Pro-stem-cell-research yet pro-Christianity?

[Greater Catarapania]

Here, I'll reproduce the first paragraph for you too:



I've never really understood why it's so hard for so many of my fellow millennials to buckle down and read a few consecutive paragraphs.

Actually, what's harder is to believe that someone who considers the whole article relevant would cite only a specific excerpt and not ask anyone to read the whole article the first time.

The first time I referenced the article was the first post in which I mentioned induced pluripotency. I only began citing specific excerpts when it became apparent that you were unwilling to actually read it.

I've since listened to the article twice. It very specifically says "for therapeutic purposes." It doesn't say anything about other kinds of research, such as into what causes cells to differentiate in what ways under what circumstances in the first place.

That would be redundant, seeing as they already know that, and are actively using that knowledge to turn the induced stem cells into things like beta cells and neurons.

You would think all the people in 2004 making a big show of how much they were against the research would be making just as big a show how (or more) about how vindicated they were if it did. Instead this whole issue has fallen by the wayside in mainstream politics recent years.

The reason it's fallen by the wayside is because, once induced pluripotent stem cell technology became viable, nobody had any reason to advocate for embryonic stem cell research any more. Either my side is too nice to rub in our victory, or we're largely unaware that we won. Mix of both, I think. Depends on which sub-demographic of evangelicals you're looking at. I'll be the first to admit that many of us have something of a populist/anti-elitist streak that can get in the way of deep understanding of science and other issues.

[Antityranicals]

Wait a minute, so you're willing to buy that life doesn't begin at conception? That's just stupid. You could try to make the argument that while life begins at conception, it just doesn't matter until a certain point, but believing that life doesn't begin at conception is about as nonsensical as believing the earth is flat.

Yes. Before birth, it's a part of the mother's body. Separation is when it becomes an independent being with its own life.

When you are inside of your house, are you a part of it? No, and that is, in fact, nonsense.

[The New California Republic]

Yes. Before birth, it's a part of the mother's body. Separation is when it becomes an independent being with its own life.

When you are inside of your house, are you a part of it? No, and that is, in fact, nonsense.

Not equivalent.

[Antityranicals]

When you are inside of your house, are you a part of it? No, and that is, in fact, nonsense.

Not equivalent.

Where's the discrepancy?

[Estanglia]

Not equivalent.

Where's the discrepancy?

- The house, the 'container' if you will, is not alive nor can be alive, whilst in pregnancy the 'container', the pregnant mother, is alive.
- The house is not composed of 50% of the person's DNA, or the person is not composed of 50% of the house's DNA.
- The house is not physically connected to the person, or the person is not physically connected to the house.
- The house is not physically dependent upon the person for its continued survival, or the person is not physically dependent upon the house for its survival (in that the loss of the house/person isn't necessarily a death sentence for the person/house respectively)

Amongst others.

The 'or' is whether you consider the house to be equivalent to the fetus (so the left option) or the person in the house to be equivalent to the fetus (so the right option).

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Actually, what's harder is to believe that someone who considers the whole article relevant would cite only a specific excerpt and not ask anyone to read the whole article the first time.

The first time I referenced the article was the first post in which I mentioned induced pluripotency. I only began citing specific excerpts when it became apparent that you were unwilling to actually read it.

I've since listened to the article twice. It very specifically says "for therapeutic purposes." It doesn't say anything about other kinds of research, such as into what causes cells to differentiate in what ways under what circumstances in the first place.

That would be redundant, seeing as they already know that, and are actively using that knowledge to turn the induced stem cells into things like beta cells and neurons.

You would think all the people in 2004 making a big show of how much they were against the research would be making just as big a show how (or more) about how vindicated they were if it did. Instead this whole issue has fallen by the wayside in mainstream politics recent years.

The reason it's fallen by the wayside is because, once induced pluripotent stem cell technology became viable, nobody had any reason to advocate for embryonic stem cell research any more. Either my side is too nice to rub in our victory, or we're largely unaware that we won. Mix of both, I think. Depends on which sub-demographic of evangelicals you're looking at. I'll be the first to admit that many of us have something of a populist/anti-elitist streak that can get in the way of deep understanding of science and other issues.

The following was the first post of yours, that I had noticed, when I chose to reply to it.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=479698&p=36617650#p36617650

The link was from a prior post, but I didn't "refuse to read it" because I wasn't asked to in the first place; Salandriagado was the one you asked to do so, not me. Or did you get myself and Salandriagado mixed up?

Your article still doesn't present a clear-cut case for ESCR's full obsolescence or any reason to predict that full obsolescence is guaranteed in the future, let alone an explanation for why ESCR continues to be used.

[The New California Republic]

Where's the discrepancy?

- The house, the 'container' if you will, is not alive nor can be alive, whilst in pregnancy the 'container', the pregnant mother, is alive.
- The house is not composed of 50% of the person's DNA, or the person is not composed of 50% of the house's DNA.
- The house is not physically connected to the person, or the person is not physically connected to the house.
- The house is not physically dependent upon the person for its continued survival, or the person is not physically dependent upon the house for its survival (in that the loss of the house/person isn't necessarily a death sentence for the person/house respectively)

Amongst others.

The 'or' is whether you consider the house to be equivalent to the fetus (so the left option) or the person in the house to be equivalent to the fetus (so the right option).

Dammit. Sniped.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Where's the discrepancy?

- The house, the 'container' if you will, is not alive nor can be alive, whilst in pregnancy the 'container', the pregnant mother, is alive.
- The house is not composed of 50% of the person's DNA, or the person is not composed of 50% of the house's DNA.
- The house is not physically connected to the person, or the person is not physically connected to the house.
- The house is not physically dependent upon the person for its continued survival, or the person is not physically dependent upon the house for its survival (in that the loss of the house/person isn't necessarily a death sentence for the person/house respectively)

Amongst others.

The 'or' is whether you consider the house to be equivalent to the fetus (so the left option) or the person in the house to be equivalent to the fetus (so the right option).

This is why I sooner trust the "fetuses aren't even sentient anyway" types to lead the movement for safe and legal abortion than those who rely on the flawed "part of her body" reasoning. The former strikes me as more rational, and as such, I expect the people behind it to be more rational as well.

[Vetalia]

Yes. Before birth, it's a part of the mother's body. Separation is when it becomes an independent being with its own life.

The fetus is not a part of the mother's body, though. It is an independent living organism that relies upon the mother for the resources and environment necessary for it to develop to the point where it can survive independently outside of the mother's body. Based on this criterion and your concept of personhood, that would be around 22 weeks for the earliest current potential viability of a prematurely-born baby.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

How do you look at a religion that has so severely distorted people's sense of right and wrong and not immediately want it cut off at the source?

Because I'm smart enough to know better than to equate the ignorance of certain overly-zealous individuals with the morals and belief system of a 2,000 year old religion?

Ah, we come back full circle.

These "overly-zealous individuals" were numerous enough to swing the balance of an election. With no reason to believe religion was the only thing holding even worse forms of zealotry back, what defense is there for the rest of us to support a key, irreplaceable ingredient in that zealotry?

Historically, Christianity's correlated with some pretty awful other things over these past 2000 years too, but without them happening in democracies Christianity's share in the blame is not as clear-cut.

[The New California Republic]

Not equivalent.

Where's the discrepancy?

If you need it explained to you why a woman is not equivalent to a house...then wew lad...

[Estanglia]

- The house, the 'container' if you will, is not alive nor can be alive, whilst in pregnancy the 'container', the pregnant mother, is alive.
- The house is not composed of 50% of the person's DNA, or the person is not composed of 50% of the house's DNA.
- The house is not physically connected to the person, or the person is not physically connected to the house.
- The house is not physically dependent upon the person for its continued survival, or the person is not physically dependent upon the house for its survival (in that the loss of the house/person isn't necessarily a death sentence for the person/house respectively)

Amongst others.

The 'or' is whether you consider the house to be equivalent to the fetus (so the left option) or the person in the house to be equivalent to the fetus (so the right option).

Dammit. Sniped.

Think positive: I just saved you the time it took to type that all out

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Yes. Before birth, it's a part of the mother's body. Separation is when it becomes an independent being with its own life.

The fetus is not a part of the mother's body, though. It is an independent living organism that relies upon the mother for the resources and environment necessary for it to develop to the point where it can survive independently outside of the mother's body. Based on this criterion and your concept of personhood, that would be around 22 weeks for the earliest current potential viability of a prematurely-born baby.

And fetuses aborted after 22 weeks are usually aborted for legitimate medical reasons anyway.

Which reminds me. While ESCR is more popular than abortion, even supporters of both don't accuse its critics of being "pro-death" like they do with supporters of third-trimester restrictions. Why is that?

[Antityranicals]

Where's the discrepancy?

- The house, the 'container' if you will, is not alive nor can be alive, whilst in pregnancy the 'container', the pregnant mother, is alive.
- The house is not composed of 50% of the person's DNA, or the person is not composed of 50% of the house's DNA.
- The house is not physically connected to the person, or the person is not physically connected to the house.
- The house is not physically dependent upon the person for its continued survival, or the person is not physically dependent upon the house for its survival (in that the loss of the house/person isn't necessarily a death sentence for the person/house respectively)

Amongst others.

The 'or' is whether you consider the house to be equivalent to the fetus (so the left option) or the person in the house to be equivalent to the fetus (so the right option).

Wow... None of that actually demonstrates a discrepancy. Whether or not something is living, made of similar material as something else, or depends upon something else, doesn't actually change whether or not that something is a part of that something else. While I suppose being physically attached could make something a part of something else, I doubt that you'd agree that chaining someone to a house would make that person part of it, as you'd try to argue about the fallopian tube... So feel free to try again.

[Greater Catarapania]

The first time I referenced the article was the first post in which I mentioned induced pluripotency. I only began citing specific excerpts when it became apparent that you were unwilling to actually read it.


That would be redundant, seeing as they already know that, and are actively using that knowledge to turn the induced stem cells into things like beta cells and neurons.



The reason it's fallen by the wayside is because, once induced pluripotent stem cell technology became viable, nobody had any reason to advocate for embryonic stem cell research any more. Either my side is too nice to rub in our victory, or we're largely unaware that we won. Mix of both, I think. Depends on which sub-demographic of evangelicals you're looking at. I'll be the first to admit that many of us have something of a populist/anti-elitist streak that can get in the way of deep understanding of science and other issues.

The following was the first post of yours, that I had noticed, when I chose to reply to it.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=479698&p=36617650#p36617650

The link was from a prior post, but I didn't "refuse to read it" because I wasn't asked to in the first place; Salandriagado was the one you asked to do so, not me. Or did you get myself and Salandriagado mixed up?

I did. Mea Culpa.

In my defense, you two have similar positions and identical flags.

Your article still doesn't present a clear-cut case for ESCR's full obsolescence or any reason to predict that full obsolescence is guaranteed in the future, let alone an explanation for why ESCR continues to be used.

Is ESCR still used? I was under the impression that most modern research uses cells with induced pluripotency, as that sort of thing has more promise for therapeutic uses, seeing as it runs little risk of rejection.

[Antityranicals]

- The house, the 'container' if you will, is not alive nor can be alive, whilst in pregnancy the 'container', the pregnant mother, is alive.
- The house is not composed of 50% of the person's DNA, or the person is not composed of 50% of the house's DNA.
- The house is not physically connected to the person, or the person is not physically connected to the house.
- The house is not physically dependent upon the person for its continued survival, or the person is not physically dependent upon the house for its survival (in that the loss of the house/person isn't necessarily a death sentence for the person/house respectively)

Amongst others.

The 'or' is whether you consider the house to be equivalent to the fetus (so the left option) or the person in the house to be equivalent to the fetus (so the right option).

This is why I sooner trust the "fetuses aren't even sentient anyway" types to lead the movement for safe and legal abortion than those who rely on the flawed "part of her body" reasoning. The former strikes me as more rational, and as such, I expect the people behind it to be more rational as well.

You're not sentient when you're asleep. Does that mean that you can be murdered by your parents then?

[Antityranicals]

Where's the discrepancy?

If you need it explained to you why a woman is not equivalent to a house...then wew lad...

If you need it explained to you why an unborn boy or girl is not equivalent to a splinter... then you're in even more trouble.

[The New California Republic]

- The house, the 'container' if you will, is not alive nor can be alive, whilst in pregnancy the 'container', the pregnant mother, is alive.
- The house is not composed of 50% of the person's DNA, or the person is not composed of 50% of the house's DNA.
- The house is not physically connected to the person, or the person is not physically connected to the house.
- The house is not physically dependent upon the person for its continued survival, or the person is not physically dependent upon the house for its survival (in that the loss of the house/person isn't necessarily a death sentence for the person/house respectively)

Amongst others.

The 'or' is whether you consider the house to be equivalent to the fetus (so the left option) or the person in the house to be equivalent to the fetus (so the right option).

Wow... None of that actually demonstrates a discrepancy. Whether or not something is living, made of similar material as something else, or depends upon something else, doesn't actually change whether or not that something is a part of that something else. While I suppose being physically attached could make something a part of something else, I doubt that you'd agree that chaining someone to a house would make that person part of it, as you'd try to argue about the fallopian tube... So feel free to try again.

Except it does though. It shows how a fetus in a woman is not equivalent to a person in a house, contrary to your assertion.

If you need it explained to you why a woman is not equivalent to a house...then wew lad...

If you need it explained to you why an unborn boy or girl is not equivalent to a splinter... then you're in even more trouble.

I wasn't the one comparing fetuses to splinters, but you very much were saying that women were equivalent to houses.

[Peoples Continental Union]

All I know about this issue is that it's over for stemcels.

[Estanglia]

- The house, the 'container' if you will, is not alive nor can be alive, whilst in pregnancy the 'container', the pregnant mother, is alive.
- The house is not composed of 50% of the person's DNA, or the person is not composed of 50% of the house's DNA.
- The house is not physically connected to the person, or the person is not physically connected to the house.
- The house is not physically dependent upon the person for its continued survival, or the person is not physically dependent upon the house for its survival (in that the loss of the house/person isn't necessarily a death sentence for the person/house respectively)

Amongst others.

The 'or' is whether you consider the house to be equivalent to the fetus (so the left option) or the person in the house to be equivalent to the fetus (so the right option).

Wow... None of that actually demonstrates a discrepancy. Whether or not something is living, made of similar material as something else, or depends upon something else, doesn't actually change whether or not that something is a part of that something else. While I suppose being physically attached could make something a part of something else, I doubt that you'd agree that chaining someone to a house would make that person part of it, as you'd try to argue about the fallopian tube... So feel free to try again.

I'm wondering: how does the "not composed of 50% of their DNA" part not show a discrepancy? The biological material of the fetus shares a fairly significant amount of DNA with the mother, whilst the house has literally no DNA to share with someone else.

And if you don't consider that enough of a difference to make the house to mother comparison invalid, well we'll just have to agree to disagree there because it's totally enough for me.

And even in regards to physically chaining someone to a house, you're attached insofar you're touching, but by 'attached' I mean more "physically connected to something to the point that something has to be severed to remove it". Sort of like how our heads are attached to our bodies and in order to separate them you have to sever the neck. To separate me from a house, you just have to physically move me out of the house: no severing is inherently needed.

[Antityranicals]

Wow... None of that actually demonstrates a discrepancy. Whether or not something is living, made of similar material as something else, or depends upon something else, doesn't actually change whether or not that something is a part of that something else. While I suppose being physically attached could make something a part of something else, I doubt that you'd agree that chaining someone to a house would make that person part of it, as you'd try to argue about the fallopian tube... So feel free to try again.

Except it does though. It shows how a fetus in a woman is not equivalent to a person in a house, contrary to your assertion.

If you need it explained to you why an unborn boy or girl is not equivalent to a splinter... then you're in even more trouble.

I wasn't the one comparing fetuses to splinters, but you very much were saying that women were equivalent to houses.

It's an analogy. Of course a house isn't literally a pregnant woman. All that matters for the analogy, though, is the one aspect, the aspect of two distinct things not being one thing. And three of the four assertions fronted have nothing to do with whether or not two things are one thing, while the one other wouldn't check out if the house analogy were modified to fit the assertion. So the attack of my analogy was false.

[The New California Republic]

Except it does though. It shows how a fetus in a woman is not equivalent to a person in a house, contrary to your assertion.


I wasn't the one comparing fetuses to splinters, but you very much were saying that women were equivalent to houses.

It's an analogy. Of course a house isn't literally a pregnant woman. All that matters for the analogy, though, is the one aspect, the aspect of two distinct things not being one thing. And three of the four assertions fronted have nothing to do with whether or not two things are one thing, while the one other wouldn't check out if the house analogy were modified to fit the assertion. So the attack of my analogy was false.

As an analogy it just fucking fails, because there are far too many differences between them.

[Antityranicals]

Wow... None of that actually demonstrates a discrepancy. Whether or not something is living, made of similar material as something else, or depends upon something else, doesn't actually change whether or not that something is a part of that something else. While I suppose being physically attached could make something a part of something else, I doubt that you'd agree that chaining someone to a house would make that person part of it, as you'd try to argue about the fallopian tube... So feel free to try again.

I'm wondering: how does the "not composed of 50% of their DNA" part not show a discrepancy? The biological material of the fetus shares a fairly significant amount of DNA with the mother, whilst the house has literally no DNA to share with someone else.

And if you don't consider that enough of a difference to make the house to mother comparison invalid, well we'll just have to agree to disagree there because it's totally enough for me.

And even in regards to physically chaining someone to a house, you're attached insofar you're touching, but by 'attached' I mean more "physically connected to something to the point that something has to be severed to remove it". Sort of like how our heads are attached to our bodies and in order to separate them you have to sever the neck. To separate me from a house, you just have to physically move me out of the house: no severing is inherently needed.

For the DNA concern, if you assume your argument is valid between fetuses and their mothers, that argument is technically still valid between you and your mother. After all, you haven't somehow ceased to hold the same amount of your mother's DNA. Yet, you are obviously a different person than your mother. And for the chain bit, imagine that someone was literally physically connected to the house, skin to chain to house, in such a way that the only way the two could be disconnected would be by tearing the skin, or breaking the chain or house. Then what?

[Vetalia]

And fetuses aborted after 22 weeks are usually aborted for legitimate medical reasons anyway.

Which reminds me. While ESCR is more popular than abortion, even supporters of both don't accuse its critics of being "pro-death" like they do with supporters of third-trimester restrictions. Why is that?

Which is true, and would be considered permissible provided it met the criteria necessary for "double-effect"; i.e., the intent is not to abort the fetus but to save the woman's life. That doesn't mean the fetus is not considered a person or any other diminution of its worth as a human life, of course.

[Antityranicals]

It's an analogy. Of course a house isn't literally a pregnant woman. All that matters for the analogy, though, is the one aspect, the aspect of two distinct things not being one thing. And three of the four assertions fronted have nothing to do with whether or not two things are one thing, while the one other wouldn't check out if the house analogy were modified to fit the assertion. So the attack of my analogy was false.

As an analogy it just fucking fails, because there are far too many differences between them.

Not on the issue that matters, as you all have still failed to demonstrate how the two are different on that one issue. On all other issues, the two could be completely different. The analogy, "Light is to dark as tall is to short," is a perfectly valid analogy even though light and tall are two completely different concepts, because light and dark are both opposites of each other just as tall and short are.