Stem cells nurture damaged spine: study

Here is my view Palerider:

A mother has experienced life, has emotion, has problems, has the everday crap throwin at you in the world that this child knows nothing about. This child has no sense of itself, its existence, its mortality, to be honest any pain it does feel (silent scream etc.) is purely instinctual.

Yes, this child should be allowed to live, because potentially it can be a wonderful person, and I think abortions should be discouraged. However,
I think it is the mothers right to choose. The only thing I dislike about abortion is the potential of that child, but I should probably not use a condom either eh?

I just realized that you are in the UK. You are coming at this discussion from an entirely (and at least partially legitimate) point of view. In your country, abortion, cloning, and embryonic stem cell research were voted on and legislated by your elected officials. In effect, the people of your country had their say and decided to deny unborns the right to live until a certain stage of their development as opposed to the way it went in this country where a panel of unelected, unaccountable judges made the decision for all of us.

When your government worded the law, however, they sidestepped the fact that unborns are indeed human beings and the wording of the law will continue to haunt them until they either re-word it or repeal it as it does not address the scientific fact of the humanity of unborns at any stage.
 
Werbung:
Interesting. By the way, I'm moving house and wont be about for a week or so. I expect my wireless wont go to plan in the new house.

Chat soon,

Jack.
 
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.

The law is not based in "fact" or "science" - it's based on human cultural emotions and senses of right and wrong - in other words, "simply made up". How does that make your position any stronger then mine?

The only scientific and factual certainty here is that the "unborn" is indeed of the human species from conception to death. There is nothing "factual" that states it's anything special or more worth preserving than any other species. This is all based on cultural value judgements - not fact: unprovable, untestable, and unknowable.

You keep covering this ground but you have conceeded it already.

No - I conceded I couldn't defeat the logical path you outlined within the constraints you gave. I can't. I admit it.

However - I keep covering this ground because you've never really addressed it

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).

Whether someone has been or has not been in modern times is irrelevant. It existed on the books and indicates how arbritrary and illogical the law can be. There are many more ridiculous examples I could give that are still on the books. To use that as a foundation for arguing ethics, inherent rights or decisions on reproduction is iffy.

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.

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.

Actually, no. This is carrying the debate out of the realm of stem cell research - and to be honest, I might give on this point that arguably, a good case could be made for not continuing on fetal stem cell research - I have not yet decided.

The conflict is not raging because "my side" wants to operate outside the law - the law does not recognize the unborn as "persons" -and never has except in a couple of unusual and highly specific cases. It's as simple as that. That is a fact at this point in time.

We've pretty much already crossed the line into abortion issues here so I'll go one step further - the conflict is raging because, ultimately one side wants control over their personal reproductive choices and does not regard the "unborn" as "persons". The other side regards them as "persons" with equal rights to the mother from conception to end. No one feels they are killing "babies" and no one feels that women have "no rights". Most people are somewhere in the middle - supporting some choice but not unlimited choice.

At no point in this debate have you addressed what if anything gives law any authority - it's not science, it's not "fact", we've already shown it can be very abritrary and illogical.

What makes humans special and worth preserving over any other species - you say the law. Why? It's illogical - we've shown that.

You referenced somewhere in this 34 pages a Truth. What truth?

You view life and issues in clear lines of demarkation - I view them as a continuum. That might be a rather fundamental difference between our ways of thinking.


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.

Ah....I see.....I understand your position. I do not necessarily agree with it. Doesn't Roe vs. Wade deny them that right?

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.


Actually...in terms of this particular debate - stem cell research, I give to your argument because this debate is very narrowly framed. Again - logic and law are not the only parameters within which to make what are ultimately ethical in nature. The entire "right" to life is an ethical debate.

I am dissapointed though, that you do not answer any of the questions I put forth.


So - I'll repeat: I concede.
 
I just realized that you are in the UK. You are coming at this discussion from an entirely (and at least partially legitimate) point of view. In your country, abortion, cloning, and embryonic stem cell research were voted on and legislated by your elected officials. In effect, the people of your country had their say and decided to deny unborns the right to live until a certain stage of their development as opposed to the way it went in this country where a panel of unelected, unaccountable judges made the decision for all of us.

When your government worded the law, however, they sidestepped the fact that unborns are indeed human beings and the wording of the law will continue to haunt them until they either re-word it or repeal it as it does not address the scientific fact of the humanity of unborns at any stage.

I see where you are coming from now.
 
We've pretty much already crossed the line into abortion issues here so I'll go one step further - the conflict is raging because, ultimately one side wants control over their personal reproductive choices and does not regard the "unborn" as "persons". The other side regards them as "persons" with equal rights to the mother from conception to end. No one feels they are killing "babies" and no one feels that women have "no rights". Most people are somewhere in the middle - supporting some choice but not unlimited choice.

One exercises control over ones "personal reproductive choices" before one drops one's panties. After the fact, it is just killing for reasons that amount to no more than convenience.

At no point in this debate have you addressed what if anything gives law any authority - it's not science, it's not "fact", we've already shown it can be very abritrary and illogical.

The only thing that has ever given the law any authority is people's respect for it.

You view life and issues in clear lines of demarkation - I view them as a continuum. That might be a rather fundamental difference between our ways of thinking.

I view things in the way that they are. I don't feel any need to kid myself.

Ah....I see.....I understand your position. I do not necessarily agree with it. Doesn't Roe vs. Wade deny them that right?

No. Roe v Wade denies that they are human beings. When roe was decided, an argument of sorts could be made that unborns were not, in fact, human beings. In the majority decision, Justice Blackmond acknowledges that in the future, the argument for personhood (humanity) of the unborn may become undeniable and says that when that happens, roe will collapse in upon itself because unborns at that time will be entitled to 14th amendment protection. Justice Oconnor stated in a later decision challenging roe that the framework of roe is on a collision course with itself and was vaulnerable to the state of scientific knowledge.

Actually...in terms of this particular debate - stem cell research, I give to your argument because this debate is very narrowly framed. Again - logic and law are not the only parameters within which to make what are ultimately ethical in nature. The entire "right" to life is an ethical debate.

Well, it is a debate framed by how much we respect the lives of our fellow human beings. It is telling, however, that those who wish to continue the killing, when pressed as you were, indicate that the criteria upon which they base thier position would not be acceptable to them if it were their lives in question.

You ask why is a human life worth preserving, but I doubt that you would be willing to see the law that protects your life erased. I doubt that you would care to revert to the jungle.

I am dissapointed though, that you do not answer any of the questions I put forth.

Ask away. I have to tell you though, that I am not one to engage in mental masturbation. I enjoy philosophical conversation, but philosophy is meaningless if it is not rooted in reality.


So - I'll repeat: I concede.

Very large of you and I do appreciate it and I enjoyed the conversation very much.
 
Ask away. I have to tell you though, that I am not one to engage in mental masturbation. I enjoy philosophical conversation, but philosophy is meaningless if it is not rooted in reality.

When do you consider a philosophical debate "mental masturbation"?

I would really like to know from you - what makes human life (at any stage) worth preserving over any other sentient species because that is part of what is at the root of this. At this point - it is only because it contains the appropriate chromosomes labeled as "human being". Why not a dolphin?

Don't say the law, because the law is not rooted in fact or science - it's cultural. It could as easily specify cows as sacred. The way it stands now the law simply states it is - and for no rational reason.

What great "Truth" were you alluding to earlier in this topic?


Very large of you and I do appreciate it and I enjoyed the conversation very much.

It has been my pleasure as well :)

I should add, sometimes a good debate makes me pause, and think about my position and it's merit. That is always good.
 
When do you consider a philosophical debate "mental masturbation"?

When it is divorced from reality.

I would really like to know from you - what makes human life (at any stage) worth preserving over any other sentient species because that is part of what is at the root of this. At this point - it is only because it contains the appropriate chromosomes labeled as "human being". Why not a dolphin?

The law. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Don't say the law, because the law is not rooted in fact or science - it's cultural. It could as easily specify cows as sacred. The way it stands now the law simply states it is - and for no rational reason.

Sorry if you don't like the answer, but that is the reality. We, unlike other animals respect and value the lives of our kind. We have the ability to see value in others and recognize that our lives may be enhanced or improved by the abilities or intelligence of others and as such, it is better to protect our kind than live by the law of the jungle where only the fittest survive. We have the ability to see and appreciate, and value attributes beyond physical strength.

You may not like it but the law is all that stands between us and the jungle.

What great "Truth" were you alluding to earlier in this topic?

You would have to bring that part of the conversation forward.

I should add, sometimes a good debate makes me pause, and think about my position and it's merit. That is always good.

Mine as well. The only way we can know the value of our ideas is when they are tested against opposing ideas. I used to be, if not on the pro choice side, at least one who really didn't care. I changed my position when I encountered a more powerful argument than my own.
 
You would have to bring that part of the conversation forward.

Here it is:

What we define right or wrong is grounded in truth. In this case, philosophical slight of hand is being used to sidestep the truth that human beings and persons are one in the same in the eyes of the law so that a particular group of human beings can be denied their very right to live.



And what I had asked is where does that truth come from?
 
And what I had asked is where does that truth come from?


I am not sure what "great truth" you are looking for, but as to where truth comes from, refer to Willard Van Orman Quine very correctly stated "Nothing is true but reality makes it so." That is, a thing can only be true if reality is a certain way. Truth is objective, not subjective or relative as the necromancers and gypsys would wish. Truth depends upon something outside of ourselves and our own subjectivity or set of beliefs.
 
Kinda' tough getting to the bottom of this one, isn't it? At least in any way that would be universally acceptable as its seeming complexity is beyond the capacity of most folks to follow.

Coyote said:
I would really like to know from you - what makes human life (at any stage) worth preserving over any other sentient species because that is part of what is at the root of this. At this point - it is only because it contains the appropriate chromosomes labeled as "human being". Why not a dolphin?

palerider said:
The law. Nothing more. Nothing less.

And yet, The Law says that abortion is legal, so your answer begs a question... what gives that law, or any law, authority?
 
nerves in rats, producing compounds that nurture nerve cells and stimulate the growth of new ones, Geron Corp. said on Wednesday.

Read more here

SEE THATS WHY STEM CELLS CAN ALLOW ME TO HEAR AGAIN AND CURE MY DIABETES! Thats why im voting for HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON in 08! and she will sign that stem cells into law which means my tax dollars going towards usefull means instead on lazy bums on welfare who just dont wanna work.
 
And yet, The Law says that abortion is legal, so your answer begs a question... what gives that law, or any law, authority?

The law is given authority by the people who institute them and agree to live according to them.

Our history is rife with miscarriages of the law. In this case the "law" doesn't say that abortion is legal. A judgement in a court case says it is legal. I doubt that this argument would exist (in this form anyway) if there were actual law written and legislated by the representatives of the people that made abortion legal rather than a decision passed by 9 unelected, unaccountable judges.
 
SEE THATS WHY STEM CELLS CAN ALLOW ME TO HEAR AGAIN AND CURE MY DIABETES! Thats why im voting for HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON in 08! and she will sign that stem cells into law which means my tax dollars going towards usefull means instead on lazy bums on welfare who just dont wanna work.

This is not research resulting from embryonic stem cells steve. Nothing is ever going to be developed from embryonic stem cells that can cure you. If there is a cure out there for you as a result of stem cells, it lies in adult, or cord blood stem cells.
 
The law is given authority by the people who institute them and agree to live according to them.

Our history is rife with miscarriages of the law. In this case the "law" doesn't say that abortion is legal. A judgement in a court case says it is legal. I doubt that this argument would exist (in this form anyway) if there were actual law written and legislated by the representatives of the people that made abortion legal rather than a decision passed by 9 unelected, unaccountable judges.
So, the language of the law isn't specific enough to support an inarguable case either way and our current state of affairs as it relates to the practical application of this matter is due to judicial fiat and vox populi?

Here's an overview of the law and application of same:

http://hometown.aol.com/abtrbng/conlaw.htm
 
Werbung:
Does a fabricated right to privacy trump the explicit right to live?

The nature of our legal system is such that if a right is to be denied to an individual or a group, law must be legislated that enumerates which right is to be denied, from whom it is to be denied, and for what reason it is to be denied.

The whole "right to privacy" argument presupposes that there is no other human being in the equation that is losing a right more basic than the fabricated right to privacy. At the time roe was decided, it was possible to make an argument of sorts that unborns were not human beings and justice Blackmund clearly stated taht if at some future time the personhood of unborns should be established, that the framework of roe will collapse in upon itself as unborns will be entitled to 14th amendment protections.

I don't believe it is possible to argue today, that unborns, at any level of development, are not human beings.
 
Back
Top