First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Views on Stem Cell Research
8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 1/6/10

With your permission, I would like to take a risk at replying your post with a new topic. However, I feel that you've just presented me with a task that I think I'm ill equipped at. And I look forward to your inputs.


Sure, why not? I don't think my permission is necessary for anything, really. :D

I have just pointed to issues none of us can really answer perfectly. They're probably issues to be resolved by the generations to come, hehe. At least we are entertained by them, whereas they will have to study it as part of the boring curriculum ahahaha.
Posted 1/6/10

DerfelCadarn wrote:


With your permission, I would like to take a risk at replying your post with a new topic. However, I feel that you've just presented me with a task that I think I'm ill equipped at. And I look forward to your inputs.


Sure, why not? I don't think my permission is necessary for anything, really. :D

I have just pointed to issues none of us can really answer perfectly. They're probably issues to be resolved by the generations to come, hehe. At least we are entertained by them, whereas they will have to study it as part of the boring curriculum ahahaha.

I just don't want us to go off topic too much, not that we haven't already, mind you.

But there are two cases from your previous post that I think stem cell technology can really break the moral and "common sense"(I have a personal philosophy about that particular "sense") deadlock:

In addition to this, it would lead to a manifest absurdity to impose things on persons which are contrary to the needs of our biological setup. The fact that the paraplegic could accommodate to his or her condition as a way of avoiding being perpetually plagued by negative feelings does not lead to the conclusion that paraplegia is a condition desirable from the perspective of our biological setup, our genes. Just ask a paraplegic individual whether he or she would trade the dysfunctional state of his limbs for a great sum of money.
In that case, the wealth can be used as resource to incubate lost limbs through stem cell technology. And restore that individual's normal genetic condition, so that he/she may enjoy the full extend of biological life.


If it is expected of a parent to do everything in the interest of his or her child, and the child in question becomes the victim of a traffic accident in need of blood transfusion, your average person will readily consent to the transfusion dismissing the question as obvious 'Yes, of course I want to save my child!', whereas a Witness of Jehovah will permit no such transfusion and will instead let the child die. Both parents wish only the best for their children, only the latter of the two employs some sort of unscrutinised, uncritical thinking, whereas the first parent appeals to what has been proven on several occasions to be the true view: blood transfusion saves lives, and this fact entails nothing, lives are saved, no question of afterlife raised here.
Again, with stem cell technology, the child can receive his/her own blood incubated from his/hers own stem cells. Without relying blood transfusion of other people's bodily fluids.

Furthermore, I think with stem cell technology, we could be looking at a permanent replacement of the less effective organ donation.
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 1/6/10

DomFortress wrote:


DerfelCadarn wrote:


With your permission, I would like to take a risk at replying your post with a new topic. However, I feel that you've just presented me with a task that I think I'm ill equipped at. And I look forward to your inputs.


Sure, why not? I don't think my permission is necessary for anything, really. :D

I have just pointed to issues none of us can really answer perfectly. They're probably issues to be resolved by the generations to come, hehe. At least we are entertained by them, whereas they will have to study it as part of the boring curriculum ahahaha.

I just don't want us to go off topic too much, not that we haven't already, mind you.

But there are two cases from your previous post that I think stem cell technology can really break the moral and "common sense"(I have a personal philosophy about that particular "sense") deadlock:

In addition to this, it would lead to a manifest absurdity to impose things on persons which are contrary to the needs of our biological setup. The fact that the paraplegic could accommodate to his or her condition as a way of avoiding being perpetually plagued by negative feelings does not lead to the conclusion that paraplegia is a condition desirable from the perspective of our biological setup, our genes. Just ask a paraplegic individual whether he or she would trade the dysfunctional state of his limbs for a great sum of money.
In that case, the wealth can be used as resource to incubate lost limbs through stem cell technology. And restore that individual's normal genetic condition, so that he/she may enjoy the full extend of biological life.


If it is expected of a parent to do everything in the interest of his or her child, and the child in question becomes the victim of a traffic accident in need of blood transfusion, your average person will readily consent to the transfusion dismissing the question as obvious 'Yes, of course I want to save my child!', whereas a Witness of Jehovah will permit no such transfusion and will instead let the child die. Both parents wish only the best for their children, only the latter of the two employs some sort of unscrutinised, uncritical thinking, whereas the first parent appeals to what has been proven on several occasions to be the true view: blood transfusion saves lives, and this fact entails nothing, lives are saved, no question of afterlife raised here.
Again, with stem cell technology, the child can receive his/her own blood incubated from his/hers own stem cells. Without relying blood transfusion of other people's bodily fluids.

Furthermore, I think with stem cell technology, we could be looking at a permanent replacement of the less effective organ donation.


'This is why I am a all for cloning of organs. ' If I have a bad heart, whats better have a backup heart made just for you that is a 100% match, or take a chance with a heart that just might not be accepted by your body.
8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 1/7/10
I agree with what has been said before me. Go ahead with research. All research.
Posted 1/8/10
If it helps, use it.
571 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F
Offline
Posted 1/21/10

DerfelCadarn wrote:

I agree with what has been said before me. Go ahead with research. All research.


That is rather a dangerous statement. The pros and cons of any given type of research - and anything, for that matter - must always be weighed before coming to a conclusion.
571 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F
Offline
Posted 1/21/10

sopheaku wrote:

I'm very interested in what people think about this particular subject of talk. If stem cells are predicted to cure cancer or help the body somehow why not do research instead of bashing it to the ground with all the talks of killing unborn babies. I'm sure that the pros of the research would outweigh the cons. The only thing that is basically keeping scientist from doing this kind of research is the religious community. I'm not sure about other countries but in america, i think obama is allowing the research of this kind of experiement. What about other countries, are they allowing this kind of research? and what about your views on this subject


Your introduction to the topic is quite biased, don't you think? When introducing a topic, it is best to separate facts ("stem cells are predicted to cure cancer or help the body") from opinions ("why not do research instead of bashing it to the ground with all the talks of killing unborn babies").

Furthermore, you have clearly neglected to so much as consider the other side of the issue. Provided we are speaking of embryonic stem cell research, as this is what you seem to be referring to, it appears that you have not considered one aspect - abortion is, in fact, murder. You may argue that it is killing a dependent being, or that for a variety of reasons stem cell research has certain benefits that outweigh this consideration, but I would greatly appreciate if you would give each factor due consideration.
4294 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
forgot where
Offline
Posted 1/22/10

Dragonbow0 wrote:

Im a pro abortion person myself, but let me ask those who are against stem cell research a question.
Do you really think that people would have more abortions if this were allowed to happen?
I seriously doubt someone would have a child just to abort it for stem cells, and this could be a positive to come out of something that you previously thought as murder. If a "life" that was going to be lost anyways saves a life, is it not a moral justification in your mind?

Im personally tired of religion getting in the way of science and its progress. If you don't want to use stem cells to save your life thats fine, but how is it fair that you should decide what is morally correct for someone who is say an atheist, or a buddhist especially when it is a matter of life or death.


what your implying is that you must be religious to be againsts abortion, stem cell research, moral, justified, ect.

That is one of the most ignorant, bigoted,stereotypical, singled minded myths i have ever come across on the internet, and believe me- i have been to youtube

You do not have to be religious to be against abortion and stem cell research. the religious community is spilt down the middle on these issue. Talk to any group of religious people, asks them to raise thier hands on whose for abortion/stem cell- you will get 50% everytime.

What about the athiest who r against stem cell and abortion? they dont get a voice?What? they aren't worthy enough to be "in the way"? This isnt even a religious issue, its a political one, where the USA is spilt down the middle on it.

"Im personally tired of religion getting in the way of science and its progress."

You werent alive when this was actually an issue.

This stem cell research is not some religious dogma that is used to hinder scientific "progress". Its much bigger than that. People have really strong feelings toward things like abortion and stem cell reseach and any other kind "progress" that can be used to alter human appearance, redefine beauty as a certain type of look, create racial tension, create more racial stereotypes, impose on an already failing culture, ect. Its not a religious thing, its a political one with a huge range of diversity on each side.

Dont rely on baseless stereotypes and lump every religious person in a group as if they all have the same beliefs. That is equilevent to any offensive racial stereotype glorified by the media.

Now to be on topic-

"Do you really think that people would have more abortions if this were allowed to happen?
I seriously doubt someone would have a child just to abort it for stem cells, and this could be a positive to come out of something that you previously thought as murder. If a "life" that was going to be lost anyways saves a life, is it not a moral justification in your mind?"


no, and no. I personaly believe that politics and moral justice are like oil and water- they dont mix. I find nothing wrong or right with stem cell research/abotion being legal or illegal. It's not going to save or destroy any significant amount of lives to make any real difference in my life.

But some people do feel strongly about the lives sacrficed for abortions and stem cells and the lives saved from abortion and stem cells.
You have no basis for indicating either side to be some evil entity out to destroy your moral justice. they r just doing what they beleive to be the right thing, just like you.

so statements like

"If you don't want to use stem cells to save your life thats fine, but how is it fair that you should decide what is morally correct for someone who is say an atheist, or a buddhist especially when it is a matter of life or death"

is hypocritical, self contradictory, and based on ignorance. Let me clear this up for you- its called politics. People dont "decide" on whats morally correct for anyone. They simply vote on a bill they believe to be right and leave it at that.The government does the rest. The votes r counted up and who ever has the highest number wins. If u dont like democracy, become a dictator and people will do things your way.I'm not saying democracy is fair but your statement can be used directly against in the same context. You r doing the same thing, just on the opposite side of the spektrem. Athiest and buddhist have nothing to do with it- they dont all share the same beliefs either. Its a matter of life and death reguardless of how you vote.

I hope this gives you a little insight on how the opposition feels about this whole ordeal, just keep in mind you r in the same shoes playing the same game and have no room to judge.peace over war
8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 1/22/10

JJT2 wrote:


Dragonbow0 wrote:

Im a pro abortion person myself, but let me ask those who are against stem cell research a question.
Do you really think that people would have more abortions if this were allowed to happen?
I seriously doubt someone would have a child just to abort it for stem cells, and this could be a positive to come out of something that you previously thought as murder. If a "life" that was going to be lost anyways saves a life, is it not a moral justification in your mind?

Im personally tired of religion getting in the way of science and its progress. If you don't want to use stem cells to save your life thats fine, but how is it fair that you should decide what is morally correct for someone who is say an atheist, or a buddhist especially when it is a matter of life or death.


what your implying is that you must be religious to be againsts abortion, stem cell research, moral, justified, ect.

That is one of the most ignorant, bigoted,stereotypical, singled minded myths i have ever come across on the internet, and believe me- i have been to youtube

You do not have to be religious to be against abortion and stem cell research. the religious community is spilt down the middle on these issue. Talk to any group of religious people, asks them to raise thier hands on whose for abortion/stem cell- you will get 50% everytime.

What about the athiest who r against stem cell and abortion? they dont get a voice?What? they aren't worthy enough to be "in the way"? This isnt even a religious issue, its a political one, where the USA is spilt down the middle on it.

"Im personally tired of religion getting in the way of science and its progress."

You werent alive when this was actually an issue.

This stem cell research is not some religious dogma that is used to hinder scientific "progress". Its much bigger than that. People have really strong feelings toward things like abortion and stem cell reseach and any other kind "progress" that can be used to alter human appearance, redefine beauty as a certain type of look, create racial tension, create more racial stereotypes, impose on an already failing culture, ect. Its not a religious thing, its a political one with a huge range of diversity on each side.

Dont rely on baseless stereotypes and lump every religious person in a group as if they all have the same beliefs. That is equilevent to any offensive racial stereotype glorified by the media.

Now to be on topic-

"Do you really think that people would have more abortions if this were allowed to happen?
I seriously doubt someone would have a child just to abort it for stem cells, and this could be a positive to come out of something that you previously thought as murder. If a "life" that was going to be lost anyways saves a life, is it not a moral justification in your mind?"


no, and no. I personaly believe that politics and moral justice are like oil and water- they dont mix. I find nothing wrong or right with stem cell research/abotion being legal or illegal. It's not going to save or destroy any significant amount of lives to make any real difference in my life.

But some people do feel strongly about the lives sacrficed for abortions and stem cells and the lives saved from abortion and stem cells.
You have no basis for indicating either side to be some evil entity out to destroy your moral justice. they r just doing what they beleive to be the right thing, just like you.

so statements like

"If you don't want to use stem cells to save your life thats fine, but how is it fair that you should decide what is morally correct for someone who is say an atheist, or a buddhist especially when it is a matter of life or death"

is hypocritical, self contradictory, and based on ignorance. Let me clear this up for you- its called politics. People dont "decide" on whats morally correct for anyone. They simply vote on a bill they believe to be right and leave it at that.The government does the rest. The votes r counted up and who ever has the highest number wins. If u dont like democracy, become a dictator and people will do things your way.I'm not saying democracy is fair but your statement can be used directly against in the same context. You r doing the same thing, just on the opposite side of the spektrem. Athiest and buddhist have nothing to do with it- they dont all share the same beliefs either. Its a matter of life and death reguardless of how you vote.

I hope this gives you a little insight on how the opposition feels about this whole ordeal, just keep in mind you r in the same shoes playing the same game and have no room to judge.peace over war


There is nothing to suggest that abortion or stem cell research is 'wrong'. If we accept this premise, the issue becomes crystal clear. If it is not wrong, why prevent it? And this is not the issue of flagbearers of different views, it is a matter of whether we live in a society which is predicated upon secularity and objectivity. If the matter continues to be decided against the favour of persons who may wish to perform research, despite there being no indication whatsoever that it is in any way wrong, I believe society cannot truthfully form a claim to being in any way objective or favouring secular views. Rather, it is an admission of being superstitious apes laden with little else apart from subjectivity. Frankly, I'm not the greatest fan of democracy, primarily because I think little of the ignorant masses who find even the most uncomplicated issues a maze chock full of moral ordeals and whatnot. The final outcome is usually some stillborn solution based on arbitrary nonsensical rubbish that makes sense to no reasonable human being who hasn't had his or her views and values externally imposed. Echh... 'Is abortion wrong? Is it right?' Well, go bloody get one and you'll see!
4294 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
forgot where
Offline
Posted 1/22/10

DerfelCadarn wrote:


JJT2 wrote:


Dragonbow0 wrote:

Im a pro abortion person myself, but let me ask those who are against stem cell research a question.
Do you really think that people would have more abortions if this were allowed to happen?
I seriously doubt someone would have a child just to abort it for stem cells, and this could be a positive to come out of something that you previously thought as murder. If a "life" that was going to be lost anyways saves a life, is it not a moral justification in your mind?

Im personally tired of religion getting in the way of science and its progress. If you don't want to use stem cells to save your life thats fine, but how is it fair that you should decide what is morally correct for someone who is say an atheist, or a buddhist especially when it is a matter of life or death.


what your implying is that you must be religious to be againsts abortion, stem cell research, moral, justified, ect.

That is one of the most ignorant, bigoted,stereotypical, singled minded myths i have ever come across on the internet, and believe me- i have been to youtube

You do not have to be religious to be against abortion and stem cell research. the religious community is spilt down the middle on these issue. Talk to any group of religious people, asks them to raise thier hands on whose for abortion/stem cell- you will get 50% everytime.

What about the athiest who r against stem cell and abortion? they dont get a voice?What? they aren't worthy enough to be "in the way"? This isnt even a religious issue, its a political one, where the USA is spilt down the middle on it.

"Im personally tired of religion getting in the way of science and its progress."

You werent alive when this was actually an issue.

This stem cell research is not some religious dogma that is used to hinder scientific "progress". Its much bigger than that. People have really strong feelings toward things like abortion and stem cell reseach and any other kind "progress" that can be used to alter human appearance, redefine beauty as a certain type of look, create racial tension, create more racial stereotypes, impose on an already failing culture, ect. Its not a religious thing, its a political one with a huge range of diversity on each side.

Dont rely on baseless stereotypes and lump every religious person in a group as if they all have the same beliefs. That is equilevent to any offensive racial stereotype glorified by the media.

Now to be on topic-

"Do you really think that people would have more abortions if this were allowed to happen?
I seriously doubt someone would have a child just to abort it for stem cells, and this could be a positive to come out of something that you previously thought as murder. If a "life" that was going to be lost anyways saves a life, is it not a moral justification in your mind?"


no, and no. I personaly believe that politics and moral justice are like oil and water- they dont mix. I find nothing wrong or right with stem cell research/abotion being legal or illegal. It's not going to save or destroy any significant amount of lives to make any real difference in my life.

But some people do feel strongly about the lives sacrficed for abortions and stem cells and the lives saved from abortion and stem cells.
You have no basis for indicating either side to be some evil entity out to destroy your moral justice. they r just doing what they beleive to be the right thing, just like you.

so statements like

"If you don't want to use stem cells to save your life thats fine, but how is it fair that you should decide what is morally correct for someone who is say an atheist, or a buddhist especially when it is a matter of life or death"

is hypocritical, self contradictory, and based on ignorance. Let me clear this up for you- its called politics. People dont "decide" on whats morally correct for anyone. They simply vote on a bill they believe to be right and leave it at that.The government does the rest. The votes r counted up and who ever has the highest number wins. If u dont like democracy, become a dictator and people will do things your way.I'm not saying democracy is fair but your statement can be used directly against in the same context. You r doing the same thing, just on the opposite side of the spektrem. Athiest and buddhist have nothing to do with it- they dont all share the same beliefs either. Its a matter of life and death reguardless of how you vote.

I hope this gives you a little insight on how the opposition feels about this whole ordeal, just keep in mind you r in the same shoes playing the same game and have no room to judge.peace over war


There is nothing to suggest that abortion or stem cell research is 'wrong'. If we accept this premise, the issue becomes crystal clear. If it is not wrong, why prevent it? And this is not the issue of flagbearers of different views, it is a matter of whether we live in a society which is predicated upon secularity and objectivity. If the matter continues to be decided against the favour of persons who may wish to perform research, despite there being no indication whatsoever that it is in any way wrong, I believe society cannot truthfully form a claim to being in any way objective or favouring secular views. Rather, it is an admission of being superstitious apes laden with little else apart from subjectivity. Frankly, I'm not the greatest fan of democracy, primarily because I think little of the ignorant masses who find even the most uncomplicated issues a maze chock full of moral ordeals and whatnot. The final outcome is usually some stillborn solution based on arbitrary nonsensical rubbish that makes sense to no reasonable human being who hasn't had his or her views and values externally imposed. Echh... 'Is abortion wrong? Is it right?' Well, go bloody get one and you'll see!


" it is a matter of whether we live in a society which is predicated upon secularity and objectivity."

The USA is predicated on secularity and no society is based on objectivity-which is relative in nature anyway.human beings cant be objective in everyday live.

"Rather, it is an admission of being superstitious apes laden with little else apart from subjectivity."

what does superstition have to do with stem cell research and anything related to it?Everyone is subjective.

The final outcome is usually some stillborn solution based on arbitrary nonsensical rubbish that makes sense to no reasonable human being who hasn't had his or her views and values externally imposed.

all human beings have had thier views externally imposed... peace over war
8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 1/22/10 , edited 1/22/10

" it is a matter of whether we live in a society which is predicated upon secularity and objectivity."

The USA is predicated on secularity and no society is based on objectivity-which is relative in nature anyway.human beings cant be objective in everyday live.

"Rather, it is an admission of being superstitious apes laden with little else apart from subjectivity."

what does superstition have to do with stem cell research and anything related to it?Everyone is subjective.

The final outcome is usually some stillborn solution based on arbitrary nonsensical rubbish that makes sense to no reasonable human being who hasn't had his or her views and values externally imposed.

all human beings have had thier views externally imposed... peace over war


Human beings can be objective in so far as interactions are concerned. The USA, when it comes to liberties, is not really the prime example of a well-functioning system.

When you base a claim grounded in the great void of 'f*ck-allity' and try to sell it on as an objective truth, that is when superstition connects with stem cell research.

I have not had my views externally imposed, therefore not all human beings had their views externally imposed, or I am not a human being.

And may I also add that the truth is not subjective, as in the true states of affairs that exist in the natural world are not subjective and they are thus not going to change in light of interpretations.
Posted 1/22/10

DerfelCadarn wrote:


" it is a matter of whether we live in a society which is predicated upon secularity and objectivity."

The USA is predicated on secularity and no society is based on objectivity-which is relative in nature anyway.human beings cant be objective in everyday live.

"Rather, it is an admission of being superstitious apes laden with little else apart from subjectivity."

what does superstition have to do with stem cell research and anything related to it?Everyone is subjective.

The final outcome is usually some stillborn solution based on arbitrary nonsensical rubbish that makes sense to no reasonable human being who hasn't had his or her views and values externally imposed.

all human beings have had thier views externally imposed... peace over war


Human beings can be objective in so far as interactions are concerned. The USA, when it comes to liberties, is not really the prime example of a well-functioning system.

When you base a claim grounded in the great void of 'f*ck-allity' and try to sell it on as an objective truth, that is when superstition connects with stem cell research.

I have not had my views externally imposed, therefore not all human beings had their views externally imposed, or I am not a human being.

And may I also add that the truth is not subjective, as in the true states of affairs that exist in the natural world are not subjective and they are thus not going to change in light of interpretations.
Agree, for nature itself does not subject to human laws. While only when humans came to understand the laws of nature through the study of science, can they advance their civilization as well as themselves with their technologies based on their scientific research.

Such is the case of the scientific research on stem cell technology, when nature created the natural mystery of life that's stem cell all by itself. While we're only unraveling the said mystery with science, and trying to recreate the same mechanism with currently available human technology.

And I must add we humans are naturally curious and imaginative creatures. Therefore this whole "forbidden fruit" superstition can very well go kiss my ass, 'cause we're not done with exploring nature. While these so-called "Creationism" and "Scientology" are externally imposed superstitions dubbed as "science", by those who got some really messed up view about what science is really all about.
8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 1/22/10 , edited 1/22/10

DomFortress wrote:

this whole "forbidden fruit" superstition can very well go kiss my ass, 'cause we're not done with exploring nature


Yes, I share the same feeling.
4294 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
forgot where
Offline
Posted 1/22/10

DerfelCadarn wrote:


" it is a matter of whether we live in a society which is predicated upon secularity and objectivity."

The USA is predicated on secularity and no society is based on objectivity-which is relative in nature anyway.human beings cant be objective in everyday live.

"Rather, it is an admission of being superstitious apes laden with little else apart from subjectivity."

what does superstition have to do with stem cell research and anything related to it?Everyone is subjective.

The final outcome is usually some stillborn solution based on arbitrary nonsensical rubbish that makes sense to no reasonable human being who hasn't had his or her views and values externally imposed.

all human beings have had thier views externally imposed... peace over war


Human beings can be objective in so far as interactions are concerned. The USA, when it comes to liberties, is not really the prime example of a well-functioning system.

When you base a claim grounded in the great void of 'f*ck-allity' and try to sell it on as an objective truth, that is when superstition connects with stem cell research.

I have not had my views externally imposed, therefore not all human beings had their views externally imposed, or I am not a human being.

And may I also add that the truth is not subjective, as in the true states of affairs that exist in the natural world are not subjective and they are thus not going to change in light of interpretations.


I have not had my views externally imposed, therefore not all human beings had their views externally imposed, or I am not a human being.

well then u cant be human. Not even a mutated one. Human babies r born blank.Everything they learn and "discover" comes from some outside source.Our experiences in life shape and define who we r and what we r. The decisions we make form the very spritual core of our being. We have very little natural instincts that regulate these decisions.

To be born all knowing is inhumane.If what u say is true, you would be closer related to a god rather then a human.peace over war
8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 1/22/10

JJT2 wrote:


DerfelCadarn wrote:


" it is a matter of whether we live in a society which is predicated upon secularity and objectivity."

The USA is predicated on secularity and no society is based on objectivity-which is relative in nature anyway.human beings cant be objective in everyday live.

"Rather, it is an admission of being superstitious apes laden with little else apart from subjectivity."

what does superstition have to do with stem cell research and anything related to it?Everyone is subjective.

The final outcome is usually some stillborn solution based on arbitrary nonsensical rubbish that makes sense to no reasonable human being who hasn't had his or her views and values externally imposed.

all human beings have had thier views externally imposed... peace over war


Human beings can be objective in so far as interactions are concerned. The USA, when it comes to liberties, is not really the prime example of a well-functioning system.

When you base a claim grounded in the great void of 'f*ck-allity' and try to sell it on as an objective truth, that is when superstition connects with stem cell research.

I have not had my views externally imposed, therefore not all human beings had their views externally imposed, or I am not a human being.

And may I also add that the truth is not subjective, as in the true states of affairs that exist in the natural world are not subjective and they are thus not going to change in light of interpretations.


I have not had my views externally imposed, therefore not all human beings had their views externally imposed, or I am not a human being.

well then u cant be human. Not even a mutated one. Human babies r born blank.Everything they learn and "discover" comes from some outside source.Our experiences in life shape and define who we r and what we r. The decisions we make form the very spritual core of our being. We have very little natural instincts that regulate these decisions.

To be born all knowing is inhumane.If what u say is true, you would be closer related to a god rather then a human.peace over war


Empirical knowledge is not knowledge imposed. How can your observations force themselves upon you? You have simply misunderstood me.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.