Stem Cell and Organ Harvest

[romanov]

Now the question is, is there not a moral equivalence between the two cases. While neither the sanctity of life at birth nor capital punishment are universally accepted, neither are they universally rejected.

So, would we be imposing our own morality on the wishes and needs of citizens by accepting one form of potential medical enhancement, but not the other?

As Christians, what ought ot be our moral position on this question?

First, I don't believe the federal government should fund stem cell research. Nor should they fund about 98% of the research they fund. Let's say stem cell research ends up curing everything from the common cold to MS. Whatever pharmeceutical company makes the first breakthrough and cures, say, cancer; is going to make billions, if not trillions of dollars. So if it is all that promising, why aren't the CEO's of the pharmeceutical companies running to the local pawn shop to get every last dime they have to invest in this research? The federal government has no business taking money from one private individual and giving it to another private individual.

Secondly, embyronic stem cell research is flat out wrong. You are taking an inocent life to try and cure a life. So like Atlas said. It's wrong. Period. And really embryonic stem cell research is not necessary. They have actually found that adult stem cells are better. Also, I've read something about the stem cells from cord blood is better than embryonic stem cells. Embryonic stem cell research is just the abortion crowd saying, "See something wonderful can come of a tragedy." Which brings us to the moral realtivist agument that we should use the "medical research" of Joseph Mengala.

Harvesting body parts from convicted killers? Hmmmm...I just don't want to give the government that much power. If a condemned convicted killer wants to donate his innards as a form of atonement of his own free will, fine and dandy. Other than that, there's just no way I'd want to give the government that much power.

 

[steen]

Um, I don't agree with you. Am I right or wrong in your eyes? It can't be both ways.

You are neither, you merely disagree, you have a different view. To claim that one view is right or wrong in bogus, facts may be wrong, views and beliefs are just that, and thus not right or wrong.

So yes, if someone disagrees with me, they are wrong. If I thought they were right, then there would be no reason behind me believeing what I do. I, honestly, don't get the mentality that everyone is "right."

And that absolutist, narrow-minded and intolerant view is still bizarre and odd.

You'll have to do better. I'm not convinced.

So? I merely state my disagreement with you. I cannot accept you stating your subjective belief as a fact. That has nothing to do with right or wrong or being convinced. That has to do with whether you are honest or dishonest. I couldn't care a... well, whatever whether you are convinced. I don't for a moment expect to convince anybody who base their political agenda on dogma rather than evidence and facts.

This has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

It has to do with how the actual significance of you holding a belief is about nil. That your beliefs are nothing but your personal belief and thus has no value anywhere else than in your head.

My pinky finger is made up of live cells, but is it a life? There is a difference. Is an embryo a life or just a clump of living cells?

Actually, your original argument was that it was "life," not "a life." The later requires individual, biologically independent existence, the former merely shows at least one live cell. You now trying to redefine terminology because you were sloppy in your arguments previously is not my fault. Such it up and avoid making careless mistakes like that next time.

How does science proove that embryonic stem cell research is right?

Ah, more dishonest shifting of argument. Did you already forget that your original argument was that: "and there fore there is nothing wrong with using embryonic stem cells is just as subjective if not more so. I base my belief on faith. What is your belief based on"? As such, we are again talking about belief rather than "proof" of anything. But certainly, the benefit to sentient persons override mindless, non-sensate, non-sentient cells unless one shows a very callous disregard for human suffering.

 

[illudium_phosdex]

You are neither, you merely disagree, you have a different view. To claim that one view is right or wrong in bogus, facts may be wrong, views and beliefs are just that, and thus not right or wrong.

Semantics.

And that absolutist, narrow-minded and intolerant view is still bizarre and odd.

I find your view that everything is "right" odd. If I'm right, this whole discussion is pointless. It's probably pointless anyway as neither of us is willing to budge.

So? I merely state my disagreement with you. I cannot accept you stating your subjective belief as a fact. That has nothing to do with right or wrong or being convinced. That has to do with whether you are honest or dishonest. I couldn't care a... well, whatever whether you are convinced. I don't for a moment expect to convince anybody who base their political agenda on dogma rather than evidence and facts.

I've yet to see you state any conclusive facts.

It has to do with how the actual significance of you holding a belief is about nil. That your beliefs are nothing but your personal belief and thus has no value anywhere else than in your head.

If you want to take that stand then the same could be said of you and your belief.

Actually, your original argument was that it was "life," not "a life." The later requires individual, biologically independent existence, the former merely shows at least one live cell. You now trying to redefine terminology because you were sloppy in your arguments previously is not my fault. Such it up and avoid making careless mistakes like that next time.

Semantics again. However, the reasoning for the change in wording was more for your clarification since you didn't seem to grasp exactly what I was saying. That one little artcle "a" seemed to be quite critical.

Ah, more dishonest shifting of argument. Did you already forget that your original argument was that: "and there fore there is nothing wrong with using embryonic stem cells is just as subjective if not more so. I base my belief on faith. What is your belief based on"? As such, we are again talking about belief rather than "proof" of anything. But certainly, the benefit to sentient persons override mindless, non-sensate, non-sentient cells unless one shows a very callous disregard for human suffering.

So far, you haven't proven anything.

 

[steen]

Semantics.

When the issue is the meaning of the words you use, then yes the subject is semantics. If you want to avoid that, then better be careful about your choice of words.

I find your view that everything is "right" odd.

But then, that is not my view. care to show me where I said that? Or is this another distortion? Is this another example of pro-life arguments never being done honestly, on the actual facts? Where did I state what you claim I stated?

If I'm right, this whole discussion is pointless. It's probably pointless anyway as neither of us is willing to budge.

I've yet to see you state any conclusive facts.

Where did you? You made CLAIMS about facts, when it was merely your subjective, personal belief. We haven't been discussing a lot of facts yet.

If you want to take that stand then the same could be said of you and your belief.

That beliefs are not facts? Duh! yes, of course beliefs are not facts. I know that. You seem to have difficulty with that concept, though.

Semantics again.

Nope. YOU changed the wording. Not my fault that you so surreptitiously try to change the argument in mid-stream.

However, the reasoning for the change in wording was more for your clarification since you didn't seem to grasp exactly what I was saying. That one little artcle "a" seemed to be quite critical.

And yet you didn't include it in your original post. It is not my fault that you apparently don't write what you actually mean. I can only respond to what you actually write. If you mean "a human" as in an individual, rather than "human" as in a general species designation, then you should start out with that from the get-go. I am not responsible for your carelessness in what you write.

So far, you haven't proven anything.

I proved that you changed the wording in your argument. As I said, such it up and move on, and be more careful next time. I would suggest to you, though, that you don't use terminology interchangeably unless it truly IS interchangeable.

 

[illudium_phosdex]

I went back and looked at my original post. The word I used was humans. As in the noun humans, not the adjective human. If you read the sentence, there is no way that you can make any mistake about the usage of the word humans. I said, "They are humans." Not they are human. There is a difference. You can argue semantics all day.

And as for my supposed distortion of your view. Kindly explain it to me because I must confess you have confused me. If something is not wrong what is it?

 

[steen]

And as for my supposed distortion of your view. Kindly explain it to me because I must confess you have confused me. If something is not wrong what is it?

It just is. Is sunshine right or wrong? Your false dichotemising may have been what caused you to make the misleading statement about my views, but it was wrong nonetheless.

 

[illudium_phosdex]

It just is. Is sunshine right or wrong? Your false dichotemising may have been what caused you to make the misleading statement about my views, but it was wrong nonetheless.

Well, I suppose we are just going to have to disagree yet again. Sunshine has nothing to do with morality therefore would not be right or wrong. I'm sorry but things do not come in "shades of gray." Where morality is concerned, it is either right or wrong. Period. I've already said and I will say again, it can't be both ways. Adios Amigo.

 

[steen]

Well, I suppose we are just going to have to disagree yet again. Sunshine has nothing to do with morality therefore would not be right or wrong.

And what is an issue of morality to one is not to another and vice versa. And even when it is an issue of morality, then one perosn's "moral" act is another person's immoral act. So "right" or "wrong" is a subjective perception.

I'm sorry but things do not come in "shades of gray."

Sure it does. everything has shades of gray. there are always other circumstances that might mater more or less to individuals.

Where morality is concerned, it is either right or wrong. Period. I've already said and I will say again, it can't be both ways. Adios Amigo.

And I keep saying that it sounds like utter nonsense. Is stealing right or wrong? If your kids are starving, is it right to steal food for them? Those kind of scenarions have been explored for decaees, showing a wide variety of "moral" determinant that are very subjective. So "either right or wrong" is a fantasy.