yeah right IF you want to describe something then you have to do it accurately, especially if you want any credibility as an intelligent person, most importantly if you want a discussion about factual science Irrigardless is completely wrong, its not that I don't know what it means or else I wouldnt be able to correct you, its more that you're an idiot. You have been programmed into thinking you're smarter than you actually want to admit the side effect is that you talk a load of bollocks. You guessed wrong. The fact is I really dont give a flying fuck, its that you're obsessed with categorising a broad topic with many factors into one of two groups, for or against, right or wrong and it doesnt work like that you friggin chimp. Bollocks, its an answer, but its not one your feeble mental capacity is capable of accepting. The way you waffle discriminately on without serious forthought sounds like its right out of women’s rights advocacy literature; I hate to tell you, but flicking through Womans Weekly while your wife gets her hair done is not research.
For Christ's sake, how did a perfectly good conversation about genetic manipulation turn into an evangelical abortion debate? Puke.
I just hope everyone is aware that the reason Christians are anti-abortion is because THEY EAT BABIES.
Sure the moral implications are immense, but it's kind of like the game bioshock in it's own right for me. What can man accomplish without the moral restrictions that man has put upon itself to restrict it from reaching a new plane of intelligence. The possibilities of artificial life are immense and they could either be the savior in medical fields and intelligence research; or they could doom us all with an army of unstoppable super soldiers. I do however think that eventually christians will put a sock in it and let us do it to prove that they were right or something, so yeah, eventually. I would however like to see it. I mean hell, would make an interesting topic in the news for years to come.
For the record I rarely use the term irregardless I understand that it is not correct. And the point is? Did you honestly not understand? Are you pro-abortion or are you anti-abortion? If answering the question makes you feel squeemish then here I'll misspael sumpthing four you. Give you something to go off the topic about. No it is an evangelical genetic manipulation debate at least going by my observation that issues regarding morality in your mind are evangelical issues. Trust me my line of questioning has everything to do with the topic at hand. It just seems that everyone in the forum has been programmed by the Elites. Simple question first then we can go back to the abortion question. Topic= Anchovies on your pizza. Are you pro-anchovies? -or- Are you anti-anchovies?
I would like to see it too. I'm usually pessimistic about things, but I really think that we (the human race) are so fucked that it can't get much worse. I guess that sounds like a pessismistic statement, but I really mean that I'm "pro-genomics". I'm one that has always thought that the textbook was smarter than the teacher and that the computer is better than the brain. I know these are manmade things, but people aren't 'on task' and 'with it' most of the time. I also watched AI and decided that would be the only kid that I would ever want because it doesn't have to eat or poop. This guy (Craig Venter) is sketchy to me (simply because I think he is in it for ego and money) but at least he's not down in a hole in the ground doing his experiments. We know (for the most part) what's going on and I respect that. I also respect what he is trying to accomplish.
And Joeslogic, what about the "anti-abortionists" who go around and blow up clinics and kill doctors? I am guessing that they are really "anti-abortionists" and not "pro-lifers"? That logic (no pun intended) is fucked to me. I don't get people who want to save lives feeling the need to take others. I'm not saying that you are an abortion clinic bomber, I'm just saying that 'anti-abortion' sounds a lot more fanatical than 'pro-life'. I still stand behind the fact that I don't think that a little girl who has been sexually abused should have to give birth to a child. I guess that would make me "pro-abortion".
I guess I should also say that I am pro-capital punishment. And the reason I say this is because I think once someone steps over the line and commits an act that is harmful to someone else, they lose their right to humanity in my eyes.
And one last thing... I am pro-walking contradiction. Some things are so complicated, that you end up contradicting yourself when you smack a 'pro' or 'anti' label on it.
I have to agree,the whole pro-life,pro-choice debate is so complicated that there are compelling arguments for both sides ex: pro choice- a woman's health is in danger carrying a baby to full term,a fetus is diagnosed with a birth defect or disease, pro life: parents who can't conceive and want to adopt regardless of the babies condition. The pros and cons of each side can be argued to the end of time and ultimately it will come down to the choice of the woman, as it is her body and she will have to live with her decision right or wrong for the rest of her life. It is funny how we supposedly live in free societies and have the right to make our own choices in life,yet we feel the need to have our elected officials make some of the most important decisions for us,as if they know what is best for each persons life better than the individual does. The government should stay out of our lives and do what they do best ,try to get enough campaign contributions to get elected again as it is not the best candidate that gets elected now but the one who has the most money to destroy their opponents reputation. But that is another topic altogether. Oh, and Joe,Im anti-anchovies,they just don't belong on pizza.
Joe, you need to understand that there is a difference between morals, ethics, and sheer pragmatism. I don't think genetic manipulation is immoral or unethical. I think it's interesting but potentially dangerous. As for abortion, I don't want one (I have three kids already... and if I got pregnant, I'd have a fourth) but I don't care if someone else gets one, because IMO there is a huge difference between an embryo (a developing human organism that may someday be an individual but cannot survive outside the womb) and a baby (a human being). And I disagree with the concept that abortion is wrong except in cases of rape and incest... the fetus didn't rape or molest anyone, so if abortion is murder then it's murder, period. My personal feeling is that abortion is bad and to be avoided whenever possible, much like sinus surgery.
I'm anti-abortion just like I'm anti-bad hair day. Some times weather you like it or not you just have a bad hair day what can I say. I guess you could say "That's not true if you were truly anti-bad hair day you would become a trial lawyer then a presidential candidate and have an entourage of beauty consultants follow you around all over the place. But these people are taking it all out of context. From your own description I would say that you are anti-abortion and have come to acknowledge that not everything is black and white and therefore that it is reasonable to accept something you are against as the lesser of two evils. Regarding of the fact that you accept it as a solution to a problem does not make you pro-abortion. Me I'm anti-abortion like I am anti-flatulence. Except that is in cases of my own as it is my observation that my flatulence is usually quite pleasant. Truly an exception for sure because I'm certain abortion has nothing pleasant to offer any party involved. But what can I say my shit doesn’t stink.
Ok Blue so you're anti-abortion and like Pukey understand that there are complicated situations where it is in you're judgment a necessary evil. And that’s perfectly fine why are people programmed to not respond or take a position? I can tie this whole thing together by getting a response. But the ones who refuse to take a position will when I do tie it all together have the advantage of then flopping conveniently on their decided position.
I didn't say that abortion was murder and only acceptable in cases of rape or molestation. I just don't think that a child should be forced by law or society to carry a baby because some sick bastard molested them. I think there are other circumstances in which abortion is probably best for all parties concerned. I just don't appreciate some people's callous attitude towards it. For instance, a woman can have an abortion up to 6 mos (2 trimesters) pregnant. At that point, a fetus is capable of living outside the womb. I know it's not an embryo, but goddamn, you carry the 'product of your loins' for 6 mos and then decide you want to kill it? If you're going to do it, shit or get off the pot. Otherwise, you are seriously crossing the line between an unidentifiable blob and a little baby. Is there a difference between killing and murder? I don't like to kill bugs or spiders. I usually try to catch them and put them outside. A life is a life to me, regardless of what it is. However, I like to kill mosquitoes and ticks. I also like to kill bad bacteria and germs. I would also like to think that I would have the courage to blast someone's brains out that broke into my house. Killing is conditional for me. Now just for the sake of arguing: 'An embryo cannot live outside the womb'... not technically true. -Etopic pregnancy- Bad situation... someone always dies from it.
I didn't say you did, dude. I wasn't addressing what you said, but rather bringing up a related issue that I see "pro-lifers" flip-flopping on all the time. If I recall correctly, at least in my state, you must have medical reasons to terminate after 3 months. For instance, a friend of mine had an abortion at around 6 months because the ultrasound showed that the baby's brain was developing outside of its skull... an untreatable defect which would have cased the baby to die in horrible agony at birth. I think that's reasonable. Killing is not the same as murder. Killing is most often undesirable, unless you are killing for food. So in any given instance, the decision has to be made; is this act of killing reasonable? Is the consequence of not killing more harmful than the consequence of killing? I see your point, and although I dislike semantical arguments (for obvious reasons) I will clarify: I was using common, simplistic terms to convey the concept of viability. The embryo does not survive ectopic pregnancy. As you said, someone always dies... usually just the embryo, sometimes both the mother and the embryo. Therefore an ectopic pregnancy is not viable.
Pragmatism is great I just think we fool ourselves about what is practical and what is not. You could say one mans pragmatism is another mans foolishness. I think the research is good when put to good use. We fight wars against countries on two fronts. Wars of violence and wars of philosophy. There is a philosophical war being waged against this country and anyone else in the world who opposes socialism. And the fighters do not wear uniforms and boots and helmets. They wear shirts and ties and speak softly and use all means they are capable of to get the message across in massive sheer volume. A good example is the movie posted by Homer that is full of contradictions however in the end leaves reasonable people to assume the worst of their own country. In deed one mans pragmatism is another’s foolishness. My proposal is to use this genetic manipulation on massive populations of Arabs we are fighting to make whole geographical areas sterile. By pro-abortionist standards this would be perfectly ethical seeing it would be a peaceful, non-harming, non-violent way to wage a war. Pretty soon either the massive migration of Muslims to Western Europe would either end or Since the population of people in for instance Iran would peacefully be well say 45. We could just walk in and take over they would be glad to have some company anyways. For that matter how about a genetic manipulation making all females only capable of one child that would be very humane and we would not need to worry about our country changing to much due to migration. I think it is a very pragmatic approach.
Yes, it is a pragmatic approach. Unethical and immoral, but pragmatic indeed. My issue with the risks of genetic manipulation is separate from my issues with the appropriate uses of technology. Those are two separate arguments.
Multiple times more ethical than abortion of a living being because one finds the individual life just to troublesome. We are talking about killing no one. There is nothing live to kill simply sterilization. And anyone who believes abortion is acceptable cannot deny this is the key to word peace, hunger, and famine. The scientist who creates a way to accomplish it on a large scale should be given the Nobel Peace prize.
I kind of always wanted to see the X-men thing really happen. For some reason, I think it would be the most hardass thing ever. Sitting on a roof with a bunch of cheetoes, watching them fight. So yeah, if artificial life can bring that to me, I would have no problems with it.
