Barack Obama inauguration

[Jono]

What is particularly crass and unsatisfying is how the coverage of Obama continues. I don't want to say this, but in many respects we should leave him alone to do his job. The BBC fawning over Obama's 'first day' is akin to the organisation treating him like an infant, or perhaps more like a caged curiousity. It's all very patronising, and leads me to suspect bit of the 'ol inverse racism will come into play pretty soon, if it hasn't already. Whitey lets a black man see if he can play president, and if he falters, well we can always eviscerate him come prime time, it's the ultimate debate on affirmative action, it's the cruellest of hands giving us what we thought we wanted, it's the last species to be discovered - an African American who might be allowed to hold one reign of power....IT'S THE GREATEST SHOW IN THE WOOOOOOORRRLLLD FOLKS!

Fawning over him, sure. But how's he being treated like a circus curio? If anything, it’s the opposite. Everyone's portraying Obama as this Great White (black?) Hope; a testament to the efficacy of his campaign strategy more than anything else.

There's a great big poisoned chalice somewhere in the White House, and to get this far I think Obama might just have been forced to have a sip, or maybe we forced him, who knows, but if the end really is nigh for the world economy at least it wasn't one of us in the White House.

That is, of course, if he was ever what we expected in the first place. Obama the First was big on the news but not big on the views, he was popular, but in the same way pizza is popular, he smells good, he looks good, and if he's bland enough everyone can have a slice, and weren't we all hungry enough after the lean years of George Dubya Bush?

Just a few thoughts, it's probably about 18 months too early for them though...

If there’s a poison chalice waiting, he filled it himself. While not denying the fact that there may be trousers hung up somewhere in his wardrobe, his record thus far, has been all mouth! Doing a Kennedy might be a great way to win an election, but in doing so, he’s raised the hopes of everyone to the skies. The reality is, he now presides over a socially and politically fractious country, in which you can’t please one group without pissing off two more! The conservatives want him to be a bi-partisan; the liberals want him to make the Neo-Cons suffer! Pro-lifers want more of the same; Pro-Choicers want a more progressive outlook. In the next four years he’s supposed to heal the world economy, reverse three centuries of institutionalised and social racism, stop terrorism, and generally save the universe! Blame the media if you like, but remember they were singing from the Obama hymn sheet!

[macgamer]

You're a broken record macgamer. Still toeing the line for the religious patriarchy I see.

How did you come to that conclusion, where did I quote scripture or make references to religion? I'm getting at objective morality here.

Shes been dead for over 50 years and weighs... I've forgotten this factette, but its many metric tonnes. She exists as cell cultures in many laboratories around the world. These were taken (involuntarily) from a cervical cancer during autopsy. They are unusual in that they are "immortal" and can go on reproducing indefinitely which is not a property typical of human cells and makes them useful in some kinds of studies. Henrietta, or HeLa cells are so successful in culture that they have a tendency to contaminate and out compete other samples and many studies on other cell cultures have had to be restarted when it was found that what they were actually working on were rogue HeLa cells accidentally introduced by bad lab procedure.

Pff HeLa cells, I saw that coming a mile off!

mmmmkay now go 'splain again how a bunch of cells containing human genetic material is a person and do it properly this time and don't just flounce out.

Tell me, what have HeLa cells become after five decades? Yet more HeLa cells no surprise there then. What happens to an zygote after nine months gestation a human baby. Again no surprise. What is the difference between the two: HeLa cells are cervical cancer cells and a zygote is a unique member of the human species which is in the process of developing into an adult.

PS: If conventional sex education does not work, point out one method that does. Please don't avoid this point.

Abstinence.

[macgamer]

I suppose we all kill human beings every time we scratch cells of our skin? No? We can extract DNA from them and implant them, so the potential for human life is still there.

See my comments above HeLa cells, skin cells are not human beings and you know it. Skin cells do not of their own accord develop into human beings under any conditions. Embryos on the other hand do.

Catholic doctrine seems to be stuck on the idea that conception is the beginning of life, but they aren't too keen elaborate on this since conception is a series of events. So, at what point is a human?
1. Penetration of the corona radiata?
2. Fusing of the plasma membranes?
3. The second mieotic devision?

Presumably when the genetic material of the egg and sperm fuse so I'd go for '3. The second meiotic division'. Science says nothing about the soul, but 'insoulment' I would hazard a guess at occurring simultaneously. Haunted you really need to overcome your emotional baggage with the Catholic Church and engage with arguments objectively rather than seeing red everytime and entering into debate blinkered.

Embryonic stem cell research doesn't actively harvest human females to destroy their embryos you know. These are embyros that are going to be discarded anyway. Besides, we can now do it without destroying the embryo
http://www.phgfoundation.org/news/2627/

Well for therapies it would have had to involve that, but that was one of the reasons for the HFE Act so that cow eggs could be used instead. The method you suggest might be acceptable for already existing embryos created by IVF but, since IVF is in itself illicit due to the separation of the unitive and creative aspects of sex this method would still be unacceptable it embryos were created artificially.

I challenged you first, show me why this is wrong, preferably without an appeal to the supernatural.
And as has been said above, you can't judge the worthiness of research before it has even been carried out.

I have already answered this point raised by Frank:

Granted, but in the same amount of time and with an tiny fraction of the budget, adult stems cells have delivered 100% of all stem cell therapies. Granted eventually they might find ways around the serious technical short comings of the embryonic technique. However there is more than one way to achieve most things, but why chose the inefficient method that has so far borne no fruit? Especially when the easy and efficient method is also completely ethical.

That is what distresses me the most about embryonic stem cell research. I might find it slightly more acceptable if it was just to find cures for terrible diseases, but it isn't. That was the lie which won over most MPs when the HFE Act was past. Consider that we are not allowed to carry at test on primates for pure research. They may only be used if there is obsolutely no alternative and justified only if the research will likely bring about direct benefits to humanity. If you consider an embryo a human person, how more heinous is it to conduct such research on embryo, just for the research.

[Senethro]

Edit: fuckit, I'll answer more fully.

[Senethro]

You're a broken record macgamer. Still toeing the line for the religious patriarchy I see.

How did you come to that conclusion, where did I quote scripture or make references to religion? I'm getting at objective morality here.

Shes been dead for over 50 years and weighs... I've forgotten this factette, but its many metric tonnes. She exists as cell cultures in many laboratories around the world. These were taken (involuntarily) from a cervical cancer during autopsy. They are unusual in that they are "immortal" and can go on reproducing indefinitely which is not a property typical of human cells and makes them useful in some kinds of studies. Henrietta, or HeLa cells are so successful in culture that they have a tendency to contaminate and out compete other samples and many studies on other cell cultures have had to be restarted when it was found that what they were actually working on were rogue HeLa cells accidentally introduced by bad lab procedure.

Pff HeLa cells, I saw that coming a mile off!

mmmmkay now go 'splain again how a bunch of cells containing human genetic material is a person and do it properly this time and don't just flounce out.

Tell me, what have HeLa cells become after five decades? Yet more HeLa cells no surprise there then. What happens to an zygote after nine months gestation a human baby. Again no surprise. What is the difference between the two: HeLa cells are cervical cancer cells and a zygote is a unique member of the human species which is in the process of developing into an adult.

PS: If conventional sex education does not work, point out one method that does. Please don't avoid this point.

Abstinence.

1. Because I have a long enough memory to remember your previous threads over the years and where you draw your beliefs.

2. No, most zygotes have not become human babies. Most die. Do all these dead human souls weigh heavily upon you? Do you feel the need to speak up for their rights as well? Advocate developing medical technology to ensure not one foetus is left behind? If not, why not?

Also, surely acknowledging that they develop into human beings to acknowledge they are not human beings at present?

3. Even cuter than starsandsparkles and a complete sidestepping of hte point.

So why didn't abstinence work in Texas? Or are you talking about the kind of "if it were done properly it would solve everything" type abstinence that has yet been demonstrated to work in a significant number of cultures? And if some cultures display low undesirable pregnancies through a different means, how do you explain that?

Honestly, its as naive as the college communist who claims that communism would solve all inequalities if only people would do it properly, i.e. weren't people.

[macgamer]

2. No, most zygotes have not become human babies. Most die. Do all these dead human souls weigh heavily upon you? Do you feel the need to speak up for their rights as well? Advocate developing medical technology to ensure not one foetus is left behind? If not, why not?

The fate of those souls as Obama would say is 'beyond my pay grade'. Those have come to an end naturally, do so in the same way that an adult might die 'naturally'. Medical technology currently permits operations on the unborn to treat conditions like spina bifida. Perhaps in the future it will allow for even earlier treatments, who is to say? It is true that congenital defects mean that many zygotes and embryos, do not implant or are miscarried. However unless it has been caused by the morning after pill or the RU486 no one is responsible for their lives ending so soon.

Also, surely acknowledging that they develop into human beings to acknowledge they are not human beings at present?

Poorly phrased on my part, I'm sorry. Yes they are human beings / persons / members of the human species from conception. What I meant to say was that they will, given the correct environment, develop into a baby, child, adolescent and adult human. They are merely at an earlier stage in the life cycle of the human species, every organism beings out as a single cell. I have been making this point in various different ways repeatedly, surely it is sinking in? I sense we beginning to argue semantics. Granted semantics are important, but I think you understand what I'm putting across to you, merely there is a refusal to engage on deeper level because of the implications.

3. Even cuter than starsandsparkles and a complete sidestepping of hte point.

So why didn't abstinence work in Texas? Or are you talking about the kind of "if it were done properly it would solve everything" type abstinence that has yet been demonstrated to work in a significant number of cultures? And if some cultures display low undesirable pregnancies through a different means, how do you explain that?

Honestly, its as naive as the college communist who claims that communism would solve all inequalities if only people would do it properly, i.e. weren't people.

If your memory is as good as you purport it to be, then you'll remember that I argued at length on this issue in August: http://www.thesinner.net/mb/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=27480&p=306429#p306429. However then like now, if you don't accept the first principles of my reasoning, little ground is made.

However I'll try to redistill it here. Firstly the biological function of sex for the proliferation of the species. The sexual act can be broken down into two aspects unitive and the procreative. The unitive is the complementary union of male and female in the sexual act, also an expression of love, the procreative is the end purpose of that union of male and female, sperm and ovum: progeny.

Contraception blocks the procreative power of the sexual act, isolating it from its intrinsic purpose and meaning. From the other point of view IVF removes and isolates procreation its unitive origin and love: procreation without sex. What a philosophical parodox!

Sex is for procreation. Contraception has blinded society of this truth. Astinence in principle works, no exchange of gametes, no children. Astinence encourages respect for each other, always acknowledging the consequences and meaning of sex. Contraception claims to allow sex divorced of consequences, so people go about it thinking that way. It fosters a culture which engages in sex for the immediate rewards it can offer. Regrettably the influence of alcohol and drugs increase the likelihood of seeking immediate gratification, but consequentially impairing contraception use. So pregnancy can be a nasty realisation of consequences, little wonder then there is a growing demand for abortifacients and terminations.

We do have the ability to restrain ourselves and society did broadly manage this until the wide availability of contraception. I am not saying that before contraception there weren't unintended pregnancies, but there were no surprise pregnancies. People new that if they had sex, it was not beyond the realms of possibility that pregnancy would result. Yet 'unwanted' and teen pregnancies are rising and are higher than ever recorded before.

I sense that in fact, the actual reason why so many people do not wish to accept human life's beginning at conception and the coming to existence of a new human person, is because of the cascade of consequences this entails. It brings us all the way back here, to contraception. The consequences of full acceptance of the embyro as a human person is a serious critique on the use of contraception and that might involve changing lifestyles not just world views.

[Senethro]

1. No, stop sidestepping. If human beings are dying this is typically regarded as a bad thing. The fact you just waved aside the biggest cause of death as "natural" is just indicative that you care more about winning the arguement than the betterment of mankind. Natural does not make something right.

Or perhaps its because you recognise on some level that the end to these chemical reactions that will potentially result in a human is not in fact a tragedy?


2. Its not sinking in because to my mind foetuses show few of the qualities of humanity. Having a human genetic code is not an all-access pass. What else do I have in common with a foetus?

I get what you're saying, but what you're saying is an irrational religious viewpoint.


3. Sex has no meaning or purpose beyond that ascribed by the people involved in a particular act. I also don't see a need for a particular form or practice for sex beyond a recommendation for staying within anatomical boundaries and consenting partners. (I notice that your wording indicates you think homosexuals are sinners. Tell us objective viewpoints about this.)

We do have the ability to restrain ourselves and society did broadly manage this until the wide availability of contraception. I am not saying that before contraception there weren't unintended pregnancies, but there were no surprise pregnancies. People new that if they had sex, it was not beyond the realms of possibility that pregnancy would result. Yet 'unwanted' and teen pregnancies are rising and are higher than ever recorded before.

What do you think people did before they had television? They got married early and had eight children. That kind of society comes with ills of its own. I'll take the modern poison, thanks. Herein also we see another great conservative myth - a Golden Age of Morality and Propriety to harken back to. Otherwise, what was the need for institutions such as these? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalen_Asylum

[macgamer]

1. If human beings are dying this is typically regarded as a bad thing. The fact you just waved aside the biggest cause of death as "natural" is just indicative that you care more about winning the arguement than the betterment of mankind. Natural does not make something right.

Death is bad, but it comes to us all, it is inevitable that our existence is finite. When I said 'natural' I meant non-intentional i.e. all causes apart from murder and intentional killing. I gave disease as an example of 'natural. However I didn't suggest that we shouldn't strive to overcome disease. When embyros and foetuses cease to exist either by research, induced miscarriage or abortion these are deliberate acts. It is the morality of these acts which I dispute.

2. Its not sinking in because to my mind foetuses show few of the qualities of humanity. Having a human genetic code is not an all-access pass. What else do I have in common with a foetus?

If consciousness is the criterion how would you define it? I've not seen a watertight definition yet. Besides how conscious and self aware is a newborn or indeed a toddler? How about during sleep? Everytime we sleep do we lose our personhood? If a embyro or foetus' is not human by virtue of its genetics then by what? Is it human? If not, what? To call it anything other than human is scientifically and philosophically dishonest.

3. Sex has no meaning or purpose beyond that ascribed by the people involved in a particular act. I also don't see a need for a particular form or practice for sex beyond a recommendation for staying within anatomical boundaries and consenting partners. (I notice that your wording indicates you think homosexuals are sinners. Tell us objective viewpoints about this.)

Spoken like a true relativist! Sex has a clear biological purpose which I've already outlined. Homosexual sex is intrinsically closed to the possibility of procreation. Neither is it unitive in the sense of complimentarity. Sex is an action by which sperm is delivered to an egg. Genitalia evolved to facilitate this transfer. When they are employed to achieve anything other than this end, this could be considered a reproductive malfunction. Same sex attraction (SSA) cannot be considered sinful, since SSA is not a choice. [Definition check: A sin must be: of a grave matter, committed in full knowledge of its sinfulness and done in full freedom.] I hope that is clearer.

What do you think people did before they had television? They got married early and had eight children. That kind of society comes with ills of its own. I'll take the modern poison, thanks. Herein also we see another great conservative myth - a Golden Age of Morality and Propriety to harken back to. Otherwise, what was the need for institutions such as these? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalen_Asylum

Ah, but we've moved on so far now, that we kill the unwanted members of our society, so much more compassionate. Progress waits for no man!

[RedCelt69]

Wow, think a lot of ourself don't we? Honestly the fact that you can't think of one just makes it worse.

It does? It makes him sane.

Every real wacko thinks ALL their beliefs are perfectly sound.

Every real sane person thinks that all of their beliefs are sound. Else they wouldn't hold those beliefs. If you can think of a belief that you have that you also consider unsound... it isn't really a belief. An idea, or a concept, perhaps... but not a belief.

[RedCelt69]

Sex is for procreation.

Biologically, yes. But seeing as we (present company excluded) are evolved social creatures, we needn't be restricted to the original (biological) purpose of... well, anything. I hate to break it to you (as I'm guessing you've yet to experience it) but sex is also pleasurable. If you do it right, very pleasurable indeed. For both parties, so I've been told.

Why is it pleasurable? To encourage us to do it. If sex was painful and involved no pleasure whatsoever, I wouldn't be sat here typing this on an instrument that hadn't been invented by a species that died out shortly after the first mammal stuck its head out of its tunnel and said "fuck me, what was that big bang... and where did all the dinosaurs go?" (replace the words with squeeks)

Not getting there, yet? Perhaps it would be best to illustrate my point by picking another biological function.

Food is for sustenance.

It's also pleasurable to eat certain foods. Salts stimulate our taste buds. As does sugar. Why? Because the body needs those things for a balanced and healthy diet. Getting pleasure from eating a ripe berry foraged from the undergrowth allowed our aforementioned ancestors to survive better than those that didn't.

In our modern world, we can isolate and produce massive amounts of those pleasurable foods. If you think that sex (for means other than procreation) is wrong, then you must also frown at someone eating a Mars Bar. Or putting ketchup on their food.

After all... food is for sustenance, just as sex is for procreation. Right?

Contraception has blinded society of this truth.

Contraception is the equivalent of a sugar-rich diet that doesn't make you fat... usually. All the pleasure with minimal risks. It isn't difficult to see why those of a religious inclination might be disturbed about people finding their ecstasies without recourse to a sky-daddy.

We do have the ability to restrain ourselves and society did broadly manage this until the wide availability of contraception.

I keep coming across this concept of an idealised utopian world in bygone times when people lived a life The Daily Mail would approve of. I'd be fascinated to know when, exactly, it took place. Thatcher seemed to allude to the Victorian era when men were civil, noble and upright. I'm guessing Thatcher never saw any Victorian porn. The men weren't only upright, they were in every position under the monochromatic sun.

human life's beginning at conception and the coming to existence of a new human person

I'm reminded of a fascinating documentary broadcast a couple of years ago. It followed the course of a human pregnancy from within the womb. From ejaculation to ejection. This wonderful piece of television was utterly ruined when the narrator said (paraphrased) "...one part (the placenta) is discarded, the other, with a soul, is kept."

Woah Nelly! Back up just a bit there! At what point during that 9 month adventure did this previously unmentioned thing called a soul make its first appearance?!

The consequences of full acceptance of the embyro as a human person is a serious critique on the use of contraception

The consequences of full acceptance of the embryo as a human person is a serious misunderstanding of what it means to be a human person.

[Senethro]

If consciousness is the criterion how would you define it? I've not seen a watertight definition yet. Besides how conscious and self aware is a newborn or indeed a toddler? How about during sleep? Everytime we sleep do we lose our personhood? If a embyro or foetus' is not human by virtue of its genetics then by what? Is it human? If not, what? To call it anything other than human is scientifically and philosophically dishonest.

Something can be human (adjective) without being human (noun). Sleep is altered or greatly reduced consciousness, not its absence. The problem of consciousness is troubling and it is not clear at this time when or if the tools and methods to reduce it to understandable components will be come available. Since consciousness is a black box then a cautious margin of error should be left if we desire to do minimal damage to conscious humans. Consciousness is not a property that has been observed in anything except an organised organic nervous system. Electroencephalography will only produce its first readings for a foetus about the 12th week of development. Whatever neural activity is going on at this time is unlikely to be functional, so it is probably still safe, if increasingly uncomfortable to abort shortly afterwards.

Over 80% of abortions in England and Wales occur before 12 weeks. This situation is very satisfactory to me.

But even if the numbers were more concerning to me there are other arguements for maintaining legal abortion. Firstly, women will seek it regardless of its legality and many deaths occur worldwide from unsafe abortion practices. Given that these women are most assuredly and unambiguously conscious then the projected harm from criminalisation of abortion would seem great in comparison to that of a foetus which has only just distinguished its elbow from its arse.
Pregnancy has many costs that are nealry all paid by women. As a man I am fortunate that I will never have my life and my body hijacked by something that can be assigned rights that may override my own. While the total effects of reproduction are difficult to measure, women do experience reduced earning power (which is not a bad approximate measure in our materialistic society) compared to men. Therefore, it seems necessary to maintain unlimited access to early abortion and limited access to third trimester abortions to reduce inequality in our society.

And if followers of scientifically dishonest irrational beliefs with authoritarian tendencies think otherwise they'd best be prepared for a struggle in the political arena.

Spoken like a true relativist! Sex has a clear biological purpose which I've already outlined. Homosexual sex is intrinsically closed to the possibility of procreation. Neither is it unitive in the sense of complimentarity. Sex is an action by which sperm is delivered to an egg. Genitalia evolved to facilitate this transfer. When they are employed to achieve anything other than this end, this could be considered a reproductive malfunction. Same sex attraction (SSA) cannot be considered sinful, since SSA is not a choice. [Definition check: A sin must be: of a grave matter, committed in full knowledge of its sinfulness and done in full freedom.] I hope that is clearer.

Humans are more defined by their culture than their biology. You see malfunction, I see largely harmless variety in behaviour. There is no moral obligation to do anything in a particular manner or for a particular purpose.

[SpidersfromMars]

How did you come to that conclusion, where did I quote scripture or make references to religion? I'm getting at objective morality here.

see there's the problem, you're trying to get at something that doesn't exist.

[Humphrey]

Just to add my two pennies worth. My understanding is that the embryos used for stem cell research are leftover from in-vitro fertilisation and would otherwise be destroyed. This being the case it would be more ethical to use them for potentially life saving treatments rather than to simply throw them away. I would rather see the embryos from legal terminations used to save lives and treat disabilities via stem cell extraction than simply binned. The respect for life entails reducing the suffering of the living as well as respecting the rights of the unborn.

It is likely that within the next couple of years, there will be the requisite technologies to extract stem cells without the destruction of the embryo (i.e the recent experiments on mouse embryos in Worcester MA); in which case the controversy will be null and void.

I'm more concerned about stuff like designer babies

E.G

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 087367.ece

[Haunted]

See my comments above HeLa cells, skin cells are not human beings and you know it. Skin cells do not of their own accord develop into human beings under any conditions. Embryos on the other hand do.

Embryo's do not, of their own accord developed into human beings and the human body is remarkably good at aborting the vast majority of them. Embryo's can and thanks to science we can now take DNA from almost any cell and implant to develop into a human being.

Presumably when the genetic material of the egg and sperm fuse so I'd go for '3. The second meiotic division'. Science says nothing about the soul, but 'insoulment' I would hazard a guess at occurring simultaneously. Haunted you really need to overcome your emotional baggage with the Catholic Church and engage with arguments objectively rather than seeing red everytime and entering into debate blinkered.

There's a few more steps before the genetic material fuses. And why is this somehow the magic step? Even the DNA fusion is not an instantaneous step, is a partially fused one a human being? Are you really going to suggest that a molecule is a human being and that if said molecule happen to lyse it would be as if a human had perished? You see how ridiculous is yet?
Also your mentioning the word 'objective' rather frequently, bare in mind that there is an old man in a silly hat bathing in money whose every word is infallible to you.

Well for therapies it would have had to involve that, but that was one of the reasons for the HFE Act so that cow eggs could be used instead. The method you suggest might be acceptable for already existing embryos created by IVF but, since IVF is in itself illicit due to the separation of the unitive and creative aspects of sex this method would still be unacceptable it embryos were created artificially.

Might be acceptable? Get off the infallible horse and justify these things. Why is it any different? The embryo's from IVF will get destroyed anyway, why is somehow research on them unacceptable? Justification please. I think maybe you should also look up the definition of 'illicit' and what is this white noise about "unitive and creative aspects", what the hell does that mean? Why is this somehow an argument? Oh is it because the magic man said so?

Granted, but in the same amount of time and with an tiny fraction of the budget, adult stems cells have delivered 100% of all stem cell therapies. Granted eventually they might find ways around the serious technical short comings of the embryonic technique. However there is more than one way to achieve most things, but why chose the inefficient method that has so far borne no fruit? Especially when the easy and efficient method is also completely ethical.

Like you have any idea what you're talking about. What technical shortcomings? Some references would be nice, as well as something to support the claim that adult stem cells have delivered 100% on therapies, in fact, especially that one since no stem cell therapies currently exist (bone-marrow transplants being the 30 year old exception)

That is what distresses me the most about embryonic stem cell research. I might find it slightly more acceptable if it was just to find cures for terrible diseases, but it isn't. That was the lie which won over most MPs when the HFE Act was past. Consider that we are not allowed to carry at test on primates for pure research. They may only be used if there is obsolutely no alternative and justified only if the research will likely bring about direct benefits to humanity. If you consider an embryo a human person, how more heinous is it to conduct such research on embryo, just for the research.

Ah 'distresses' you, objective reasoning ahoy. Oh and a bonus conspiracy theory as well. You know, when you say something like "if it was just to find cures for terrible diseases, but it isn't" you may want to elaborate by, you know, mentioning what this 'other' purpose is. Perhaps include a reference or two. An interesting false dichotomy you've tried to draw here as well. Primates can suffer, a cell can't. Primates are intelligent and sentient, a cell isn't.
An embryo is not a human person, and as we seem to have established above, since it's not the so much the cell body or the organelles but the DNA molecule that seems to wield the "human life" label, we will go further and say that a molecule is not a human person. Or would you like to argue otherwise?

[Frank]

Twins, Basil!



I came across (ohohoho!) this idea after a discussion on, as Total Annihilation puts it:



"the transfer of consciousness from flesh to machine".

Anyway, the *point* of this was Identical Twins. How come they get two souls when they've only been concieved once? Can souls be split into two more healthy functioning souls. Isn't that a bit...messy? I mean, if we could encourage twins and triplets, surely we'd be maximising (indefinitely?) the human potential? Or rather: Surely we could get more than one soul from a conception. Isn't it a bit greedy to be keeping only one soul when, with a bit of jiggery pokery I could've contributed more souls? Or do twins only have half of a soul?

Also, I never understood...

Why is an embryo assigned "human potential" yet all those billions of combinations and permutations of sperm-egg combos, especially the ones that go wasted, not afforded life? Would if not be simpler, and harking back, Macgamer, would it not be prudent to note that whilst yes, of course, these things have potential to develop into human beings, we have a very clear opportunity to wield a massive amount of power over their fate. Such as forbidding them to develop and thus truncating that potential and neglecting to ever treat them as humans. Is it actually bad, or is it just wrapped up in slippery slope perjoratives about terminating entire groups of allegedly 'human' people in an effort to conduct a little eugenics before morning break?

'Aborting an embryo' is surely then not that different in terms of final results to wasting lots of sperms and eggs on wanking and periods? Why is the distinction of 'it having already started' (in the case of babbies) enough to warrant awesome thread hijacking, and yet wasting potential souls (as the Python song alludes) both alright (if unsavoury) and highly amusing?

[d_24]

Hi guys! I'm what the thread is supposed to be about! Remember me?

[Haunted]

Of interest to this thread is this
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=iD97OVJ4PNw

Some anti-abortion activists are asked two questions.
1. Should abortion be illegal? (Yes of course!)
2. Ok, what should happen to the women who break that law and have an abortion? (...*not a clue between them*......)


Also, and mildly facetiously, what about my idea in that other thread about removing ovaries and freezing the eggs? Surely that would save a lot of grief? Oh no wait, we must only have sex to procreate musn't we? Someone should really tell the Catholic priests about that one. Here's an interesting statistic. In the US, 0.2% of all Catholic Priests are child molesters (Philip Jenkins, "Pedophiles and Priests: Anatomy of a Contemporary Crisis", Oxford University Press, 2001)

Compare that to the general population. Difficult to find a number for the total number of child molesters in the US, closest I can get is total number of sex offenders, which is just under 250,000. Population of US ~300million. Therefore 0.008% of Americans are sex offenders. 25 times less than catholic priests, and bare in mind we are working with all sex offences here not just child molestation. To convert this into sensationalism, we can say that you are 2500% more likely to be molested by a Catholic Priest than someone else.

EDIT: oh it's all happening today

"US approves 1st stem cell study for spinal injury"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090123/ap_ ... stem_cells

[Frank]

Also, and mildly facetiously, what about my idea in that other thread about removing ovaries and freezing the eggs? Surely that would save a lot of grief?

Call me a transhumanist madman, but I honestly do suspect/hope that this'll be the way forward. I mean to say: What's wrong with divorcing sex (i.e. sexy time, let's hope on the good foot and do the bad thing etc ) from procreation? Just because they're associated (much like eating and living) doesn't mean we can't seperate them.

Similarly with testicles. Best sift through all those sperm and find the good 'uns, huh? If not designer babies, we might as well make sure we're getting good ones. We're free to selectively influence the social bit of a persons upbringing, why not the biological bit? Even stopping well short of all that:



What the Dickens is wrong with test tube babying? I mean if we could artificially gestate everyone, or provide willing surrogates, that'd mean a whole lot of less pregnancy time off for the career minded woman. Bah!

[macgamer]

Embryo's do not, of their own accord developed into human beings and the human body is remarkably good at aborting the vast majority of them. Embryo's can and thanks to science we can now take DNA from almost any cell and implant to develop into a human being.

All life has an environment in which it has evolved to survive within, the embryo's is the female reproductive tract. Certainly we can culture an embryo because we know what its basic requirements are. So too can adult humans exists beyond the earth's atmosphere because we know what is required for survival and we take some of it with us. Give the embyro what it needs and it will of its own accord develop into an adult. The embryo is self sufficient between conception into the fallopian tube and implantation in the endometrium. Any other cell cannot make itself into a human adult it requires intervention, the embryo does not. Any early loss of the embryo is due to a failure in its supression of menstruation.

There's a few more steps before the genetic material fuses. And why is this somehow the magic step? Even the DNA fusion is not an instantaneous step, is a partially fused one a human being? Are you really going to suggest that a molecule is a human being and that if said molecule happen to lyse it would be as if a human had perished? You see how ridiculous is yet?

When exactly do you say that human life, or more crucially personhood begins? All I am saying is that when the full diploid complement of chromosomes exist within one cell and their influence is noticeable, i.e. physiological change from an ovum to a zygote there exists human life.

Also your mentioning the word 'objective' rather frequently, bare in mind that there is an old man in a silly hat bathing in money whose every word is infallible to you.

You display ignorance, only ex cathedra pronouncements on matters of faith and morals have infallibility.

Might be acceptable? Get off the infallible horse and justify these things. Why is it any different? The embryo's from IVF will get destroyed anyway, why is somehow research on them unacceptable? Justification please.

Certainly, to accede to their use would be tacit acceptance of their destruction and endorsement of their artificial creation.

I think maybe you should also look up the definition of 'illicit' and what is this white noise about "unitive and creative aspects", what the hell does that mean?

Bah! Semantics. You honestly haven't been reading the answers I've given to others:

The sexual act can be broken down into two aspects unitive and the procreative. The unitive is the complementary union of male and female in the sexual act, also an expression of love, the procreative is the end purpose of that union of male and female, sperm and ovum: progeny.

Why is this somehow an argument? Oh is it because the magic man said so?

IVF is immoral (prefer that to illicit?) because it separates sexual intercourse (unitive) from reproduction (procreative).

Like you have any idea what you're talking about. What technical shortcomings? Some references would be nice, as well as something to support the claim that adult stem cells have delivered 100% on therapies, in fact, especially that one since no stem cell therapies currently exist (bone-marrow transplants being the 30 year old exception)

Do you even follow the news: http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSTRE4AI03420081119

Ah 'distresses' you, objective reasoning ahoy. Oh and a bonus conspiracy theory as well. You know, when you say something like "if it was just to find cures for terrible diseases, but it isn't" you may want to elaborate by, you know, mentioning what this 'other' purpose is. Perhaps include a reference or two.

Research for the sake of research that is the other reason. I was responding to something Frank mentioned:

Does anyone (here) really think sole endeavour for stem-cell research is for therapeutic advances? That's not the sole criterion for research.

Read the justification for the HFE Act (2008).

An interesting false dichotomy you've tried to draw here as well. Primates can suffer, a cell can't. Primates are intelligent and sentient, a cell isn't.

Primates are not human, embryos, as I you are aware I am arguing, are.

An embryo is not a human person, and as we seem to have established above, since it's not the so much the cell body or the organelles but the DNA molecule that seems to wield the "human life" label, we will go further and say that a molecule is not a human person. Or would you like to argue otherwise?

Most of the DNA in a somatic cell is not expressed. In an embryo the majority DNA is expressed. An embryo is on the path to become an adult and its DNA is being used intensively. A somatic cell spends most of its existence in the dormant G phase and it never develops into an adult. Science makes observations and interprets them. We observe the characteristics of an embryo and it is entirely unique amongst any other cell it has the ability to become an adult human.

[Zanbato]

I have a suspicion that your God himself/herself could come down, grabbed mcgamer by the eyelids and shouted that his bloody embryos are not human, and there would still be room for discussion in his eyes.

Then again, i'm not bound by your God, so i'll decide myself thanks. Embryo research = FTW! To hell with it, if a blob of cells formerly removed by a bottle of wine and a hot bath could cure my ails, then i'm all for it. Screw potential - what do you tell the people with potential who are suffering now? Children? They have potential too. What about people who are in the prime of their life, with loved ones? No potential there? No benefit in treating them?

And I love the implication that all this potential is somehow positive. There's potential to be born into a life of misery and with a feeling that you were never wanted in the first place.

You talk a lot of science, do you study this, or is this culled from Wiki?

I dont have the effort to go through and debate endlessly every point you made, but you can have your opinion. I do wonder if it would remain so resolute if you were in a situation to benefit from the potential stem cell treatment, or if your family were in dire need of the hope that it brings. There's always such criticism of science, yet I bet you freely accept many of the other marvels it has brought without second question of how they were developed, or what animals were involved in their design. There's always some "neccessary evil" involved.

Just as an aside; you talk of sex as a union involving love, or an expression of love?

"The sexual act can be broken down into two aspects unitive and the procreative. The unitive is the complementary union of male and female in the sexual act, also an expression of love, the procreative is the end purpose of that union of male and female, sperm and ovum: progeny."

What of the many times where people simply fuck? I've done it, and there was no love involved, only mild affection, and a want. Expression of love? Hahaha! 'I wonder if you know what love is, but that it certainly aint'