Interesting and insightful clip that describes embryos in their very early stages of being. Also has a funny George W. Bush comment about halfway through ;)
@evilnomad111 Blood transfusions: Voluntary donors Human embryonic stem cell research: one group of humans deciding which other young humans to pull apart, deciding how far along to develop its parts( into the fetal, infant, and child stages) and which parts will show the most promise for profit, throwing the remainder in the trash A bit different, eh?
Incorrect, Sammy. A 9 month old stem cell line does have a nervous system. It's in a dish separated from cell groups of other systems in other dishes, readied for sale by the corporation.
@suckithardnfast Learn this: a 9 month old "stem cell line" does have a nervous system, clusters of infant neurons in several dishes, alive. It has infant heart cells, beating in other dishes. It's not a life because you pulled it apart. It is alive as a commodity. An unnatural unethical life.
@BigMikeMcBastard Whether matured as a whole in a uterus or matured in the lab in separate petrie dishes they are indeed infant cells after 9 months of maturation. Call them what you want. Biologically it's the same stuff.
i think its fairly important that the people who want to debate on stem cell research at the very least watch and pay attention to the video first. beyond that they could dane to do some independant research rather than simply regurgitate whatever their 'pastor' has spat into their eager mouths.
@evilnomad111 Sorry, wrong again. Less developed does NOT mean less human. An infant is no less human than an adult. An embryo is no less human than an infant. A 9 month old stem cell line is established by pulling apart the 3-5 day old blastocyst, keeping its parts ALIVE, and developing infant cells in separate dishes. A cell corporation is given the power over another group of developing humans to convert these living entities into marketable commodities. That's not very ethical in my book.
@BigMikeMcBastard We're all just a bunch of cells throughout our existence. If the someone severing another's limb was a corporation, and the purpose of this severing was to sell this living limb to someone else, that would be abuse of one human over another. The blastocysts are living developing human individuals outside of their mother, and the matured cells used in the research(derived from the stem cells) are not embryonic, they're technically infant cells.
I've really thought about it. It's one group of humans(research lab/cell corporation) owning and controlling another group of humans well into infant development(in pieces). The human embryos used are pulled apart, kept alive in pieces(called a stem cell line), and forcibly developed well beyond 9 months(into living infant pieces/cells). That's reducing humans to a commodity, that's very unethical, and that's a 13th amendment violation.
Common descent. Not the Theory that explains HOW it occurred (Natural Selection being the current favourite), but the FACT it has TAKEN PLACE as DNA, Geological distribution and the Fossil record show. Go for it.
1. Should a corporation own a living human individual at any stage of its life cycle? 2. Is it okay to mature a living human as separate parts in dishes to sell its infant aged parts? 3. Does "spareness" justify cannibalizing the youngest of our species? 4. What to do when the "spares" run out? 5. 3 day old embryos are not killed, Sammy. They're artificially divided and forced to live on, to be treated as a commodity. 6. Embryonic cells mature into fetal cells @ 8 wks. Infant cells @ 38wks.
i think this takes us to where we should have got a while ago. i cannot be convinced that you can plae value on human life without the application of human suffering, and from my perspective there is no suffering involved. this given that i am an atheist who does no belief in a soul or the after life
@inscara Invitrofertilization kills hundreds of thousands of embryos, since most of these embryos eventually decompose in cryo chambers on account that they are never implanted into willing hosts.
Med school, not high school. Pay attention: You began developing as YOU when the zygote matured from a one cell individual into 2 cells, then 4,8,16,32 and so on, maturing in the process along the way. You now have trillions of cells, all arising from that inner cell mass when you were a blastocyst. You were less developed then, but you were no less human.
@JAtria Because it's not a child yet. A child is not an adult yet. A fetus is not a child yet. They're different stages of a human's development. No stage is any less human. Remember, ESC research does not destroy the embryo. The embryos are simply pulled apart and forced to develop as separate parts of a whole, keeping the human alive, in pieces. One group of humans having total control of another well into the childhood stage of development and beyond. A clear 13th amendment violation.
what were you drinking, alpy ? It comes down to this: you can grow a human in a uterus as an intact whole, or you can grow a human in multiple petrie dishes as living mature body parts. After 38 weeks it's the same stuff. Living baby skin for sale, living baby pancreatic cells for sale, etc. As a physician, I just can't see this being a good thing. It is, at best, a cost-prohibitive form of cannibalizing our youngest. It's failing as we speak.
@oran6es We're cells, but look, my cells are writing a comment on RUclips. There is a difference between a human being like myself, and human tissue without a mind like a skin sample or a blastocyst or embryo. Anyone can see that. Also, they are absolutely not "infant cells". Infants are a specific category of child that ranges from over one month to under one year in age. If you're suggesting they're harvesting children, post-birth, for stem cells, you're mistaken.
@ninjajesus81 Not at all. A woman has control over the life she's carrying until a survivable stage. I don't think a corporation should have those same rights.
Yo cake, so when exactly does it become a human? The fact is that it is human throughout its development. If the individual embryo is pulled apart at 150 cells, then the cells are "cultured" separately and allowed to differentiate(mature) into what looks like nerve cells, pancreas cells, etc. in effect you're growing different parts of this human in different dishes until they're the equivalent of a mature fetus.
This is why it's generally hard to argue with religious people. Their frame of reference is not the same as the one that we, the ones who believe in knowledge and science, have. Thus, the debate can never be conducted as a scientific one. This is also why everything ends up being about unicorns. As for Trac4yt, please tell your evangelical friends to stop trying to shove your imaginary friends down other peoples throats.
@JAtria Slavery: The total subjugation and control of one group of humans over another group; the treatment of a group of humans as property, by another group 13th amendment: The abolishment of slavery.
@inscara I'm personally for embryonic stem cell research because I would like to see cures for maladies like alzheimer's, spinal cord injury, MS, etc.. I understand the moral objections behind those who would prefer to remain entrenched in the Bronze Age, but if they're going to base their objections on respecting life, then I want to see consistency on their part.
its not a lie, its an area of research which we dont fund because of this ethical question - which i am not even saying i have decided on. don't cloud the issue it really is as simple as that
@inscara I never said it wasn't unique, only that it doesn't possess any properties above and beyond what any other random tissue sample with no mind possesses. Your adrenal tissue is unique in your body, does that mean it's equivalent to an adult human being? I'm really not sure if you have a point or if you're just being pedantic.
@inscara Missing links is a fairly silly thing to focus on when it comes to evolution. It is literally impossible to ever be absent of missing links. Fossilization is a rare event, the Earth is a big place, and unless you're suggesting scientists ought to have a generation-by-generation sequence of organisms from the very first microorganism right up to a modern-day creature like ourselves, you are never going to be happy. Evolution is beyond dispute. There is no counter-argument to it yet.
@inscara Evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origins of life. That's not what the theory encompasses. So... what's the issue exactly? We don't know exactly how life arose, but that's an issue altogether separate from evolution.
@inscara Again, what's your point? I was saying that an embryo being human tissue doesn't make it "human" in the sense that it isn't a human being deserving of rights. None of anything you've said there is relevant to that line of discussion at all. If I wanted a textbook definition of embryonic tissue I'd open my biology textbooks.
It doesn't matter does it? What matters is the logic used in making the decisions. The majority simply do use faith and mythology as their reasoning. If an Atheist objects on different grounds, that's fair enough, let's hear their reasoning.
@honkyxadonis Incorrect. Biological fact. A developing individual living human. Sammy is incorrect. The "soul" is not even part of the equation. Less cells does not mean less human. A newborn is no less human than a scientist. Or perhaps you know the precise point when a developing human becomes human. When is that moment? A minute before that moment it's not human? Faulty reasoning to the max.
Human suffering is not the issue. If we harvest all organs of a comatose patient, transplant them into needy sick recipients, no one suffers and many people benefit. One "whole" human is destroyed in the process, but its parts live on to benefit others. The transplant team and hospital profit. The living comatose human has been converted into marketable commodities. One group of humans should not have the right to manipulate and control another living human. Cell corporations are doing the same.
That, in essence, is our difference. In my view, a human being is no less human at any point of its development. A newborn is no less human than an adult, true? A fetus is no less human than a newborn. An embryo is no less human than a fetus. They're just different phases of our existence. We're no less human at day 5 of life than at year 95 of life.
@inscara I can aT LEAst respect that stance. But you do realize that many ardent prolifers have no such moral objections as it relates to invitrofertilization, which creates a surplus number of embryos that are eventually destroyed anyways. It is this inconsistency that irritates me most about the prolife movement on this issue. Either they're ignorant to the realities of IVF, or they're of the "I'm morally right" mindset.
@evilnomad111 What you view as my flawed ethical approach I call an appropriate biological approach. Human beings: sentient, comatose, non-sentient, or soon to be sentient should not be used or cannibalized by another set of human beings and become their property/ commodities. I force no woman to breed. True self-awarenes develops at 18 months of age. Certainly a newborn is human.
@honkyxadonis Fly, fly egg, maggot, fly............ Human adult (a walking talking thinking individual), human embryo, fetus, child, adult.............. I think there's a bit of a difference, logically speaking.
its definately unsettling and icky, but wrong? im not so sure i think the potential benefits massively outweigh the costs. i would argue that there may be a slippery slope as with all this genetics stuff
@evilnomad111 sure it is. It is an earlier stage of this individual. I'd rather help the young girl with her own stem cells(they've been shown to be more effective) and I'd implant the embryo. It'll be walking within 2 years, the young girl may be better, and she'd have a walking talking younger sister. Next time read the book, not just the cliff's notes.
1. I did not claim christians treat the bill of rights as a joke, all americans do from time to time - 1st amendment probably sufferrs the most (feel free to look that up in the 'library' at your college). 2. the question of wether or not would should fund stem cell research (and thank 'god' we are) is as i said an ethical one plain and simple. 3. that ethical question boils down to the life of a fly to the life of a human in my opinion - perhaps not in yours 4. i'm happy to debate 3
Let's eliminate religion from this debate. A human embryo is human, hence the adjective "human". The number of cells does not determine the "humanness" of an individual. A child is not one tenth the human of an adult. As a human being, humanist, or whatever, do we wish to allow corporations human ownership? The stem cells from a 3 day old embryo are not used for therapies. They are coaxed and cultured until they differentiate into the desired cell type( it probably takes about 9 months)
if that is infact the case, and no offence thats a gargantuan if, then i would certainly have a problem with it as well but, (and i will look into it) i am fairly certain it is not or atleast not quite how you describe it. it is certainly not the explanation harris gave there. i'm not an american but i think i speak for most people (atleat lefty athiest types like myself) when i say that you guys treat the bill of rights like a joke most of the time and use it when it suits you
I am a critical thinker. Why do you think I'm spending my time on this? Should the definition of a human change for the sake of convenience? What is your opinion or fact? When does a human individual's existence begin?
@Guarding I "learnt" in medical school that a zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, child, and an adult are all different stages of a living human individual's life. My critical thinking is critical to your more convenient definition of a human, whatever that is. It may change tomorrow to suit your needs. Stick with biological facts.
Then what are some reasonable arguments against stem cell research? Because the only controversy against stem cell research that I seem to find, are religious reasons. (Reasons that SH expelled). And I don't see how the housefly comparison is a bad argument. If someone is worried about destroying embryos based on the number of cells (or complexity), them someone should be infinitely more worried about destroying flies.
@oran6es Either it's murder or it's not. You wanted this to be a black or white issue, but you want to be the one to make exceptions to that black or white issue.
"Unfortunately, my problems with evolution come from obvious factual reasons" Come on, let's hear them! I want to see which of the two categories you fall in to. Or maybe it's a bit of both? Or a lot of both?! Please reply and 'deconstruct' the fact of Common Descent so that I may see.
If a doctor takes some of your skins cells, to culture a new skin graft for you, is that not making a new Human according to your stupid idea? You can say AHA, but it's my DNA. If that is the case, you should be able to kill one of a twin then. What makes a Human, isn't the matter, but the way it's arranged. It's the STRUCTURE. It's like Lego. A blastocyst isn't a Human. It's a blastocyst, which is exactly the same in structure to a flies blastocyst.
See below In essence, therefore, a human is grown in separate dishes until what you end up with is body parts here, others there in the friendly corporate lab. The equivalent of a newborn baby, in pieces, for sale. You think health care is expensive now? Government sponsored cannibalism. Not pretty, not smart. Have a great weekend.
.....and is it okay to rip you apart for my own purposes, to grow your body parts separately to sell to other individuals, one day, one month, or 5 months before you became a 'person'?
my claim is very simple and you disagree with it because you place a value on human life that i don't. not to say that i dont value human life, but those embryos are not humans or even babies yet. they have no nerves no emotions, no mind, so they do not suffer
your choice of peter and paul as example names is very telling. i would simply suggest to you that you try and really think about it and not just go along with all the other christians.
the exact moment? no i dont but, i'm pretty sure three days into gestation does not give us much of a human, they don't even have nerves. its ludicrous to attach so much significance to something like that
So now please, offer us your 'obvious factual reasons' you mentioned earlier. You assume designer, which is rejection on religious grounds, but then you say you have obvious factual reasons, which suggests scientific ignorance. However, as you've so easily fallen on suggesting a designer, without evidence or a logical pathway, it seems your primary motive IS religious, as the user you were conversing with earlier alluded to. Provide your obvious factual reasons to disprove this conclusion.
Human embryology textbook fact. Are you in remedial classes? Sperm cell: only 1/2 of the puzzle.Ovum(egg):other 1/2 You were formed at conception. You began to mature thereafter.
Sam is preaching reductionism here. He is standing there and talking because someone did not destroy him when he himself was a 3 day embryo. There would be no Sam Harris today, if that had happened. He is judging religious ethics, while making his own ethics (in heaven's name from where does he borrow his own ethics or even make judgments?), does Sam himself know when life begins? on the 3rd day of conception, 10th day, 100th day, 200th, 270th or when he comes out of the womb?
No, a fingernail is a small part of a large individual. A child is a collection of cells( one tenth the cells of an adult). A fetus is a collection of cells( a smaller amount of cells) An embryo is a collection of cells( a smaller amount yet) These are all different stages of development of the entire individual. No less human at any stage.
He's avoiding the issue that flies ate not human. Dehumanizing others as a rationale for exploitation has been the key to the worst humanitarian crimes in history, from slavery to the holocaust to name a few. Also the US has been funding stem cell research for a long time; just not embryonic stem cells. There's more to this field of research than killing embryos.
@evilnomad111 Please cease to discriminate against humans unlike yourself. A human that will have consciousness is no less human than one that has one. A newborn's brain, though less developed, is no less valuable than a scientist's brain. The definition of a human should not change for the sake of convenience. This research is doomed to fail for many reasons. Time will prove me correct.
@nemesisnick66 Naaa, your and Sammy's so-called logic is just plain illogical.. Stop being so hung up on religion, souls, etc. Respect your fellow young humans. Simple.
I think it's reasonable to call it human when it has a nervous system and a conscious mind. Otherwise it's no more a human than a fingernail you clipped off. The atoms the cell are made up from, aren't Human - If this were the case, EVERYTHING would be Human. The DNA information contained within isn't "a Human" - If this were the case, identical twins would be classed as only ONE Human, and Chimera's would be classed as TWO Humans.
Наука
A very clever man.
That is very interesting. Thank you for posting this. I know some people that need to see this.
@evilnomad111 Blood transfusions: Voluntary donors
Human embryonic stem cell research: one group of humans deciding which other young humans to pull apart, deciding how far along to develop its parts( into the fetal, infant, and child stages) and which parts will show the most promise for profit, throwing the remainder in the trash
A bit different, eh?
Thanks for posting the video it helps with my school project =D
lol lots of debating down the comments section...
so proud of u
Incorrect, Sammy. A 9 month old stem cell line does have a nervous system. It's in a dish separated from cell groups of other systems in other dishes, readied for sale by the corporation.
@suckithardnfast
Learn this: a 9 month old "stem cell line" does have a nervous system, clusters of infant neurons in several dishes, alive. It has infant heart cells, beating in other dishes. It's not a life because you pulled it apart. It is alive as a commodity. An unnatural unethical life.
Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there .
@BigMikeMcBastard Whether matured as a whole in a uterus or matured in the lab in separate petrie dishes they are indeed infant cells after 9 months of maturation. Call them what you want. Biologically it's the same stuff.
life against life, heavy
this guy's good at comparisonal debate
As any other complex organism, it's determined genetically.
i think its fairly important that the people who want to debate on stem cell research at the very least watch and pay attention to the video first. beyond that they could dane to do some independant research rather than simply regurgitate whatever their 'pastor' has spat into their eager mouths.
@evilnomad111 Sorry, wrong again. Less developed does NOT mean less human. An infant is no less human than an adult. An embryo is no less human than an infant. A 9 month old stem cell line is established by pulling apart the 3-5 day old blastocyst, keeping its parts ALIVE, and developing infant cells in separate dishes. A cell corporation is given the power over another group of developing humans to convert these living entities into marketable commodities. That's not very ethical in my book.
wow, brilliant retort
@BigMikeMcBastard We're all just a bunch of cells throughout our existence. If the someone severing another's limb was a corporation, and the purpose of this severing was to sell this living limb to someone else, that would be abuse of one human over another. The blastocysts are living developing human individuals outside of their mother, and the matured cells used in the research(derived from the stem cells) are not embryonic, they're technically infant cells.
I've really thought about it. It's one group of humans(research lab/cell corporation) owning and controlling another group of humans well into infant development(in pieces).
The human embryos used are pulled apart, kept alive in pieces(called a stem cell line), and forcibly developed well beyond 9 months(into living infant pieces/cells).
That's reducing humans to a commodity, that's very unethical, and that's a 13th amendment violation.
Common descent.
Not the Theory that explains HOW it occurred (Natural Selection being the current favourite), but the FACT it has TAKEN PLACE as DNA, Geological distribution and the Fossil record show.
Go for it.
A secular HUMANIST should respect all humans, even the spare young ones.
1. Should a corporation own a living human individual at any stage of its life cycle?
2. Is it okay to mature a living human as separate parts in dishes to sell its infant aged parts?
3. Does "spareness" justify cannibalizing the youngest of our species?
4. What to do when the "spares" run out?
5. 3 day old embryos are not killed, Sammy. They're artificially divided and forced to live on, to be treated as a commodity.
6. Embryonic cells mature into fetal cells @ 8 wks. Infant cells @ 38wks.
i think this takes us to where we should have got a while ago. i cannot be convinced that you can plae value on human life without the application of human suffering, and from my perspective there is no suffering involved. this given that i am an atheist who does no belief in a soul or the after life
@inscara Invitrofertilization kills hundreds of thousands of embryos, since most of these embryos eventually decompose in cryo chambers on account that they are never implanted into willing hosts.
@HiddenFacedMatt Incorrect conclusion.
Med school, not high school.
Pay attention: You began developing as YOU when the zygote matured from a one cell individual into 2 cells, then 4,8,16,32 and so on, maturing in the process along the way. You now have trillions of cells, all arising from that inner cell mass when you were a blastocyst. You were less developed then, but you were no less human.
@JAtria Because it's not a child yet. A child is not an adult yet. A fetus is not a child yet. They're different stages of a human's development. No stage is any less human.
Remember, ESC research does not destroy the embryo. The embryos are simply pulled apart and forced to develop as separate parts of a whole, keeping the human alive, in pieces. One group of humans having total control of another well into the childhood stage of development and beyond. A clear 13th amendment violation.
"The artithmetic of souls doesn't make sense." rofl
what were you drinking, alpy ?
It comes down to this: you can grow a human in a uterus as an intact whole, or you can grow a human in multiple petrie dishes as living mature body parts.
After 38 weeks it's the same stuff. Living baby skin for sale, living baby pancreatic cells for sale, etc.
As a physician, I just can't see this being a good thing.
It is, at best, a cost-prohibitive form of cannibalizing our youngest. It's failing as we speak.
@oran6es We're cells, but look, my cells are writing a comment on RUclips. There is a difference between a human being like myself, and human tissue without a mind like a skin sample or a blastocyst or embryo. Anyone can see that.
Also, they are absolutely not "infant cells". Infants are a specific category of child that ranges from over one month to under one year in age. If you're suggesting they're harvesting children, post-birth, for stem cells, you're mistaken.
@ninjajesus81 Not at all. A woman has control over the life she's carrying until a survivable stage. I don't think a corporation should have those same rights.
it's not about souls, it's about humans.
Yo cake, so when exactly does it become a human?
The fact is that it is human throughout its development.
If the individual embryo is pulled apart at 150 cells, then the cells are "cultured" separately and allowed to differentiate(mature) into what looks like nerve cells, pancreas cells, etc. in effect you're growing different parts of this human in different dishes until they're the equivalent of a mature fetus.
This is why it's generally hard to argue with religious people. Their frame of reference is not the same as the one that we, the ones who believe in knowledge and science, have.
Thus, the debate can never be conducted as a scientific one. This is also why everything ends up being about unicorns.
As for Trac4yt, please tell your evangelical friends to stop trying to shove your imaginary friends down other peoples throats.
@JAtria Slavery: The total subjugation and control of one group of humans over another group; the treatment of a group of humans as property, by another group
13th amendment: The abolishment of slavery.
@inscara I'm personally for embryonic stem cell research because I would like to see cures for maladies like alzheimer's, spinal cord injury, MS, etc.. I understand the moral objections behind those who would prefer to remain entrenched in the Bronze Age, but if they're going to base their objections on respecting life, then I want to see consistency on their part.
its not a lie, its an area of research which we dont fund because of this ethical question - which i am not even saying i have decided on. don't cloud the issue it really is as simple as that
@inscara I never said it wasn't unique, only that it doesn't possess any properties above and beyond what any other random tissue sample with no mind possesses. Your adrenal tissue is unique in your body, does that mean it's equivalent to an adult human being?
I'm really not sure if you have a point or if you're just being pedantic.
@inscara Missing links is a fairly silly thing to focus on when it comes to evolution. It is literally impossible to ever be absent of missing links. Fossilization is a rare event, the Earth is a big place, and unless you're suggesting scientists ought to have a generation-by-generation sequence of organisms from the very first microorganism right up to a modern-day creature like ourselves, you are never going to be happy.
Evolution is beyond dispute. There is no counter-argument to it yet.
@inscara Evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origins of life. That's not what the theory encompasses. So... what's the issue exactly? We don't know exactly how life arose, but that's an issue altogether separate from evolution.
@inscara Again, what's your point? I was saying that an embryo being human tissue doesn't make it "human" in the sense that it isn't a human being deserving of rights. None of anything you've said there is relevant to that line of discussion at all. If I wanted a textbook definition of embryonic tissue I'd open my biology textbooks.
It doesn't matter does it? What matters is the logic used in making the decisions. The majority simply do use faith and mythology as their reasoning. If an Atheist objects on different grounds, that's fair enough, let's hear their reasoning.
The only opposition to the fact of Evolution is from religious grounds, or scientific ignorance.
Pick one.
How so? Please explain.
@honkyxadonis
Incorrect. Biological fact. A developing individual living human. Sammy is incorrect. The "soul" is not even part of the equation.
Less cells does not mean less human. A newborn is no less human than a scientist.
Or perhaps you know the precise point when a developing human becomes human. When is that moment? A minute before that moment it's not human?
Faulty reasoning to the max.
Human suffering is not the issue. If we harvest all organs of a comatose patient, transplant them into needy sick recipients, no one suffers and many people benefit. One "whole" human is destroyed in the process, but its parts live on to benefit others. The transplant team and hospital profit. The living comatose human has been converted into marketable commodities. One group of humans should not have the right to manipulate and control another living human. Cell corporations are doing the same.
Ben Stiller?
i think you could see it differently if you had some kind of illness and stem cell research could provide the cure
That, in essence, is our difference. In my view, a human being is no less human at any point of its development. A newborn is no less human than an adult, true? A fetus is no less human than a newborn. An embryo is no less human than a fetus. They're just different phases of our existence. We're no less human at day 5 of life than at year 95 of life.
@inscara I can aT LEAst respect that stance. But you do realize that many ardent prolifers have no such moral objections as it relates to invitrofertilization, which creates a surplus number of embryos that are eventually destroyed anyways. It is this inconsistency that irritates me most about the prolife movement on this issue. Either they're ignorant to the realities of IVF, or they're of the "I'm morally right" mindset.
@evilnomad111 What you view as my flawed ethical approach I call an appropriate biological approach. Human beings: sentient, comatose, non-sentient, or soon to be sentient should not be used or cannibalized by another set of human beings and become their property/ commodities. I force no woman to breed. True self-awarenes develops at 18 months of age. Certainly a newborn is human.
what rewards?
faith=soul=holocast
@honkyxadonis
Fly, fly egg, maggot, fly............
Human adult (a walking talking thinking individual), human embryo, fetus, child, adult..............
I think there's a bit of a difference, logically speaking.
Thanks for the laugh, biblical FACTS :)
its definately unsettling and icky, but wrong? im not so sure i think the potential benefits massively outweigh the costs. i would argue that there may be a slippery slope as with all this genetics stuff
@evilnomad111 sure it is. It is an earlier stage of this individual. I'd rather help the young girl with her own stem cells(they've been shown to be more effective) and I'd implant the embryo. It'll be walking within 2 years, the young girl may be better, and she'd have a walking talking younger sister.
Next time read the book, not just the cliff's notes.
1. I did not claim christians treat the bill of rights as a joke, all americans do from time to time - 1st amendment probably sufferrs the most (feel free to look that up in the 'library' at your college).
2. the question of wether or not would should fund stem cell research (and thank 'god' we are) is as i said an ethical one plain and simple.
3. that ethical question boils down to the life of a fly to the life of a human in my opinion - perhaps not in yours
4. i'm happy to debate 3
Then he/she would be demonstrably wrong if they knew anything about embryological similarities between all animals at these stages.
Thanks. I'll ask Jesus when he comes over for our regular poker game.
Let's eliminate religion from this debate.
A human embryo is human, hence the adjective "human".
The number of cells does not determine the "humanness" of an individual. A child is not one tenth the human of an adult.
As a human being, humanist, or whatever, do we wish to allow corporations human ownership?
The stem cells from a 3 day old embryo are not used for therapies. They are coaxed and cultured until they differentiate into the desired cell type( it probably takes about 9 months)
@evilnomad111 No. Silly goose. Blood transfusions do not destroy the donor.
Here's the real deal. A 5 month old fetus cannot exist if it's destroyed as a 3 day embryo. Pretty simple stuff.
@oran6es So you can murder it, but not enslave it?
The stem cells remain alive, not the fetus.
@JAtria your comment sounds very biased.
if that is infact the case, and no offence thats a gargantuan if, then i would certainly have a problem with it as well but, (and i will look into it) i am fairly certain it is not or atleast not quite how you describe it. it is certainly not the explanation harris gave there. i'm not an american but i think i speak for most people (atleat lefty athiest types like myself) when i say that you guys treat the bill of rights like a joke most of the time and use it when it suits you
what were you drinking?
I am a critical thinker. Why do you think I'm spending my time on this? Should the definition of a human change for the sake of convenience? What is your opinion or fact? When does a human individual's existence begin?
@Guarding I "learnt" in medical school that a zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, child, and an adult are all different stages of a living human individual's life. My critical thinking is critical to your more convenient definition of a human, whatever that is. It may change tomorrow to suit your needs. Stick with biological facts.
Then what are some reasonable arguments against stem cell research? Because the only controversy against stem cell research that I seem to find, are religious reasons. (Reasons that SH expelled). And I don't see how the housefly comparison is a bad argument. If someone is worried about destroying embryos based on the number of cells (or complexity), them someone should be infinitely more worried about destroying flies.
@evilnomad111 I value my judgement. Don't judge my values. They're called values for a reason. Get some.
@oran6es Either it's murder or it's not. You wanted this to be a black or white issue, but you want to be the one to make exceptions to that black or white issue.
Well, when did you become a "person"?
One day before that happened, what were you?
"Unfortunately, my problems with evolution come from obvious factual reasons"
Come on, let's hear them!
I want to see which of the two categories you fall in to. Or maybe it's a bit of both? Or a lot of both?!
Please reply and 'deconstruct' the fact of Common Descent so that I may see.
I love this man.
Prove it.
If mothers don't care about these aborted fetuses why should we?
If a doctor takes some of your skins cells, to culture a new skin graft for you, is that not making a new Human according to your stupid idea? You can say AHA, but it's my DNA. If that is the case, you should be able to kill one of a twin then.
What makes a Human, isn't the matter, but the way it's arranged. It's the STRUCTURE. It's like Lego.
A blastocyst isn't a Human. It's a blastocyst, which is exactly the same in structure to a flies blastocyst.
See below
In essence, therefore, a human is grown in separate dishes until what you end up with is body parts here, others there in the friendly corporate lab. The equivalent of a newborn baby, in pieces, for sale.
You think health care is expensive now?
Government sponsored cannibalism. Not pretty, not smart.
Have a great weekend.
they're just cells, get over it.
This guy is going to make money off of this work , you seculars may lie to yourselves but you don't fool the people of God .
is he against christianity?
.....and is it okay to rip you apart for my own purposes, to grow your body parts separately to sell to other individuals, one day, one month, or 5 months before you became a 'person'?
my claim is very simple and you disagree with it because you place a value on human life that i don't. not to say that i dont value human life, but those embryos are not humans or even babies yet. they have no nerves no emotions, no mind, so they do not suffer
Stem cells could be a medical breakthrough. It is really sad that christians ruined all of it.
your choice of peter and paul as example names is very telling. i would simply suggest to you that you try and really think about it and not just go along with all the other christians.
Yes. The fact of Evolution.
What's your problem?
And have you made a choice on religious grounds vs scientific ignorance yet?
the exact moment? no i dont but, i'm pretty sure three days into gestation does not give us much of a human, they don't even have nerves. its ludicrous to attach so much significance to something like that
oh and tough break, 'god' knows you would have had an easier life if there was still an evangelical in the whitehouse
lol...wat kinda unscientific fukin arguement is that
No Christianity is based on human sacrifice and ritualized cannibalism
So now please, offer us your 'obvious factual reasons' you mentioned earlier.
You assume designer, which is rejection on religious grounds, but then you say you have obvious factual reasons, which suggests scientific ignorance.
However, as you've so easily fallen on suggesting a designer, without evidence or a logical pathway, it seems your primary motive IS religious, as the user you were conversing with earlier alluded to.
Provide your obvious factual reasons to disprove this conclusion.
Human embryology textbook fact.
Are you in remedial classes?
Sperm cell: only 1/2 of the puzzle.Ovum(egg):other 1/2
You were formed at conception. You began to mature thereafter.
Sam is preaching reductionism here. He is standing there and talking because someone did not destroy him when he himself was a 3 day embryo. There would be no Sam Harris today, if that had happened. He is judging religious ethics, while making his own ethics (in heaven's name from where does he borrow his own ethics or even make judgments?), does Sam himself know when life begins? on the 3rd day of conception, 10th day, 100th day, 200th, 270th or when he comes out of the womb?
No, a fingernail is a small part of a large individual.
A child is a collection of cells( one tenth the cells of an adult).
A fetus is a collection of cells( a smaller amount of cells)
An embryo is a collection of cells( a smaller amount yet)
These are all different stages of development of the entire individual.
No less human at any stage.
Jesus died - LOL
He's avoiding the issue that flies ate not human. Dehumanizing others as a rationale for exploitation has been the key to the worst humanitarian crimes in history, from slavery to the holocaust to name a few.
Also the US has been funding stem cell research for a long time; just not embryonic stem cells. There's more to this field of research than killing embryos.
@evilnomad111 Please cease to discriminate against humans unlike yourself. A human that will have consciousness is no less human than one that has one. A newborn's brain, though less developed, is no less valuable than a scientist's brain. The definition of a human should not change for the sake of convenience. This research is doomed to fail for many reasons. Time will prove me correct.
Just a lot of justifying of your greed .
@nemesisnick66 Naaa, your and Sammy's so-called logic is just plain illogical..
Stop being so hung up on religion, souls, etc. Respect your fellow young humans. Simple.
I think it's reasonable to call it human when it has a nervous system and a conscious mind. Otherwise it's no more a human than a fingernail you clipped off.
The atoms the cell are made up from, aren't Human - If this were the case, EVERYTHING would be Human.
The DNA information contained within isn't "a Human" - If this were the case, identical twins would be classed as only ONE Human, and Chimera's would be classed as TWO Humans.