View Full Version : question for those who don't support stem cell research:
Zygote
10-29-2005, 01:18 AM
assuming that you also support military action (when necessary), then, how do you respond to those who accuse you of a logical inconsistency with regards to your support for stem cell reserach and military sacrifice?
i believe this has been discussed before, but i don't remember there being any conclusive arguments, so, i'd like to reopen the issue.
Zygote
10-29-2005, 10:49 AM
bump
i don't support military actions (rather, i do not support the military actions of the past 4 years), and i do support stem cell research.
however, i don't think there's a logical inconsistency between military sacrifice vs. stem cell harvesting. military sacrifice is voluntary in this country if there isn't an instituted draft. many people believe that abortions and thus stem cell research is wrong because the human rights of the fetus are not observed. i don't view those points as logically inconsistent, even though i disagree with both of them.
Zygote
10-29-2005, 11:59 AM
[ QUOTE ]
many people believe that abortions and thus stem cell research is wrong because the human rights of the fetus are not observed. i don't view those points as logically inconsistent, even though i disagree with both of them.
[/ QUOTE ]
what if i said the rights of a drafted soldier, who is asked to take 100% chance of death, are not being observed?
MelchyBeau
10-29-2005, 03:04 PM
when I saw the title and the posters name I thought he was going to be a gimmick account.
Melch
Zygote
10-29-2005, 04:43 PM
sorry to disappoint you /images/graemlins/blush.gif
Zygote
10-30-2005, 12:47 PM
BUMP
i really expected this to be a hotter topic.
FishHooks
10-30-2005, 03:54 PM
This is two different topics. Many people like i do support stem cell research, they just dont support government funding of it. Which are two very differnt questions for debate.
BadBoyBenny
10-30-2005, 04:02 PM
Maybe you overestimate the number of people on this forum who don't support stem cell research.
Zygote
10-30-2005, 04:30 PM
well, i'm sure there are a few. i at least expected quite a few people to say that holding the two views is perfectly logical.
Darryl_P
10-30-2005, 08:33 PM
I think the crux of it is that killing people is only ok in self-defense. Military action (in theory anyway) is killing the enemy before he kills us, ie. in self-defense, while abortions (in most cases) are a more frivolous form of killing.
Zygote
10-30-2005, 10:23 PM
i'm not talking about killing someone in self-defense or abortion. I'm talking about a soldier or civilian being asked to sacrifice their life for a greater good by the state.
The response here would be that the soldier has the choice on whether or not to sacrifice his life. But, your response could be: not in the case of a draft. But, then, the person still has the choice to leave the country, and denounce his citizenship. Then, you would switch angles, and say: well, what about the civilians, the innocent bystanders, that are killed in the course of war?
Also, I'm not sure if this will be an issue for much longer... but we'll see. The last I heard, they had a way of getting stem-cells without killing the embryo. Hopefully that works.... we need stem-cell research.
Zygote
10-31-2005, 12:49 AM
one of many examples:
Lets say an american journalist is kidnapped in iraq by a group notorious for beheading their prisoners. The group sends a letter to US officials detailing their plans to behead the prisoner unless america pulls out of Iraq and publically announces their pullout within one hour. other than the letter which reveals nothing but the plans and the groups identity, US officials have no intelligence that would indicate any hope of a rescue mission. The journalist has no way revealing his will to or not to sacrifice his life for a greater good and america is left to decide. What do you think their choice will be?
Its not America's choice whether or not to let the captive journalist die, since America doesn't negotiate with terrorists regardless.
You aren't getting any response because you aren't making any sense. It's like if you asked if its illogical to be a vegetarian but support the death penalty. The two really have nothing to do with each other and encompass totally different debates.
Zygote
10-31-2005, 01:35 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Its not America's choice whether or not to let the captive journalist die, since America doesn't negotiate with terrorists regardless.
[/ QUOTE ]
america made the policy to not negotiate? maybe you should ask yourself why they did this.
[censored]
10-31-2005, 01:44 AM
The thing is I don't see it as the same thing at all. I'm sure why you think someone who sees things differently saying im hypocritical would matter at all to me or anyone like me. I see this approach often and my conclusion is always the same. so what?
Here's how it would go
You "you are against abortion and for war?"
me "pretty much yes"
you "that's hypocritical, you're being a hypocrit"
me "umm ok"
you "well don't you feel the need to explain yourself and try and persuad me or change your position?"
me "no"
Zygote
10-31-2005, 01:56 AM
when did i say anything about abortion?
also,
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure why you think someone who sees things differently saying im hypocritical would matter at all to me or anyone like me. I see this approach often and my conclusion is always the same. so what?
[/ QUOTE ]
no wonder you dont mind holding nonsense postions. i can barely make any sense out of what you're saying here.
And i know you don't care, but your argument for why its okay to be a hypocrit (minus the specific examples) is senseless. at least your consistent.
[censored]
10-31-2005, 02:12 AM
[ QUOTE ]
when did i say anything about abortion?
also,
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure why you think someone who sees things differently saying im hypocritical would matter at all to me or anyone like me. I see this approach often and my conclusion is always the same. so what?
[/ QUOTE ]
no wonder you dont mind holding nonsense postions. i can barely make any sense out of what you're saying here.
And i know you don't care, but your argument for why its okay to be a hypocrit (minus the specific examples) is senseless. at least your consistent.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why is it senseless to be hypocritical? Almost no one takes any political position to the absolute extreme. Most people make value judgements which leaves them open to this completely meaningless hypocrit arguement.
Lets say for example im anti stem cell research and pro soldiers killing people and getting killed. And let's say for arguements sake a great deal of many people agree with me. Now you come along and say "hey you shouldn't have those positions because in some extreme view they are in conflict". Why should we care? So what if they are in conflict, where is it written that one can't make certain value judgements even if there maybe some conflict. Its a stupid arguement to make. which is why in that case my reponse to you would be "so what"
Perhaps me being willing to admit my hypocrisy instead of trying to hide it with silly excuses is what confusses you.
Ill give you an example. Im pro life and pro death expanded death penalty. Are they in conflict? probably. do I care, not at all.
Darryl_P
10-31-2005, 03:05 AM
If there's a draft, then the assumption is that the country is in serious danger. Another assumption is that the citizenry feels a strong identity with the nation, as if it were an extended family. So when your family is in danger, and you're the strong, young male, you go out and fight. If you don't feel that's your duty, then I wouldn't blame the family for distancing itself from you, not supporting you, etc. These assumptions are all present in the conservative viewpoint and have nothing to do with the stem cell case. To ask someone to risk his life there have to be pressing circumstances like the above. Scientific research is not as pressing as imminent danger from foreign threats.
And if you say the soldier has a 100% of dying and no benefit would come of it, then I think even the most hardline conservatives would agree that's pointless. And the same is true even if there is a benefit. Those who do that are called heroes and that's because they usually exercise volition in doing their heroism. Or can you cite any examples in which the state forced someone to die (with 100% probability, known in advance) for the greater good?
[ QUOTE ]
Its not America's choice whether or not to let the captive journalist die, since America doesn't negotiate with terrorists regardless.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is demonstrably false.
Zygote
10-31-2005, 11:34 AM
look at my response to kipbond.
[ QUOTE ]
This is demonstrably false.
[/ QUOTE ]
Then demonstrate the last time the US made any concessions to a hostile terrorist making demands under the threat of violence.
Otherwise Shut the Fukk Up (STFU)
Zygote
10-31-2005, 11:43 AM
this is quite offtopic and definitely could be a discussion for another thread, but even so, i don't believe what you're saying applies to the topics i've chosen.
Both issues i chose are tied by one foundational concept: sacrificing a little to save a lot. How one decides to settle this issue should dictate how they act in both cases, unless you can present other factors that would make a case unique.
Darryl_P
10-31-2005, 11:54 AM
Do you really think the scenario you describe is related in any way to stem cell research?
I personally think the Iraq war is unnecessary, even though I'm ultra-conservative. Conservatism doesn't mean going to war just for the sake of going to war. There has to be a real threat.
You asked a question about values and principles and I answered them by saying that war is justified ONLY if there is imminent danger to national security, and in that case it is not only justified but mandatory. Iraq has never posed a direct threat to the USA IMO and, therefore, going to war with Iraq is wrong. Therefore, pulling troops out is the right thing to do even if no such threat is made.
If you had given an example of a country which actually threatened US national security, though, my answer would have probably been different.
Zygote
10-31-2005, 12:05 PM
forget about iraq. the point of my example is that they would sacrifice that one life by not negotiating becuase the americans believe that the beneifts of not negotiating are greater than that one life.
The issue is obviously whether or not the americans are willing to sacrifice a little to save a lot, and many examples show that in the case of war they say yes. However, in the case of stem cell research, i'm curious to why some believe this concept no longer applies.
Darryl_P
10-31-2005, 12:52 PM
Are you familiar with the potential human cloning implications of stem cell research? As far as I know, this is one of the major negatives.
vulturesrow
10-31-2005, 01:58 PM
Im all for stem cell research. I am not for the harvesting of unborn children for embryonic stem cells.
Zygote
11-01-2005, 06:05 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Are you familiar with the potential human cloning implications of stem cell research? As far as I know, this is one of the major negatives.
[/ QUOTE ]
no i am not? any info?
Zygote
11-01-2005, 06:06 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Im all for stem cell research. I am not for the harvesting of unborn children for embryonic stem cells.
[/ QUOTE ]
why?
TomCollins
11-01-2005, 06:14 PM
I don't support government funding of ANY scientific reserach.
I support funding for the millitary because it is an enumerated power of the Federal Government.
Zygote
11-01-2005, 06:17 PM
this is outside the realm of this thread.
Darryl_P
11-01-2005, 06:49 PM
Have a look at this site:
human cloning (http://www.arhp.org/patienteducation/onlinebrochures/cloning/index.cfm?ID=282)
The diagram in part VI. shows how stem cells could be used to make a "designer baby". Pretty spooky stuff if you ask me. /images/graemlins/shocked.gif
If you want to discuss, please start another topic. I'd be happy to listen to your views. My first introduction into the conversation would be:
"What is the General Welfare?" (http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/welfare.htm)
A designer baby?!? Gucci & Luis Vuitton are gonna love this!
tylerdurden
11-01-2005, 10:39 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I don't support government funding of ANY scientific reserach.
[/ QUOTE ]
lastchance
11-01-2005, 11:05 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I don't support government funding of ANY scientific reserach.
[/ QUOTE ]
What about the R&D budget of the military? Do you count the military R&D budget as part of military spending or scientific research spending? I mean, really, come on. The research budget is tiny, compared to much of the other stuff and also very useful.
A ton of government spending on research is military, and much of the rest is for policy initiatives.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.