Stemcell research....GO!

[Feba]

Re: Stemcell research....GO!

If she could go and legally get the fetus killed, why the double murder charges?

Because society considers assault on pregnant women especially abhorrent. Just the same as how criminals are treated more harshly when they attack the elderly, children, women, the disabled and sick, and so on.

But Myspace? Really?

Yes. Use the fucking google. Web 2.0 is about STRATEGIES, not TECHNOLOGIES.

In fact, I feel they should make that illegal in the coming future as to not have stem cells become a female only cash cow.

The legality of selling organic tissue is going to be very interesting to watch in the future. Currently, we allow men to sell sperm, and women to sell eggs. You can sell blood plasma. But you can't sell a kidney. Where will we draw the line in the future?

Obviously, we can't say "No bodily tissue can be sold"; that would keep people from selling their hair, such as to a wig maker. It's legal to pay someone to have your child for you, but not legal to buy a child. In a somewhat related area, it's legal to pay someone to have sex with you if you have a camera and intend to sell the footage; but not if you just want sex.

Confronting morally founded laws with logical arguments leads us down this road-- would society choose to outlaw pornography, or legalize prostitution? Likewise, if drugs are bad, why haven't tobacco and alcohol been criminalized? Would society rather legalize drugs (of any sort, not just 'soft' drugs like marijuana), or take another shot at prohibition? And then there's ages of consent; if it's legal in one state, why shouldn't it be legal if you go on vacation to another state? And if it's legal for a 15 year old and a 17 year old, why shouldn't it be legal after the 17 year old happens to have a birthday? What if someone is a day outside the legal range; is that ok? A week? A month? You get to the point where you either draw the line in a complete lack of logic, founded only on some arbitrary line, or you basically permit everything. Unless you try to develop some physiological marker; but then would you accidentally outlaw midget sex? How do you determine 'maturity' in a case where the markers you've set up legally don't work because of some medical condition? Do you require sex licenses?

We see this sort of arbitrariness all the time in video game ratings, too. Most of us agree that video games having age ratings is probably a good thing; but at the same time we all probably have some problems with the ESRB. Why does making something grayscale and blurry make it more acceptable than the same act in the most realistic style we can do? (See Manhunt2) Who decides if 'shit' is more acceptable than 'damn'? Where do you draw the line between slim clothing and a game being intentionally titillating? Is it more ok to show women in bikinis at a beach than in a suburb? Is it ok if you make their breasts smaller? Turn off jiggle physics? Where do you draw the line between fan service and pornography? (DOA: Volleyball) If a game has legitimate artistic and gameplay merit outside getting the player from porn to porn, should it be given a softer rating? (MGS, particularly 4) Should being a good game, with true artistry entitle a game to a lower rating? Should being outright pornography raise it; even if the content is softer than that found in 'actual' games?

And then you have the whole AO problem-- if a game cannot be commercially successful without being arbitrarily 'ok' (see MadWorld), aren't we basically censoring ourselves? Why is it ok for a game like MadWorld to slice people up, impale people with road signs, etc. but not do some other incredibly gory act? Why is it ok for a game like God of War to have characters having sex just out of frame, with audible evidence, but not ok for a game like San Andreas to have characters having sex on screen? Why is it ok for a game like Oblivion to have a 'nude texture' in the files, which players can access, but Hot Coffee merits an AO-- despite the fact that they both took players modifying the game? For that matter, how can ANY game with an online function be rated anything but AO? Sure, the ESRB requires a "your experience may change during online play" tag, but how does that protect children when there's a bit fat "E" on the front of the game? Should SE start banning people who have inappropriate communications, even in /tell? /p? /ls? Why is it ok (from a rules standpoint) for me to say to an LS 'Man, women need to get back in the kitchen!', but not to /sh it? Both of those may offend someone who could hear it. Is it ok if I'm the LS owner? If it's acceptable in the LS? If I know everyone in the LS is ok with it? If I '/s FUCK' in the middle of a forest, and nobody hears it, does it merit GM activity? What if I THINK nobody would hear it? What if I /sea the area, and seeing that nobody is there, shout vulgarities? Is it ok as long as nobody else zones in?

tl;dr version: rules and laws are far more arbitrary than they are logical.

[ShepardG]

Re: Stemcell research....GO!

tl;dr version: rules and laws are far more arbitrary than they are logical.

Feba, it doesn't matter if your a boy or a girl, this is true, so very true.

What makes a Human a Human? Is it only based on our personal views, our faith that all Humans have some sort of soul? If all humans have some sort of soul, when does it(the soul) begin it's "Existance"? When the Sperm enters the egg, and the scientifically proven chemical reaction occurs that combine two incumbent DNA strands and being cellular division?

Some animals eat their young, usually the weakest or lamest, to ensure the others of the litter have enough to eat, to ensure their survival. Are we so different as animals that we find this practice abhorrent?

What makes us different from these animals? Emotions? Self awarness? Language? We humans have placed these restrictions on ourselves for reasons that have been debated back and forth for longer than most of us have been on the planet combined.
We push from one said, and we push back from the other, and all because humans have different views of what's right and what's wrong. And in actuality, both sides are trying to define the ultimate definition of what's right and wrong for the other.

I feel this just goes to show that science and organized religion don't mix. Having faith isn't having religion. And having Religion isn't necessarily having faith.

Organized religion was brought about to answer questions that human beings (who are fucking impatient) couldn't answer at the time. Then as science evolved and started to answer some of these questions, and with all honesty, ideas on how to answer them all, Religions became fearful that they would lose their masses.
Give a random human a test on the street:

1. You can know the truth about one thing, and I can prove to you that it is the truth through science, or...
2. You can be reasured that your faith in something is right, and I can prove to you that it is through Religion.

Most people are going to want to know the truth. Faith is a great thing to have for those questions that can't be answered, but as Technology and Science advance, humans get sand in their vagina's because, often times, their faith in something is proven incorrect.

Not to mention that the pope would lose his cool ass hat. (Politics uses Religion, and vice-versa, which is another reason I hate politics)

I didn't mean to steer this topic into a debate on organized religion: Yay or Nah, but It has to come up as this is the fundamental underlying argument as to the right or wrong of Stem cell research.