Sam Harris

Nulono - 10 October 2008 12:45 PM

I oppose scientific progress that comes at the cost of killing people.

And how are you qualified in your opinion about the “personage” of a blastocyst?

Please understand, all opinions are respected with reference to validity.  We have to also consider consequence for such opinions.  My concerns about your opinion are:

1.  If we grant license to the idea of stem-cell research being classified as “murder” then we widen the definition of that crime and cheapen the meaning of “life” itself.

2.  I personally abhor abortion as a means of birth control, but my opinion does not change facts found in Levitt’s work “Freakonomics,” unwanted babies grow-up to be criminals…read the statistics.  You are weighing the moral issue of life/death/suffering before a “human” is present.  I’m more focused on the “death-sentence” that last a life in poverty and ignorance.  Both are sad consequences but yours is idealistic and you bring no answers to the table to change that result.  Are you an “abstinence-only” atheist as well?

3.  You are trading live sentient creatures for potential ones.

We are all “Pro-life” in the respect that we want people to live wonderful lives.  You and others, who push a personal bias over reality are in fact “anti-abortion.”  Say as much.  Again, qualify yourself as to this issue.

Nulono - 09 October 2008 07:43 PM

I wasn’t looking to get into a debate; I just wanted Sam to know that I:

a) am against abortion
b) am against embryonic stem cell research
c) am an atheist
d) exist
e) am incredibly offended by his accusations.
f) all of the above

camanintx - 10 October 2008 01:33 PM

Nulono - 09 October 2008 07:43 PM

I wasn’t looking to get into a debate; I just wanted Sam to know that I:

a) am against abortion
b) am against embryonic stem cell research
c) am an atheist
d) exist
e) am incredibly offended by his accusations.
f) all of the above

Nulono - 10 October 2008 12:45 PM

I oppose scientific progress that comes at the cost of killing people.

If embryonic stem cells come from the blastocyts left over from in-vitro fertilization and would normally be destroyed, how does this constitute killing people? Shouldn’t you also be against in vitro fertilization as well since this is the process that directly leads to the creation then destruction of these cells in the first place?

Nulono - 10 October 2008 12:45 PM

I oppose scientific progress that comes at the cost of killing people.

Then you pretty much just oppose progress.

Why is killing people a special case, why not all living things. I suppose then you would have to sacrifice some of that nice cozy scientific progress to keep your morals.

What about statics. You know, the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few (cells in a dish).

LogicAndReason - 10 October 2008 01:31 PM

Nulono - 10 October 2008 12:45 PM

I oppose scientific progress that comes at the cost of killing people.

And how are you qualified in your opinion about the “personage” of a blastocyst?

How are you qualified in your opinion about the “personage” of a blastocyst?

Please understand, all opinions are respected with reference to validity.  We have to also consider consequence for such opinions.  My concerns about your opinion are:

1.  If we grant license to the idea of stem-cell research being classified as “murder” then we widen the definition of that crime and cheapen the meaning of “life” itself.

Criminalizing slavery also broadened the definition of crime. Every advance in human rights necessarily broadens the definition of crime. This in no way “cheapens” life.

2.  I personally abhor abortion as a means of birth control, but my opinion does not change facts found in Levitt’s work “Freakonomics,” unwanted babies grow-up to be criminals…read the statistics.

You still have no right to kill them. Presumption of innocence, no initiation of force, and all that good stuff.

You are weighing the moral issue of life/death/suffering before a “human” is present.

This is just untrue. And My morals are based on rights, not suffering/

I’m more focused on the “death-sentence” that last a life in poverty and ignorance.

Let’s kill the homeless!

Actually, many unwanted children lead full and happy lives; that is, if they are given a chance and not killed.

Both are sad consequences but yours is idealistic and you bring no answers to the table to change that result.

I do, in fact, want to help the poor and disadvantaged.

Are you an “abstinence-only” atheist as well?

No.

3.  You are trading live sentient creatures for potential ones.

Blastocysts are not “potential people”. They are not sentient, sure, but sentience is not the grounds for personhood. Otherwise, were I to put you under general anesthesia, I could kill you ethically.

We are all “Pro-life” in the respect that we want people to live wonderful lives.

And if their lives will not be wonderful, kill them.

I oppose the initiation of force. We should all try to improve each other’s lives, but we should still not kill.

You and others, who push a personal bias over reality are in fact “anti-abortion.”

This is a direct consequence of being pro-life.

Say as much.

?

Again, qualify yourself as to this issue.

?

camanintx - 10 October 2008 01:33 PM

If embryonic stem cells come from the blastocyts left over from in-vitro fertilization and would normally be destroyed, how does this constitute killing people? Shouldn’t you also be against in vitro fertilization as well since this is the process that directly leads to the creation then destruction of these cells in the first place?

Yes. And I do. Well, to be more precise, I oppose the killing of IVF embryos.

LogicAndReason - 10 October 2008 01:43 PM

Please don’t confuse Nulono with science or reason.  Great questions.

Oh, great. I oppose homicide, and am therefore stupid. Nice ad hominem.

GAD - 10 October 2008 04:27 PM

Then you pretty much just oppose progress.

There are times where every sane person must be a Luddite. For example, if we were learning about biology by nailing people to boards and vivisecting them.

Why is killing people a special case, why not all living things.

Because of the very definition of personhood! I assume you meant “Why is killing humans a special case?”. We have a moral obligation to our own species. Just like with all other species. But, ideally, we could extend protection to all life. However, we can’t hope to do this if we can’t even behave morally with our own kind!

I suppose then you would have to sacrifice some of that nice cozy scientific progress to keep your morals.

Yes. Scientific progression is nice, but, as I’ve stated before, it must not be done immorally (just like everything else in the world! What a shocker!).

What about statics. You know, the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few (cells in a dish).

The lives of many blastocysts outweigh the needs of one girl. The life of only one person would outweigh the health of one person, or of many people.

There are times where every sane person must be a Luddite. For example, if we were learning about biology by nailing people to boards and vivisecting them.

So if knowledge was gained this way (even in the past) that would save your life you would not use it? BTW where do you think most knowledge of biology comes from (especially human).

Because of the very definition of personhood! I assume you meant “Why is killing humans a special case?”. We have a moral obligation to our own species. Just like with all other species. But, ideally, we could extend protection to all life. However, we can’t hope to do this if we can’t even behave morally with our own kind!

And where did this magical “moral obligation” come form?

Yes. Scientific progression is nice, but, as I’ve stated before, it must not be done immorally (just like everything else in the world! What a shocker!).

Whats immoral? What you define it as? Without god (real or man made)there are no absolutes, morals are the opinions of those who hold them. 

The lives of many blastocysts outweigh the needs of one girl. The life of only one person would outweigh the health of one person, or of many people.

Based on what, not nature? There is no scientific bases to back such claims.

I’m not saying I wouldn’t use it, but the process through which it was obtained should be banned.

Where does gravity come from?

So… I can kill you, right?

Morality is not determined by science. That’s like using a thermometer to tell how tall you are.

Sorry, but this is seeming more like Saturday morning generic mad scientist’s modus operandi.

1. Present an obviously immoral plan.
2. Throw around the word “Luddite” a little.
3. Watch as your opponents begin to look anti-science.
4. ???
5. PROFIT!

[You consider a morula a person. I do not. You think that your moral judgment trumps a woman who must make such a decision for herself.

/quote]

At what point should she NOT make a decision for herself? What about partial birth? Is it still her decision?

Exactly; If decisions are not bound by morality, morality is meaningless.

I’m not saying I wouldn’t use it, but the process through which it was obtained should be banned.

There goes most all medical knowledge because it come from experimenting on the living. What do you do when you invent a new medicine, try it on the living. How did you develop it it the first place experiment on the living. Double bind trials let one group suffer even die to get the results. What happens when your sick and the doctors don’t know what the problem is, they try (experiment) on you. Vaccinations sicken and even kill some children, yet we give them to them….... 

Where does gravity come from?

Good question, but irrelevant.

So… I can kill you, right?

You could. But whether that is right or wrong is relative to when, where and why not cosmic law.

Morality is not determined by science. That’s like using a thermometer to tell how tall you are.

No, but science is our definition of nature and nothing in nature (and therefore science) supports claims such as “The lives of many blastocysts outweigh the needs of one girl”.

You say you are an atheist but you argue like a theist…...

Yes, but we experiment on willing participants, and, therefore, no force is required.

There is simply no scientific way to determine morality. Sam’s whole chapter on the subject is based on the unsupported premise that suffering (not rights) is the basis of morality. This huge a logic leap requires a huge leap of faith.

It is true that, if morality were based on suffering, it would be scientific. But we cannot determine scientifically what the basis for morality is. Morality is a philosophical topic.

Yes, but we experiment on willing participants, and, therefore, no force is required.

Tell that to the children.

There is simply no scientific way to determine morality. Sam’s whole chapter on the subject is based on the unsupported premise that suffering (not rights) is the basis of morality. This huge a logic leap requires a huge leap of faith.

The Cosmic Background Radiation does not spell out “Here are Your Rights”. No, rights are man made, did we create them ex nihilo, that is, base them on nothing? If not, what’s the lowest common denominator, pain and suffering seems like a good place to start. If so, then it’s all just opinion…...

“Morality is a philosophical topic.”

Based on? Opinion? If so what is the bases that yours is better then mine or someone else? Because that is a philosophical question with no objective answer we resolve the dilemma by averaging the differences, the sum of which is moral relativism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

Nulono, my wife and I have eight frozen embryos we were saving in case her chemotherapy treatment caused her to have early menopause.  Early menopause didn’t happen and she’s due with a baby in two weeks.  May we send our embryos to you?  You seem to think you have a better plan for them than we do - we opted to donate them to science or destroy them. 

The clock is ticking on your decision because the annual bill of $500 is here and if we don’t pay then we lose our rights over them, which is our intent.  I’m just making it a little more real for you and give you a chance to put your money where your mouth is.

How can so much space be given to a man/woman who does not believe in abortions?  All he/she has to do is not have an abortion.  It is like same sex marriages….why is this even an issue for the government?  I have many friends here in my area of N.W. Phoenix who will donate their organs when needed.  We all plan to give our bodies to science.  I am 75 years old and would have been pleased to donate my eggs to anyone who needed them.  I have beautiful children with no genetic problems.  It’s too late now….

To me this is part of our individual freedoms in America.  I would never force an egg on anyone and never force an abortion on anyone who does not want one.  I would draw the line when anyone tries to legislate a prohibition on egg transfers or abortions.  It is always simple to see where much of the language comes from when any politician runs on the Sanctity of Marriage or Life.  The church bells ring out on those two Amendments to the Constitution. 

The assumption that Americans are Christians sets me off!  The Christians have their own rules and the rest of us have ours.

Sandy - 11 October 2008 07:09 PM

How can so much space be given to a man/woman who does not believe in abortions?  All he/she has to do is not have an abortion.

This is true in a strict sense but not in a general sense. For example, say raping girls who excite you was deemed OK (like in Islam), but having a daughter I don’t want raped for any reason, me not raping girls who excite me would not be enough, I would want to convince others that my morals were better and that rape was bad for our society.