My basic tenet here is I don't think we should create life to enhance life and to do research and so forth.I love reductio ad absurdum, and it seems to me that this statement requires regressing to the hunter/gatherer stage of civilization. After all, even broadcasting seeds to attempt a bigger harvest is creating life, isn't it?
Monday, March 9, 2009
what does he eat?
In today's news we see reaction to the stem cell policy change from Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Alabama
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
So, are you:
1 - Saying that you know from your research that Senator Shelby intended to communicate an equivalence between plant life and human life, or
2 - Reading your own views on that equivalence into his statement, or
3 - Holding the Senator to a standard of precise language you don't require of your friends in normal human conversation, or
4 - Setting up a straw man to eliminate the possibility of any authentic interaction on the subject, even though you reasonably well know what he meant to communicate, or
5 - [Fill in the blank]?
I look forward to your answer.
somewhat like 3, except that I do expect that standard from folks about whom I care.
This may be due to the many instances where a machine and I have had similar sorts of conversations as we refine just what it can do and what exactly I want it to do and how we can work together to get there. But it's not limited to machines.
Maybe I should have been a lawyer.
OK, thanks for that admission.
Although I do think I detect a bit of #4 in there as well.
When it comes to the defense of human life, however, I think it best that we not fritter away the conversation on word games.
There are certain ethical/moral lines which should not be crossed, and many of us who are outraged at being robbed in order to pay for them.
The semantic gamesmanship has been played by the enemies of life for way too long.
There can be no reasonable expectation that I can have enough interaction with the senator to get the full context necessary to make sense out of a sound bite. Even in the presence of that interaction everything would still be word games, for it is the actions and the consequences which matter. "Should" is often part of another word game intended to eliminate interaction. My own stance is something near this.
Methinks TenneBob's analysis of Steve's motives is pretty accurate. Know thyself.
There are obviously two sides and many gradations to this issue. I'm not sure where I stand. But I agree with the many reasoned voices who point out that those secularists who don't see that there are moral and ethical issues here are either amoral or in denial. Alas, secularists often don't see that their views are often more dogmatic than members of religious groups. That explains, for example, the rigidity of the views of many environmentalists.
Post a Comment