Ok, then tell me why before blurting out an unaccredited statement from the blue.
Often a thesis statement precedes the evidence. It's very standard English construction.
It's also standard argumentation practice for your thesis statement to support your evidence, which it did not.
Bacteria aren't people.
Neither are pluripotent stem cells or blastocysts.
I think you're deliberately missing the point. Human blastocysts are human, the DNA settles this.
And I think you're deliberately misconstruing the point. Human blastocysts are a small collection of Human cells -- nothing more. They are not conscious and they do not suffer. There is absolutely no evidence to the contrary regarding this point. And about the DNA, we share 94% of it with chimps and some fraction will all life on earth. What is "Human" is a continuous gradient whether you look at it genetically or evolutionarily. The 4% that is unique to us gives us our sapience.
Bacteria are quite clearly not human.
They are distant genetic cousins, and they are cells, so why is their destruction any less worse than the destruction of tiny quantities of nascent Human cells?
Whether the blastocysts are alive is the question at hand.
They are alive by the definition provided to us by biology. The fallacy you are perpetrating is using life to conflate a self-sustaining chemical system and the ability to experience.
Sperm can't grow into a human.
If they're coupled with an ovum they can. Ever heard of sperm banks?
You were talking about the destruction of un-coupled sperm. Again, they can't grow into a human.
And neither can blastocysts unless implanted into a working uterus. Your argument is vacuous. Whether something can grow into a human is beside the point. You are talking about potential, which the DNA of any cell in one's body can provide, but what you ignore is that potential has to be coupled with a conscious choice.
then it's a human being, at one stage of development.
And you think my arguments are weak. Go look up "non sequitur" again. This statement has no logical connection to your previous one.
This is the very crux of the matter for those who are concerned. Of course it has a logical connection - some people believe that it is a living human deserving of full protections. You can't wish that away or pretend to be too obtuse to recognize it.
"If the blastocyst is 'alive'" --> "then it's a human being, at one stage of development." The implication here is fallacious. "Alive" here is nebulous and undefined. Your logic fails because you are once again equivocating your use of the term "life" which in this context could mean "ability to experience", which we already know is wrong, "ability to develop into a human" which we know is wrong because it is implicated on conscious choice, or some other unknown definition which brings us back full circle to "what is life?." You can't wish away a non-statement or pretend to to be too obtuse to recognize it.
Defining 'life' is tricky.
And it's also irrelevant to this conversation, unless you're talking about "Human Life."
Of course we are, that's the subject of the whole debate.
Should we treat the suffering of an orangutan or dolphin any different than the suffering of the non-sentient brain impaired of our species, or even the non-brain-impaired, just because the latter looks like us?
Of course, this is a fundamental premise of our society and system of justice, no matter what your take on embryo research is.
Just because something is a "fundamental premise" doesn't mean it's right or isn't open to debate. In my opinion it is seriously flawed. Talk to a Buddhist.
Killing a bull, even painfully, is not a crime (in fact, it's bragged about on product labeling). Killing a handicapped child will get you life to death, depending on jurisdiction.
That's a nice straw man you have their. I never said anything about killing a handicapped child. Nice appeal to emotion as well. You've deliberately twisted my words. The untwisted version was meant to emphasize that ignoring the real suffering of the other species we live with is arrogant at best, and criminal at worst. And the thing about the bull is disgusting. Don't we have animal rights laws that prohibit such unnecessary mistreatment?
For me, life is anything that can suffer.
Oh, you have a working definition of suffering? That's escaped philosophers for centuries.
You really know how to construct a straw man. Every human innately knows what suffering is, just like we know what heat or cold are, or what the color red is. Life, in the general ( universe-wide ) sense, is another issue altogether.
Positing that Humans are a higher form of life, other than the fact that we're sapient, is just cruel anthropocentrism and has led to the full scale destruction of the ecosystems that made us and sustains us.
Full-scale? Strange the world doesn't seem dead
You fully know that I meant destruction in the progressive sense ( I accidentally omitted the "ongoing" ) and "full scale" in the "by every means possible" sense. ( go check a dictionary if you don't agree ) Now you are just slinging mud.
You're a radical vegan localvore, I presume?
Thanks for launching the first ad hominem attack and handing the argument to me. You must be getting desperate.
just stop.
I'd advise you yo do the same.
I'm not funding any 'public' research.
Feel free not to contribute to the cause of eliminating human *suffering* and disease by the advancement of biological science, and eventually, that of the Earth's ecosystem as well.
jdb2
Even if your conclusion is right, your arguments are weak.
Ok, then tell me why before blurting out an unaccredited statement from the blue. You're reasoning in the above is equivalent to saying "You're wrong!." Let me introduce you to my friend -- his name is called Non Sequitur.
Bacteria aren't people.
Neither are pluripotent stem cells or blastocysts.
Sperm can't grow into a human.
If they're coupled with an ovum they can. Ever heard of sperm banks?
If the blastocyst is 'alive',
It is, and so are the bacteria in my shit.
then it's a human being, at one stage of development.
And you think my arguments are weak. Go look up "non sequitur" again. This statement has no logical connection to your previous one.
Defining 'life' is tricky.
And it's also irrelevant to this conversation, unless you're talking about "Human Life." And if you want to elevate Human life above all other "animal" life just because we're the only surviving sapient species on the planet, please provide a reason why the emergence of any new Human in our grand ecosystem is any "better" than the emergence of any other form of life which it encompasses. Should we treat the suffering of an orangutan or dolphin any different than the suffering of the non-sentient brain impaired of our species, or even the non-brain-impaired, just because the latter looks like us? For me, life is anything that can suffer. Sentio igitur sum is more primal. Positing that Humans are a higher form of life, other than the fact that we're sapient, is just cruel anthropocentrism and has led to the full scale destruction of the ecosystems that made us and sustains us.
- just stop.
I'd advise you yo do the same.
jdb2
An inner and outer event horizon? last I checked the event horizon was the point at which nothing not even light escapes. By that definition theres only one event horizon. If something goes in and is able to come out, it obviously hasn't entered the event horizon. I assume what you are talking about is the gravitational swing effect by which an object enters the gravitational field long enough to gain speed before it is slingshots away before being sucked in.
I think he's talking about the ergosphere.
jdb2
Until it is build into the kernel, I'll pass, thanks.
It's your loss. I have 8 gigs of DDR3-1600MHz and preload is running right now, keeping my most used loadable libraries and applications in a large portion of that 8 gigs and with a very noticeable effect on program startup time.
There are many drivers that are not built into the kernel. Perhaps you would like to "pass" on those as well.
jdb2
One of the things I like the most about Windows 7 is that unlike XP my RAM actually is being used for something useful, instead of sitting empty most of the time. I have about 500Mb of my 8Gb free, because thanks to Superfetch Windows knows which programs I use and when and has them waiting in RAM for me.
Linux has this as well. It's called Preload.
jdb2
Earth orbit is, in terms of energy and delta-v, halfway to anywhere (at least in the Local Group of galaxies).
Hmmmm.... Have you read "Halfway to Anywhere" by G. Harry Stine?
We need something like the DC-X again since that design seems very promising. Also, given the current state of NASA -- ie. the retiring of the Space Shuttle Fleet -- I'd think they'd be more amenable to such a design. ( If you don't know, the DC-X was a military project that got transferred to NASA. Unfortunately on one test flight someone left a hydraulics line unplugged resulting in one landing strut failing to extend which caused the vehicle to fall on its side and blow up due to a crack in a crappily designed LOX tank. Viewing the DC-X as a threat to the Shuttle program, NASA quickly came up with an excuse to kill the project. )
jdb2
For example, if the Executive- in the form of the Secretary of State -decides that, say, WikiLeaks or Amnesty International is a terrorist organization, well then by golly, it is a terrorist organization. It no longer has any right to free speech — nor can anyone else speak to them or associate with them, for risk of being charged with providing "material support" to this heinous terrorist organization known as Amnesty International. But furthermore, as per Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, anyone associating with WikiLeaks — including, presumably, those who read it, and most certainly those who give it information about government abuses-- would be guilty of aiding and abetting terrorism.
UNIX is hot. It's more than hot. It's steaming. It's quicksilver lightning with a laserbeam kicker. -- Michael Jay Tucker
