|
wyldeman007
Student



Registered: 06/03/06
Posts: 309
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
Last seen: 8 months, 28 days
|
Scientific Rant : Abortion, Stem cells and Animal testing
#7845440 - 01/07/08 08:14 PM (16 years, 25 days ago) |
|
|
I was going to post in Political but the morality issue is the most powerful aspect of my point.
Abortion isn't murder, the fetus can't live outside the womb naturally. Homicide is when a person kills a person, saying that a fetus is a person is illogical. A person may be defined as the ego, mind and memory of a human being, actions of a human organism compiled with social aspects, a history of social and non social interactions attributes this idea of a person. I don't believe a fetus is able in principle to appreciate the rights that adults do. Having rights implies the bearer has choices, one who undertakes choices reflects ones intentions which generally have repercussions. A fetus wont exhibit any political intentions or contributions to society as a whole. Consequences for actions remains a law of the physical world, the unborn child is not of the world. The fetus belongs to the system as a whole, but as an extension of an entity, therefore any degree of humanity it exhibits are dwarfed by the host. There is no point where a human being is given rights, rights by definition in and of it's self are inherent to that human. The question isn't whether a fetus has rights, but whether a fetus can appreciate, object or embrace the rights of life? Finally how does a bundle of cells deserve the treatment of a person? Why don't people lose sleep over natural fetus absorption or even acknowledge it? Why is harvesting a clump of stem cells considered murder? Human stem cells/fetus'/zygotes aren't considered 'human beings' because the aren't people.
Women are people and have rights, we've established this. Why should a woman have to involuntarily mutilate her body for a child she will never love and chose not to have (So you wont lose sleep at night)? Even from a moral stand point, logically, infringing the rights of the would be mother is the real tragedy. I'm not talking about the science side right now at all, pro life is unnecessary suffering for the mother and potentially the infant child. Life is a wonderful thing, so why destroy the mothers life by taking away her right to endure no pain if she chooses, irreparably damage her body, risk death by birth, having her ex affect her life directly via the "rights" of the fetus? 'Pro choice' (is there really a choice?)
Pro life should from now on be referred to as pro-tissue or pro-biological agent or pro-parasitic entity. The only "life" that's affected is the mothers, so the term could be coined as pro-anti-living.
Stem Cell research can save multiple lives and improve the lives of exponentially more, but people are stuck on the one life as being the victim. The real victims are the ones who suffer unnecessarily. Scientific break-breakthroughs it would sky rocket!
What is the deal with vegetarians, vegans, animal activists and PETA? What is the real agenda here?! It all boils down to the same subject just ranted. Where would we be without animal testing? Well I can't begin to tell you that but I can say a lot of people would be dead! We need this research to further our quest for knowledge. Where does the morality of a member of PETA or any other animal rights group stand when they get bitten by a venomous snake? I wouldn't believe for a second that the world would be rid of them if they all got envenomnated by a pit viper (anti- Venom is derived from animal anti bodies and snake venom, may I assume that animal activists once bitten by a snake would die rather than administer?). If they think that by being utterly hypocritical their cause is strengthened? Coming from the same area of explanation, insulin is derived from animals and animal testing. (I've actually read an account of a real-live-breathing-diabetic-animal-activist-PETA member implying that animal testing was cruel and not useful. She is a living lie and the only cruel thing is her mind betraying her ego!)
Why does P.E.T.A. think that we are some how separate from nature and are cruel beings?
--------------- PLEASE CONTEST!!!!!------------------ --------------- PLEASE CONTEST!!!!!------------------ --------------- PLEASE CONTEST!!!!!------------------
I'm looking forward to clarifications because I know that many will think of things I didn't!!!!!
--------------------
"We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here." - Richard Dawkins
|
mayfly
.



Registered: 01/05/08
Posts: 800
Loc: planet home
|
Re: Scientific Rant : Abortion, Stem cells and Animal testing [Re: wyldeman007]
#7846674 - 01/08/08 01:24 AM (16 years, 24 days ago) |
|
|
Agreed, agreed, and almost agreed.
I read recently that animal testing is no longer necessary for a lot of things, like cosmetics, so I'd rather not make animals suffer when there's a less cruel alternative. However, if it's a choice between a whole bunch of people dying, and hurting a few bunnies... I'd sacrifice the bunnies. PETA is the reason people think the animal rights movement is a bunch of psychos.
ETA: Stem cell research is actually a much less inhumane practice than people seem to think. While yes, stem cells can be taken from aborted fetuses, it's far more common to take stem cells from a benign by-product of natural birth: the umbilical cord. I can't imagine how anyone could be opposed to that, unless they were misinformed about what it actually was.
-------------------- "The important thing to remember: if we ship all our fat-bottomed girls off to foreign countries, the terrorists win."
Edited by mayfly (01/08/08 01:27 AM)
|
AnastomosisJihad
Hominid



Registered: 01/01/08
Posts: 700
Loc: Ohio
|
Re: Scientific Rant : Abortion, Stem cells and Animal testing [Re: wyldeman007]
#7847215 - 01/08/08 09:48 AM (16 years, 24 days ago) |
|
|
Your argument for abortion is too strong I think.
By tying personhood and the right to life to "ego, mind and memory, compiled with social aspects, a history of social and non-social interactions", you have made a good argument for killing infants and the mentally disabled.
Ego and memory are not manifest in new born babies, nor is there much of a social relation other than with the mother who supplies milk. The child still receives all of its nourishment from the mothers body for the first couple of months, making this relation an extension of the placental relation.
Likewise, severely retarded people often lack mind, memory, and ego, and have little to no meaningful social interactions
Maybe you also advocate infanticide and mercy killing of the mentally disabled, but if not, then you need to rethink your argument for abortion.
There might be something to the womens rights argument, but calling an unborn baby a "parasite" is a misuse of language. The relationship between a mammalian female and her unborn progeny is different from her relationship with the tape worm in her gut.
Your attack on the phrase "prolife" also fails the norms of language. An unborn baby is unquestionably human, and unquestionably alive. It's life is distinct from the life of the mother in that it has a unique combination of Homo sapiens DNA and a unique metabolism. Your assertion that "the only life effected is the mothers" is simply wrong. There are two distinct human lives involved in pregnancy, and abortion destroys one of them.
The interesting question centers on personhood and rights, not whether the unborn baby is alive. Arguments for abortion that deny the life or humanness of the fetus are unscientific, and disingenuous.
There might be good arguments for abortion, but the ones you have presented are not good, and certainly not "scientific".
--------
The controversy over stem cells is moot. In the last couple of years, scientists have manged to revert adult skin cells into undifferentiated 'fetal' stem cells, so there is no longer a need to harvest stem cells from fetuses. Furethermore, stem cells produced from adult somatic cells hold more medical promise than fetal stem cells, because dangerous immunosupressent drugs are not needed when treating a patient with stem cells cultured from her own body.
-----
I agree with your critique of PETA, but I have no problem with folks who choose not to eat animals. I like to eat nonhuman animals, and they are also useful in the laboratory. However, as sentient beings animals should be respected and care should be taken to minimize animal suffering whenever possible.
Edited by AnastomosisJihad (01/08/08 10:00 AM)
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Scientific Rant : Abortion, Stem cells and Animal testing [Re: wyldeman007]
#7847382 - 01/08/08 10:58 AM (16 years, 24 days ago) |
|
|
Where would we be without animal testing? Well I can't begin to tell you that but I can say a lot We need this research to further our quest for knowledge.
You really can't say a lot. Had we chosen other avenues of research we might have gone even further. We will never know. Our use of animal testing would for the most part not be necessary IMO if we looked at what makes one healthy rather than what makes one sick.
Since you suggest that might makes right here I suggest we test on prisoners and homeless and radicals and anyone else at odds with the state including those that take illegal substances.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Scientific Rant : Abortion, Stem cells and Animal testing [Re: Icelander]
#7847410 - 01/08/08 11:07 AM (16 years, 24 days ago) |
|
|
I vote we test on hippies.
--------------------
|
wyldeman007
Student



Registered: 06/03/06
Posts: 309
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
Last seen: 8 months, 28 days
|
Re: Scientific Rant : Abortion, Stem cells and Animal testing [Re: AnastomosisJihad]
#7849147 - 01/08/08 05:14 PM (16 years, 24 days ago) |
|
|
Allow me to clarify with what I said: as with the window of humane abortion practices and stem cell harvest: I'm referring to the time between conception and the emergence of the fetus (approx. 8 weeks). I truly don't advocate the killing of newborns, retards, prisoners, or the arbitrary animal. I strongly advocate pro-choice though, please don't remain confused. My point isn't that a developing pre-fetal embryo is a creature outside the human race, but in fact a potential adult human with a degree of humanity negligible to acknowledgement.
Fetus', newborns, children and teenagers are all somewhat dependent on the mother, the lines blur so its very difficult to observe points in time where the attributes apply. The reason abortion isn't murder, is because embryonic cells prior to 8 weeks do not constitute a person. A hand doesn't add up to being a person (still it's human), excrement, expectorant, blood, and tears aren't people (but they're still considered to be human) My issue is that emotion is an investment, and far more should go toward the person hood of the mother, rather than the coalescing cells inside her uterus. My I ask 'where is the emotion in vanishing twin syndrome?' An advanced fetus may be absorbed in the mother and twin, many women don't feel the need to point out that an average of 12 fetuses die this way during a woman's lifetime!
It's said that an unborn baby is comforted by the beating heart and voice of the mother at about 26 to 38 weeks. At this point thalamic connections are made in the brain, thusly the child is technically sentient during and after this period. Before the mind advances this far in development, the conscious mind is possibly aware but is subject to the oblivion of it's state. I also believe that the building of a person starts no earlier than 26 weeks (the building of the embryo itself began at conception).
In the fetal state, the likeness to an infant child is prominent throughout the term, this issue I'm sure is where most of the emotion and controversy is placed (as it is to be expected), without a thalamic interface I must point out that the fetus isn't able to process pain. Termination without pain is the first step toward humane practices of abortion. The moral issue is the opinion at heart here, invest argument into that please.
By referring to an unborn fetus as a parasite, I lightly reflect it's likeness to one. Yes a sperm, egg, zygote, embryo, fetus, unborn infant, infant, toddler, child, adolescent, and adult are undeniably human, but they all exhibit different traits and should be addressed concurrently with the nature of their being.
Pro-choice is not synonymous to the words; evil, inhumane, monstrous, unethical or cruel, pro lifers treat it this way unjustly and are generally unwilling to compromise because their beliefs prevent this. Pro-choice advocates are willing to compromise in some cases.
As far as the language that I used to attack pro-life, by "life" in this sense of the word, I focus on the terms "the good life" or "this is the life". Simply put: forcing someone to do what they think is wrong and you think is right takes away their rights of life (if say, you're stranded on an island or taken prisoner by the enemy, sure your heart is beating and your brain is thinking but can you say that you're living). Life by definition is very complicated, but what I'm talking about is the mother's morality vs the fetus' in a transient sense.
Of course the fetus is killed in the process of abortion, in that sense life has been destroyed. If you only focus on the entropy of the mother/fetus system, a tragedy may prevail in your thoughts, inversely, the system as a whole precedes the fetus and is thus intact well after regardless of abortion. Another thing is that I don't lack compassion toward mentally challenged people, but ascertain a presence of pity. The fact people would exploit these helpless human beings is folly, and surprising that you would think I support such nonsense.
On top of all of this I never deny the "humanness" or the presence of life within the womb. Not wanting to do any heavy research on the topic, I placed this post in the P.S. board.
Quote:
wyldeman007 said:I'm not talking about the science side right now at all
If you want to talk about the science, then simply suggest that I clone this post in Politics or something.
-----------------
If you address my position on the subject as disingenuous I challenge you to think about pro-life in those terms!
As far as the scientific side of spirituality or morality, don't go there, we can't touch that without saying something inappropriate for this forum.
As for stem cells, I'm kind of dabbling if you will, into the prospect of cloning embryos prior to 8 weeks and harvesting their stem cells because in this way they may be mass produced. In our current state of research I have to agree with you on that point though.
People that don't eat animals just provoke a question in my mind of "why", that's all, it's not like I have a distaste for their presence or anything...
-----------------
Thank you for you're contribution and please continue...
--------------------
"We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here." - Richard Dawkins
|
wyldeman007
Student



Registered: 06/03/06
Posts: 309
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
Last seen: 8 months, 28 days
|
Re: Scientific Rant : Abortion, Stem cells and Animal testing [Re: Icelander]
#7849206 - 01/08/08 05:23 PM (16 years, 24 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
wyldeman007 said:Where would we be without animal testing? Well I can't begin to tell you that but I can say a lot of people would be dead!
No one can say for sure what the null path might be for animal research. Would it bring us to the point we are at now, would we be worse off or much more advanced? My point is just that it has saved a lot of lives, who knows where those people would be right now without it?
--------------------
"We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here." - Richard Dawkins
|
Veritas


Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
Re: Scientific Rant : Abortion, Stem cells and Animal testing [Re: wyldeman007]
#7849288 - 01/08/08 05:36 PM (16 years, 24 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
wyldeman007 said: Abortion isn't murder, the fetus can't live outside the womb naturally. Homicide is when a person kills a person, saying that a fetus is a person is illogical.
Quote:
Murder The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
Quote:
Human A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.
Quote:
Person A living human.
It is accurate to say that abortion isn't murder, but only because the practice is currently legal in this country. It is accurate to say that a fetus is both human AND a person. Your definitions of these terms are inaccurate.
Though I am legally pro-choice, I do view abortion as killing a person. However, since the person in question is inextricably dependent upon ANOTHER person for their survival, the legal right of the mother prevails. As morality is incredibly subjective, I would not presume to legally enforce moral beliefs which infringe upon anothers' right to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness.
|
wyldeman007
Student



Registered: 06/03/06
Posts: 309
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
Last seen: 8 months, 28 days
|
Re: Scientific Rant : Abortion, Stem cells and Animal testing [Re: Veritas]
#7849556 - 01/08/08 06:18 PM (16 years, 24 days ago) |
|
|
To re-phrase, Murder is a human person killing another human person, your right.
Abortion is homicide indisputably, but I don't believe murder is in this case synonymous with homicide.
I cannot agree that a human is necessarily the same thing as a person.
I believe that the spiritual aspect of a given homo sapiens directly reflects the organism's personification.
Otherwise I agree with you 100%
--------------------
"We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here." - Richard Dawkins
|
Veritas


Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
Re: Scientific Rant : Abortion, Stem cells and Animal testing [Re: wyldeman007]
#7850708 - 01/08/08 09:41 PM (16 years, 24 days ago) |
|
|
Well, you can make up your own definitions if you want, but don't expect to be able to communicate your ideas to other humans (people.) A human IS the same thing as a person. Homicide MAY be murder, but only if it is unlawful.
|
wyldeman007
Student



Registered: 06/03/06
Posts: 309
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
Last seen: 8 months, 28 days
|
Re: Scientific Rant : Abortion, Stem cells and Animal testing [Re: Veritas]
#7851046 - 01/08/08 10:36 PM (16 years, 24 days ago) |
|
|
May I entice you to reveal the grounds of your beliefs?
Despite the fact that my views are my own and lie independent of others, I'm very interested in your philosophical standpoint.
Please help me understand where you're coming from.
thanks
--------------------
"We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here." - Richard Dawkins
|
Lakefingers


Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 6,440
Loc: mumuland
|
Re: Scientific Rant : Abortion, Stem cells and Animal testing [Re: wyldeman007]
#9619476 - 01/16/09 06:36 AM (15 years, 15 days ago) |
|
|
first, i must derail the conversation. how are your views independent of others?
as far as i've gathered through conversation, reading and watching TV/film, pro-lifers have a very set, closed-minded, face-value definition of the beginning of life. they are fundamentalists. their error doesn't however prove pro-abortion is right.
what would happen if you could give prolifers/anti-abortionists lennart nilsson's photos of the fertilization of the egg, the development of the embryo. and then in a following series of photos, show them the effects of a cellular level of the embryo. then go down another level to the assembly of the atoms. once again another macro- series, below that to the next physical reality....
the hope being that through photographic representation you could "show" the depth and complexity of the universe, that the photos would give them, perhaps for the first time in their lives, a thaumatic sense of wonder at the interconnectedness and complexity of all, and the probably unending depth of reality (thus the utter incompleteness of definitions and arbitrary choices of starting points). Or as George Carlin says, since all life is carbon based, isn't it reasonable we shouldn't be burning all that coal?
|
|