How many ways can the issue of human cloning for destruction and farming be misrepresented. Michael Fox sure fouled it up in his ad campaign, but fortunately St. Louis Cardinals pitcher Jeff Suppan and stars Jim Caviezel and Patricia Heaton speak out against Missouri's Cloning ammendment coming up for vote in November. Watch their, non-emotional manipulation, informative ad by clicking here.
And then there is Dr. David Prentice who is maliciously and eroneously referred to in the title bar of this youtube video, but this man is the real deal. He is a scientist doing stem cell research of the ethical sort. E.g. on adult sources of stem cells, that do not necessitate the destruction of young, unique, human embryos which have been adopted and brought to full term. And Dr. Prentice is getting results, unlike the baby killing stem cell farmers who cannot get venture capital and promise hypothetical results decades into the future. It is rare to hear people differentiate between stem cell research A. Adult, and no unique humans are destroyed, and stem cell research B. B-rated, baby human embryos destroyed to get stem cells for research that isn't even promising research! Listen and watch Dr. Prentice, an ethical stem cell researcher who has come up with cures by clicking here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
27 comments:
Maybe you didn't know this. At this moment their is a medical procedure going on called in-vetro fertilization (sp). This process results in the "murder" of thousands of embryos. Do you not support this? If killing a 416 celled (a fly's brain has hundreds of thousands cells by the way) blastoyct with no discernable features, no nervous system, no emotion, only potential...o, wait I'm sorry, that's what you call "human life." If killing that "human life" is actually murder should those doctors be put behind bars? Why do you support in-vetro but not embryonic stem cell research? And if you want in-vetro stopped, why hasn't the Republican party leaped at the chance to stop killing of genocidal proportions, just becuase it would be unpopular? How unprincipled of them! Also, to characterize the AD that Michael J. Fox shot (he has also supported REPUBLICAN Arlen Specter by the way) in which he only calls embryonic s.c.r. a "hope for a cure" not a sure thing, as many who have hyped it have, as misleading is poppycock of the highest order. And even worse, you PRAISE Vernon Robinson who has put out the most hateful, fear-mongering, vitriolic ads this campaign season. Yes adult, and cord stem cells have potential, and yes they have found cures. But the consensus among the medical establishment is that Embryonic stem cells have the most potential. To claim otherwise is denial. - Devin Carpenter, student of David Talcott at Indiana University. P.S. Social Judgement Theory. You are pushing me away brother, pushing me away.
Since I don't have anything else to say I just wanted to say this: "secular hypnotist"...? rationality, pragmatism, consequentialism, science, empathy, compassion, evolution, reason, enlightenment, naturalism...the real "secular hypnotists." Some questions: 1. Is the bible inerrant? 2. Can "God" be proven to exist? Can god be proven to exist? 3. Should atheists/agnostics be free to hold public office? 4. Are all pagan people going to hell? Are liberal Christians? 5. What would be worse a religious middle east or a "secularly hypnotized" middle east? hahaha 6. Should sodomy be illegal? If so, how do you justify that in secular terms? If you can't, should you legislate morality. Just wondering if I think you'll answer how I think you will........ you can drop me a hot beat at devincarpenter@sbcglobal.net
i meant "legislate religion" in the previous post, not "legislate morality"
Okay, sorry, one more thing. How come evangelicals deplore utilitarianism when it comes to molecular gook, but when it comes to war they love it?
Hi Devin, glad for your blogs and warm greetings to our mutual friend David Talcott your philosophy TA. Allow me to respond to your first blog 'Maybe you didn't know this.' And then respond to the others as a group in a subsequent comment.
Value by the number of cells seems to be what you are endorsing. Did you know there are over 40 tons of disposable diapers in landfills? And there is 40 pounds of salt in my water softener. But if I had 40 pounds of gold at what 600 per ounce, I've got $320,000 and at a meager 10% one could retire on 32,000 per year. Point? It makes a big difference what the 'material' is. Whether a fly brain, a disposable diaper, or a young human. Are you doubting it is a young human?
A lot of ethicists, not just Republican have been slow to keep up with science. IVF leftover embryos have been implanted in adoptive mothers and brought full term. Forgetting what is past, why not start valuing life now?
Arlen Specter is not on my 'best of' list and sometimes is what sympathetic Republican friends of mine call a RINO or in name only.
Glad you saw the Vernon Robinson ad but I cannot believe you called this principled African American candidate a fear mongering hater. But this is an aside. Didn't you see "Leave it to Beaver" at the end of that spot?
As for the consensus of the 'medical establishment' I'm not sure you've heard of the CMDA or other organizations in the medical community but I'm not at all surprised that the consensus of the medical researchers working on embryonic stem cell research now and without legal limits, would want you and me to fund their experiments on young humans because they are not getting results and people don't want to fund human experimentation that destroys the young human. I wouldn't doubt some of the experimenters are not even funding the research themselves but 'only following orders' and doing what the governing authorities say they can do. Some may even have emboldened consciences if they were not being so lucratively funded (from somewhere) now.
Devin, this is a response to posts about 'secular hypnotist' (glad you read my blog title) and evangelicals loving war. Oh yes and your string of questions. First, I do not know any evangelical, Christian, Catholic, Jewish person who loves war. I believe Mao and Stalin did but they were of a different philosophy of religion which you name in your post.
Yes, I believe in a democratic republic. Everyone can vote for their favorite candidate hopefully on issues and that theism, atheism, agnosticism in the candidate is rarely the deciding issue for the vast majority of voters including myself.
I can show you a whole (I'm resisting saying Party) group of people who are for instance all pro-life, who have never voted that way or ever voted for any dividing line in the sand for how far they'd allow choice to reign.
I asked an evangelical pastor the other day who supports partial birth abortion of a viable child (because of her believing the milewide loophole that the life -defined in vaguest of terms- of the mother could be at risk) whether she'd draw the line at one week after birth. She immediately said that some birth defects could require removal of life support if the parents so chose. This was a friend and she could not draw any line at any time other than choice of the more powerful and developed.
Choice reigns over reason. If you hold that value you are a victim of old hippies like me teaching you a radical existentialism. It doesn't work when you are on the receiving end of those choices and it is hard to reason with because it is a self-authenticating belief. However I don't value that value in isolation and I don't believe you should either.
Religion should not be legislated. I think our Constitution and Bill of Rights are influenced by Jewish and Christian and theist and deist thought and is a fine document other than some of the early attempts to limit women and an early attempt to define-down a particular relatively-powerless and relatively under-educated classification of human beings.
Yes, I believe the Bible when properly interpreted is always true and I am a Christian. Do I think Iraq was better off under secular Hussein and his boys and their rape rooms and secret police types than today? I think the consensus of the Iraqi's is, and it is somewhat surprising isn't it, that the answer is Yes.
Would I rather them be a principled pluralistic democratic republic or just a democracy where the power of the majority sect wins out? Well the former of course. When I hear people in the USA say (when they won an election) "these jets and bombers are ours now", I wonder what country they live in. Clearly they are not principled in their pluralism or very educated about democratic republics. Alas.
Joe,
I was going to jump into this with my typical "Meanie" abandon, but you were so gracious in your reply that I must repent in sackcloth and ashes. :)
I do wish people would actually think about this issue instead of knee-jerking from leftist talking points. So much of these types of arguments have a "nyah-nyah" tone to them.."those guys do it too! Your guys are worse! What about this hypocrite?
Does nothing to deal with the substance of the issue. At all. How Lewis Carrollian.
"Value by the number of cells seems to be what you are endorsing." NO, NOT EXACTLY MY DEAR SIR. (IF THAT WERE TRUE THAT WOULD MEAN A PERSON THAT JUST SCRATCHED HIS ARM IS LESS OF A PERSON...) THE POINT WAS, YOU ARE PUTTING SOMETHING IN A MORAL REALM THAT IS CANNOT BE CATEGORIZED AS A HUMAN. EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS CAN LITERALLY SIT ON TOP OF A PIN, CANNOT FEEL, HAVE NO RECOGNIZABLE FEATURES. YOU ARE DEFINING LIFE IN A VERY DRY, BIOLOGICAL SENSE. (WHEN SPERM MEETS EGG. POOF! THAT'S WHEN LIFE IS.) FOR ME, IT SEEMS MUCH MORE BENEFICIAL TO SOCIETY (WHILE STAYING COMPLETELY ETHICAL) TO DEFINE LIFE WHEN THE FETUS BECOMES INDEPENDENT (PHYSICALLY) OF THE MOTHER OR WHEN THE BABY ACTUALLY COMES INTO LIFE AT BIRTH. I'M NOT SURE WHICH ONE I AGREE WITH (I WOULD JUST NOTE HERE, THAT IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, THE SENTENCE FOR HITTING A PREGNANT WOMAN, CAUSING A MISCARRIAGE, IS A LOT LESS THAN ACTUAL MURDER...HMMMM)"A lot of ethicists, not just Republican have been slow to keep up with science. IVF leftover embryos have been implanted in adoptive mothers and brought full term. Forgetting what is past, why not start valuing life now?" I DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS AT ALL. IVF IS NOT ONLY PAST, IT IS PRESENT ALSO. ALLOWING IVF TO GO ON WOULD LET THOUSANDS OF WHAT YOU CALL "LIVES" TO BE KILLED; THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THAT AT ALL. (YOU SPEAK OF ADOPTION, BUT THE PERCENTAGE THAT HAVE BEEN ADOPTED IS LAUGHABLY SMALL) SO, WHY ARE YOUR LEADERS LETTING THIS GENOCIDE GO ON? I REPEAT, THOUSANDS OF BABIES ARE BEING KILLED EACH YEAR BY THIS PROCESS, LAWMAKERS COULD STOP IT, THEY DON'T. UNDER YOUR REASONING, THEY ARE ENABLING MURDER. I DON'T THINK YOU CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION WITHOUT CONDEMNING IVF. TO ALL THE MOTHERS WHO HAVE GOTTEN A BEAUTIFUL BABY FROM THAT PROCESS WOULD BEG TO DIFFER ON THE VALUE OF THE "LIVES" THAT THEY KILLED TO GET IT."Do I think Iraq was better off under secular Hussein and his boys and their rape rooms and secret police types than today? I think the consensus of the Iraqi's is, and it is somewhat surprising isn't it, that the answer is Yes."
I'M SORRY, BUT I THINK IT IS FUNNY THAT ONE OF THE FEW SECULAR DICTATORS IN THE MIDDLE EAST WAS ACTUALLY THE LEAST DANGEROUS TO US. BUT I COULD JUST POINT YOU TO THE MYRIAD OF STUDIES THAT SAY MORE PEOPLE ARE DYING NOW THAN THEY DID UNDER SADDAM OR THE NEWSPAPER REPORTS THAT TALK OF THE MASS MIGRATIONS TO GET AWAY FROM THE BOMBINGS AND KILLINGS. SADDAM WAS A BAD GUY, BUT THERE ARE MANY, MANY MORE BAD GUYS WHO SHOULD HAVE BEEN A HIGHER PRIORITY THAN HIM. (NOTE: RALPH PETERS(!), ANDREW SULLIVAN, CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS (!), LAWRENCE F. BUCKLEY JR. (!), AND MANY MORE HAVE NO DECLARED IRAQ A FAILURE AND A DEMOCRACY IMPOSSIBLE.) FURTHERMORE, THE TALIBAN AND AFGHANISTAN: I WOULD HAVE LOVED TO SEE THEM "SECULARLY HYPNOTIZED" (HAHA, I LOVE THAT PHRASE). BUT NOW IT LOOKS AS IF THE TALIBAN IS RESURGENT IN THE SOUTH, AND AFGHANI OPINION IS STARTING TO SHIFT POSITIVE TOWARDS THE TALIBAN AGAIN! YOU SEEM TO FORGET ABOUT IRAN AND THE FACT THAT ISLAM IS A MAJOR IMPETUS FOR VIOLENCE ALL AROUND THE WORLD."Glad you saw the Vernon Robinson ad but I cannot believe you called this principled African American candidate a fear mongering hater." THIS "PRINCIPLED AFRICAN AMERICAN" TOOK THE EXACT TEMPLATE JESSE HELMS USED IN AN OVERTLY RACIST AD. HOW PRINCIPLED OF HIM! "I'm not sure you've heard of the CMDA..." THE CHRISTIAN MEDICAL AND DENTISTRY ASSOCIATION...WONDER IF THEIR BIASED? THE FACT IS ADULT AND CORD STEM CELLS ARE FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT FROM EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS; THEY CAN'T (OR IT CAN'T BE DONE YET) TRANSFORMED TO DO OTHER TASKS LIKE EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS. HENCE, EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS ARE BETTER. YOU FIND ME A SECULAR ORG. (I.E. ONE THAT USES BOTTOM UP REASONING AND NOT TOP DOWN REASONING) AND THEN I'LL COMMENT ON IT. TILL THEN...
Wow...first of all, Solameanie. Please, if you would like to criticize me you can e-mail me at devincarpenter@sbcglobal.net. You don't have to hide in a comments section. I am sure you would be a wonderful addition to the debate. I would love to hear your "meanie" comments...I'm sure they would just be so mean! Oh! I can't wait!
Second of all, you glanced over one of my points so I think I'm going to have to make it clearer. To support the Iraq war you must support this sentence: "I think it is morally right to blow up women, children, and innocent civilians along with enemy soldiers to free a people." I support that, if the outcome gives more people freedom and happiness than not doing it would have. Utilitarianism! The horror! This is what I don't understand. You supported the Iraq war when utilitarianist principles are self-evident. But when the principle says:"I think it is morally right to use genetic goop to (possibly) help people with debiltating diseases." You say NO! Come on. I'm scared now, "meanie" might get me. please...
Another thing I forgot, what about the work of scholars like Bart Ehrman (Chair of Religious Studies at North Carolina) who say some things in the Bible were edited/added. How would these be enerrant? Why would God condone slavery? Why would God condone killing children? Why would God send bears to kill children?...if he was such a great guy. Also, meanie, don't call me a leftist and I won't call you crazy or irrational. Thanks!
Devin--You're asking way too many questions at once--blog comments have a limited space! I've provided respectful answers. But, frankly, your attitude is not one of respectful dialogue but rather of mockery.
1) Joe has been defining human life the same way that biologists define human life. If you don't like the biology then you can take it up with them. Human life begins at conception. Now, if you want to argue that not all human biological organisms are _persons_, then you are free to do so. But you should really stop promulgating false science.
2) Some of us might reasonably be worried about your desire to define life on the basis of what is beneficial to society. This is, of course, what maniacs who justify genocide do. Let's define life on the biology.
3) Yes Joe knows about the OT laws regarding miscarriage and abortion. None of that proves anything. I could, for instance, consistently hold: a) each individual human organism is equally valuable, b) it is legitimate to have different legal punishments for killing different human organisms. A simple example of this is police officers--many states impose stricter penalties for killing a police officer. Prudence and an examination of the legal and social realities of a particular situation are what would justify this kind of difference.
4) People who are against stem-cell research are nearly always against IVF. I think Joe's point is that we should give leftover embryos a chance to live, too, which I, of course, think is a good idea. But he ducked your question and should have openly said he's against IVF, which I think he is. Though, IVF at least has the positive side effect of one or more humans having a chance to live.
5) If you want to argue that Iraq was better off under Sadaam then I'm not going to try to stop you, though I think the claim is absurd (And did you mean William Buckley? Don't know of any Lawrence Buckley).
6) There were more than just Utilitarian calculations behind us going to war. Cf. The Times Front page today for a reminder.
7) Many liberal Christians don't believe the Bible is without error. That's not news to Joe. If you had some argument for why he should give up inerrency, I didn't see it. Joe has an MA in theology, so I'm sure he'd be able to field questions.
8) If a sovereign with the authority hands down a just sentence at a different time than we ourselves would have, does that make that ruler unjust? Of course not.
I'm undecided on IVF hypothetically speaking under a number of conditions like adoption of frozen human 'leftover' embryos but I do have issues with it.
I wasn't referring to the human embryo's stem cells but to the human embryo him or herself.
Lastly somehow I have this impression that you (Devin) really want to discuss the war in where (Iraq or Afghanistan) on this list. Why not chose another post on that subject (on my blog) to comment on such?
Concerning the passage in Exodus 21, here http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2021:22-25;&version=49; there is some warrant in the Hebrew that the word for child seems to refer to a rather developed unborn child, and that the 'no further injury' could refer not simply to the injury to the mother and a premature live birth, but to the death of the child affecting lex talionis. But David's point on intentionality and contexts is well taken.
I'm sorry if I sound disrespectful, I didn't mean to be.
I mean William F. Buckley, I don't know why I said Lawrence. Haha
"But you should really stop promulgating false science."
I was agreeing that science does define human life as such. But, to put humans in the moral realm I don't think we should use science (as I'm sure you will tell me in other areas, do not use science for morality). It is hard for me to say that sperm for instance, something that has the potential to be a human, has any moral worth. I said the benefit to society would be free of any immorallity, so I don't think it would justify genocide becuase as I said people who have been born (or are physically independent in their mothers wolm) are in the moral realm.
"it is legitimate to have different legal punishments for killing different human organisms."
I would agree. The problem is, you give an example where the penalites are HARSHER. I am trying to think of where it would be alright to change the definition of a person (ie. person vs. police officer) where the definition allows a lesser penalty. Unless you are talking about a position where a person wants to die (an old person on a respirator saying they want to be taken off) the law has a very bottom: being human.
"People who are against stem-cell research are nearly always against IVF."
I have yet to find a politician that holds such a position. And as Joe is on the fence on the subject in the above post. You will lose the country if you adopt such a position. (Morality is not about democracy, I know, but I think it shows the absurdity of the position.)
"If you want to argue that Iraq was better off under Sadaam then I'm not going to try to stop you, though I think the claim is absurd"
I give the reasons why I think it is. Are those reasons bad? Why? And what are your reasons to the contrary? The real question, however, does not put Iraq at the center. The real question (which has not been answered) is why utilitarianism is deplored when it involves embryos and diseased people; but embraced (or at the very least tolerated) when we blow up children to achieve stability/democracy/freedom in Iraq/Middle East. Either war is deplorable or it isn't.
"If a sovereign with the authority hands down a just sentence at a different time than we ourselves would have, does that make that ruler unjust? Of course not."
I don't understand that. I'm sorry, I don't know what you are refferring to. Again, I'm sorry if I sounded belligerent earlier. And I hope you feel better. Devin Carpenter
A sperm doesn't have the potential to be a unique human life, neither is it such, but has the DNA of the father. Dittos with the human egg, DNA of the mother.
Now about independent living. Did you catch the significance of the 'snow flake' children. Former, outside the womb, embryos which were frozen and apparently living outside the mother, adopted, implanted, brought to term and living in the air breathing world today.
Were those snowflake embryo's unable to live outside the mother? Apparently they could, just not for long. How long would a child from one month to four years of age be able to live without an older parenting influence? What is viable, independent? As you define it I believe you will have to allow for infanticide up to the age of 3 or 4 perhaps. Do you really want to go there?
I'm back to the question of what the material is...not a landfill diaper, not the salt in my softener, not even gold at 600 whatever per ounce but a unique human DNA new living organism which provided only safety and nourishment (just like you and I require) will grow to be the human he or she already is, with hyphens. Human-embryo, human- fetus, human-infant, human- toddler, human-pre-schooler, human etc.
Could one back the invasion of Iraq not simply or merelly because of WMDs everyone knew he had which went out via Syria, or because of mere massive human rights violations, but rather because he was defeated in a defensive war against Kuwait and Kuwait was liberated, and then Iraq did not abide by the UN sanctions, the no fly zones, inspections, etc? We keep coming back to the war. Watch for a new post to reply about the war...
I have always been confused about this. Doesn't sperm have the POTENTIAL to become a human? (A sperm is still original, it has the father's DNA just as you say.) It seems strange (although fertilization is a major part of the process) to reach the conclusion that fertilization is the ultimate time of person-hood. I just don't see how logic will allow that. If oringinality (mother DNA and father DNA) is so important, originality being the key, doesn't that say something about twins and that process?
Twinning is tricky for ethics and early unique and as you say 'originality' human cases. It happens I believe at the pre-human-embryonic stage called the human zygote. It appears that at the current time we cannot discern the presence of the second unique human being. It does however make the early human being or original human life even more special in that it could be two or more unique human beings.
I see you've inserted, getting away from the hard science and into the social sciences, the term 'person' to describe what is human. This is a good semantic maneuver on your part as personhood is far more slippery in modern created categories of psychology. Careful though. In defining what a 'person' is in terms of the humans interactions and reason and performances that you do not define people with downs syndrone out of personhood, or create a category that while in a deep sleep, one can take your life because, well..you weren't performing or interacting or known to be reasoning.
I like how Dr. Seuss put it in "Horton Hears a Who" where he says simply but profoundly, "A person is a person, no matter how small." You probably won't find this very convincing but it is a rather delightful thing for those that believe innocent, young, unique human lives are worthy of even heroic protection and common decency nurture.
Have we all blown it? Yes. Can we be forgiven? Yes. Can we receive and extend that forgiveness while fiercely justifying ourselves and rationalizing our not so healthful choices?
Speaking for myself, I could not.
There is a popular 'everyone is a winner' story that when you were a sperm you won the race to the egg. It is cute but the hard science is off. The sperm was never you. You were once a fertilized human egg and if you were not, you are not here.
"A sperm doesn't have the potential to be a unique human life" NOT EXACTLY. AS I'M SURE YOU KNOW, THE ANTI-ABORTION ARGUMENT RELIES ON ACTIVE POTENTIALITY MEANING AN INNOCENT BEING THAT HAS THE POTENTIAL WITHOUT ANY THING ELSE ADDED. ( A SPERM DOES HAVE PASSIVE POTENTIAL TO BE A UNIQUE HUMAN BEING; MEANING IF OTHER THINGS HAPPEN TO IT IN THE FUTURE IT CAN BE A UNIQUE HUMAN BEING.) SO ACTIVE VS. PASSIVE IS IMPORTANT IN THIS CASE. TWO THINGS: 1. I'M NOT SURE A FERTILIZED EGG ACTUALLY HAS ACTUAL POTENTIAL BECUASE IT STILL NEEDS A UTERUS. 2. THE COMA CASE: IF A PERSON IS IN A COMA AND WILL NOT COME OUT OF IT UNLESS AN OPERATION IS CONDUCTED HE ONLY HAS PASSIVE POTENTIAL; WOULD IT MAKE IT LESS IMMORAL TO MURDER THAT PERSON THEN? I THINK THESE (ALONG WITH THE ILLOGICAL ADDITION OF TWINS) ARE MAJOR PROBLEMS WITH THE ANTI-ABORTION ARGUMENT.
Two more things:
1. Joe talks of the "Snow Flake" children which President Bush paraded around (in my opinion, quite distastefully). Only a tiny portion of embryos being discared due to IVF are adopted, and there doesn't seem to be any movement to adopt these embryos in any large number.
2.Also, Joe brings up the point of independence that I had brought up before and objects saying an infant is dependent on his mother. I would object to this and bring into the discussion the difference between Social Dependence and Physical Dependence. When an embryo is in the womb is dependent on a specific biological entity, his/her mother. When the baby is born, he/she is simply socially dependent, meaning any human being could care for the baby but at this point the baby is completely physically independent.
Also, to say that a utilitarian would devalue life is, I think, misguided. Any utilitarian would have to be an idiot to think that. Looking at history, countries who demoted the status of humanity (Nazi Germany, Slavery in America just two examples of hundreds) resulted in a huge loss of happiness. So, any sensible utilitarian would see that principles of freedom (including the freedom to live) for all humans is not only a worthy cause but an essential one to maximizing happiness.
Two more reasons why I think Iraq was better off under Saddam: 1. Headline from LA Times:"Decrepit healthcare adds to toll in Iraq
A once enviable system lacks doctors, medicine and key equipment. Despite U.S. funding, no cure seems imminent." 2. Iraqi offical claims that 150,000 iraqis have been killed by insurgents.
And if we let Afghanistan slip away... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061112/ap_on_re_as/afghanistan
Devin, concerning your last several brief posts, a couple questions... Are you wanting to keep a 'contagious' democracy (isn't that neo-con-ish of you?) in Afghanistan and pull out of Iraq?
And about the other post where you discover what a snowflake child is... And then ask the question about why there is no outcry and demand and market for them? Is this a serious question given your own awareness of the issue?
I will assume it is a genuine question and respond with a question and an answer to my own question. Why not spread the word about adopting frozen human embryos and let it be known that doing so would be less expensive than starting at square one in the fertility clinic? And let the many many couples seeking children but do not have the economic means to do so via paying the scientists and clinics, or overseas and other adoption agencies tens of thousands of dollars about such options and make leftover human embryo adoption economical? Make it as popular as bumper sticker ribbons or cancer awareness wristbands. How much can it cost to implant a unique human fertilized ovum that has grown into a unique human, frozen embryo? Goodness it has to be less expensive than abortion and far more dignifying!
OK, here's a reason why we don't do this Devon, and I find it a VERY credible and evil reason. And again, a read of your own unawareness of the subject in previous posts reveals at least part of this reason in your own argument as well...
To Do So Would Be To Admit the Humanity of the here-to only thought-of as disposable, inevitable, doomed, and not even really HUMAN embryo! And that is too big a thing to admit when you are trying to legalize human cloning by saying the cloned human isn't human. And this, Mr. Devin, would be FAR too high a price to pay for those Committed to lengthening (hypothetically) an elderly person's life a couple years, ten to fifteen years from now (hypothetically) by actually killing tens of thousands of tiny, unique human embryos 'clinically' and 'scientifically' now. What?! For patenting human materials for hypothetical future cures? I would think even anti-market leftists would gag at the atrocity!
And you found President Bush carrying-for and publicizing the existence of full term, formerly frozen human embryos that were adopted... what was your phrase, 'quite distasteful'? Good heavens, Man!
As to your post on sperm being a human being because it is potentially human (apparently trying to make it similar to the fertilized human ovum or human zygote or human embryo) or saying human sperm has "potentiality" or actuality in some contrived Aristotilian manner and some such... Get real.
By this definition of potentiality, using philosophical evolution (the ruling hegemony, since you are so worried about hegemonies) as a reasoning tool, inanimate matter is human(!) or potentially human! Are you a Wiccan, or into the worship of Mother Nature or something? This is not rational thinking. But in a way, isn't that what happened in this philosophical evolutionaly paradigm? E.g. Something inanimate in matter came inexplicably into existence from absolutely nothing and for no reason and clearly with no designing, then it becomes organic (again with all the same 'reason' and explain-ability), then becomes via sundry stages over time and jumpstarted timely and convenient via punctuated whatevers...Human.?
With THIS understanding I guess you could criticize me for not wanting to criminalize walking on dirt as it is human or potentially human. Or criticize me for questioning the power of 'absolute nothing' because it is demeaning to 'nothing' because it *could* become human, like sperm. LOL. Are you for real here?
Keep imagining...and calling it science, you are going to need it powerfully to convince yourself, future inquisitive children, and their children should God gracefully give us such time in such times as these, with such controllers and such reasoning.
Calm down my good sir. No need to hoot and holler.
1."Are you wanting to keep a 'contagious' democracy (isn't that neo-con-ish of you?) in Afghanistan and pull out of Iraq?"
Do you think realists wouldn't want democracy in other lands? Do you think isolationists wouldn't want democracy in other lands? Do you think liberal idealists wouldn't want democracy in other lands? Of course they would. Isolationists just don't think we should help, realists think we should only do it when the outcome is a little less than certain and will be in our benefit, and liberal idealists want to to do it when there is a humanitarian crisis. Neo-cons just have a different way of going about it. Call me a neo-con, I don't care. Do you think that hurts my feelings? I'm not childish and neither are liberals. Have you read Peter Beinart? Have you read John B. Judis? Have you read Matthew Yglesias? Have you read Spencer Ackerman? I doubt it. They are true liberals, not DailyKos posters who people on the right just love to quote. It would be the equivalent of me quoting a Christian Reconstructionist and saying that was the average Christian.
2."And about the other post where you discover what a snowflake child is... And then ask the question about why there is no outcry and demand and market for them? Is this a serious question given your own awareness of the issue?"
Discover? I've been following this debate very closely my dear friend. I'm not sure what you are implying. And I didn't call for people to adopt embryos. I merely pointed out that Bush acted like the Embryos that were being thrown away would all turn into these "snowflake children." This is false. A tiny percentage of these children have been adopted and no one will adopt the rest (except a very small portion). You read me wrong. (You then start talking about creating a movement to adopt these embryos. I don't care about them. I don't care if they are thrown away, and I don't think Americans will care either. That is my whole point. I don't think they have any moral worth (certainly not anything compared to the in-vetro fertilization that they supply))
3. You seemed to be distressed that I called Bush's speech "quite distasteful." I stand firmly by that. He gave a speech in which he justified the bill by saying that embryos can become these children while not telling the American people that these embryos are thrown away in the hundreds everyday and he doesn't object to it (or he doesn't want to face the political cost...how principled). He basically used children to lie.
4. Okay, your last point doesn't make sense to me either. You seem to be damning your own argument. Why do you think embryo's contain moral worth. Either:
A. They have the potential to become human beings (so does sperm and as you point out, just about anything). So, it seems that that position is weak.
B. Embryos have the same moral weight as fully grown humans. This is equally as spurious. If a building is burning down; the west wing contains a million embryos (you could save many of them) the east wing contains a baby. Which do you save? If you pick the embryos I would say you are a deeply, deeply immoral and irrational person.
These are the only two reasons that I can think you would give a 416 celled blastoycst that can fit on the head of a pin any moral worth, and both seem extremely weak. If you can think up another way I'd love to hear it.
Until then, please don't insult my intelligence; I've stopped myself from insulting yours. I'm not even sure what you think the problems with my positions are. Maybe a little less "umph" and a little more substance.
Let me just reiterate that it would be your view (if you think potentiality is a valid argument) that would lead to the obviously absurd logical ends that you point out.
Post a Comment