Originally posted by King Kandy
No, at this point you're just refusing to elaborate because you have nothing to say. A blood cell has human DNA. You said, and I quote:No weaseling out of it, this DOES include every cell in your body. So now, all you can say is that you were wrong when you boiled it down to that "simple" level. Otherwise, there is a contradiction that is obvious to everyone except yourself.
Ridiculously wrong. So much so that I think you're trolling. I'm not Zeal: calm this type of stuff down. You specifically selected text to support your original post on this to further your liberal agenda against what you thought was a conservative perspective. If you would calm down a bit you would have read the following:
Originally posted by dadudemon
There is a difference between blood stem cells and embryonic stem cells. That should be a "duh", right?
Meaning, "Don't be a dumbass and pretend that when I say human DNA, I mean any all all complete nucleotide sequences derived from any human cell."*
That was glaringly obvious and it further obvious that you are using me as a target of your liberal agenda because that was the very next section in my post that you conveniently overlooked when quoting me in your last post.
In context, it should be obvious that the first portions refer to SC's erroneous references to eggs and another's of sperm: they are not complete DNA sets that represent a 'real' human because they only constitute one chromosome set, not the pair (The reason for the "duh" portions. I elaborate on why I did not expand on this, in my asterisk.) The portion about the source of the DNA being from an embryo directly represents that silly question about "ZOMG! You can ge teh DNA from bludz and skin cellz, 2!" Great, nice strawman. 😬
In your own words: there's no weaseling your way out of this one: you just tried to mislabel me, did not pay attention to my posts, or tried to commit slander: take your pick.
Originally posted by King Kandy
You said you objected because they didn't give consent; implicit in this is that if they DID give consent, you would have been fine with it. So no, that's exactly what you're saying; for embryonic research to be fine with you, they'd have to get the embryo's permission.
No matter what you think is implied, that's not the case, I said it wasn't, so stop trying your hardest at painting me a fool: an embryo cannot give consent and that's part of the reason I oppose it. There is no "but if an embryo could, you'd be fine with it" bullshit. That's not what I said or implied, nor is it possible. Keep those illogical and wasteful discussions out of here as they do nothing to contribute to a discussion. Truthfully, what does it accomplish other than bordering on a strawman and/or trolling?
Originally posted by King Kandy
A failed embryo can't do calculus. Hell, most high school students can't do calculus. From what i've seen in other threads, your own calculus isn't even that hot.
1. You missed the point entirely and I really do not think you missed the point at all: you're pretending to not get it to further your opinion.
2. The research should not be conducted because the species is capable of it.
3. The "calculus" qualification was a joke and a reference to Mass Effect 2. However, I still hold that it is a good meter stick.
4. The ability to do calculus is not bestowed on that particular embryo being destroyed, but to the species, as a whole. Why has that not been obvious to you? (Again, I think you're ignoring that and, instead, trying to miss-paint my points as foolish...which is not really cool, at all.)
5. I've only done calculus, once, on this board and it was a single derivative. It was also a correct derivative. So I'm 1/1, so if that's your measure of "not so hot" then you have a bad memory. Why would anyone do calculus on the message board when it rarely could apply to any discussion? (I do more collision, friction, and motion physics than any other sort of "math", and that's almost exclusive to versus threads.)
Originally posted by King Kandy
"If fully grown" is a totally moot point. This isn't an abortion; once it reaches the state where we make the decision, its likelihood of becoming fully grown is already zero.
No, "if fully grown" is completely relevant. You used a faulty comparison and no sort of backpedaling will change that.
It is also not the fact/point that that particular embryo cannot make a decision at that point or not. It is also not the fact/point that the embryo, if not "dead", could grow into an adult and say, emphatically: "do not experiment with me."
Originally posted by King Kandy
Why should we show respect to humans that we don't show to other animals?
We should. Who said we shouldn't? Did I? No. Why even bring it up?
You do know I'm a bleeding heart animal lover, right? 🙂 See, I'm also a liberal, deep down inside.
What does this mean to me, as an animal lover, but a meat eater? We should have "humane" ways of raising and eating our animals. We should conduct experiments on the animals in as "humane" of ways as possible. At times, I have been heard saying something similar to this: "We should not conduct research on animals, at all, for human benefit: we should do those studies (drugs) directly on humans that are fully able to give consent and if they die, they gave consent for it."
But that's when I get into an anti-human mode and I do not really want that to happen.
Originally posted by King Kandy
Is it human intelligence? Emotional depth? The contributions they make to society?
Sure. If you want it to be and those help you come to terms, that's it.
Originally posted by King Kandy
Failed embryos have none of those, nor do they ever have a chance of having those (except, ironically, by scientific contributions they may yield). Why, from a purely empirical perspective, do failed embryos deserve respect beyond that of lifeforms with similar capabilities?
Well, that's really easy to answer, because I've answered it already:
1. There's no need to because of alternative sources that exist for embryos. Additionally, we have the avenue of gene therapy which may replace most of the functions of stem cells in our research. (In this AIDS case, we could instill the mutation into most of that man's cells with gene therapy. Eliminating the need to destroy his immune system and replace it entirely: just modify all of the cells. We can get the desired effect, usually, with only a 20% "penetration" to his cells with a modified virus that delivers the genetic "payload" to lots of cells. We are noticing some success in other areas.)
2. The embryo cannot give consent.
3. We belong to the same species.
4. Respect for the dead.
5. It's a human because it has a complete, unique, nucleotide sequence. (What about cloned embryos? As soon as we clone a human and it can live, I'll change my stance, there. But, I think a human should get the chance to create their own clones/embryos because it IS them(I can expand on this, if needed, just ask and I will)...not someone else. Combine two different sets of DNA, and make a new living human, that's different.)
Originally posted by King Kandy
You're abandoning scientific thought completely at this point. You are saying here, that your thesis is not falsifiable. That means that it is literally not worthy of logical analysis.
This assumes, of course, that your approach has been completely scientific from the beginning and my intended approach, originally, was completely scientific, as well. Not the case for either party. Now quit pretending that one of us has a higher ground to stand on: intellectual or moral. It is an opinion and nothing more.
*I did not elaborate on that, like that, because I thought it would be rude and condescending to do. I also took for granted that you understood completely and for me to elaborate in such a manner would also be patronizing (because it was such a simple point): you're not stupid. But, I can see you were blinded (not really as you knew exactly what I meant but chose to ignore it either because you hoped I would get lost in the argument mess or that I would flub and backpedal...I dunno) by an agenda to indoctrinate your opinion into someone that was "wrong on the internet." Not going to happen and as I explained, it will never happen.
Edit - What is your perspective on embryonic stem cell research? Outline your stance (which I know already) and provide your supporting arguments. I've done that for you on mine so the law of recipricocity demands you do the same, right? lol