Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2020 1:17 pmNationStates
Because sometimes even national leaders just want to hang out
https://forum.nationstates.net/
Pro-stem-cell-research yet pro-Christianity?
Page 2 of 11
Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2020 1:17 pmPosted: Sat Jan 11, 2020 1:19 pmI believe that harvesting stem cells is perfectly okay as long it is from a consenting adult. The moral panic now is well worth the discovery of life extension and other technologies latter. BTW I am an Atheistic humanistic libertarian.
Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2020 1:20 pmIf you define murder as "the unlawful killing of a person", then it isn't murder.
Sure we do, but it would help us (and help all those who don't know what you mean) if you'd use terms correctly.
Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2020 1:21 pmEstanglia wrote:Rojava Free State wrote:
Murder is legal in much of Somalia but it's still murder
If you define murder as "the unlawful killing of a person", then it isn't murder.Antityranicals wrote:You. Know. What. I. Mean.
Sure we do, but it would help us (and help all those who don't know what you mean) if you'd use terms correctly.
I disagree with your silly definition. As long as you understand fully what I mean by the word, it is acceptable.
Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2020 1:28 pmAntityranicals wrote:Estanglia wrote:
If you define murder as "the unlawful killing of a person", then it isn't murder.
Sure we do, but it would help us (and help all those who don't know what you mean) if you'd use terms correctly.
I disagree with your silly definition. As long as you understand fully what I mean by the word, it is acceptable.
If you enjoy having to explain what you mean to every person who has zero clue what you actually mean because you've used a word in an incorrect way (or, at the very least, a way that runs counter to the way it is used by a lot of other people) and having people correct you every time you misuse a word (like now), I guess it is.
Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2020 1:30 pmEstanglia wrote:Antityranicals wrote:I disagree with your silly definition. As long as you understand fully what I mean by the word, it is acceptable.
If you enjoy having to explain what you mean to every person who has zero clue what you actually mean because you've used a word in an incorrect way (or, at the very least, a way that runs counter to the way it is used by a lot of other people) and having people correct you every time you misuse a word (like now), I guess it is.
Almost no one uses murder to refer exclusively to illegal killing, but rather to morally wrong killing.
The "correcting" is the most snobbish thing, because you all know what was meant.
Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2020 1:31 pmImagine being a linguistic prescriptivist anyway.
Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2020 1:36 pmTo deny great benefits that stem cell research provides to society is similar to denying the great benefits that vaccines provide to society. If one opposes to either one religious reasons, then don't receive them self therapy or vaccines then.
It is absolutely immoral and degenerate to deny people a prosperous and long life because one believes that an embryo has a soul. Stem cell research and vaccines such as Varicella (chickenpox), rubella (the “R” in the MMR vaccine), hepatitis A, and one preparation of rabies vaccine have prolonged life for humans in ways we haven’t seen before and have improve the quality of life beyond a reasonable doubt. The so-called pro-life position in this instance is not about prolonging life but about the idea that an embryo has a soul.
It is absolutely immoral and degenerate to deny people a prosperous and long life because one believes that an embryo has a soul. Stem cell research and vaccines such as Varicella (chickenpox), rubella (the “R” in the MMR vaccine), hepatitis A, and one preparation of rabies vaccine have prolonged life for humans in ways we haven’t seen before and have improve the quality of life beyond a reasonable doubt. The so-called pro-life position in this instance is not about prolonging life but about the idea that an embryo has a soul.
Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2020 1:36 pmPosted: Sat Jan 11, 2020 1:39 pmRight...
According to Cambridge dictionary, the defenition of murder is:
And for crime:
Make of that what you will.
According to Cambridge dictionary, the defenition of murder is:
The crime of intentionally killing a person
And for crime:
Illegal activities
Make of that what you will.
Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2020 1:40 pmPosted: Sat Jan 11, 2020 1:41 pmAntityranicals wrote:Estanglia wrote:
If you define murder as "the unlawful killing of a person", then it isn't murder.
Sure we do, but it would help us (and help all those who don't know what you mean) if you'd use terms correctly.
I disagree with your silly definition. As long as you understand fully what I mean by the word, it is acceptable.
Definitions are supposed to be objective, not subjective.
When you can cite the original definition, you might have something to go on. In the meantime, you don't.
Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2020 1:43 pmUnited Muscovite Nations wrote:Estanglia wrote:
If you enjoy having to explain what you mean to every person who has zero clue what you actually mean because you've used a word in an incorrect way (or, at the very least, a way that runs counter to the way it is used by a lot of other people) and having people correct you every time you misuse a word (like now), I guess it is.
Almost no one uses murder to refer exclusively to illegal killing, but rather to morally wrong killing.
The "correcting" is the most snobbish thing, because you all know what was meant.
I'm sorry if every dictionary I can find is pointing out that the use of murder in this situation is incorrect, because words have meanings and the purpose of dictionaries is to tell us those meanings.
And if that isn't the purpose of a dictionary, then what's the point of one? A doorstop? Something to fill shelves with? I'm not saying that
we have to forever obey dictionaries and they can never change, but if every dictionary I can find is telling me that the meaning of murder and the way Antityranicals is using the word murder aren't the same, I'm going to err on the side of the dictionaries.
Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2020 1:44 pmMurder is not exclusively a legal term. If the state ceased to exist, there would still be instances of humans killing other humans that would rightfully called murder. The word has meaning outside the law.
Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2020 1:45 pmEstanglia wrote:United Muscovite Nations wrote:Almost no one uses murder to refer exclusively to illegal killing, but rather to morally wrong killing.
The "correcting" is the most snobbish thing, because you all know what was meant.
I'm sorry if every dictionary I can find is pointing out that the use of murder in this situation is incorrect, because words have meanings and the purpose of dictionaries is to tell us those meanings.
And if that isn't the purpose of a dictionary, then what's the point of one? A doorstop? Something to fill shelves with? I'm not saying that
we have to forever obey dictionaries and they can never change, but if every dictionary I can find is telling me that the meaning of murder and the way Antityranicals is using the word murder aren't the same, I'm going to err on the side of the dictionaries.
Dictionaries don't decide what words mean. Prescriptivism is the ultimate form of elitism.
Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2020 1:47 pmUnited Muscovite Nations wrote:Estanglia wrote:
I'm sorry if every dictionary I can find is pointing out that the use of murder in this situation is incorrect, because words have meanings and the purpose of dictionaries is to tell us those meanings.
And if that isn't the purpose of a dictionary, then what's the point of one? A doorstop? Something to fill shelves with? I'm not saying that
we have to forever obey dictionaries and they can never change, but if every dictionary I can find is telling me that the meaning of murder and the way Antityranicals is using the word murder aren't the same, I'm going to err on the side of the dictionaries.
Dictionaries don't decide what words mean. Prescriptivism is the ultimate form of elitism.
You know, I'm going to have to create a new thread for this. By engaging in this I've gone against my own guideline. Let's please get back on track.
Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2020 1:49 pmUnited Muscovite Nations wrote:Estanglia wrote:
I'm sorry if every dictionary I can find is pointing out that the use of murder in this situation is incorrect, because words have meanings and the purpose of dictionaries is to tell us those meanings.
And if that isn't the purpose of a dictionary, then what's the point of one? A doorstop? Something to fill shelves with? I'm not saying that
we have to forever obey dictionaries and they can never change, but if every dictionary I can find is telling me that the meaning of murder and the way Antityranicals is using the word murder aren't the same, I'm going to err on the side of the dictionaries.
Dictionaries don't decide what words mean. Prescriptivism is the ultimate form of elitism.
You’re just on big ironic mess, you know that Muscovite?
Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2020 1:50 pmNew Paine wrote:To deny great benefits that stem cell research provides to society is similar to denying the great benefits that vaccines provide to society. If one opposes to either one religious reasons, then don't receive them self therapy or vaccines then.
It is absolutely immoral and degenerate to deny people a prosperous and long life because one believes that an embryo has a soul. Stem cell research and vaccines such as Varicella (chickenpox), rubella (the “R” in the MMR vaccine), hepatitis A, and one preparation of rabies vaccine have prolonged life for humans in ways we haven’t seen before and have improve the quality of life beyond a reasonable doubt. The so-called pro-life position in this instance is not about prolonging life but about the idea that an embryo has a soul.
They're not similar at all. Vaccines are a safe, proven treatment with absolutely no ethical considerations related to their production. Most if not all medical benefits derived from stem cell research have been made using adult stem cells and umbilical cord stem cells, not embryonic stem cells.
Not to mention your line of reasoning is pretty dangerous as it essentially argues the ends justify the means; at what point does it become unacceptable to sacrifice human life to ensure others a "prosperous and long life" under your definition? You could certainly justify any number of things far beyond embryonic stem cell research by that line of reasoning.
Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2020 1:50 pmUnited Muscovite Nations wrote:Estanglia wrote:
I'm sorry if every dictionary I can find is pointing out that the use of murder in this situation is incorrect, because words have meanings and the purpose of dictionaries is to tell us those meanings.
And if that isn't the purpose of a dictionary, then what's the point of one? A doorstop? Something to fill shelves with? I'm not saying that
we have to forever obey dictionaries and they can never change, but if every dictionary I can find is telling me that the meaning of murder and the way Antityranicals is using the word murder aren't the same, I'm going to err on the side of the dictionaries.
Dictionaries don't decide what words mean. Prescriptivism is the ultimate form of elitism.
Call it what you want, but I like my words to have meaning, and having everyone be able to suddenly declare that word x now has an entirely new meaning and force everyone else to treat that as valid defeats the purpose of having words in the first place.
Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2020 1:52 pmOuter Sparta wrote:Pangurstan wrote:In my opinion, this has the same roots as the debate over abortion. If you think that an embryo has rights, then in addition to opposing abortion, you probably are anti-stem cell research. This question is essentially “are there christians who are pro-choice?”
There are Christians who are pro-choice. Not sure the proportion of Christians that are pro-life/pro-choice though.
Definitely more likely to be the former and less likely to be the latter, if election results are anything to go by.
I actually think the same point (why be in favour of Christianity, now that you've seen its results) applies to abortion, just to a lesser extent, given the lesser extent of opposition to ESCR than that of abortion.
Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2020 1:52 pmPangurstan wrote:In my opinion, this has the same roots as the debate over abortion. If you think that an embryo has rights, then in addition to opposing abortion, you probably are anti-stem cell research. This question is essentially “are there christians who are pro-choice?”
Nah, there are definitely people who don't object to stem cell research but do object to abortion: anybody with even very slight consequentialist leanings has a massive incentive to support it, for example.
Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2020 1:53 pmEstanglia wrote:United Muscovite Nations wrote:Dictionaries don't decide what words mean. Prescriptivism is the ultimate form of elitism.
Call it what you want, but I like my words to have meaning, and having everyone be able to suddenly declare that word x now has an entirely new meaning and force everyone else to treat that as valid defeats the purpose of having words in the first place.
Words do have meaning, the meaning that people use them for. Prescriptivism doesn't work because word meaning changes over time, and there are colloquial definitions for words as well. I almost guarantee you that you and the others in this thread have all used "murder" to refer to perfectly lawful killings.
Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2020 1:53 pmAntityranicals wrote:LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:Not quite the same one. There's more support for embryonic stem cell research than for fetal tissue research. This suggests some opposition to abortion is motivated by other things... desire to force an increase in birthrate, envy at those getting laid, superficial "but fetuses LOOK like babies" reactions that don't apply to the zygotes used in ESCR, etc... take your pick, it's all equally arbitrary and unverifiable what IS motivating anti-abortion types, all this tells us is what ISN'T motivating them, and what ISN'T motivating them is the "life begins at conception" platitude.
Thank goodness. "Life begins at conception" was especially absurd and was missing the point of the common use of the word "life" and the reason people are so indignant at actual murders. But that still leaves behind the question of why anti-abortion types PRETEND to agree with the "life begins at conception" platitude in the first place.
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.
Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2020 1:54 pmWhy can’t you just take skin cells and revert them to stem cells...
Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2020 1:56 pmI'm not a Christian, but going by the argument "life begins at conception and we shouldn't kill life" (which seems to be what a lot of arguments boil down to at least in my experience), it's still possible to be pro-stem cell research, just not embryonic stem cells/stem cell research.
Presuming there's no moral/religious reason for a Christian to oppose adult stem cell research, then it's totally possible for a Christian to be pro-stem cell research, just not pro-all stem cell research.
Presuming there's no moral/religious reason for a Christian to oppose adult stem cell research, then it's totally possible for a Christian to be pro-stem cell research, just not pro-all stem cell research.