HairSite - Hair Care & Hair Loss Forums
Topic M443 - Hair Multiplication & Other Advanced Treatments (forum # 36)

[ Male Forums |  Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]

Re: My take on embryionic stem cell research

From: Priestly to Bill
Date: 12 Jul 2001
Time: 08:38:36
Remote Name: 209.86.140.33

Comments

Bill,

>Obviously we differ much with regards to these issues.

At least when we agree on things, nobody can claim it's due to our same ---(fill-in-the-blank)--- philosophy.

>By its very definition, "our souls", for those of us who believe in that concept, are that part of us that do not exist in this universe. So asking where is it is useless, since that automatically implies space and time to an object that does not have space and time. These are concepts that only have meaning within this universe.

My notions about the structure of spacetime are not on a par with those of a quantum physicist, but they're better than average. Twelve dimensional descriptions seem to provide the proper complexity and parsimony to account for observable phenomena. From my epistemological standpoint, in order to qualify as a word, a label must correspond to something demonstrable in spacetime.

>I am beginning to get a handle on your basic personality, which is very common in the intellectual world.

I doubt it. You may have some inkling of my metaphysics, but your grasp of my personality is an unrelated issue. Neither my metaphysics nor my personality are common in the "intellectual world," presuming that refers to the subset of humanity who are educated in Western rationalism.

>So I doubt very much that you have any belief of the abstract, unprovable concept of a soul...

I am willing to speculate on the existence of such a property. If I was to accept your thesis that the concept is unprovable in some absolute sense, then I could casually consign the label "soul" to the discarded nonsense bucket. The fact that a conjectured entity has not previously been demonstrated does not preclude its future demonstration. I am still open to arguments of proof of the existence of a "thing" which corresponds to the label "soul."

>And yes it is easy to rationalize that a zygote is not human...

To rationalize is to find a seemingly logical excuse to believe what you want to believe, regardless of the truth of the proposition. It is neither rationalization nor easy on my part to perceive that the zygote is not yet a human being. My view is based on a very hard-won education in wide variety of disciplines.

>Since we never see with our own eyes our earliest form of development, it is a bit easier to disregard it as being human, but this is how everyone of us starts out.

Pick up a biology text devoted to development, and you can see the entire zygote-to-viable-organism cycle in full color photography for several species.

>If you can show me a human being on this planet who was not a zygote, then perhaps your argument would show more credence with me.

I do not find that the fact that all humans were zygotes implies that all zygotes (derived from human ova and sperm) are humans. This is especially the case for "in vitro" fertilization - we still need a human uterus to carry the zygote over "the line." The issue may become even more difficult should technology offer the option one day of "ex utero" gestation, but I'll face that, if it happens.

>How is it that you prefer to place the label of "human". From an intellectual standpoint, what are the prerequisites necessary for you to label something human, instead of an embryo, zygote, 1-month after conception, etc.

I previously submitted that "the line" is not clear. That cellular biology will one day clarify the issue is a tenet of faith for me.

>Perhaps when it can breathe on its own ? If so, then there are things on this planet attached to breathing machines since these things, no longer humans, can not breathe on its own. Perhaps when it has rational thought ? Then there are also things on this planet, no longer human, that have lost the ability for rational thought.

Once the label "human" has been applied, the revocation of its use becomes tremendously problematic.

>It starts to get tough to have totally accurate prerequisites with which to label something human or not, based upon whatever qualities you wish to embue on them.

Your examples do not deal with prerequistes for assigning the label "human" but postrequisite conditions which address the potential for removing the label "human" from an individual to whom that label has been previously applied.

>In your comment about taking responsibility for the killing of animals, I can only say one thing, and I do not mean this sarcastically. This is a bit easy to say when you are on the "living" side of the coin. You might feel a bit differently if we are ever visited by an alien race, who more than likely will be much superior to us technologically, being that they are here to begin with. I believe that at least many of those people, seeing themselves on the helpless side of the equation, might very quickly start to champion the idea that it is not morally correct for one life form to take another, simply because they can, and it suits them.

Moral behavior is perforce a xenocentric model for action. I will not submit willingly being food or beast of burden, but I will not argue that the actions of your hypothetical BIG, green men must be immoral from the perspective of their own biological imperatives. I'm not certain that my resistance to such submission would be moral in all cases, but I'm a muley son-of-a-gun and not inclined by personality to kiss any Zorkian behind.

>I am sure that we will find other things to disagree on, but I enjoy debating with you because we can do so in a stimulating, non-attacking manner.

Agreed on both points.

>If you want to continue, perhaps we should go to the misc forum, since we are straying pretty far from

Since the issues may affect the decision of HM readers as to whether they would be morally constrained from using the results of stem cell research to address their hair loss, and the arguments were raised here, let's continue in HM unless the "vox populi" rises against our doing so.

Regards, Priestly

baccarat

From: baccarat
Remote Name: 202.88.129.254
Date: 28 Mar 2006
Time: 10:34:18

Comments

<a href="http://sitepalace.com/baccaratonline/">baccarat online</a> [URL=http://sitepalace.com/baccaratonline/]baccarat online[/URL]

<a href="http://www.webspace-kostenlos.com/freeblackjack1">free black jack</a> [URL=http://www.webspace-kostenlos.com/freeblackjack1]free black jack[/URL]

<a href="http://playonlinepoker.blog.deejay.it/il_mio_weblog/">play online poker</a> [URL=http://playonlinepoker.blog.deejay.it/il_mio_weblog/]play online poker[/URL]

<a href="http://www.hostunlim.com/baccarat0/">baccarat</a> [URL=http://www.hostunlim.com/baccarat0/]baccarat[/URL

<a href="http://jroller.com/page/poker/">poker</a> [URL=http://jroller.com/page/poker/]poker[/URL]

<a href="http://www.powow.com/crapsonline4/">craps online</a> [URL=http://www.powow.com/crapsonline4/]craps online[/URL]

Last changed: April 18, 2007

© Copyright 1997 - 2001  TSE Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved.
No part of this website can be reproduced. Contact info: HairSite@aol.com