rolling _stone replied (and I have corrected the 'math' in my above, but the post following my original did that also, yet rs chose to play the misdirection game): I don't think so, it doesn't add up..do the math...If you want to discuss the continuum of life, if one believes in an afterlife, can one ever really be murdered or did they just have their continuuum accelerated in time? You seem to know when life begins, when does it end? Where does a soul fit in, before birth, after death? Is it subject to debate depending on one's beliefs? How about reincarnation or apparitions, where do they fit in?.....truth is no one not even you knows for sure until they die...
When a poster tries this sort of dishonest misdirection (the focus is upon the ended life in the body, not upon the Soul and Spirit of Baby Connor) and obfuscation ploy, it is important to expose it. It is also important that the effort to denegrate the truth in science be thoroughly stomped upon, because most American citizens are not current with the science the exploiters and their apologists want to utilize fro ESCR and cloning.
rolling_stone has tried to infer that there is not agreement regarding when individual human lifetime begins. Let's see what the science of embryology has to add to the repudiation of this foolishness by rolling_stone. I've stated that every methodology now under experimentation that utilizes nascent life has at its basis the axiom that individual human life is a continuum and that continuum begins at conception. By merely saying there is disagreement, rolling_stone would have you believe the axiom is incorrect, that 'reasonable scientists' do not agree with the basic axiom upon which their experimentation is dependant.
In reality, rolling_stone wants the disagreement to mean something it does not support, namely, that if someone disagrees with the axiom it nullifies the axiom. And why does there arise a small group of actual science based people who disagree with the axiom they themselves rely upon?... Because they wish to exploit the earliest age of the individual human beings already on a continuum of life so they want to nullify truth in order to commit cannibalization of individual human life. [I might tell a Physicist that I don't agree with the definition of gravity, don't agree that masses attract each other, but that will not prevent me from falling if I jump from a tall building, nor will my choice to disagree with truth relieve me of the weight I carry around while on this planet. How does that apply to the axiom at the heart of embryology? Well, let's see ... ]
With harvesting and use of cells and cell structures taken from an embryo or embryos, the scientists or ESCR (embryonic stem cell research) technician has affirmed the axiom else the experiment would rely on any cells taken from any age individual life. The ESCR effort is assuming the proven fact that as the conceptus cells divide, with each cell division and thus with each assignment of task for the cells, greater differentiation and less versatility results. What the ESCR scientistrs is seeking to do is utilize the versatility of the earliest age along the individual life continuum, to try and direct the development, the life activity, along targeted directions which will serve the experiment goals ... goals which will result in killing the embryo from whom the body parts will be taken when the targeted stage of differentiation is reached. The very act of selecting a stage along the continuum of individual embryo life at which harvesting is planned is an affirmation of the basic axiom of embryology.
One additional example of the continuum axiom is in order, since cloning is becoming such a contentious subject. When the scientists wanting our society to embrace their cloning technology sought to trick the people into supporting their methodologies, they played the obfuscation card in their dissembling hands: to get our agreement for their experiments to go forward, they implied that with therapeutic cloning, no embryo conceived in somatic cell transfer would be allowed to go to term, to be born! The immediate truth they tried to obfuscate is, the conceived clone will be an individual human being, alive along an individual continuum of human life ... but because the intention of the cloners will be to harvest body parts from the clone, the clone will not be allowed to come to full gestational age and be born! Put another way, the science to conceive a clone is founded on the axiom that individual human life is a continuum, but the 'therapeutic cloners' choose to set aside the earliest portion of the continuum because they want to conceive and kill individual human beings ... they seek to reject part of the truth so they choose to define the earliest segment of truth to be non-true. And rolling_stone is playing the same game ... and that is dishonest at best, the methodology of a liar at worst. rolling_stone is in high company though ... Michael Shermer, writing in his 'Skeptic' column in the April 2003 Scientific American tries the same dishonest manipulation. And of course, Peter Singer would be in accord with the dissembling, when it's considered 'for a higher purpose'. Cannibalizing individual human beings will never be a higher purpose, despite the effort to do it at the earliest age along the continuum of individual human lifetimes begun at conception.
Sorry if you had pinged me I might have seen your correction, which I did not, to see it and ignore it would be foolish which I am not.
: ...If you want to discuss the continuum of life, if one believes in an afterlife, can one ever really be murdered or did they just have their continuuum accelerated in time? You seem to know when life begins, when does it end? Where does a soul fit in, before birth, after death? Is it subject to debate depending on one's beliefs? How about reincarnation or apparitions, where do they fit in?.....truth is no one not even you knows for sure until they die...
When a poster tries this sort of dishonest misdirection (the focus is upon the ended life in the body, not upon the Soul and Spirit of Baby Connor) and obfuscation ploy, it is important to expose it.
Who decides what the focus is, just you? Are you too focused to see the forest for the trees? Is your mind closed to alternative positions? You did not answer the questions. As for the continuum of life, if you take a sperm or egg that is attempting conceptcion, and use contraception and kill the sperm or egg, is that murder in your opinion? .
rolling_stone has tried to infer that there is not agreement regarding when individual human lifetime begins. Let's see what the science of embryology has to add to the repudiation of this foolishness by rolling_stone. I've stated that every methodology now under experimentation that utilizes nascent life has at its basis the axiom that individual human life is a continuum and that continuum begins at conception.
Assuming you are correct that the science of embryology has that as its basic axiom, what about other sciences or belief systems, why ignore them?
By merely saying there is disagreement, rolling_stone would have you believe the axiom is incorrect, that 'reasonable scientists' do not agree with the basic
No, disagreement does not prove which side is correct only that there is a dispute.
In reality, rolling_stone wants the disagreement to mean something it does not support, namely, that if someone disagrees with the axiom it nullifies the axiom.
I think you want to nullify any disagreement by stating your theory as the truth.
.... Put another way, the science to conceive a clone is founded on the axiom that individual human life is a continuum, but the 'therapeutic cloners' choose to set aside the earliest portion of the continuum because they want to conceive and kill individual human beings ... they seek to reject part of the truth so they choose to define the earliest segment of truth to be non-true. And rolling_stone is playing the same game ... and that is dishonest at best, the methodology of a liar at worst.
See below...
rolling_stone is in high company though ... Michael Shermer, writing in his 'Skeptic' column in the April 2003 Scientific American tries the same dishonest manipulation. And of course, Peter Singer would be in accord with the dissembling, when it's considered 'for a higher purpose'. Cannibalizing individual human beings will never be a higher purpose, despite the effort to do it at the earliest age along the continuum of individual human lifetimes begun at conception.
What these people are dishonest and wrong too, and don't agree with you? How can that be you have stated the truth. No dissention allowed.
I respect your convictions and position, but take exception to calling someone dishonest who has a true disagreement. You do not know me or my convictions and can determine very little about my character on a message board. Your interpretation of my thoughts as game playing and being dishonest is wrong and undermines your position. I disagree with you and I may even be wrong, but I am honest in my presentation and for you to state otherwise is dishonest and unbecoming a free expression board.
Interesting article here sympathises with you, maybe you should quote it..or did you write it?
http://www.washingtondispatch.com/article_4530.shtml