Skip to content
BOL Conferences
Learn More - Click Here!

Page 16 of 16 1 2 14 15 16
Thread Options
#584432 - 07/20/06 08:11 PM Re: Faith and Ignorance
Anonymous
Unregistered

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

But, as a logical matter, saying that you will fund existing lines which have already been obtained, but no more, is a defensible position.




politically yes. logically no. the president made a moral decision and his previous decision inconsistent and therefore hypocritical. and don't give me the BF "distinction" mularkey.




Ron, you can keep telling yourself that all day long. But if your side wants to keep using the "they're going to be tossed out anyway" defense, it is certainly no more odd to use the "a limited number of embryos have already been destroyed and the stem cells are available defense".

Again, it wasn't my decision, it's not a decision I supported, and I'm not interested in defending it. But I can see how it was arrived at.



the only defense "my side" (the 70% side that is) has been using is the medical benefits one. we have just been pointing out the inconsistencies W's moral stance. the oddness is the apparent moral flipflop. i'm not sure how the compromise by my side to use only those embryoes from in vitro God-playing is analogous.

Return to Top
Chat! - BOL Watercooler
#584433 - 07/20/06 08:18 PM Re: Faith and Ignorance
straw Offline
Power Poster
straw
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,121
Can we forget sides, because when it comes to morality, the fact that your side did means I can do it too just doesn't cut it.

I am truly trying to understand how what the President allowed earlier is ok with J, BF and others whom have argued that this is immoral.

Morality doesn't end because "our" guy said it is ok. If you stake claim to the moral high ground, you need to back it up with actions. His action yesterday was the "moral" in your paradigm, I just question whether his prior decision was.

Return to Top
#584434 - 07/20/06 09:47 PM Re: Faith and Ignorance
Jokerman Offline
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
Quote:

So we can all feel that we are moral and even if it is something that we all unanimously agree is moral i.e. marriage, but there could be a moral truth out there that says marriage is immoral and therefore we have been immoral, even though mankind unanimously agrees the action is moral.




Are you honestly suggesting that popular opinion is the criteria? Now, obviously, someone who doesn't know that they are doing wrong is not held to the same account. So, if we are talking about honest mistakes, that would be one thing. If a slave owner could honestly say that no one had ever brought to their attention the fact that a slave might be an equally created human being, then I suppose they could have a legitimate excuse. I don't think Jefferson or Washington have that excuse.

Quote:

Well I find it disconcerting that you think over half of those who helped found this great country in their vision were immoralists.




Immoralists? I think no such thing. I've told you exactly what I think, and I think it's pretty shoddy of you to deliberately mistate it.

Quote:

Also, that means part of the Constitution is immoral based on this universal morality constant.




The fact that the Constitution originally allowed slavery was undoubtedly a moral failing.

Quote:

I am sorry I just don't find this logical and I don't think you can logically defend it with your believed premises.




As I said, I don't feel any obligation to defend it.

Quote:

No one has answered the hypothetical that since we are researching these lines already created because the embryos were already destroyed, why couldn't we research new lines on embryos that expire naturally?




Since they are frozen, they don't expire naturally. And I did answer your hypothetical about the freezer.

Quote:

I just question whether his prior decision {to fund stem cell research on cells already obtained from embryos} was {moral}.




In my opinion, the decision was not immoral, because it was not intended to lead to the destruction of embryos. In my opinion, the decision was foolish.

Return to Top
#584435 - 07/20/06 10:43 PM Re: Faith and Ignorance
straw Offline
Power Poster
straw
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,121
Quote:

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No one has answered the hypothetical that since we are researching these lines already created because the embryos were already destroyed, why couldn't we research new lines on embryos that expire naturally?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Since they are frozen, they don't expire naturally. And I did answer your hypothetical about the freezer.






Sorry I couldn't find it. Which post was it.

Return to Top
#584436 - 07/20/06 10:55 PM Re: Faith and Ignorance
straw Offline
Power Poster
straw
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,121
Quote:

Are you honestly suggesting that popular opinion is the criteria?




Of course I am not suggesting popular opinion, which is why I said all mankind unanimously agrees. If a tree falls in the woods, but no one hears it, does it make a sound.

If all believe something to be moral, but yet it is not moral by this universal morality, what human being would know.

Quote:

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well I find it disconcerting that you think over half of those who helped found this great country in their vision were immoralists.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Immoralists? I think no such thing. I've told you exactly what I think, and I think it's pretty shoddy of you to deliberately mistate it.




No, you said you could not judge if they were immoral but their act was. So you can judge if their act was immoral based on this universal morality, but you cannot opine whether or not they were immoral. But if their acts were immoral, they must be immoral as well, no? Can one act immorally but be a moral person?

Quote:

The fact that the Constitution originally allowed slavery was undoubtedly a moral failing.




So the founding document of this country, perhaps the greatest civil document ever written, creating the greatest politcal system ever seen was morally flawed. I dare say the founding fathers are rolling over in their grave.

I find it interesting that you can't judge them to be moral or immoral, but can judge their actions immoral based on our concepts of morality. Oh, I forgot, morality is not a conept, it is a universal constant.

Quote:

As I said, I don't feel any obligation to defend it.




Because it is not logically defensible, although I admire the President's effort to compromise. Just the wrong issue to compromise on.

Quote:

In my opinion, the decision was not immoral, because it was not intended to lead to the destruction of embryos. In my opinion, the decision was foolish.




So, his decision was not immoral, which makes it a moral decision. Still have trouble with that. The research, even though the embryos were already destroyed, continues to desecrate the human condition.

Is it ok to continue to experiment on the Jews on the concentration camp after Mengele was through, since he was the one who killed them. Any post-mortem experiments would be analogous to the work Bush has allowed taxpayer money to be used for, according to your prior analogy.

Return to Top
#584437 - 07/20/06 11:23 PM Re: Faith and Ignorance
Jokerman Offline
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
Quote:

Sorry I couldn't find it. Which post was it.




Ooops - I know I typed, but I can't find it, either. Must not have clicked "submit".

My answer was that, as an ethical matter, you might be able to argue that doing so would be acceptable - I'd be sympathetic to the idea that it was similar to organ donation. But, you'd want to be sure that you had a safeguard against non-accidental "accidents". However, as a practical matter, my hunch is that the cells harvested would not be useful if the embryo no longer viable due to environmental factors. If it was still viable, I believe it could be re-frozen.

Return to Top
#584438 - 07/20/06 11:40 PM Re: Faith and Ignorance
straw Offline
Power Poster
straw
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,121
Man I thought I was losing it for a minute.

Return to Top
#584439 - 07/20/06 11:49 PM Re: Faith and Ignorance
Jokerman Offline
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
Quote:

Quote:

Are you honestly suggesting that popular opinion is the criteria?




Of course I am not suggesting popular opinion, which is why I said all mankind unanimously agrees. If a tree falls in the woods, but no one hears it, does it make a sound.

If all believe something to be moral, but yet it is not moral by this universal morality, what human being would know.




You're arguing for innocence through ignorance, which is fine so far as it goes, I guess, but not the case here.

Quote:

No, you said you could not judge if they were immoral but their act was. So you can judge if their act was immoral based on this universal morality, but you cannot opine whether or not they were immoral. But if their acts were immoral, they must be immoral as well, no? Can one act immorally but be a moral person?




Nobody's perfect. I think anyone who isn't looking to argue with me understands the point.

Quote:

So the founding document of this country, perhaps the greatest civil document ever written, creating the greatest politcal system ever seen was morally flawed.




I'm surprised that you disagree.

Quote:

I dare say the founding fathers are rolling over in their grave.




I dare say the founding fathers agree.

Mason: "Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgement of heaven upon a country. As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, Providence punishes national sins by national calamities."

Jefferson: With what execration should the statesman be loaded, who permitting one half the citizens thus to trample on the rights of the other?. . . . And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever.

Quote:

I find it interesting that you can't judge them to be moral or immoral, but can judge their actions immoral based on our concepts of morality. Oh, I forgot, morality is not a conept, it is a universal constant.




I am not here to judge them as people, Straw. I don't see what's difficult about this concept. I am perfectly capable of telling someone it's bad to steal from the bank. I'm much less capable of making a judgement about whether someone is a "bad person" due to this or that moral failing. If you want a judgement, it is this: "There is none righteous, no, not one."

Quote:

Because it is not logically defensible, although I admire the President's effort to compromise. Just the wrong issue to compromise on.




As Bob Dole might say, whatever. I've explained the logic repeatedly. Choose not to accept it if you want.

Quote:

Quote:

In my opinion, the decision was not immoral, because it was not intended to lead to the destruction of embryos. In my opinion, the decision was foolish.




So, his decision was not immoral, which makes it a moral decision. Still have trouble with that. The research, even though the embryos were already destroyed, continues to desecrate the human condition.

Is it ok to continue to experiment on the Jews on the concentration camp after Mengele was through, since he was the one who killed them. Any post-mortem experiments would be analogous to the work Bush has allowed taxpayer money to be used for, according to your prior analogy.




Hmm...I'll admit, you have me further questioning the decision with this one. Honestly, my reaction five years ago was, phew, that's not as bad as it could have been. Though I believed it foolish, I did not see it as immoral. You are causing me to question that. I'll have to think more about it.

Return to Top
#584440 - 07/21/06 12:00 AM Re: Faith and Ignorance
Anonymous
Unregistered

Quote:

Quote:

Sorry I couldn't find it. Which post was it.




Ooops - I know I typed, but I can't find it, either. Must not have clicked "submit".

My answer was that, as an ethical matter, you might be able to argue that doing so would be acceptable - I'd be sympathetic to the idea that it was similar to organ donation. But, you'd want to be sure that you had a safeguard against non-accidental "accidents". However, as a practical matter, my hunch is that the cells harvested would not be useful if the embryo no longer viable due to environmental factors. If it was still viable, I believe it could be re-frozen.




I suppose you wouldn't want nonaccidental accidents for organ donors either.

Return to Top
#584441 - 07/21/06 12:08 AM Re: Faith and Ignorance
Anonymous
Unregistered

If there were a way to get stem cells from these unwanted embryoes without harming their condition, there would be no claims of "immorality". Yet in both cases the embryoes would never be born! The situations would produce exactly the same result!

It must be more "moral" to throw out the embryoes for some reason.

Return to Top
#584442 - 07/21/06 01:49 AM Re: Faith and Ignorance
Anonymous
Unregistered

What does "establishment" mean counselor? I think it is a "term of art", but please expound.

Return to Top
#584443 - 07/21/06 02:42 PM Re: Faith and Ignorance
straw Offline
Power Poster
straw
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,121
Quote:

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I dare say the founding fathers are rolling over in their grave.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I dare say the founding fathers agree.

Mason: "Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgement of heaven upon a country. As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, Providence punishes national sins by national calamities."

Jefferson: With what execration should the statesman be loaded, who permitting one half the citizens thus to trample on the rights of the other?. . . . And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever.




So you find two Virginias (exclude New Englanders obviously) and that makes your point. I think not, but we don't need to argue this any further.

Quote:

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In my opinion, the decision was not immoral, because it was not intended to lead to the destruction of embryos. In my opinion, the decision was foolish.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



So, his decision was not immoral, which makes it a moral decision. Still have trouble with that. The research, even though the embryos were already destroyed, continues to desecrate the human condition.

Is it ok to continue to experiment on the Jews on the concentration camp after Mengele was through, since he was the one who killed them. Any post-mortem experiments would be analogous to the work Bush has allowed taxpayer money to be used for, according to your prior analogy.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Hmm...I'll admit, you have me further questioning the decision with this one. Honestly, my reaction five years ago was, phew, that's not as bad as it could have been. Though I believed it foolish, I did not see it as immoral. You are causing me to question that. I'll have to think more about it




I think I need a drink .

As as aside, why did this vote even come up. The Republicans are split on this issue. I cannot understand why Frist allowed a floor vote on this, especially since he is on the liberal side of the issue within his party. Can't help his Presidential campaign. Have you seen anything explaining why the vote took place? The rationale?

Return to Top
#584444 - 07/21/06 05:14 PM Re: Faith and Ignorance
Jokerman Offline
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
Quote:

So you find two Virginias (exclude New Englanders obviously) and that makes your point. I think not, but we don't need to argue this any further.




HELLO?! Wouldn't Virginians be less likely than New Englanders to think the Constitution's tolerance of slavery was a moral failing?!

Quote:

As as aside, why did this vote even come up. The Republicans are split on this issue. I cannot understand why Frist allowed a floor vote on this, especially since he is on the liberal side of the issue within his party. Can't help his Presidential campaign. Have you seen anything explaining why the vote took place? The rationale?




$$$ from the biotech firms is one possible explanation. Frist could be a true believer, though his flip-flop makes me doubt it. Another possibility is an agreement between the pro-ESCR and anti-ESCR sides to have the vote on that bill, as well as two other bills that funded non-embryonic stem cell research.

Return to Top
#584445 - 07/21/06 05:55 PM Re: Faith and Ignorance
straw Offline
Power Poster
straw
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,121
I was saying that you find 2 Virgians to say don't bother coming back with New Englanders, as obviously they were not slave owners. I was giving you credit for finding two southerners (Virginians) who were likely slaveholders but saying that it was only 2.

Turning to politics, you think the pro and anti got together to get the votes on record. Still doesn't make much sense for the GOP to agree, since it only highlights a split.

Return to Top
#584446 - 07/21/06 10:03 PM Re: Faith and Ignorance
Jokerman Offline
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
Quote:

I was giving you credit for finding two southerners (Virginians) who were likely slaveholders but saying that it was only 2.




Well, good grief, Straw, I have OTHER things to do!

How many Southern founders can you quote showing a belief that it WASN'T a moral failing?

Quote:

Turning to politics, you think the pro and anti got together to get the votes on record.




No, I think the pro may have wanted the vote on the record, and the anti may have wanted to be able to pass the adult stem cell bill.

Return to Top
#584447 - 07/21/06 10:08 PM Re: Faith and Ignorance
straw Offline
Power Poster
straw
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,121
Quote:

Quote:

I was giving you credit for finding two southerners (Virginians) who were likely slaveholders but saying that it was only 2.




Well, good grief, Straw, I have OTHER things to do!

How many Southern founders can you quote showing a belief that it WASN'T a moral failing?




Well, the one day you want to work and I want to debate.

I won't even look, I just observe that most, if not all, were slave owners and many (not all) of those would not believe they engaged in immoral behavior.

Return to Top
#584448 - 07/21/06 10:27 PM Re: Faith and Ignorance
Jokerman Offline
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
Most were also political leaders in states that abolished slavery soon after they were not controlled by the crown.

Return to Top
Page 16 of 16 1 2 14 15 16