Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Stem Cell Research

P.S. While the report was published by NIH, the actual research cited was done at John's Hopkins. No idea whether that work was federally funded.

If there is a fallacious argument, Arrogathor, it is only because you made it first. In your statement that I quoted above you claim that embryonic stem cell therapy is equivalent to human sacrifice. You are so blinded by your dogmatism that you cannot see that what you are actually saying is embryo = human. What I said was that an embryo does not equal a human because it is not sentient, with the added caveat that an embryo is of course human in origin and could be considered a potential human. If you want to call those relationships irrelevant then your own statement embryo = human is also irrelevant because you are making your own assumption that the embryo should be considered human.

Furthermore, the major arguments against embryonic stem cell therapy intersect because they relate to whether an embryo is sentient and whether because of this it can be considered a human. I find it difficult, therefore, to understand how you consider them not to be relevant.

In short, do you really equate the existence of a zygote with that of an independent human being?

I have no idea what you are talking about in your third paragraph regarding psychology, human sacrifice and abortion. Feel free to elaborate, it seems to make no sense or have any relevance.

"You are so blinded by your dogmatism that you cannot see that what you are actually saying is embryo = human." and "I have no idea what you are talking about in your third paragraph regarding psychology, human sacrifice and abortion."

The topic is somewhat complex. Obviously, the second sentence I quoted invalidate the first sentence that I quoted. If you don't know what I am saying, you don't know that it is dogmatic.

Assume for the sake of argument that evolution is real. I realize that this might blow your mind, but just for the sake of argument assume that Darwin was right.

If Darwin was right, then we have instincts like other animals. We feel certain things to be true because of those instincts. Our ability to educate those instincts out of us does not exist. We have to be careful dealing with them and how we attempt to educate around them.

Those instincts are a part of our psychology, i.e. how we perceive the world. This is one manner in which the human or non-human status of the unborn can be determined.

Another manner is the question of when the unborn become sentient. That is a biological question. Both are issues of fact. One is a question of fact about how we are driven by instinct to perceive the world. The other is an issue of when an unborn becomes sentient.

There is no reason to believe that they are congruent. There is also no reason to believe that telling the vast masses of people that beings they are driven by instinct to recognize as human are not really human accomplishes that. No matter how clearly the factual evidence may prove that they are not sentient.

Sentient and human are not necessarily congruent either. Morons are human and chimpanzees are not, but chimps, gorillas and orangutans all have IQs higher than morons. Equating sentient with human is a straw horse argument. A popular one but not really relevant or material.

Now, when humans talk about killing something they are driven by instinct to perceive as human in order to produce miracle cures, there is an obvious paralel to the long standing and still ocurring practice of sacrificing human beings to produce miracles. Ergo, the psychological paralel between embryonic stem cell therapy and human sacrifice.

If you believe in evolution and are capable of logically working out its implications for this issue, you will understand what I am saying.

I am sure that you claim to believe in evolution. I am also sure that you completely reject any application of it in the real world. One of the most amusing ironies in this entire field of debate is that only a creationist could be in favor of abortion or embryonic stem cell therapy, logically speaking. While evolutionists should be adamantly opposed to them.

I got bored with playing video games so I visited again to futilely wave the flag of logic and factual reality in the face of the religious fanatics here.

"Now, when humans talk about killing something they are driven by instinct to perceive as human in order to produce miracle cures, there is an obvious paralel to the long standing and still ocurring practice of sacrificing human beings to produce miracles. "

The parallel is all the more obvious to someone who ascribes motives and reasoning to people which they do not possess. Not all people are driven by instinct to believe that embryos are human beings. It's doubtful that anyone thinks of embryos as human beings out of instinct.

Some people may consider the promise of embryonic stem cell research to be a miracle, but those are the people who are already prone to believe in fairy tales. That some people have unreasonable expectations doesn't mean everyone does. For the most part, this is a strawman created and fostered by religious fanatics. So far as I can see, most people who support this kind of research have no expectation of pay-offs in the near term.

"I got bored with playing video games so I visited again to futilely wave the flag of logic and factual reality in the face of the religious fanatics here. "

One hopes you are better at video games than you are at logic.

It is always amusing to see someone make a post which is completely out of touch with reality. Can you produce any evidence that humans are not driven by instinct to project a construct of personhood on the unborn?

The fundamental flaw here is emotional. The person calling himself 'The Fallible Fiend' is reacting emotionally and not rationally.

He sees the discussion of the evolutionary psychology of the mass popular appeal of embryonic stem cell research as a personal attack on the character of people involved in such research.

This is enormously silly. Every single post I have made on the topic has differentiated between three or four different groups of proponents of Embryonic Stem Cell Therapy.

The Scientific professionals who believe in it because they have spent years in the field and are committed to it.

The polticians who support it because it is part of their party platform.

The desperate people suffering from currently incurable diseases who are willing to grasp at any straw.

The masses of people who for some reason believe in it.

In not a single post have I suggested that group 1 or 2 above sees embryonic stem cell therapy as emotionally equivalent to human sacrifice. He is essentially defending his communtity against a charge that has never been made.

All I have done is suggest that the idea appeals to the masses because of that subconscious similarity.

He says, "The parallel is all the more obvious to someone who ascribes motives and reasoning to people which they do not possess. Not all people are driven by instinct to believe that embryos are human beings. It's doubtful that anyone thinks of embryos as human beings out of instinct."

He is forced to deny the influence of evolution on human psychology in order to make the above statement. As I stated before only a nutcase creationist could believe what he believes and integrate it logically with his belief system.

Of course the mass of humans is driven by instinct in how they perceive the world. Of course reproductive behavior is one of the most strongly instinctively driven areas of human behavior. Ergo, seeing the unborn as human must be instinctively driven to prepare for the arrival, they do require tremendous care. They are among the most helpless of all young in the biosphere.

For more factual evidence relating to this issue you might try reading
http://www.overalltech.net/huff/YAbortion.htm

His emotional involvement is clearly shown by his inability to make a coherent statement.

"Some people may consider the promise of embryonic stem cell research to be a miracle, but those are the people who are already prone to believe in fairy tales. That some people have unreasonable expectations doesn't mean everyone does. For the most part, this is a strawman created and fostered by religious fanatics. So far as I can see, most people who support this kind of research have no expectation of pay-offs in the near term."

Let us take his sentences, "That some people have unreasonable expectations doesn't mean everyone does. For the most part, this is a strawman created and fostered by religious fanatics."

Does this make any sense? He is apparently either saying that religious fanatics fostered the belief in miracle cures from embryonic stem cell therapy or that the idea there is a belief in such cures is fostered by the religious nutcases.

Anybody familiar with the popular debate is fully aware that the entire reason for seeking government research money for embryonic stem cell therapy is because of the belief in such miracle cures.

Every speech made by a proponent of the idea in Congress includes a poignant and heartrending description of some individual suffering from Alzheimer's or some other disease who will be denied his miracle cure because of President Bush's heartless religious fanaticism.

The idea is quite clearly that miracle cures are not only offerred and guaranted but that they will be available in 6 months or a year if only that evil religious fanatic nutcase Bush were not in office.

The Fiend does admit that no real scientist expects any tangible results from embryonic stem cell research in the near future. Thirty years is probably a realistic estimate, if ever.

Meanwhile, adult stem cell therapies are already in clinical trials and being readied for public use.

The argument for government sponsorship of embryonic stem cell research is the promise of miracle cures for desperate people currently suffering. All of those people will be dead by the time any results from Embryonic stem cell therapy are available. By that time, everything that it makes available will already be provided by adult stem cell therapy and in a form which is inherently safer than embryonic stem cell therapy.

Science changes and you have to keep up with it. The idea that embryonic stem cell therapy offered promise not provided by other means is based on the assumption of a total inflexibility in the adult organism. Virtually every scientific discovery in this area since the discovery of embryonic stem cells has undermined and tended to refute this assumption.

It is outdated, antiquated, science, like a geocentric universe.

"It is always amusing to see someone make a post which is completely out of touch with reality."

A self-descriptive statement if ever there was one.

"Can you produce any evidence that humans are not driven by instinct to project a construct of personhood on the unborn?"

Can you produce evidence that they do? Argument by assertion is not a valid form of reasoning. You also aren't very good at following the point. I wasn't talking about 'humans', but specific individuals. There may be - and probably are - some people who do have such an innate sense that foetuses are human. That isn't all people. That isn't even most people.

The fundamental flaw is that you yourself are reacting emotionally and are cloaking your pseudointellectualism - your scientism - in obtuse language.

"In not a single post have I suggested that group 1 or 2 above sees embryonic stem cell therapy as emotionally equivalent to human sacrifice. He is essentially defending his communtity against a charge that has never been made ... All I have done is suggest that the idea appeals to the masses because of that subconscious similarity."

Cavilling is not valid argument. Your wordplay is convincing only to yourself.

"It is outdated, antiquated, science, like a geocentric universe. "

Argument from assertion is not valid.