Stem Cell Breakthrough!

[AKIron]

All the more reason Neubob to submit to a central world authority. Failure to do so may create such a gulf between the haves and have nots as to be intolerable in the extreme.

You did ask for wacko opposition right?

[Viking]

"As Humanism encompasses intellectual currents running through a wide variety of philosophical and religious thought, several strains of Humanism allow it to fulfill, supplement or supplant the role of religions, and in particular, to be embraced as a complete life stance. For more on this, see Humanism (life stance). In a number of countries, for the purpose of laws that give rights to "religions", the secular life stance has become legally recognized as equivalent to a "religion" for this purpose.[6] In the United States, the Supreme Court recognized that Humanism is equivalent to a religion in the limited sense of authorizing Humanists to conduct ceremonies commonly carried out by officers of religious bodies. The relevant passage is in a footnote to Torcaso v. Watkins (1961). It is often alleged by fundamentalist critics of Humanism that the Supreme Court "declared Humanism to be a religion," however the Court's statement, a mere footnote at most, clearly does not in fact do so; it simply asserts an equivalency of Humanists' right to act in ways usual to a religion, such as ceremonial recognition of life's landmarks."


And in any case the US Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction over me ... or the English language. In fact I think it is quite clear that proper command of the English language is not particularly widespread on your side of the pond.

[Neubob]

I'd think that the current gulf between the haves and have-nots was big enough with the rampant famine and lack of basic medical needs. Not having access to freshly-grown organs seems like a relatively minor issue when compared to clean water to drink.

Waiting for the whole world to get up to speed before moving forward is a pretty nutty concept, though, I'll give you that. If we'd lived that way from the start we'd still be waiting on the third world to get themselves ready for the wheel.

[Viking]

Originally posted by AKIron
All the more reason Neubob to submit to a central world authority. Failure to do so may create such a gulf between the haves and have nots as to be intolerable in the extreme.

You did ask for wacko opposition right?

The gulf between the haves and the have nots can hardly be much greater than it is now. Thousands of people die every day from starvation and curable deceases in the third-world, while I sit here overweight in my very comfortable chair writing this post on a computer which value could feed hundreds of people for a year.

Yet, I'm ok with it. It is not my fault they die, nor is it my responsibility to save them. Those people die not because nature or faith is being unreasonable and unfair, but because their ways of life are too backwards and primitive to adapt and survive in the world today. If there is a drought, instead of digging wells or trying to otherwise solve the problem, they spend half a day praying to a rain god or another. Or perhaps sacrifice a goat ... that could have fed a family for a month. And then there is the constant flaring up of tribal wars and petty hatreds.

I feel for these people, but as long as they insist on living prehistoric lifestyles and refuse to change, there is nothing I can do for them.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Viking
"As Humanism encompasses intellectual currents running through a wide variety of philosophical and religious thought, several strains of Humanism allow it to fulfill, supplement or supplant the role of religions, and in particular, to be embraced as a complete life stance. For more on this, see Humanism (life stance). In a number of countries, for the purpose of laws that give rights to "religions", the secular life stance has become legally recognized as equivalent to a "religion" for this purpose.[6] In the United States, the Supreme Court recognized that Humanism is equivalent to a religion in the limited sense of authorizing Humanists to conduct ceremonies commonly carried out by officers of religious bodies. The relevant passage is in a footnote to Torcaso v. Watkins (1961). It is often alleged by fundamentalist critics of Humanism that the Supreme Court "declared Humanism to be a religion," however the Court's statement, a mere footnote at most, clearly does not in fact do so; it simply asserts an equivalency of Humanists' right to act in ways usual to a religion, such as ceremonial recognition of life's landmarks."


And in any case the US Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction over me ... or the English language. In fact I think it is quite clear that proper command of the English language is not particularly widespread on your side of the pond.

Obviously it does not apply to you. However, your quote was not a Supreme Court statement, just in case you thought it was.

[AKIron]

Ok, so we squashed those wacky humanists. What about the organ black marketers? Would you steal their livelyhood?

[Viking]

Originally posted by AKIron
Obviously it does not apply to you. However, your quote was not a Supreme Court statement, just in case you thought it was.

Your Supreme Court "statement" is but a footnote, not a ruling of the court, just in case you thought it was.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Viking
Your Supreme Court "statement" is but a footnote, not a ruling of the court.

A footnote made by the court but why quibble? It means nothing to you.

[Viking]

True, but I wonder why it means so much to you? It's almost as if you feel being religious (if you indeed are religious) is so stigmatic that you have to say "you are religious too!", even though I'm not. It does not make sense to me.

[Neubob]

Originally posted by AKIron
Ok, so we squashed those wacky humanists. What about the organ black marketers? Would you steal their livelyhood?

You steal the livelihoods of black marketers by making it legal, and profitable to do it legally. Cheap, dependable spare parts, installed by highly-trained, licensed professionals.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Viking
True, but I wonder why it means so much to you? It's almost as if you feel being religious (if you indeed are religious) is so stigmatic that you have to say "you are religious too!", even though I'm not. It does not make sense to me.

Maybe you aren't maybe you are. Religion takes many forms and need not have a traditional god as it's focus. I take exception with those who criticize my beliefs as if they exercise no faith themselves. Still, I was just joining the "game" as Neubob suggested.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Neubob
You steal the livelihoods of black marketers by making it legal, and profitable to do it legally. Cheap, dependable spare parts, installed by highly-trained, licensed professionals.

"Cheap, dependable spare parts". You may see some resistance from the church of fitness if you're suggesting we needn't work hard for longer lives.

[Viking]

The only person that can decide whether I'm religious or not is me. The same goes for you; if you want to be called a baboon-worshiper I'll respect that. If you want to be called a Christian I'll respect that too. There are plenty of words that are perfectly acceptable to use in our modern societies, and we are modern men are we not? It is perfectly acceptable to be religious, pagan, gay etc., but it is still rude to call someone religious, pagan or gay if they do not consider themselves to be such. Nobody likes to be called something they are not simply because it is a false statement and a false label.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Sabre
I don't know about "religious wackos", but the majority of Christians such as myself and others, who are against destruction of embryos for use in research and "theraputic cloning", will likely welcome this breakthrough, if it pans out.  You see, I am not against stem cell research; I'm very much supportive of it.  Indeed, adult and cord-blood stem cell research has actually produced scores of treatments that are in use or in the human clinical trial stages (unlike embryonic stem cell research which has produced none that I know of).

Try not to use such a broad brush next time, Neubob...it gets paint everywhere.  The opposition all along is to the use of ESC's, not the research itself.  The current administration is the first to actually authorize Federal funds for ESC research, so long as it doesn't destroy embryos to get there.  The above research easily qualifies under that restriction, and I would support use of Fed $s for it.

I dont understand who anyone would be against the distruction of embryos that would otherwise be tossed in the garbage anyway.
which is the type of embryos they want to use.

That entire "Christaiin" argument makes no sense to me.

OK you view embryos as being babies.
so what yoru saying is you would rather throw a baby thats never going ot be born in the garbage.
Then use it to help keep someone else alive.

And you wonder why they are referred to as "religious wackos"?


BTW its not illegal to use such embryos now. Just not to use Federal funding for them

[Neubob]

Originally posted by AKIron
"Cheap, dependable spare parts". You may see some resistance from the church of fitness if you're suggesting we needn't work hard for longer lives.

Why would they? Those who take care of themselves would have the most to gain from spare parts. They'd last the longest and get the most enjoyment from the physical abilities they retain.