You're quite right. People shouldn't be listening to assholes like Limbaugh. But they also shouldn't be listening to self-absorbed individuals such as Michael J. Fox.

Now hold on, hold on! Don't start yelling at me yet. Is it wrong for Michael J. Fox to be self-absorbed? Hell no. If I had his disease, then I'd probably be highly self-absorbed, too. If I shouldn't stop my body from shaking and you said to me, "Lewis Ranja, we might have a cure for your disease. All it requires is that we stomp on one hundred puppies and then feed you their blood" - well, I just might go along with it.

And that's exactly why Fox' opinion on this matter is so incredibly irrelevant, and why it infuriates me that so many people state that he should be listened to because "Hey, he knows what he's talking about!" That's just why he SHOULDN'T be listened to - because he has a personal stake in the issue.

Fox and all his ilk keep going on about how "This is science and science is good and we must not stop science." But he's wrong. We should stop science. We're reaching an amazing level of science, in which we're maybe a decade away from being able to do everything Isaac Asimov ever dreamed of. And that is precisely why we need to stop this worship of science like a bunch of slack-jawed yokels starings at the ferris wheel, and instead start weighing the views of scientists with the views of ethicists and religious leaders and theoretical thinkers. Otherwise we're a fucking Star Trek planet that the Enterprise hasn't landed on just yet.

Fuck Michael J. Fox.
Ranja | Email | Homepage | 10.31.06 - 6:11 am | #

Yes, fuck Michael J. Fox and anyone else who sees the potential in stem cell research. Why do we want to find cures for diseases? If pennicillin won't cure it, then that's just too damn bad.

Why cure AIDS? God sent us the HIV virus to destroy homosexuals and Africans. Why not let the holy virus do its good work? Why cure cancer? It exists to remind us that to be human is to suffer.

Stem cell research bad. Science bad. Let us pray that we will overcome disease through some miraculous, holy intervention. Or, let us succomb to disease because that must be God's will.

I love the part about including religious and theological leaders in the discussion. Let's start with, um, Ted Haggard. I bet he'd offer a real guiding light in this discussion. Plus it would be nonbiased and anything but hypocritical. It would be a good, open dialogue based on the good of humanity.
Razum | Email | Homepage | 11.06.06 - 10:45 am | #

Wow, did Razum's rhetoric actually qualify as an argument? I'm not sure. I especially love the part about Ted Haggard being a fine representative for the religious community.

You do understand why people have moral problems with embryonic stem cell research, don't you, Razum? Your attempt to compare it with penicillin makes me wonder. Maybe you need to stay away from the blogs and do some independent research for a little while.

The idea of "destroying" human embryos in order to cull parts of their now-dead bodies raises some rather significant moral problems, and these problems do need to be discussed openly. But, perhaps, you're right. Perhaps moral problems should not get in the way of scientific progress.

After all . . . (open with banjo) Some folk'll never worship science, but then again, some folk'll. Like Razum, the slack-jawed yokel. "Hey, y'all scientists, what's goin' on over here?!"
Ranja | Email | Homepage | 11.06.06 - 11:06 am | #

Yes, let's discuss as a society. Dialogue is good. But let's not condemn progress as immoral because we don't understand it or because it doesn't fall under the guidelines of what the religious right and their zealots define as "morally acceptable."

We have the ability to raise viable stem cells in laboratories without terminating a pregnancy or cheating a conception from life. The good that can come from this research is immeasurable, if you're of the thinking that curing maladies that plague humans is a good thing.

Now, tell me, what's immoral about harvesting stem cells from from a plastic dish when said dish's contents were engineered in a lab for no purpose other than to harvest stem cells?
Razum | Email | Homepage | 11.06.06 - 12:45 pm | #

Stem cells don't just appear in a plastic dish. They have to have been taken from something. Now if you're talking about Adult Stem Cell Research or the possibility of taking stem cells from the umbilical cord, then that is quite different from Embryonic Stem Cells, and I doubt that you'd find many people who would argue against using that type of research in an effort to cure diseases.

It's not around those methods that the argument revolves, of course. It's Embryonic Stem Cells that causes people such as myself to question exactly how much our society is truly progressing by using such methods. I'm an Agnostic, so I can't really fall under your Zealous Religious Right category, so I must be under the uninformed category, which confuses me a bit - but I guess that because I'm uninformed.

When uninformed people call informed people uninformed, then only criminals will carry guns.
Ranja | Email | Homepage | 11.06.06 - 2:01 pm | #

I don't get it. Criminals carry guns now. What are you saying?

Joking aside, I was referring to the fact that these embryos are genetically engineered in the laboratory. The scientists, not nature, created them with the express intention that their development would only progress so far and then they'd be used as stem cell generators. I'm not saying the moral validity of that practice isn't worth discussing. I'm saying that the RR throws money, rhetoric and scare tactics around in an attempt to convince the moderate public that most forms of stem cell research are immoral on the grounds that these labs are "murdering babies."

That isn't the case. Sorry for lumping you in with the RR as your intitial comments regarding the actor in question sounded very much like something I've heard from that extremist sector.
Razum | Email | Homepage | 11.06.06 - 4:17 pm | #

It seems much more reasonable to disagree with Michael J. Fox than "fuck" him or ridiculing him for his disease for that matter. Of course neither Ranja nor Rush can limit themselves to simply disagreeing with someone. Ridicule is always necessary.

Wow, did Razum's rhetoric actually qualify as an argument? I'm not sure.

Classic Ranja. Having not yet set forth a coherent argument himself yet, he feigns anger at others for being merely sarcastic.

I assume Ranja's argument is that since embroys could potentaially develop into human life, they should be sancrosanct and off limits to research. So, now, I've made your argument for you, my response is: what about frozen empbryos that were frozen by persons hoping to make people some day out of them, but did not before they hit their expiration date. They would otherwise be thrown away. Why not use them for disease curing research? Republicans say no. What does Ranja say?
Kop | Email | Homepage | 11.06.06 - 5:00 pm | #

Oh, my stars and garters. Why must we live in such a cruel, cruel world where, in the eyes of so many, simply saying that somebody can go fuck themselves nullifies an entire argument? Can one not both put forth a fine argument and, at the same time, say that Alex P. Keaton should go fuck himself? I believe they can, and I will not bend to pressure saying otherwise. And, in defending this practice, I will say two things to ol' Kop -

(1) Don't try to lump me in with Rush. I was not ridiculing Fox. I would never do such a thing. i was simply saying that he is rightfully self-absorbed and should go fuck himself. Big difference.

(2) I suppose you are correct. I did not initially put forth an argument for why I and so many others believe Embryonic Stem Cell Research is morally wrong. The reason I didn't do this is because: (A) That wasn't the point of my writing. I wasn't attacking stem-cell research, so much as making an argument for why, in our modern age, all scientific research should be observed, not just through a lens of progress, but through a lens of morality. and (B) I just sort of assumed the people reading this would know why people are opposed to Embryonic Stem Cell Research. I guess I was wrong on that. Sorry.

(2) Clearly, point 1(B) was a flaw in my argument. (How lawyerly was that sentence, huh??) I say this because you don't seem to have an understanding of why my side views this as being so morally repugnant. Step away from the NPR for a moment, and listen to what us common folk say. We don't beleive that an embryo has a potential to be human life. We believe that an embryo IS human life. That's an incredible distinction. And, since I don't like to be half-ass on my beliefs, I do go one step forward and believe that believe that any In Vitro ferilization process that produces additional embryos who will then be killed should be abolished.

I realize that this won't happen, of course. In fact, it's only going to get worse now that parents are going to learn that they can produce seven embryos, pick the one without the flaws and then get rid of all those horrible, horrible invalid children what with all their heart tremors and their propensity for baldness. However, the impossibility of ridding our nation of this ufliness does not mean that I should support it. And I certainly shouldn't support permitting these mad scientists from receiving money for their culling processes.

Is that a coherent enough argument? It might sound Republican, I realize. But I assure you that it comes from a small sect of the American population consisting of heavy-drinking Agnostic Independents who read and think too much. I think Christopher Hitchins and I are the only members of that group, but, by God, we will rule the world some day.

And, oh yes, Fuck In Vitro Fertilization.
Ranja | Email | Homepage | 11.07.06 - 11:13 am | #

And, Raxum - How dare you say that i'm not a member of the "extreme sector". I take great pride in being a member of the extremists. In a country that puts people in jail for inhaling a powder, but pays people money to suck the brains out of a baby's skull, where it is okay for the government to steal money from my paycheck, but it is wrong for me to give a woman fifty dollars for a blowjob (Damn undercover cops!!!!), where it is okay to drug our children into obedience with Ritalin, but it is wrong to smack them on the ass with a paddle . . . . well, in this kind of country, it is the non-extremists who should be ashamed.
Ranja | Email | Homepage | 11.07.06 - 11:17 am | #

We don't beleive that an embryo has a potential to be human life. We believe that an embryo IS human life. That's an incredible distinction.

I understand what you are saying and think it is a reasonalb defensible belief, but it is not obvioulsy, objectively true. Two quick questions which are not rhetorical. Is a zygote human life? Is an unfertized egg human life? I would anticipate you would say yest to the first and no to the second. I'm not sure why. Other than your personal defintion of human life just happens to be dependant on fertilization. Whereas unfertizlied eggs and zygotes could both just as easily be called human reproductive material, neither of which create some moral imperatives.

Furthermore, our government on a daily basis coldly calculates the value of life versus other life. Whether a high value target in Iraq is worth a certain number of civilian lives. If the number of civilian lives is sufficiently low, they go after the target. I assume you are not morally opposed to this practice. So why is some human life, as in real humans, sacrificable for a perceived higher good, whereas other human life, as in zygotes comprising a few cells, not sacrificable for a perceived higher good?

Just asking.
Kop | Email | Homepage | 11.07.06 - 7:14 pm | #

Well put, Kop.

Ranja: Yes, to be extreme can be a good thing. You just happen to be extreme in a tenuous direction. However independent and agnostic you claim to be, you sure could pass as George W. Bush or Assface at a Halloween party and no one would know the difference.
Razum | Email | Homepage | 11.08.06 - 9:04 am | #

Excellent, Kop. These are the various types of questions that should be asked and debated and contemplated by the philosophical thinktanks that I envision as a counter to the slackjawed yokel's willingness to believe every scientific step forward is a good step for society as a whole.

I do have to say, though, that your second question is much more challenging than the first. In regards to the first - an unfertilized egg has no comparison to a fertilized egg/zygote. The sperms that I ejaculated a while back to the images of some hot gangbang action have no potential for life on their own. It's simply no comparison. A fertilized egg is where it begins, and that is where the more complication arises - when does this life become sacred. At fertilization? At six months in the womb? At nine months? The second it is removed from the woman, but not the second before? That's the one that send my brain in circles. I prefer to simply err on the side of caution, and believe that life is sacred at the moment it begins - the moment of fertilization. But, again, there's no comparison to an unfertilized egg or sperm.

The second question is, as I said, the more challenging one, and it would be one that would have my Governor's Thinktank debating for hours. My answer to this would be as follows -

Assuming that both scenarios would actually result in a positive result for society AND the killing of these innocents is unavoidable, then I would distinguish them in this way -

In the Iraq scenario, we would be killing innocent civilians from a separate nation. They are another people, another country, another tribe.

In the Embryonic Stem Cell scenario, we would be killing innocent civilians from our own nation. We would be taking the lives of our own people, from our own tribe.

Both scenarios should be avoided, if possible. However, it is a sick culture that sacrifices its own people - that raises them for spare parts. And right there could be another reason why this second one seems so much more awful to me. In the Iraqi scenario, we are not raising those civilians to be killed. In the Stem Cell scenario, we are creating the lives simply to be killed. For both of these reasons, it is much more horrid.

You likely disagree, and that is why I would insist that you be on my Governor's Thinktank.
Ranja | Email | Homepage | 11.08.06 - 4:23 pm | #

And, Razum, you are the first person I have ever met in six years who has compared me to President Bush. Quite spectacular. You deserve some type of award for drawing this comparison based on a single issue. You are right, though. I claim to be an agnostic, but deep down inside - I'm Hindu. You have found me out. Well done.
Ranja | Email | Homepage | 11.08.06 - 4:26 pm | #

Ranja:

Your ire raises so easily. I hope you're on medication for hypertension. Forgive me for verbalizing the obvious parallels between your stance on stem cell research and the stance of the wonderful leader of our free world. Not that you may not differ on other issues, but on this one, let's call a spade a spade.

Furthermore, you wrote: "In the Iraq scenario, we would be killing innocent civilians from a separate nation. They are another people, another country, another tribe.
In the Embryonic Stem Cell scenario, we would be killing innocent civilians from our own nation. We would be taking the lives of our own people, from our own tribe."

This may be the dumbest thing I've ever heard. You've topped Assface by acquiring a new level of ridiculousness here. As humans, we are all one tribe. We're all modern-day derivatives of the scientific freaks that crawled out of the same ocean muck. Remember your John Donne:

"No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less ... any man diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."

Have we seen yet another trait you and George W. share? He obviously doesn't mind killing Iraqis either. But, I guess in your point of view it's better to kill an Iraqi than to terminate an egg that just allowed a sperm cell to hop aboard.

I'll be fair here. I know it isn't right to compare you to W. on one issue alone. What about two? Is there a trend here or do (hopefully) the similarities stop here?
Anonymous | Email | Homepage | 11.08.06 - 8:20 pm | #

By the way, in case you didn't figure it out, the last post came courtesy of Razum. I'm going to go jack off to porn now and then watch in horror as all the X's and Y's that I shoot out swim to a miserable, immoral death on a towel while our country kills people overseas, which is perfectly fine 'cause they're not in my tribe.
Razum | Email | Homepage | 11.08.06 - 8:22 pm | #

I'm not quite certain where you came to believe that my ire was raised. Perhaps wishful thinking on your part. One of the few instances in which my ire is raised is when uncreative individuals steal my jokes - which you have done with the masturbation. Please, Razum, if you can't come up with your own opinions, at least come up with your own jokes.

And if the whole "different tribe" thing is the dumbest thing you've ever heard, then you need to get out more. Despite your enlightened philosophy, the idea that a nation should care more about its own people than it does the people of another nation is not only a historically sound principle, but it is also a highly sensible principle - especially when you take into account the fact that some nations have different ideals than others and, as is the case with current sections of Iraq, some nations seek the destruction of other nations. It's amazingly sensible.

And yes, those of you who smile and sway when you hear "Imagine" play on the radio might disagree with this notion, but it's the reality of the world that we live in.

You're a total jackoff, by the way. That's not part of my argument, mind you. It's just something that should be said.
Ranja | Email | Homepage | 11.08.06 - 11:11 pm | #

Yes, I'm a total jackoff. Thanks for the compliment. I've been waiting two days for you to say that.

And I didn't steal your joke, by the way. I made fun of its absurdity. Apparently you don't understand sarcasm. It's okay, we can work on that.

I'll agree that it's good policy for a nation to put the well being of its citizens ahead of the well being of other nations' citizens when a choice has to be made. If forced to watch either Americans or Canadians starve to death, well, I'm feeding America first. No argument there.

But you aren't talking about putting the welfare of Americans ahead of the welfare of Iraqis. Your specific argument is that it is better to kill innocent Iraqi civilians than to harvest stem cells from embryos. Apparently you see no difference between walking, thinking human beings and a mass of cellular matter that has the potential to develop into walking, thinking human beings.

I'd prefer if you'd go back to simply saying "Fuck stem cell research." It's a much more sensible and intelligent argument on your behalf.
Razum | Email | Homepage | 11.09.06 - 9:13 am | #

Oh, Razum, you slack-jawed yokel. In my view, a life is quite simply a life. Whether its two days-old or thirty years. It deserves protection. The inability of your kind to see this is why their is an inpenetrable wall between two sides of America on this issue.

And if that's your idea of sarcasm, then I highly recommend you watch some Curb Your Enthusiasm episodes or maybe some Woody Allen movies - because you're clearly in need of help there.
Ranja | Email | Homepage | 11.09.06 - 12:26 pm | #

it is a sick culture that sacrifices its own people

Then we must be a sick culture. We sacrifice our own people in Iraq too, not just Iraqis. We sacrifice our own in our judicial system, sending innocent people to jail and death. They are sacrificed so that we can send guilty people to jail and death. We choose the greater good inspite of the innocents lost. I assume that you are fine with those sacrifices.

sperms ... have no potential for life on their own.

Likewise, zygotes or embryoes have no potential for life on their own. They like sperm or unfertilized eggs also require active intervention by their fully formed human hosts. I do not see a moral imperative from these natural states. This reasoning is how Catholics reason to sex for procreation only. The nature of reproduction dictates that moral imperative. It's like saying that we have a moral imperative to eat meat because we have cuspids which have evolved for the purpose of eating meat, and vegetarians are immoral because they do not follow the logic set forth by nature. Nature should not its own dictate morality. More thought and factors need to be considered, such as the greater good (John Stewart Mill) and the effect of treating people as a means merely (Kant). Anyway....
Kop | Email | Homepage | 11.09.06 - 10:05 pm | #

Now you're just tossing up softballs.

If you want to discuss moral imperatives, a country certainly has a moral imperative to defend itself from both foreign invaders and from domestic crime. Now, if you don't believe that a particular war is justified or that our judicial system is imperfect, then that's a complaint - but it's a far cry from saying that we're "sacrificing" Americans. That's just melodrama.

And saying that a embryo has no potential for life on its own is true, but to say that shoul affect its abilitiy to live is savage and inhuman. A one-year old child has no potential for life on its own either. It will starve just as easily as the embryo will starve without additional assistance. A morality can exist for both these examples which is completely separate from any pure natural view. In fact, it can be argued that our desire to defend these young - and not eat them or desert them - is part of what makes us what we are and actually puts us above any nature-dictated morality.

In fact, I'd have to turn the whole argument around on you. My side, you see, believes that there is something precious about human life. From the very start, there is something distinct and precious about it that earns it a right to protection. And yes, we do kill and commit barbaric acts. But to actually kill our own unborn so that they can be turned into spare parts for others - that is a level of barbarism that is simply too far gone, and one from which we'll never be able to come back. Instead, we'll just plunge deeper and deeper into a society that has no respect for its no life and no clear vision of moral laws. That's where your side comes from - that there is nothing sacred and there is no distinct objective rightness. That's the law of nature, where nature defines right and wrong. I'd prefer not to be dragged down to that level.
Ranja | Email | Homepage | 11.10.06 - 12:52 pm | #

Now, if you don't believe that a particular war is justified or that our judicial system is imperfect, then that's a complaint - but it's a far cry from saying that we're "sacrificing" Americans. That's just melodrama.

Sending men and women to die for our country is not a sacrifice? To say that it is is being melodramatic? WTF are you saying?

My side, you see, believes that there is something precious about human life. From the very start, there is something distinct and precious about it that earns it a right to protection.

... subject to various exceptions when your side thinks that killing people is justified. Which is back to where I was trying to take this: what are criteria for determining a legitimate exception to the general rule that life should be protected? You have not put forth anything coherent here to legitimate the exceptions you accept and exceptions you reject.

deeper and deeper into a society that has no respect for its no life and no clear vision of moral laws.

Now who is being melodramatic? We are debating what are legitimate exceptions to the general rule that life should be protected. We disagree about some exceptions are legitmate and criteria for them. Your accusation is exaggerated that I am somehow suggesting a framework where there is no respect for life, no clear vision of moral laws, there is nothing sacred, and there is no distinct objective rightness. But, I know you have a bit of the penchant for hyperbole.
Kop | Email | Homepage | 11.12.06 - 12:53 pm | #