Which research would you support?

[Lakeman]

Originally Posted by swellman

One might think, from this view, that the countless fertilized eqqs that are lost during menses that fail to attach to the uterine wall would each be an individual tragedy. It would also be statistically correct to say that more than half of all humans die before being a month old.

HI again.

Yes, when a fertilized egg, i.e. a unique living human individual, is lost during menstruation it might be known as a spontaneous abortion or a miscarriage or when it has not been implanted something else that I do not know the name for. It is not known as an induced abortion. Regardless of what it should be called I can only say that I was not responsible for inducing it.

I understand the appeal to the simplicity of your argument however it seems pretty obvious, to me at least, that there is a real division between the "potential for eventually developing into a viable, human individual" and actually being a human individual.

IMO it seems simple because it is. Religious views of the soul aside if one depends on science then the only conclusion we can draw is that once conception occurs a whole genetically complete individual exists that did not exist before. At the moment of conception it is no longer a potential human but has become an actual human. The real division is exactly at conception. beyond conception the only changes that occur are qualitative. Is it viable before implantation? Well realistically the amount of viability is not that much greater after implantation or after the 8th month or after birth even - at all these points and well into childhood we are all so dependent upon our parents for survival that none of us could survive without a great deal of assistance. I do not see viability as relevant to the question of whether or not one is a alive or human or unique or an individual. Living things can be viable or not and are still living, humans can be viable or not and are still humans, unique beings can be viable or not and are still unique, and lastly, individuals can be viable or not and are still individuals.

I doesn't help that there are and have been multiple bans on research using them and the comparison isn't a fair assessment of their potential.

I am only aware of bans on federal funding but no bans on actual research. Private research has been unhindered.

I suppose I could easily buy that if it were the case that one type of research resulted in a large number of cures and the other resulted in a moderate number of cures. It is a bit harder to explain the complete and utter lack of any cures at all with embryonic stem cell research from embryos. It seems most likely that that line of research is simply not fruitful. But who knows there may yet be some cure from embryonic stem cell research from embryos.

[Lakeman]

Originally Posted by swellman

Per my bolding, I'm pretty sure identical twins have exactly the same DNA or at least more often than not.

I would have to agree and clarify what I said before as a wrong. A corrected statement should conclude that an embryo is a living human unique individual from conception unless it splits into twins and then it is no longer unique - at least for a time. Research indicates that twins do differ in their DNA but it is unknown at what time the genetic difference begin. The twins are again unique at some point probably in the early early stages of genetic development when there are only a small number of cells. So why is it at all important that an embryo is unique? (experientially they are all unique even twins when their DNA is identical) Being unique from one's twin is not so important at all. But being unique from one's mother is very important. If one were not unique from one's mother some would argue that one is merely a part of the mother.

[Lakeman]

Originally Posted by Pavlos

Consider a pedophile priest who does not know (or is in denial that) that his heinous act creates a strong probability of psychological and physical trauma to an altar boy. In fact he may even have the disgusting and demented delusion that his way of "loving" the child is "pure" and in the child's best interest.

Does the state not have the duty to intervene in this case? I cannot think of a more primary purpose of government than to prosecute and punish individuals who initiate any type of violence against others, particularly minors.

We expect priests to be well behaved and therefore hold them to a higher standard. Of course when a priest is not well behaved it makes the news exactly because we do not expect them to be ill behaved.

Statistically, a priest is no more likely to be a pedophile than anyone in the greater population, It is an unfortunate stereotype that exists due to the sensational news stories surrounding priests who abuse and the associated coverups.

So, regardless of who the pedophile is, even if they think it is morally justified it is still a purpose of gov to prosecute and punish them for their wrongdoing.

When it comes to parents we rightly assume first that they have the best interest of their children at heart until evidence otherwise exists. The parents are even given the responsibility to take care of their children by law. The parents retain the rights to take care of their children no matter what opinion a doctor may have since they are the guardians and the doctor is not. The doctor meanwhile is a manditory reporter who must report evidence of abuse which can then be investigated. In this case the parents were exonerated by a judge which is the proper chain of events.

(note to the moderator: this thread has become an enjoyable and lively debate. It would seem that neither I nor anyone else minds. But if this is not what you intend for CWD, especially since we have digressed off topic, now might be a good time to let your thoughts be known)

[Pavlos]

Originally Posted by Lakeman

Statistically, a priest is no more likely to be a pedophile than anyone in the greater population, It is an unfortunate stereotype that exists due to the sensational news stories surrounding priests who abuse and the associated coverups.

I beg to disagree. According to a recent report, "the percentage of paedophile priests is 20 to 200 times higher than the incidence found in the secular population." Sexual repression often leads to closet promiscuity, as evidenced over the years by the fall from grace of professional religious zealots involved in sexual scandals.

Originally Posted by Lakeman

So, regardless of who the pedophile is, even if they think it is morally justified it is still a purpose of gov to prosecute and punish them for their wrongdoing.

I agree 100%

Originally Posted by Lakeman

parents are even given the responsibility to take care of their children by law. The parents retain the rights to take care of their children no matter what opinion a doctor may have since they are the guardians and the doctor is not.

Whoa, hold on there! What if the parents are pedophiles? To be consistent with your previous statement, then the government should take action! On the other hand, you feel the law should respect the parents' decision to murder their kids if it suits their religious / hocus-pocus dogma, and they forbid a medical team to administer a medically approved life-saving procedure!