| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/23/2009 03:52:59 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, I think the important point for the discussion at hand would be the stem cells derived from the skin cells never need to become an embryo to be helpful. They can be directly manipulated into liver cells or nerve cells or muscle cells or whatever. They skip the whole "embryo" process. |
I suggesting that if, at any point, that stem cell (whatever its derivation) is capable of developing into a person, then logically it should be the equivalent to a fertilized ovum.
Personally I'm in favor of all kinds of stem cell research, for the reasons you suggest -- for another example, there's been some promising research towards regenerating damaged spinal cords. |
|
|
|
07/23/2009 04:08:00 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by AP:
I'll make a few points: |
So will I...
Originally posted by AP:
1) Thank goodness Obama lifted the ban |
Ban on what? Don't say stem cell research because that's not what was banned. Federal money towards stem cell research was what was banned. For some reason, the media and most everybody else seems to have misunderstood what was banned.
Originally posted by AP:
2) What humans can do, they will do - if they have a reason. |
Humans will find a way to do their own research without federal funding because they will be rewarded for it monetarily when they cash in on what they learn. But now Obama feels it is necessary to spend even more of our tax dollars on something that private industry could have handled on it's own. |
|
|
|
07/23/2009 04:10:31 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Many people maintain that human life begins at conception,... |
I just want to correct a common definitional mistake that is often brought up when discussing these issues. What you mean to say is that many people maintain that "personhood" begins at conception. That is, human rights should be bestowed upon an embryo like they are a baby or adult. "Life" is really a scientific term and it is a no-brainer that a human embryo qualifies as a "human life".
Not pointing at you specifically here, but I see this all the time and it only serves to muddle what is already a murky debate. |
You're right, it's a murky debate but swapping out "human life" for "personhood" in the argument doesn't clarify anything. In fact it does the opposite. What constitutes personhood?
|
|
|
|
07/23/2009 04:12:19 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by yakatme:
Ban on what? Don't say stem cell research because that's not what was banned. Federal money towards stem cell research was what was banned. For some reason, the media and most everybody else seems to have misunderstood what was banned.
|
I just want to point out that the ban was not on stem cells as a whole, but embryonic stem cells. Also, I think existing lines of embryonic stem cells still got money, but new lines would not. |
|
|
|
07/23/2009 04:13:56 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by yanko:
You're right, it's a murky debate but swapping out "human life" for "personhood" in the argument doesn't clarify anything. In fact it does the opposite. What constitutes personhood? |
I think the distinction between personhood and life is that I can say that my skin cell, or liver cell, or whatever is alive, but not a distinct person from me, whereas many would argue that embryos, because they are genetically different than their parents, are alive, and have personhood. |
|
|
|
07/23/2009 04:43:57 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Originally posted by yanko:
You're right, it's a murky debate but swapping out "human life" for "personhood" in the argument doesn't clarify anything. In fact it does the opposite. What constitutes personhood? |
I think the distinction between personhood and life is that I can say that my skin cell, or liver cell, or whatever is alive, but not a distinct person from me, whereas many would argue that embryos, because they are genetically different than their parents, are alive, and have personhood. |
Right, but personhood can only be defined philosophically, which history has shown time and time again when you use philosophy as a means to exclude bad things tend to happen (ex. slavery, discrimination, etc). The only time it really works is when the philosophy is all inclusive such as in "All men are created equal".
Edited for clarity
Message edited by author 2009-07-23 16:47:34.
|
|
|
|
07/23/2009 04:50:54 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Many people maintain that human life begins at conception,... |
I just want to correct a common definitional mistake that is often brought up when discussing these issues. What you mean to say is that many people maintain that "personhood" begins at conception. That is, human rights should be bestowed upon an embryo like they are a baby or adult. "Life" is really a scientific term and it is a no-brainer that a human embryo qualifies as a "human life".
Not pointing at you specifically here, but I see this all the time and it only serves to muddle what is already a murky debate. |
You're right, it's a murky debate but swapping out "human life" for "personhood" in the argument doesn't clarify anything. In fact it does the opposite. What constitutes personhood? |
It only clarifies it by avoiding unnecessary arguments. The statement "I believe life starts at conception" should not be argued by anybody. The statement "I believe we should grant human rights at conception" is definitely up for debate with different people making different rational arguments. I have seen people go through discussions showing how a zygote is a) human and b) alive. While this is true, it misses the whole debate and naturally encourages one side to think the other side is stocked with nothing but idiots.
I didn't say I was going to solve the problem, but I'm just encouraging the proper use of language to debate it. |
|
|
|
07/23/2009 05:19:07 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by yakatme:
Originally posted by AP:
I'll make a few points: |
So will I...
Originally posted by AP:
1) Thank goodness Obama lifted the ban |
Ban on what? Don't say stem cell research because that's not what was banned. Federal money towards stem cell research was what was banned. For some reason, the media and most everybody else seems to have misunderstood what was banned.
Originally posted by AP:
2) What humans can do, they will do - if they have a reason. |
Humans will find a way to do their own research without federal funding because they will be rewarded for it monetarily when they cash in on what they learn. But now Obama feels it is necessary to spend even more of our tax dollars on something that private industry could have handled on it's own. |
1) Yes of course I understood the scope of the ban, the point does not change - Banning federal funding had the effect of chilling research and stifling its growth, a factor that has undeniably resulted in the United States falling behind other countries in this highly promising field of medical research.
2) If private industry could have handled it on its own then it would have, no? Surely we have one of the best private sectors in the world, why then are other countries so far ahead of us? Spending federal funds for the general welfare is one of the principle roles of our government. It's how we have national parks, it's how we got to the moon, it's how we have a federal highway system.
Spending money on valuable medical research that may save lives, cut down on medical costs in the future, and thus improve the welfare of our nation is not only economically justifiable, but a moral imperative. |
|
|
|
07/23/2009 05:19:39 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Many people maintain that human life begins at conception,... |
I just want to correct a common definitional mistake that is often brought up when discussing these issues. What you mean to say is that many people maintain that "personhood" begins at conception. That is, human rights should be bestowed upon an embryo like they are a baby or adult. "Life" is really a scientific term and it is a no-brainer that a human embryo qualifies as a "human life".
Not pointing at you specifically here, but I see this all the time and it only serves to muddle what is already a murky debate. |
You're right, it's a murky debate but swapping out "human life" for "personhood" in the argument doesn't clarify anything. In fact it does the opposite. What constitutes personhood? |
It only clarifies it by avoiding unnecessary arguments. The statement "I believe life starts at conception" should not be argued by anybody. The statement "I believe we should grant human rights at conception" is definitely up for debate with different people making different rational arguments. I have seen people go through discussions showing how a zygote is a) human and b) alive. While this is true, it misses the whole debate and naturally encourages one side to think the other side is stocked with nothing but idiots.
I didn't say I was going to solve the problem, but I'm just encouraging the proper use of language to debate it. |
It's not a matter of using the wrong language. Not everyone believes that human life begins at conception. That notion has always been contested by pro-choice advocates. Granted, over time more people have come to accept it but it has by no means been a "no-brainer" for everyone.
|
|
|
|
07/23/2009 05:32:39 PM · #35 |
So the real question, if I had a clone of me, and my clone took a photo, could I enter it in a challenge as mine? Technically it would still have been be me taking the photo. Or would my clone need it's own account? But then could I get busted for having two accounts? This will be a big issue!
Or, if I clone someone else but it was my clone that I made (as others proposed) is it my photo?
My head hurts. |
|
|
|
07/23/2009 05:37:55 PM · #36 |
Now really, if you had the ability to clone someone, would photographic ability be high on the clones list of abilities? I'm thinking I want the clone to be able to work and make lots of money so I can take photos all day. that ans mow the lawn, clean the bathroom... Having a clone that takes photos all day while I work would kind of suck. Plus if the clone takes photos you have to worry about entering them as yours, or having two accounts. |
|
|
|
07/23/2009 05:44:47 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
So the real question, if I had a clone of me, and my clone took a photo, could I enter it in a challenge as mine? Technically it would still have been be me taking the photo. Or would my clone need it's own account? But then could I get busted for having two accounts? This will be a big issue!
Or, if I clone someone else but it was my clone that I made (as others proposed) is it my photo?
My head hurts. |
No different than identical twins.
|
|
|
|
07/23/2009 05:50:03 PM · #38 |
| I recall wathching a show on the science channel suggesting that one day they will be able to regenerate organs, bones and skin which could make a person ageless. |
|
|
|
07/23/2009 10:19:30 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by JaimeVinas:
I recall wathching a show on the science channel suggesting that one day they will be able to regenerate organs, bones and skin which could make a person ageless. |
the brain will still deteriorate and the "person" will die.
unless they found a way to transfer memory and life's experiences from one brain to another.
it is like you can change, replace or upgrade the parts of your computer to prolong the life-span, but in the end if you are not able to transfer your harddisk data to the new machine, it is still like buying a new computer. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/28/2025 01:48:39 PM EDT.
