Skip to main content

View Diary: Open Science Thread: Smackdown Edition (222 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Why (0+ / 0-)

    are you so oddly reluctant to define your own terms Newstart? I asked simple questions, what part of conception are you referring to? I asked what specific human right do you mean? I gave you several physiological and legal scenarios to get you going in the context of the very questions and points you introduced. I responded, twice, that I'm satisfied with the current legal benchmarks that pertain to a whole host of issues directly relevant to our topics, I even asked you for further clarification so I could be more helpful, and you respond in part with something that has nothing to do with any of those subjects -- like babies five minutes old or five mins prenatal. If you want to pick two year-olds or five year-olds to define or award human rights, fine, lets hear your case: why should we award human rights at a certain age and what rights are we talking about exactly? Have at it. Because generally speaking I'm fairly satisified with the current benchmarks, but open to tweaking them ... Is that response not getting through for some reason?

    Jesus, how hard should it be to answer at least one or two of the questions you brought up with enough gross precision so that we can both make certain we're talking about the same thing, without running away or changing the subject again?  Would it be fair to remind you that you began this discussion, you in fact insisted on it, with apparent arrogance and sarcasm I might add, and vaguely implied I was either unwilling or unable to defend my position scientifically or legally? Now, just a few posts later, you seem to be rapidly drowning under the weight of the most basic legal specifics and scientific terminology, on the verge of sinking into incoherent whining territory and splashing about wildly for new rhetorical purchases, and frankly, appearing less and less remotely competent or perhaps just incapable in even keeping up in clarifying your own queries on either the scientific or legal aspect of the very conversation you started using your own rules in the process.

    Read UTI, your free thought forum

    by DarkSyde on Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 03:46:59 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  And why can you not understand ... (0+ / 0-)

      It is you, after all, that are aguing that blastocysts have no rights.  I am merely asking you to provide some legal, moral, and most importantly scientific justification for your position.

      Lacking any such justification, why should anyone consider your opinions to be worthwhile to even listen to?

      That since you are the one blogging about how blastocysts have no rights, that my definitions are not the ones that matter, but that yours do?

      What is the point of asking for my definitions when it is your definitions that apply to your assessment and your moral judgement that blastocysts should be considered as no having human rights?

      So, you are satisified with some vague set of benchmarks what have yet to be defined.  Please answer the question posed, repeated here yet again so perhaps you will let it sink in this time:

      "At what point in the development cycle from fertilized egg to delivered baby does someone make the transition from non-human, expendable garbage to being fully human with all of the rights and protections that we all expect from society, and what is the scientific basis for your answer?"

      Please cite whatever benchmarks you want in this respect, but acutally cite them.   I have provided many links to things to back up my definitions, I would appreciate something more specific than "standard benchmarks".  Please cite whatever benchmarks you are using to make your apparant claim that blastocysts should have no human rights?

      I don't want to debate my justification for this position, after all it is your position, I would like to debate your position with something more specific than "standard benchmarks".

      •  Re (0+ / 0-)

        I would like to debate your position with something more specific than "standard benchmarks".

        Then you'll have to ask a specific question and focus on adressing the resulting dialogue regardless if it suits your hopes. I won't do your work for you and I can't read your mind, why would you possibly think otherwise?

        Read UTI, your free thought forum

        by DarkSyde on Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 04:22:39 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Because I assume (0+ / 0-)

          that you are a man of principles, and being scientifically inclines I aslo assumed that you based you positions on well thought out and researched facts.  As such it should be relatively simple for you to provide, should it not?

          See http://www.dailykos.com/...

          •  Are (0+ / 0-)

            you going to define your right to life statement or go down in defeat? I'm willing to be fair about this, I'll give you a day or two if you feel you need it.

            Read UTI, your free thought forum

            by DarkSyde on Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 04:32:44 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Ha. (0+ / 0-)

              See

              http://www.dailykos.com/...
              http://www.dailykos.com/...

              You haven't defeated anything, my friend.  You have continually avoiding providing YOUR POSITION from the very beginning and I'll be happy to point that out.

              As for a definition of "right to life", you're just delaying whatever it is you were intending to say.  I'll just use your technique at this point, I am satisfied with the current standard in that respect.

              •  Correct, (0+ / 0-)

                that's a general response to the general question you asked. I've also probed and offered exemplers and bent over backwards to help you define and qaulify your own terms across a wide range oftopics you introduced. I'm not sure what else I can do to help you. If you have a more specific question I'm happy to try and respond more specifically. You're also welcome to  email me and I won't make the details of your email public without your consent. I get a ton of email, but I'll try and respond. It helps if you keep it brief, specific, and focused.

                Read UTI, your free thought forum

                by DarkSyde on Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 04:42:05 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  It suddenly occurs to me ... (0+ / 0-)

      that you may not, in fact, have thought about the scientific rationale behind your contention.  That you may not have in fact thoughtfully considered the issues and scientific evidence at hand for why you believe what you do with respect to blastocysts.

      Have you actually ever thought about the fundamental question of "when does someone become a human?"  Have you ever come to a specific conclusion on that point?

      If you have, please provide a description of the thought processes and the scientific facts which lead you to come to your conclusion that blastocysts should not be considered "human" from a Human Rights perspective (if, in fact, that was your conclusion)?

      •  No son (0+ / 0-)

        changing the subject again won't save your ass at this point. I'd say your Hail Mary last chance at this point is to precisely define what you mean by 'right to life' since you brought it up, not me. In fact, I think it's critical to both your heretofore muddled argument and immediate credibility at this point.

        Read UTI, your free thought forum

        by DarkSyde on Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 04:29:19 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  How am I changing anything. (0+ / 0-)

          This is the very point I have been getting at all along.  READ THE FRIGGING POSTS.

        •  Hold on... (0+ / 0-)

          I dig through them for you and highlight how I have been asking YOU for YOUR position all along...

          •  No (0+ / 0-)

            you started this, you introduced the term 'right to life' and I'm asking you for examples, even offering some for your consideration, and asking you what you mean by that. If you can't handle it or don't have the time, I enjoyed our discussion and I apreciate your courtesy. Feel free to let me know when you figure it out what it is you're trying to say.

            Read UTI, your free thought forum

            by DarkSyde on Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 04:36:37 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Right to life. (0+ / 0-)

              I am satisfied with the current legal standard for that.

              •  OK (0+ / 0-)

                How about an ecoptic preganancy or severe eclampsia or any of dozens of potentially fatal complications? Ok to abort?

                Read UTI, your free thought forum

                by DarkSyde on Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 04:43:14 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Not up on my medical terms, sorry. (0+ / 0-)

                  Assume that these are examples of conditions that truly threaten the actual life of the mother, then yes, OK to abort.  Mental health arguments?  No.

                  •  Noproblem (0+ / 0-)

                    problem, yes conditions that pose risk to the mother. It sounds so far like you're agreeing with my earlier post that we can treat zygotes and even fetuses differently than we treat other stages in human development. In fact we have to. I don't know if that's the case, that you're finally showing some sense, but if it is, it makes me wonder why you felt obliged to begin this long, drawn out song and dance ritual in which you either feigned ignorance or truly had not thought out your own position enough to understand that I was right and that you agreed with me.

                    That sounds to me like a positive note to take a break on for now. Needless to say, I'll be around if you'd like to puruse it further, and there's plenty of other members who would also probably be willing to do that.

                    Read UTI, your free thought forum

                    by DarkSyde on Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 04:55:36 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I would like to continue this further (0+ / 0-)

                      but agree we need a break.  How should I get your attention again?  Also, these don't have to be marathon sessions, I do realize that you probably have other things going on.  I just want to actually get thoughtful responses rather than anti-religious talking points.  OK?

                      As for your point above, I am not really agreeing that they should be treated differently.  I am just making a pragmatic choice given the set of circumstances that you presented.  If I truly have to choose one over the other, then the choice is pretty simple actually.

                      From a moral perspective this is (not directly analogous to) but similar to the case where someone kills an attacker (of some third party) because they feared for the third parties life.  Here you have to make a choice to infringe on someone's rights (the would be attacker) in favor of someone elses rights (the third party in this case).

                      So I am still treating the zygote/blastocyst/fetus like a full fledged human being, I am just making the inherently moral judgement that the one who will potentially being harming the third party is the one that looses.

                      So I don't think that you have actually uncovered any inconsistency on my part.  Does that make sense (i.e. do you understand the point as opposed to do you agree with it)?

                      Anyway I would appreciate some follow-up when you have some time.  This should actually be worthwhile for you (even though we talk past each other) because it is hopefully challenging you to think your position through for an additional perspective.

                •  Let's just stick to this thread. (0+ / 0-)

                  I fail to see where this is going but I'll play along.

                  This seems to be getting pretty far afield for deciding whether blastocysts have rights.  Again, I have no problem with society saying that in the case of truly having to choose between the life of the mother and the life of the zygote/blastocyst/fetus that the mother takes priority.

            •  Actually... (0+ / 0-)

              It was your inability to answer the primary question that was posed to you all along that that has sent us down a varied set of blind alleys.  You can't seem to focus on a simple question:

              "At what point in the development cycle from fertilized egg to delivered baby does someone make the transition from non-human, expendable garbage to being fully human with all of the rights and protections that we all expect from society, and what is the scientific basis for your answer?"

              This question was directed at YOU, no?  This has always been the primary question I have been asking, no?

              So whose opinion was I referring to when I said "your answer" above?

              No, you are being either deliberately obtuse or as intellectually dishonest as IrishWitch when she refused to answer Farkus24 in the end as well.  And you try to claim that right wingers are intellectually vapid?

              Go ahead, pick up your toys and run home, we BOTH know who has been intellectually dishonest in THIS discussion.

              •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

                And you try to claim that right wingers are intellectually vapid?

                Good grief, are you trying to change the subject again?

                Read UTI, your free thought forum

                by DarkSyde on Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 04:50:20 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  No. (0+ / 1-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Hidden by:
                  DarkSyde

                  And you know it.  I care not for you evasive tactics.  I trust readers to see them for what they are.  If you think that such evasion is somehow digging ME a hole I suspect that you are incorrect.  If you are game, let's continue for a bit more under this thread:

                  http://www.dailykos.com/...

                  While I am at times being agressive to get your attention, I truly do want to know if you have actually thought about when someone's human rights begin.  So I'll play your define the terms game on the above thread, but I would actually like an answer to my question.

                  You can have some time to think it through if you like.  I want to test your intellectual honesty and consistency was has been the point all along.  I just can't get you to commit to any specifics as being YOUR POSITION.

                  •  Human rights (0+ / 0-)

                    means many things far beyond what you've alluded to. They include security rights, liberty rights, due process, etc. Obviously summary arrest and solitary confinement or waterboarding, or lack of due process, have no relevance to zygotes. You can't torture a zygote -- they have no nerve endings for starters -- we dispose of them by the bucket load in IVF clinics alone, and zygotes aren't terribly concerned with the quality of their prison life or their aptitude of their public defender ...

                    Thus, it's not only fair to ask what you mean specifically by human rights in this context, and throw up a few ideas for consideration, it's an absolute prerequisite to moving forward with your purported topic. The only right you stated after a dozen requests or so was the 'right to life' as framed in the Declaration of Independence, an undefined and vague reference likely used for rhetorical effect as much as anything else, which you yourself then went on to make exceptions to -- and I bet I can draw out a lot more exceptions from you with modest effort, some of which are paradoxical.

                    I did however state that for legal rights regarding zygotes or fetuses, like those for children or adults, I'm fairly satisfied for the most part with the current legal benchmarks. Those are precise benchmarks, for example, first trimester for elective abortion or the age of sixteen for a drivers license. I'm open to tweaking them and I'm open to why any argument for why they should or need to be tweaked. For you to then go off on some kind of crusading exchange professing ignorance, pretending I didn't provide exactly what you asked for and within the frame of the discusion you started, and trying to change the subject, or respond to points I never made or implied, is dishonest. You've been dishonest and hostile on this thread from beginning to end, and you've been arrogant, and you've been out of your league on both the legal and scientific aspects of it all. If this is SOP for you, you're not just a compulsive liar, you're an ignorant buffoon prattling on about matters you have so little knowledge of, that you're unaware of you own glaring ignorance.

                    Don't whine to me that you didn't deserve to get shellacked like this, or that my responses haven't been satisfactory, or that I'm being flippant. You brought every bit of this on yourself and you have no one blame, but yourself. I waited until the thread was quiet to take you down and I waited even til now to finish you off gently.  Next time, I may not grant you that luxury. I might ignore you, or I might shred you for kicks and toss the scraps of your cyber body to my invited friends.

                    If you want to tangle with someone who knows their shit, and my friend, based on what you've written so far there's thousands of people here who know it better than you, either do your homework before bragging or insulting the intended recipient, or try a less confrontational approach.

                    Read UTI, your free thought forum

                    by DarkSyde on Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 08:49:28 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  This is rich. (0+ / 0-)

                      You actually believe that you have somehow handed my my a** in a basket?  I trust the readers of this thread to see your continued evasive posturing for exactly what it is.

                      I asked you a very simple and straightforward question:

                      "At what point in the development cycle from fertilized egg to delivered baby does someone make the transition from non-human, expendable garbage to being fully human with all of the rights and protections that we all expect from society, and what is the scientific basis for your answer?"

                      Anyone who cares to read this and the preceeding threads knows very well that I have been asking you to provide YOUR OPINION in this respect so trying to hide behind the lack of any officially recognized scientific definition of when Human Life Begins is purely a copout on your part.

                      So we are all left with the realization that either 1) you understood what I was asking and refused to answer the question honestly, or 2) you don't actually have a well thought out answer as to why you believe what you profess.

                      I had clearly been operating under the assumption that anyone who is scientifically inclined would have already considered their personal position on why it is OK to experiment on human embryos BEFORE blogging on and on about it.

                      Up to this point I gave you the benefit of the doubt and had assumed that 1) above must have been the case.  It was not until late in this thread that the possibility of 2) above even occurred to me.

                      This response and the fact that YOU have been trying to divert the subject away for YOUR position to MINE with the 20 questions routine only underscores the fact that 2) is now the more likely case.

                      As for whether you actually provided any substantive responses, let us note that this response is the first and only post where you have provided a stake in the ground on this topic:

                      Those are precise benchmarks, for example, first trimester for elective abortion or the age of sixteen for a drivers license.

                      Please, point out for me where else you have stated even THIS level of specificity.  Up to this point is has been "current legal benchmarks" like that actually says anything or that there is some universally recognized and accepted set of such "benchmarks".

                      I find it interesting that you find a term like "first trimester" to be "precise" but then go on and on about the subtleties and imprecision of a term like "conception".  You try to highlight how imprecise something that is measure in minutes or, being generous, perhaps hours is and then offer up a term that is measured in weeks at it finest level of precision.  This is absurd on its face, IMHO.

                      OK.  So now you have stated a timeframe at least, the first trimester for elective abortion.  Do you consider this to actually be a responsive answer to my original question, namely is the end of the first trimester YOUR ANSWER to:

                      "At what point in the development cycle from fertilized egg to delivered baby does someone make the transition from non-human, expendable garbage to being fully human with all of the rights and protections that we all expect from society, and what is the scientific basis for your answer?"

                      And if so, does that mean that I can safely assume that you would be willing to defend (on scientific grounds) the end of the first trimester as being the point at which YOU CONSIDER human rights to begin to apply, and more precisely the point at which the Right to Life begins to apply?

                      If you are unwilling to mount a defense of this position then I would, once again, point out that you have not answered my primary question and are thus being non-responsive and/or evasive.

                      If you ARE willing to mount such a defense, please do.  What is the scientific basis for your contention that the end of the first trimester is when we should consider human life to begin, and therefore when the right to life begins to come into play?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site