Three Copies... wow my comp sucks lag time

From my perspective, Bush isn't even really in the debate. He is also arguing that in such matters, its better to be cautious then to go to a place of no return.

Infact, I don't even know of any debate thats really going on.

I do know however that people are talking about this issue as if it had imediate consequences, and its been in affect for 5 years with no outcome yet.



If you read the next chapter, where it goes through the borring generations, it actually does say that eve had a daughter, and it says that in the end they had 11 (or was it 7?/) children, and yes they had incest. It also says that Cain was sent off to the land of Nod, where other people lived. So the text clearly says it was more than 4 of them. Still, technolgy had nothing to do with the cause of violence and destruction.

Unfortunately, the question of technology is a moot point. It is the nature of mankind to question.

Personally, Daganev, to me, there is no wrong issue. When a person becomes a person is a matter of OPINION. There is , ultimately , no real way to classify something as "Person" or "Not-Person", because then, you start running into other grey areas, and examples of still living "Not-People".

Great Example: Terry Schiavo. She was, for all intents, a corpse. She did not respond to outside stimuli, her brain showed little to no acitivity. Is she still alive? Her organs continue to function, true, but does that denote life? Or is that simply an automated process by the brain, which continues to live because we make it live? If she is still 'alive', then is she still a 'Person' even with her absolutely lack of cognizence(sp) ?

Everything in life is a matter of perspective, and this issue is no different. It only becomes a signifigant matter because Politics =! Whats Good for Survival.

So it wasn't 1/4 of the world then But enough on this topic... keep it on the Stem Cell thingy

I agree, which is why Its getting me so mad that the news keeps going on about this being a religion vs science debate, and suggesting that Bush, the person who started the stem-cell research funding debate in the first place, is anti science. (Nobody had access to public funding for this untill Bush said, yes for some, but no for others)

There really should be a non-issue save for political science buffs who want to study the relationship between the executive and legislative branches.

Just heard something intersting on Denis Prager..
because of Germany's past, they are warry about medical epxerimentation on humans, and have effectivly banned Stem-cell research. Not just stopped some federal funding for it.

Oh, come on. Are they afraid they'll all accidently revert into Nazis? There's a pretty wide gap between what they did and actual scientific research.

YOu will have to ask the Germans, however, to just simply say that Embryos are not people is definitly going to lead you to Nazism.


Look at the case in New Orleans, where a doctor and nurse killed 4 people.

Where is the line drawn as to when a person starts to exist? Where is the line of when the person is considered dead?

Can I kill children now, so that in 100 years I will have a cure, since in 100 years they will be dead anyways?

Whole subject makes me think of mercy kills, is it better to let the person suffer until they die or is it better to kill the person right off and save them from a lot of suffering? Theres no easy answer and it just proves life isnt all black and white, nor totally fair.

One side is always on the short end of the stick.

Right. That's why I dislike pro-lifers and pro-choicers. They act like they have a monopoly on truth - they are absolutely right and if you disagree you're with the devil. I don't see how someone can so easily and mindlessly devote themselves to any one side of such a difficult issue.

THats probabbly exactly why I'm getting so mad at Air America and KFI and TV news.

This is a fallacy, and blatantly opinion, not fact. If you're going to argue, please take it beyond the "I'm right, you're wrong, because I said so" level. If you want to play slippery slope, it goes both ways, and everyone starts to look retarded.

Allright, give me a point at which life exists which is after the creation of an embryo? Why do I say at that point, because thats the point that science currently tells us life begins. (i.e. sperm can't replicate, and neither can eggs, but embryos do)

Any point you give me, I will ask you what is different between this point and the previous point, and the next point from a scientific definition.

The common answers are, 3 months, when the child starts breathing, when the child can feed itself, when a person can take care of itself and others.

Then the question is, when does the life end? When is the person no longer a person? Answers can be, when its brain dead, when it stops breathing, when they are in too much pain, when they can't survive without assistance.

These eventually lead to the scenario where you bring up kids with cancer, or people on thier deathbed, or the monetary drain keeping a person alive takes.

Nazi's said that there is a darwinian princple, that if you are not usefull to the society you should be made usefull to the society (i.e. medical experimintation) Therefore, any system that is based on utility, can very likely lead to naziism. System based on some idea other than unitility, but inherent worth, will not lead to such actions unless you remove the "inherent" worth of something, and then the question is, when can you do that, and we are back to square one.

Lastly, the only reason why "slippery slope" is a fallacy, is because technically, two events are less likley to happen than one event.

However, if the slippery slope argument is that if you don't do X, you can never get to Y, then there is no fallacy. The question only becomes if X is worth the risk of Y.

Oh god, here come the Nazis. This debate is about to go screeching downhill. Le sigh.

That was just one aspect of Nazism, Daganev. One of many - and not nearly the worst. It's not like there's a big dormant ball of Nazism in Germany just waiting to break loose. You're saying, "The German people are prone to Nazism", which makes ZERO ****ing sense. Maybe if we let the seperation of church and state break down we'd begin leading crusades against non-christian nations, because all christians are hellbent on slaughtering the infidels and pillaging their homelands at heart. Ja?

Again, thats what the Germany government said, not me. So take it up with them.

They said, because of how they justified medical experiments in the past, it is clear to them that human embryos should not be used for research.

Daganev, you brought up Hitler. Unless we're having a discussion about Nazis to begin with, that's a surefire way to kill an argument. I'm not about to argue when life begins, because to me, it doesn't really matter.

I was pointing out how "If X, then NAZIS" is absurd, which is what you've said a few times now.

So supposedly the people who came up with the law where if you kill a pregnant woman youll only be charged for her death, the child hasnt been born and so therefore does not count towards murder are Nazi's at heart?

Just because the Germans has the Nazi party does not make them the only ones who could slip into it, nor does it mean well ever see such a party as the Nazi's arise once more into the magnatude of the 1940 government.

This is now, not then. We are much different than we are then, whether that be a good thing or a bad thing.

ARRRG.

Your completely missing the point I made.

I said that Germany, unlike the U.S, and unlike the UK, has made a law about rejecting Stem-cell research because of its history of Nazism.


I said this, to point out that the U.S. did no such thing, even though the left keeps saying they did. Rather, the U.S. stopped Federal Funding, which is different than what Germany did.


Then, I had to keep trying to explain to Guido what Germany ment since he seems to think its so ridiculous...

Context people, context! Bringing up Nazis and Hitler, when discussing Germany is not a debate killer, its just a historical fact!

It is, unless you think it reasonable to assume that Germany can't help itself and will revert to barbarism. I can say "America should ban all forms of contracting employees, because in the past we kept slaves," but that makes about as much sense as yours does. I can't believe Germany banned it for that reason.

A few things.

One, don't pay attention to that 'the democrats voted it down' stuff. It's important to realise minor content and language is as important in a bill as the purpose, and democrats voting down that bill may not have meant to oppose the concept in general.

Two, shut up about Nazis.

Third and final, people call Bush anti-science because he has successfully ticked off more scientists than any president in living memory. Scientific American's editors do a good job of explaining how without diving into much actual politics.