are you saying that the philosophical slight of hand that your entire position is based on is not an arbitrary construct.

Logic can, by itself come up with some pretty weird results. The end result in yours is that there is nothing fundamentally better in human beings to make them worth preserving over any other sentient creature. Human life is worth preserving at any stage simply because "I say so".

After all this discussion, you still don't understand my position do you? I have never argued that human life is worth preserving at any stage simply because I say so. I have argued that human beings, at any stage of development, have the right to live unless there is law on the books that denies them that right.

It is you who is saying that it is ok to kill them because "I say so." Your argument is vapor, it is thin air, it has no basis in anything.

All person's are human beings (because the American legal dictionary defines a person as a human being)

And you base yours on what?

You go from there and effectively state: Thus all human beings are persons.

According to our law, person = human being. Your argument against that conclusion is based on what?

You follow that with appeals to the the emotions - also a logical fallacy.

No. My argument, as you have stated repeatedly is founded in logic and the law. Yours, on the other had is entirely based on an appeal to emotion since none of it is provable, testable, or knowable.


I genuinely don't see where this argument can go from here. You have admitted that the standards by which you argue for killing unborns for research would not be acceptable to you if it were your life on the line. Your defense of that is that they are not persons but then you reach the conclusion that they are not persons by using a standard of reasoning that you have also admitted would not be acceptable to you if your life was on the line. In essence, and in reality, you say that it is OK to kill them because you say it is OK to kill them. No more. No less.