Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Bobboau on November 20, 2004, 03:37:39 pm
-
yay!:D (http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=scienceNews&storyID=6872815§ion=news)
-
WooHoo!!!
-
hehehe Has interesting repurcussions for Stem Cell research too, since I can betcha who one of the biggest customers will be ;)
I'm not against the cloning of embryo etc, but I must admit I feel slightly uneasy at the thought of someone nurturing that embryo to birth. Possibly a little Primal distrust, possibly not :)
-
Excellent - hopefully this'll losen things up a little on that front.
If it were up to me, everything proposed by the US within the last or next four years would be routinely ignored anyway :D
-
:lol: :nod:
-
If I was the Catholic church, it'd have made the phrasing for their proposal a little more specific so it can't be warped by people:
New sentient beings will not be created through cloning.
Because cloning a few human cells for a liver transplant could be construed as "human life." But the above statement makes a nice blanket statement to ban creating new humans via clones and monkeying around with trying to make whole new humanoid species.
-
Last time I checked, the Catholic Church were not in the habit of being specific when passing rules ;)
I'm fine with cloning cells etc, I'd probably be fine with a cloned human, since what most people don't realise is that a clone is not an exact replica of the DNA donator. However, I do find the thought a bit eerie ;)
-
I have no problems with twins, I have no problems with clones.
-
:yes:
-
Bad idea. Very bad. Way to go humanity, just keep opening up those cans of worms.
-
pfft...:doubt:
-
Oh, come on now, give him his due. Alzheimers does rather kick arse after all. :doubt:
-
I think the effort to clone another being and make an identical copy with the same physical appearence is wrong, yes, but other than that, who cares?
-
Hmm, lets see.
Cloning bits of flesh, which can not be called human in any way, to help people with serious dieseses. Yeah, thats terrible.
Even if they are embryos, and you really want to call them human, then they are humans that are not self-aware, while those who will be helped are self-aware.
-
Yeah! :yes: Way to go, man. The first steps for my own personal clone of Carmen Electra are going steady. :nervous:
-
As long as it isnt anything like "The Sixth Day" then lets throw a party!
-
Originally posted by Annihilation
Yeah! :yes: Way to go, man. The first steps for my own personal clone of Carmen Electra are going steady. :nervous:
That just put an incredibly disturbing image in my head
:shudders:
-
Arnold will clone an army himselves to take over the country.
Now the only question is will he do it Commando style with lots of guns or Governator style with a media campaign and millions of dollars.
...or some wierd combination.
-
He'll go commando using a million dollar media campaign with lots of guns?
-
All right, since I don't want to spawn yet another debate, can we all agree that, at the very least, a ban on reproductive cloning should be a given and should be pursued as soon as possible?
-
Personally, I would support a temporary cessation on attempts to create a whole, sentient human being.
Not for religious reasons, but for the simple fact that there are still aspect of what happens as the Clone ages that we still don't quite grasp. I think until we have more idea of what we are doing, it would be unfair in the extreme to create a human being who may be cursed to a short or painful life as a laboratory rat.
I also think we need to look a lot further into the Human rights and other implications of Full Human Cloning, if for no other reason to make sure there is nothing like the confusions there have been over Gay rights etc.
-
And the another reason to oppose full human cloning is that there is already too many of us as it is. If we need more people, the process isn't very hard and is in fact quite fun. So there's no real need for clones.
-
I hear that Rictor. I hear that.... :lol:
-
You two want some privacy?
[q]a ban on reproductive cloning should be a given and should be pursued as soon as possible?[/q]
Again, wording is important here. If you say, cloning an embryo before implantation to make sure a woman undergoing IVF can have another crack at it if the current one fails - I'd allow that. If you're talking about cloning a human being sheerly for the sake of having another human being like that other one (i.e. on a whim) then no, that isn't very ethical (but again, this is only something the state should meddle with to a degree. The biggest scientific breakthroughs in history have been painful)
-
Well, seeing as how I don't approve of cloning under any circumstances, that question is really meaningless to me.
-
My take on the whole matter of genetic engineering is catgirls will make the human female obselete. :p
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Hmm, lets see.
Cloning bits of flesh, which can not be called human in any way, to help people with serious dieseses. Yeah, thats terrible.
Even if they are embryos, and you really want to call them human, then they are humans that are not self-aware, while those who will be helped are self-aware.
:nod:
IIRC one of the primary reasons this ban was chucked was that it was too broad - the UN members would almost certainly accept a ban on the cloning of adult humans (i.e. the 'cloned Hitler' type scenario), but not on cloning used for medical benefit.
Imagine this (as a far-future case); in a few decades time, what if you could clone organs for transplant? Imagine how many lives that would save......
-
[q]Well, seeing as how I don't approve of cloning under any circumstances, that question is really meaningless to me.[/q]
Let me give you diabetes or give a relative a neurological disease and then tell me that...
-
Originally posted by Ace
If I was the Catholic church, it'd have made the phrasing for their proposal a little more specific so it can't be warped by people:
New sentient beings will not be created through cloning.
Because cloning a few human cells for a liver transplant could be construed as "human life." But the above statement makes a nice blanket statement to ban creating new humans via clones and monkeying around with trying to make whole new humanoid species.
Amen. :yes:
-
Ace, to the Church, there's no difference between that embryo and an adult human being. Both are equally and irrevocably human.
Rictor, whether self-aware or not, both forms of life are human, and thus the Church's writings are the way they are. There's no warping going on: the Church does not agree with cloning under any circumstances.
Vyper, I would not take an innocent human life to save my own. Nor would I pursue an unrestrained field of study, as too many scientists seem all to eager to do nowadays. If I did have diabetes, I would live with it, as millions of people do every day. If a relative had a neurological disorder, I would pray for them and do whatever I could to support them, but I would still not resort to killing embryos.
-
Actually Mongoose, theres no real difference between a Human liver and a Pigs liver, that is why pig liver is used to test liver treatments, science actually does avoid using humans where possible ;)
So to say something is 'human' life when it's simply an advancement on the life posessed by, for example, celery (which shares 40% of our DNA) is murky water ;)
-
Hahaha... Celery is our genetic ancestor! It's the missing link!
-
The laws of the Church should not have any baring on the laws of humanity. After all, if we followed that principle, even blood transfusions would be outlawed (objected to by Jehovas Witnesses IIRC). As would eating pork.
If you feel that you object that much to stem cell research, etc, then simply refuse to accept any treatment developed from said research. That way your slate will be clean.
-
OK
I want once and for all someone to explain to me how a single cell is a full human life.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
OK
I want once and for all someone to explain to me how a single cell is a full human life.
Because God said so in the Bible.
Well, sort of. I mean, he might have said it. But they didn't know what a cell was back then, so he didn't actually mention it. But if they had knew then, he probably would have said it was.
Well, maybe not God himself, but that bloke who read a book by a bloke who knew a bloke who was 'big-up with Jesus', said that had he thought of it, he'd probably say it. He thought.
-
Mongoose: yeah, but we can't let religion run our lives, especially those of us who are not Catholic or religious at all. What the Church says is, with all due respect, meaningless in this situation.
-
Mongoose, why is Human life more sacred than any other creature's life? Didn't your God create all of them, too?
-
[q]If I did have diabetes, I would live with it, as millions of people do every day.[/q]
Don't try and lecture me on what people do with it every ****ing day - I am one of those people and believe me it's a lot more complicated than saying - "Oh it's treatable, live with it".
Your religious ideology could very well shorten my lifespan, destroy my standard of living once I get past middle age and very probably result in my children developing it (or not, no one is quite sure on that one.... maybe a little research could answer that one eh?).
You are what's wrong with humanity. You and all the people like you that see something new and different and react with overpowering fear. Who are so afraid of a proverbial little bloody nose once in a while that they cower under their bible, or Koran, et al.
If you saw a child dying in the street from hunger you'd want to feed that child and the church you follow probably _does_. If you saw a child dying in a hospital bed from a genetic disorder of some sort, you'd want to save them - but you would be willing to let the child suffer for some arrogant sociopathic self-worthlessness that requires you to be told how to do everything by a book so badly translated several times that it's probably like a comic book compared to the original manuscripts.
Don't talk to me about "living with it". Don't stand there and tell me your God wants people to suffer, just because you can't see past your own crucifix.
-
yes, well we're God's 'specal' creature
-
I don't understand how the churches came to think about cells without a nervous system being human. Well, technically they are human, but they are just a bunch of few cells at this stage. You can't say that a fragment of a liver of a person is another person even knowing that with enough scientific development (think some centuries ahead) that still living fragment can be turned into another fully person, a clone. When an embryo are developed enough to feel pain and another stimuli that's all right, it is a person.
If these old beliefs that aren't even in the bible (there is nothing there about embryos and clones) were laws we won't even know about the existence of cells because it was prohibited to make researches on humans and corpses.
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
Vyper, I would not take an innocent human life to save my own.
So you're against Bush's invasion of Iraq then right? After all everyone knew that innocent civilians would die in the war.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
So you're against Bush's invasion of Iraq then right? After all everyone knew that innocent civilians would die in the war.
Ah, but they were heathen civillians...... (http://bau2.uibk.ac.at/sg/python/Sounds/HolyGrail.au/mercy.au)
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Ah, but they were heathen civillians...... (http://bau2.uibk.ac.at/sg/python/Sounds/HolyGrail.au/mercy.au)
Which surely applies to all the unbaptised embryos used in research too :D
-
Oh, don't even get me started on baptism...
-
You know what this board needs? An actual opposing viewpoint. This whole board is packed with liberals, and you all play off each other. When someone offers up an opposing viewpoint, you end up smothering it. I mean, it's almost impossible to have a rational discussion where both sides are equally represented and equally respectful. As-is, especially in the realm of religion, whenever someone goes against the majority viewpoint here, they end up being ridiculed and mocked. I'm going to leave you with that thought; congrats on creating an environment where debate is stifled.
To all of the above mocking religious viewpoints, try actually doing some research. You obviously have no concept of my views according to your responses, and if I bother to try and explain myself, I'll just undergo more ridicule. Where's the profit in that? Here's an experiment in thought: how about laying off and letting me explain myself and then returning with actual questions instead of more flamebait? I mean, the past 10-15 posts each contain some element of mockery. This isn't debate; it's a farce.
-
That's what Liberator is for.
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
You know what this board needs? An actual opposing viewpoint.
what are you?
go on and try to gather up some frends if you want, it won't make you right in the end, your argument(s) will basicly boil down to "I'm right becase what I belive makes me happy"
but if you want to have a discusion go ahead, and I'll be ready.
-
Heh, I thought Democracy was about majorities :p
Seriously though, a question : Why do you think it is that, whenever you take a multi-national board such as this one, the majority of people are liberal-minded?
-
I think it's time I bring out this gem from debates past
Liberator:
The difference between us, you self-righteous know-it-all,
is Christians no longer believe in forcing our religion on others,
granted it wasn't always so.
Stryke 9:
And this meshes with your demands that gays be treated unequally because your religion says they aren't equal... how?
How about your claims that the separation of church and state was intended to be one-way? What about... ****, basically every other post you've made has exhibited how little you respect any opinions or beliefs not yours, and how quickly you'd foist your twisted personal values on everybody given half a chance.
Liberator:
That's different, Faith in the power of Christ to save your soul from eternal damnation away from God is an intensly personal decision, the fact that they practice homosexuality shows that they have made their decision to turn from God already. I believe that they can change their decision and must be allowed to do so, it doesn't mean however that I must sanction their immorality.
BTW, that is what makes Hell so unbearable, it won't be the immense amounts of torture and continuous, unabating physical pain, the fact that God will turn his gaze from you forever is what makes it so horrible. Whether you beleive it or not, you are in God's gaze right now, enveloped in his love, he only awaits your decision.
Just so you know, my beliefs are relatively mainstream, when compared to your's or Kazan's. Your's just seem to be more widespread because your kind have infiltrated both the mass media(television and print) and most of the institutions of higher learning, the latter because the loser professors can't get a job in the Real World.
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
I mean, it's almost impossible to have a rational discussion where both sides are equally represented and equally respectful.
You want to have a rational discussion about the way the world is, and the way that people of different backgrounds should be governed, yet you disagree with every law that isn't based on your christian POV. We're not bashing christianity, it's got it's pros, and it's got it's cons. But it doesn't apply to those who don't believe in it.
Just as you would not like to live under Muslim law, Aetheists do not want to live under christian law.
Also, about these arguments being smothered and 'irrational'... well, let me point out that you base your arguments on faith. You are arguing the way that we believe things, based on fact, with the way you believe things, based on feelings. THey don't work interchangeably. Sorry. But until you can raise an argument for why things should be the way you feel they should be, and NOT[/i] base it on 'what God said/feels/wants' then you will be having this exact same situation repeating itself over and over again. Don't like it? Prove us wrong without mentioning god.
-
The fact of the matter is, for everybody here, that us trying to push what we believe onto Mongoose and Liberator is no better than them trying to push their beliefs onto us.
Yes, I don't think their arguments are rational or contain any backing, but dragging up past arguments etc is a bit unkind really, let's keep to the debate at hand ;)
Mongoose, without the choice to make mistakes or not, without the ability to make hard, or easy decisions depending on our mood, we are not human. Take that away from us and we become robotica, obeying the will of external forces and never questioning the world around us. Some people cannot live like that I'm afraid :(
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
You know what this board needs? An actual opposing viewpoint. This whole board is packed with liberals
You're the ones who support a government that'll force someone's morality on people by legislating it. Don't complain to the rest of us about stifling opinions and views.
-
All right, I'm going to say one last thing here: I don't believe in these things just because they're Catholic doctrine, and that's not why I want them to become enshrined in law. I have come to the rational conclusion that what I believe is right and that the opposing viewpoint is wrong. It's the same process that all of you have taken. Did all of you know that most religions actually encourage questioning of one's own faith? You can only truly strengthen faith by reasoning it out. Thus, all your statements of "blind belief" don't really mean anything.
I'm not asking for an equal number of liberals and conservatives here, but two or three vs. everyone is just a little one-sided, don't you think? I'm not going to bring other people in here, but I would like to see a little more open-mindedness about opposing viewpoints. At another game-related forum I frequent, we can have multi-page discussions about religious viewpoints without a single flame or mocking post. Why can't this board be the same? I wouldn't mind the content of most of the discussions here if all of the excess flamebait was removed; as things stand now, it seems at times impossible to hold a good, respectful debate. What's even more absurd is how religious/political subjects get brought up, and subsequently bashed, in threads that have almost nothing to do with either area. This is why I've always liked the idea of having separate forums for such ethical/political discussion; it helps to keep the spam out.
Flipside, I can't say why many multinational boards are liberal-slanted, nor can I understand why the majority of Europe seems slanted that way. The one thing I can understand is that, just because the majority of a group of a people believes in somethign, doesn't make it right. In other words, if you're suggesting that since most of the people of this board hold liberal viewpoints, they're automatically right, I'd vehemently disagree. That's the attitude I've experienced in many threads here, where the majority viewpoint seems to assume its own superiority over the minority and dismisses anything it says as "illogical" or "laughable." That doesn't make for good debate.
Look, I really like this community; I think it has a unique feeel to it that I haven't experienced anywhere else. I'd like to be able to have discussions here without getting into shout-fests and insults; unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be able to happen. I guess the best thing for me to do would be to stick strictly to the Freespace-related forums, but then there would be even less of an alternative voice here; besides, there are some topics that come up that drive me almost to the point of anger and almost necessitate a response for me. So I guess I'll just keep throwing myself against the brick wall that is this forum; I doubt I'll change anyone's mind or even earn anyone's respect, but I don't have much of a choice, do I?
-
Guess why I used the 'winkey' smiley and started the next sentence with 'Seriously though.....' :D
As for the question, that is what it was, I only really come here these days, but I have noticed that the majority of people who use it have liberal views.
Personally, I don't think I have responded in any way dismissive of your points, but whatever :)
-
the reason we get all uppety is becase of the fact that laws are being written.
and the fact that absolutley no form of reasoning seems to be able to stop these laws baised on emotion wich are killing our freedom wich we hold above all other things, somewhat tweaks us off a ittle.
"I have come to the rational conclusion that what I believe is right and that the opposing viewpoint is wrong."
ok lets try this one more time, I will not make a personal insult or anything of that nature, from this point on in this thread.
how did you do that?
what is your reasoning?
-
Flipside, I wasn't referring to you specifically, just to what I see as the overall mood of this forum in general. I would also like to see a good answer to the question you asked, and not just one that says "because Americans are stupid rednecks and the rest of the world has more intelligence." Historically, what has caused the differences in societal viewpoints between America and Europe/other nations? Might make for some interesting debate.
Bubbaoau, on which particular viewpoint do you wish me to elaborate? On cloning, for example? I would be willing to do that; I just don't want to ramble on about twenty different subjects. :p
I do take exception with your statement about laws being passed, though. Along the same lines as my earlier diatribe, some of these laws which you're attributing to "emotion" are actually based on the reasoning of a particular person/people. These people may not share your reasoning, but don't dismiss the result as a random impulse of emotion. As for "killing our freedom," I'd also take exception to this statement. From my viewpoint, I haven't seen any freedoms that have been infringed upon. As an American citizen, I have the same set of rights now that I did four years ago. That may not be your opinion, but it is mine. Also, and I'm not making this statement specifically to you but to the world in general, I think that a lot of people confuse the term "freedom" with "unbridled license." "Freedom" is not an absolute; in any society, there must necessarily be certain restrictions placed upon it. For example, obviously no one has the "freedom" to commit rape or murder, even if it is within one's own home. Likewise, I and some other people believe that such issues as human cloning fall under the same category, as parts of "freedom" that should have restrictions placed upon them.
-
freedom ends at the next person, you can do anything you want so long as it does not cause harm to another person.
with cloneing, lets go right to the realy contiversial one, reproductive cloneing, why would anyone have a problem with this? it's basicly just another way to alow heterosexual married couples who want to raise a child but are for some reaon physicly incapable of doing so, to... do so. how can anyone get anything immoral out of this?
the experimental cloneing will go back to the whole 'when does life begin?' question. same thing for the stem cell ban.
once again, how is it that one cell can be consitered human life?
I can sort of see the point in the last few months of a pregnancy, but somehow someone decided that zygote == human, and I just don't get it.
-
Mongoose:
Also, and I'm not making this statement specifically to you but to the world in general, I think that a lot of people confuse the term "freedom" with "unbridled license." "Freedom" is not an absolute; in any society, there must necessarily be certain restrictions placed upon it. For example, obviously no one has the "freedom" to commit rape or murder, even if it is within one's own home.
From article linked from marriage thread:
"If those initiatives are part of a broader effort to reaffirm lifetime fidelity in marriage, they're worthwhile," he said. "If they're isolated — if we don't address cohabitation and casual divorce and deliberate childlessness — then I think they're futile and will be brushed aside."
Mongoose:
If you want to know, I agree with that entire article.
Are you saying then the choice to divorce and not have children is not a freedom that a society should grant? That is the sort of thing people have an issue with.
I agree that murder and rape are cases in which there should be no freedom, both cause a lot of harm to others. Why do not having children or to divorce fall under the same category of "not free to do" with murder and rape?
-
No, I don't want to outlaw either divorce or childless marriages. What I want to do is to decrease their prevalence. There are some things that shouldn't be legislated and some things that should. As all of us know too well, the real trick is figuring out what falls under which category.
Bobbaoau, when I get more time tomorrow, I'll post a response that will state my views, at least, on the whole cloning/start of life issue. I will do my best to ignore any religious overtones and to keep it to straight rationalization.
-
hehehehe Don't worry, no hard feelings Mongoose :)
To a certain degree, I can understand the divorce thing, since I do actually agree that is marriage is some kind of 'bond' that people should be more certain before making the commitment.
As for childless marriages, I look forward to working through that one tonight ;)
Hang on, when did this and the Marriage thread swap roles? :wtf:
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
No, I don't want to outlaw either divorce or childless marriages. What I want to do is to decrease their prevalence. There are some things that shouldn't be legislated and some things that should. As all of us know too well, the real trick is figuring out what falls under which category.
Now, I can understand wanting to reduce divorce but childless marriages?
I repeat:
Freedom to reproduce must include freedom to not reproduce if desired.
In fact, people should be encouraged to adopt as opposed to having their own children. If America/Austalia/Canada/Britain/France is so great, then why not bring a baby born into another country here for better opportunities?
Oh wait, that's because those babies must be sinful or somesuch because god didn't bless them with being born in a better country or some other similar bull****... :o
-
So it's wrong to have kids unless you have a little piece of paper from the registry office, in which case it's wrong not to have kids?
-
Originally posted by Ace
Oh wait, that's because those babies must be sinful or somesuch because god didn't bless them with being born in a better country or some other similar bull****... :o
Where in the name of spam did that come from?
-
Ace was pre-emptively arguing that it's better to have couples adopting from less fortunate countries overseas, than to campaign against childless marriages on the basis of religion.
-
[q]What I want to do is to decrease their prevalence.[/q]
That's fine and dandy but... what if the happily married couples who don't have children currently, don't _want_ children? Who are you to say they're wrong?
-
What I'm saying is that one of the purposes of marriage, throughout human history, has been to create stable, nurturing environments to raise children in. At least in my opinion, having children is a fundamental part of marriage. I can't convince people who disagree with me otherwise, but maybe I can at least get them to consider the possibility.
aldo, if that's what Ace was trying to say, why didn't he just say it? That's not at all what I got out of that message.
-
The thing is that if Children is a fundamental part of marriage and marriage is a fundemental part of relationships, by placing this in law, you are creating a path that people, no matter what their own personal wishes or desires might be, have no choice but to follow and suffer upon.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
So it's wrong to have kids unless you have a little piece of paper from the registry office, in which case it's wrong not to have kids?
Of course. You must do your duty for the master race. Have many children! Women must be baby factories!
-
Hitler, lots of Popes.... Hitler, lots of Popes *balances scales*
Ach, we'll call it a draw.
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
What I'm saying is that one of the purposes of marriage, throughout human history, has been to create stable, nurturing environments to raise children in. At least in my opinion, having children is a fundamental part of marriage. I can't convince people who disagree with me otherwise, but maybe I can at least get them to consider the possibility.
aldo, if that's what Ace was trying to say, why didn't he just say it? That's not at all what I got out of that message.
I'd say that marriages were formed as a formalisation of existing parental bonds, rather than being required for them. In any decent relationship, all a marriage is, is a simple piece of paper. It doesn't make any difference on fidelity or faithfulness... in fact, it's main value would be for spousal rights.
-
Originally posted by vyper
Hitler, lots of Popes.... Hitler, lots of Popes *balances scales*
Ach, we'll call it a draw.
And the religion-bashing resumes in force... :rolleyes: