HairSite - Hair Care & Hair Loss Forums
Topic M444 - Hair Multiplication & Other Advanced Treatments (forum # 37)

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

Reply to Priestly about using embryos in stem cell research

From: Morgan
Remote Name: 4.54.219.251
Date: 14 Jul 2001
Time: 09:34:44 AM

Comments

Wow, that last forum filled up quick, and the temper tantrum from whatsisname (geez, can you say "pathetic"?) had this one a little hosed. Anyway, here's my response to your post. It will probably be my only one in the "debate", since I mostly come here to *rest* my brain! :^)

"This is so false an analogy that it would be laughable, were it not so grisly. The "Bitch of Berlin" was a sadistic mass murderer whose sole aim was the degredation and destruction of a race of people for the entertainment which that exercise of power provided. To liken the research into stem cells to such atrocities is intellectually dishonest at best and vastly more likely simply the raving diatribe of the extreme pro-life elements, looking for a good sound-byte."

If we're talking about comparing *motives*, then you're right that there is no comparison. If the embryos ARE human beings, though, and the topic is the sacrifice of human beings for some utilitarian purpose, the comparison is sound (though extremely distasteful to advocates of embryonic stem cell research. Who wants to be thrown in with the crazy Nazis?). Also, how is such a statement "raving"? It *is* a diatribe, but diatribes have their place. For example, a diatribe (bitter denunciation) against using people for lampshades is justified. Likewise, if embryos are human beings, and they are being killed and used for utilitarian purposes, a diatribe is justified in that case, too.

"There is some line between zygote and infant where I would draw the line and say, "This is a person, and therefore, should not be destroyed and parceled out for the benefits that the parts might provide for another." That line, however, is not near the zygote end of the spectrum for me."

But, where is that line then? Like I said above, this is THE question. And, another one of importance in this discussion is, "Even if it *is* a human being, why shouldn't we kill it if we want to?" The first of these questions you have answered with an "I don't know" (although you say you find something in agnosticism that argues against the notion that conception is the moment at which the label "human being" is properly applied.). How would you answer the second question? According to your agnosticism, situational ethics, empiricism, and utility theory, what is the moral basis for not killing an innocent human? In a non-theistic worldview, isn't all "morality" just preference, and not absolute? For example, a man who has been described (not by me) as "one of America's most eminent philosophers", Dr. Richard Taylor, Ph.D, an atheist and author of the book Ethics, Faith, and Reason, has described the situation as follows:

'The modern age, more or less repudiating the idea of a divine lawgiver, has nevertheless tried to retain the ideas of moral right and wrong, not noticing that in casting God aside, they have also abolished the conditions of meaningfulness for moral right and wrong as well.... Thus, even educated persons sometimes declare that such things as war...or the violation of human rights, are 'morally wrong,' and they imagine that they have said something true and significant. Educated people do not need to be told, however, that questions such as these have never been answered outside of religion.'

"Until someone shows me a soul at least as convincingly as I can be shown an electron and demonstrates the timing with which the lump of differentiating cells of the embryo becomes imbued with this hypothetical property…"

I assume you believe in macroevolution. I've been having a conversation with a professor of biology for a long time now, and I've made the same request to him about evidence for macroevolution that you make about the soul: Show it to me, either in the past or the present. Where is the evidence (not the "it could have been like this" stories)? He has failed to do so, because there IS NO evidence of mutations or evolutionary processes which have led to an *increase* in genetic information (See http://trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.htm for a good article on the subject). All that can be pointed to by evolutionists are *losses* of information, such as color shifts in peppered moths, beak variation, the loss of the ability to mate with isolated branches, etc. Michael Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box also points out that some biological systems are irreducibly complex; they need to have all the parts for them to work. The inadequate responses from evolutionists to Behe's book lend his position even greater weight. And yet, people aware of the situation continue to have faith in macroevolution despite the lack of evidence. Why? Because it is necessary to their anti-supernatural worldview. There is really no other option at present, and they "cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door" (Richard Lewontin). Now, macroevolution is something that is supposed to have taken place in the material realm right here on earth. The soul, on the other hand, is not material. It cannot be placed in a lab and studied (I'm reminded of when the cosmonaut made it into space and declared that he didn't see God up there). The soul, like God, is supernatural. But, when people take an a priori stand against the supernatural, there is no way to convince them of the reality of the soul. The materialist "does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." That being the case, I think this discussion (whether long or short) will ultimately accomplish nothing except to tap a couple of those people riding the fence over to one side or the other. You, as a materialist, will not be convinced by my reference to the supernatural (the soul), and I won't be convinced by the artificial restrictions of materialism.

Here's a link where someone from my point of view (but much more ed-ju-ma-cated) tackles the issue of naturalism vs. supernaturalism. The debates are particularly interesting! http://www.origins.org/offices/billcraig/menus/articles.html

Hopefully, Hairsite won't object to my posting the link, since there is no proselytizing going on (I don't even know what the author's religious affiliation is, beyond the broad label "Christian") and a discussion of the rightness or wrongness of the stem cell research in question is a matter of morality. Morality is determined (or at least chiefly so) by worldview: naturalism vs. supernaturalism.

Now I think I'll go back to being light-hearted again. :^)

party poker bonus

From: party poker bonus
Remote Name: 69.248.89.131
Date: 12 Mar 2006
Time: 11:11:49 AM

Comments

party poker bonus http://www.scpatl.com/top-party-poker-bonus.html <a href="http://www.scpatl.com/top-party-poker-bonus.html">party poker bonus</a> [URL="http://www.scpatl.com/top-party-poker-bonus.html"]party poker bonus[/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