Posted on 07/05/2004 12:58:47 AM PDT by miltonim
Interesting philosophical twists.
A few months ago, a paper was published that shows that mammalian females, including humans, have stem cells in the ovaries and continue to make new oocytes our entire fertile life.
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v428/n6979/full/428133b_fs.html
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v428/n6979/abs/nature02316_fs.html&dynoptions=doi1089066123Germline stem cells and follicular renewal in the postnatal mammalian ovary.
""Germline stem cells and follicular renewal in the postnatal mammalian ovary.
Johnson J, Canning J, Kaneko T, Pru JK, Tilly JL.
Vincent Center for Reproductive Biology, Vincent Obstetrics and Gynecology Service, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02114, USA.
A basic doctrine of reproductive biology is that most mammalian females lose the capacity for germ-cell renewal during fetal life, such that a fixed reserve of germ cells (oocytes) enclosed within follicles is endowed at birth. Here we show that juvenile and adult mouse ovaries possess mitotically active germ cells that, based on rates of oocyte degeneration (atresia) and clearance, are needed to continuously replenish the follicle pool. Consistent with this, treatment of prepubertal female mice with the mitotic germ-cell toxicant busulphan eliminates the primordial follicle reserve by early adulthood without inducing atresia. Furthermore, we demonstrate cells expressing the meiotic entry marker synaptonemal complex protein 3 in juvenile and adult mouse ovaries. Wild-type ovaries grafted into transgenic female mice with ubiquitous expression of green fluorescent protein (GFP) become infiltrated with GFP-positive germ cells that form follicles. Collectively, these data establish the existence of proliferative germ cells that sustain oocyte and follicle production in the postnatal mammalian ovary.
PMID: 15014492 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]""
Science continues to add to our knowledge, and occasionally, new discoveries completely debunk old "Knowledge." And because this is true(at least as far as we know), it's vital that science and scientists be held to the ancient "First, do no harm."
I had heard there was some research going on about whether or not the ovaries could be stimulated to produce more ova, and how it might be done. I'm surprised it was discovered.
"By default we are unthinking creatures who do not value or justify things, even many of the things we are privy to. Burden of proof is placed upon the claimant. If you value something, and wish others to share your values, you need to persuade them."
No, 'by default' we humans are, as the skeptic and once-Christian-now-atheist,Michael Shermer has pointed out, humans are "pattern seekers." And, as the non-skeptic and Catholic priest, Robert Spitzer has pointed out, this is pre-cognitive, and universal within the species. We have a drive toward unconditional Truth, Love, Beauty, and Justice, and seems to "know" these exist and strive toward them without being taught.
http://www.lifeprinciples.net/ModelTeachText.html#def
""By combining the above three steps, we have the essentials of an objective definition of "person," namely, "a being possessing an intrinsic guiding force (whether this be merely genetic, a soul, or both) toward fulfillment through unconditional, perfect and even infinite truth, goodness, love, beauty and being."
This objective definition gives rise to a critical social principle about the interpretation of human "person." Inasmuch as any being should be treated with a dignity commensurate with its nature, persons should be treated with an unconditional dignity commensurate with their nature towards unconditional Truth, Love, Goodness, Beauty and Being. Such a dignity acknowledges the intrinsic worth of a human being. This unconditional dignity is the ground of inalienable rights, which acknowledges a universal duty to protect and promote this unconditional dignity."
Unless he wants to be a hypocrite--which seems to be a sacrifice politicians are very willing to make.
But he *can* take his statist beliefs, and impose higher taxes, draconian gun control, etc.... on Americans?
Then he has the audacity to say that he would be imposing his faith on others, if he followed his personal beliefs? Isn't that what the good Lord demands upon us?
Perhaps impose is the political correct sounding word of conviction. It sounds intrusive, so it can't be right!
Yep.
If you don't believe the unborn child is human then killing it is no big deal. If however you do believe that it is a human being and you support killing it because...
Well apparently because killing is a moral issue and so should not be outlawed by the state...
My head hurts.
Paul, in his letter to the Romans, and J. Budziszewski in several of his books, including "What We Can't Not Know," make the case that values are not subjective.
Oh I see, so what was your position on Middle East peace when you were a Morula?
I don't mean to sound snippy, but I think you're being a bit glib. You might use some intelligence when interpreting my comments. 10 years before I was born I had no thoughts on any subject. Now I have thoughts. From there I'll just let you ponder the mean value theorem and your own memories.
We have a drive toward unconditional Truth, Love, Beauty, and Justice, and seems to "know" these exist and strive toward them without being taught.
IOW (I hope), a drive toward understanding, propagation, sensory pleasure, and self-interest. I don't deny it, but would stipulate that we "seem" to have these drives. Also, possessing a drive and knowing one exists are not the same thing. That's why they are called "drives". Even lowly animals have some drives--which often are related to survival and propagation, as one would expect.
""By combining the above three steps, we have the essentials of an objective definition of "person," namely, "a being possessing an intrinsic guiding force (whether this be merely genetic, a soul, or both) toward fulfillment through unconditional, perfect and even infinite truth, goodness, love, beauty and being."
He might be an inspiring poet, but I hope you don't perform serious analysis with terms like "infinite truth".
Inasmuch as any being should be treated with a dignity commensurate with its nature, persons should be treated with an unconditional dignity commensurate with their nature towards unconditional Truth, Love, Goodness, Beauty and Being.
Sounds like a potential loophole for holocaust. What would be the "commensurate" treatment for persons whose nature toward those things is deficient? I guess one might call them "the unworthy" or "subhuman"?
Such a dignity acknowledges the intrinsic worth of a human being.
Hmm. Who will be dubbed the official recognizer of a person's "intrinsic worth"? I guarantee you that Pol Pot would not value people the same way the Pope does.
I don't mean to be a wet towel on your inspiration. That guy's flowery language is very uplifting and rings of truth in some vague artistic way. I'm sure he's a very nice humanitarian. But it is hardly language worthy of a rational argument.
I know plenty of them. Pro-Life does not mean religious.
Scientific Fact: After conception child is unique with it's own DNA.
Scientific Fact: Said DNA is human meaning that child is human.
Scientific Fact: Said Human Child is alive.
All of these things are indisputable scientific fact. All of these add up to the unborn child is a unique living human being.
Legal fact: Murdering a human being is wrong.
End of argument.
There is really no need for religious arguments any more then there is a need for religious arguments on gravity.
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_0121.html
--remarks by anti-abortion advocate John Kerry at a NARAL dinner (end sarcasm)
If you want to post it or link to it, I'll give it a look see. However, strain as I might, imagining a value devoid of a valuer is like imagining a beard devoid of whiskers. It can't be done.
I doubt it, but maybe you and I are considering different concepts. Here are the relevent definitions of "value" from my dictionary:
Worth in usefulness or importance to the possessor; utility or merit: the value of an education. 4. A principle, standard, or quality considered worthwhile or desirable: “ The speech was a summons back to the patrician values of restraint and responsibility ”
This is consistent with my understanding that a value must have a "possessor" of the value, and that a value is something that is "considered" (which of course requires a thinking creature).
Not a legal fact. US laws often allow killing human beings in a number of instances--e.g. war, self-defense, legal execution, and abortion. Then, technically being legal, it is not called "murder".
Just like technically a guy can take your legitimately earned property without a trial or even an accusation, and it isn't called "stealing". It's called "taxes".
That's why its best to consider morality and the law separately, and just strive for a greater match between the two.
And the bizarre utopian fantasies that those statist beliefs are based on are much shakier and downright kooky. Far less evidence to support their veracity.
But i'm a substitute for another guy
I look pretty tall but my heels are high
The simple things you see are all complicated
I look pretty young, but i'm just back-dated, yeah
Substitute your lies for fact
I can see right through your plastic mac
I look all white, but my dad was black
My fine looking suit is really made out of sack
The Who
Liar. Kerry believes no such thing. He's fishing for votes.
Beautiful photo.
Incorrect. Murder is still murder even if it is legal.
You must have heard of judicial murder.
"Acid Queen" might be a good anthem for Kerry as well. Both induce mass psychosis.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.