User talk:Vision Insider

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just notice you haven't got a welcome message yet. Here you are

Welcome!

Hello, Vision Insider, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  PeaceNT (Talk | contribs) 08:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stem cell interest

It is interesting, but if we are to talk about Abrahamic religions (which I believe is what you mean by "many religions", since others, such as Hinduism, are not against embryonic stem cell research), then their holy texts actually imply that life begins at spermatogenesis and not at conception (the belief in the idea of the homunculus leads to such ideas as the man's sperm as the seed, and the contradiction against birth control that works prior to conception). I do agree that by every definition an embryo is both alive and human, but I never said that human cells are more important than religion, I said that people are more important than religion. A two day old embryo meets no plausible definition of "person" that doesn't apply to a severed arm or a culture of peripheral lymphocytes, it has no ability of cognition it has no way to live independent. So harvesting (killing is inaccurate, since the cells live on) a ball of eight cells is in no way like killing a person. Also, while a number of people are against embryonic stem cells while for adult stem cells, they tend to be people that don't actually know much detail about the stem cell research field. Basically, embryonic stem cells are not thought of as a therapeutic use, since MHC mismatch makes them unusable without severe immunosuppression. Rather, embryonic stem cells are important because they are the study tool that allows us to learn how to keep adult stem cells pluripotent and how to direct their lineage development. If we stop researching embryonic stem cells, we will not be able to continue learning how to manipulate adult stem cells. In short, the Christian view is internally inconsistent (if life begins at conception why are they against condoms?), and is scientifically impractical. Sad mouse 03:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

They are against condoms because sex is intended to be an act of love with the intention of bringing forth a child and I'm not sure why you say this shows inconsistency. As for the embryos not being self-aware, this is true. In order to maintain consistency, though, this must also apply to those who suffer serious brain-damage from car crashes, those in comatose and, possibly as there is much debate, infants. I do not mind your point of view, rather I think that any follower of religion would actually agree with you: people are more important than anything else. In the case of some religions, the idea of a person is broader than what you would suggest. In response to your last point, I do not study stem cells myself so I cannot tell what would happen. Vision Insider 03:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest. When I just get random abuse I delete it and ignore it, but I always welcome a reasoned discussion, it is only by talking to people with different ideas that we get to learn all the facts ourselves and thus make the most educated opinion we possibly can, so I appreciate you taking the time to tell me your position. It is difficult to debate what Christians do and don't believe, because there is such a wide variety of beliefs and some are cultural rather than religious, etc etc. However, if we were to look at the historical context of the prohibition of birth control, it did come down to the belief that the woman was an empty vessel, and that the sperm contained a complete person, so that "spilling your seed" (originally written against masturbation, the same passages are currently used against condom use) basically condemned a soul to shrivel up and die. The advent of the microscope and genetics disproved the homunculus theory, so the Christian belief latched on to conception, that really that is just an arbitrary a moment as many others and there is no scriptural basis for their belief. I say their position is inconsistent because the text is based upon an assumption which is no longer considered valid, so the "sex is an act of love with the intention of bringing forth a child" doctrine contains many inherent contradiction - why is the (standard) Christian opinion that sex before marriage is wrong, if it is done for love and for a child? Why are they not against married infertile couples having sex? Why would masturbation be wrong? If sex without love is wrong, why are (standard) Christians against divorce? And so on and so forth, by abandoning the text on which the sex rules are based as being incorrect (ie, soul enters at spermatogenesis) but by keeping the taboos, more and more rules need to be invented to justify the position. And like I said, pushing for adult stem cells only is a false position, because we require embryonic stem cell research to understand adult stem cells - it is both or neither, not one or the other. As for my own position (which is independence and cognition), I believe it is consistent - I believe we should give full rights of being a person to late term embryos (at the stages where they have rudimentary cognition and potential independence). You bring up the position of someone who is severely brain-damaged in an accident - my position (and I have let my family know, in case this happens to me) is that if someone is injured to the point where they have no cognition (ie, brain dead) and are unable to live independently (ie, require intensive life-support) then they should simply be allowed to die, because they are no longer the person they once were. To be consistent, I also believe that extremely premature babies should not always be kept alive, if they are born prior to rudimentary cognition and prior to independent life (say, 25 weeks, although it varies) then they should not be given intensive care (where they are likely to die painfully or survive with extremely poor long-term quality of life) but rather given morphine and allowed to die painlessly in what is essentially an external miscarriage. Sad mouse 17:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

In response to the Christian points, it's true that not all Christians follow every part of the teachings put forward. Sex outside of marraige I do not really oppose, but I can see why it is easy to. Marraige is a binding commitment, assuring that children have parents to care for them (this is if conditions were ideal; so no divorce or sad, premature deaths of parents). Christian teachings say that sex is a sacred act. Masturbation is the same as protected sex: using sex without the intention of having a child. One thing that is true of Christian teaching, regardless of faith, is that children are not a risk of sex, they are the intentions. If condoms prevented the spread of sexually transmitted diseases but didn't prevent conception, then the Church would have no objection to them. Infertile couples... I've never thought about it and I honestly don't know. If I had to guess, it would be because many couples discover infertility as a result of continuous failed attempts to have children, so in the Church's eyes, the couple are acting with the best intentions, only circumstance has robbed them.

The next part is just difference of opinion. I don't determine the value of life according to its condition, so I would not be able to let someone die if I could avoid it. That said, medicine is to the point where a body can be artificially prolonged well beyond the person's life. While they may be braindead, a machine can breath for them despite them having no independent ability to live. This is not what I mean. I think that someone suffering crippling motor nueron disease or a quadraplegic, both conditions dependent on machines to survive, are just as much a person as a 100m Olympic sprinter or that a premature baby born into a life of disability is just as much a human as the healthy child in the bed next to it. Also, I acknowledge that, at some stage in my life, I was a single cell, so I think that the single cell moments after conception is every bit the person I am.

And, sticking with what I said earlier, I don't study stem cells, so I don't know what use embryonic stem cells are in the field. Vision Insider 01:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Prester John

Hi, Vision Insider. I've taken a look at your links, and Prester John's contributions generally, and I certainly see what you mean about for instance this personal attack. I, or any admin you asked, would take action on it, if it was a fresh offense. But it isn't--it's from September. That makes all the difference. You will only get admin action on things like ongoing edit wars, recent 3RR violations, etc; not stale ones. I didn't see anything like that when I checked out PJ's recent contributions, though certainly I may have missed something--and his habit of changing the edits of others without any talkpage commentary is uncollegial. But I don't see any horrors. In fact I posted in his defense here (and nobody has replied to me so far). Bishonen | talk 20:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC).