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