I would be proud if the Prius was an American development

And I thank my lucky stars everyday that I had the good sense 22 years ago to move from Indiana to California and away from such ignorant tyrannical patriarchal thinking.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonnycat26\";p=\"102828)</div>

Well, if my wife and I (or any couple, which was what I said in the first place) were to decide we wanted to donate our unused genetic material, I'd say piss off to anyone who tries to tell us to do otherwise.

And Dan, stop trying to reshape the argument around yourself. Nobody is saying your parents would have had the right to destroy your embryo. But on the other hand, if a couple uses IVF, and they have unused genetic material (and it's not an embryo, sorry, it's a very small cluster of cells) nobody's going to tell them that they have to give up the leftovers for adoption. Nobody.
[/b][/quote]

You never did answer my question. When do those 'cluster of cells' as you put it, become a human being in your eyes? When did YOU become a human being.

I used me as an example because I would have been a prime candidate for destruction at any level, yet you all could now agree that I am a valuable person in the community. Using myself in the arguement is to make it real to you, not something vauge or impersonal. Any one of you could be used in the example, right down to being the wrong sex. Remember, you all were 'clusters of cells' once.
You talk about 'your rights'. Well, what about the rights of the one you're destroying?
I believe you dislike my 'reshape' because I make a valid arguement that goes against your thinking.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jayman\";p=\"102794)</div>

Dan:

I thought they already did this? Thus raising many thorny legal issues.

I imagine soon we'll be branded with UV readable barcodes on our foreheads, or biometric chips like my cat, to make it more "convenient" to sample us and get valuable genetic material.

Jay
[/b][/quote]


You could be right, I thought it was still being debated.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DanMan32\";p=\"102893)</div>

Once I shaped into a semi proper fetus and developed a brain. Not before. If I have no brain, I have no self, and no identity. Once I start thinking, then yes, I am a human being.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DanMan32\";p=\"102893)</div>

I dislike your 'reshape' arguement because nobody's debating it.

Answer me this... if a couple has to have IVF to concieve, and there are leftover clumps of cellular material, do you advocate forcible seizure and adoption of the clumps?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DanMan32\";p=\"102893)</div>

Dan:

Check this out:

http://www.unisfera.org/IMG/pdf/Morin_-_IP..._-_Nov_2003.pdf

Jay

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonnycat26\";p=\"102933)</div>

Once I shaped into a semi proper fetus and developed a brain. Not before. If I have no brain, I have no self, and no identity. Once I start thinking, then yes, I am a human being.
[/b][/quote]

That is precisely Danman seems to be trying to get at. When individuals have a definition of when a person becomes human that is some other time fram than when they are conceived, the bar can always be moved further down the line. For example, what if you have a brain but it is damaged and have limited capacity to think? Or will be in a infant stage for the rest of your life? What is thinking and who decides when you begin?

I have found it interesting since I have begun teaching psych courses several years ago, that all of the textbooks I have used says that life begins at conception (even if liberal psych books).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(micheal\";p=\"106999)</div>

Hmmm interesting. Even "liberal" psych books "teach" us that life begins at conception.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(micheal\";p=\"106999)</div>

Once I shaped into a semi proper fetus and developed a brain. Not before. If I have no brain, I have no self, and no identity. Once I start thinking, then yes, I am a human being.
[/b][/quote]

That is precisely Danman seems to be trying to get at. When individuals have a definition of when a person becomes human that is some other time fram than when they are conceived, the bar can always be moved further down the line. For example, what if you have a brain but it is damaged and have limited capacity to think? Or will be in a infant stage for the rest of your life? What is thinking and who decides when you begin?

I have found it interesting since I have begun teaching psych courses several years ago, that all of the textbooks I have used says that life begins at conception (even if liberal psych books).[/b][/quote]This is a false argument. When "life" begins is actually irrelevant. Indeed, even when "human" life begins is irrelevant. The question is purely a constitutional one. The issue is when does a woman lose the right to self determination such that she loses control of her uterus, and when does the fetus gain the right of control over that uterus.

And when you answer that question, keep in mind that the constitutional issues involved were written by men who felt black people and woman had no rights at all. Indeed, there were numerous American States that held zero penalty for a slave owner to kill a slave arbitrarily, and the law also gave a lot of latitude to husbands when they "punished" their wives -- even to the point of death. So it is quite clear that there is no absolute right to life guaranteed in the constitution.

And yes, slavery is gone due to the 14th amendment, and woman have nearly the same rights as men due to convention and the 19th amendment. But there has not yet been an amendment giving the fetus the total right to control a woman's uterus that supercedes that woman's. It seems to me that the only way to take that control away from the woman is via a constitutional amendment. The "humanity" of whether or not a fetus the size of a decimal point is "human" is a cute metaphysical and maybe religious and philosophical question. But whether a woman loses her right to own her body, when that same "decimal" point sized fetus is in her womb, is a constitutional question.

(Roe v Wade actually DID give the fetus rights that the constitution never did. A woman cannot have an abortion after 24 weeks unless her life is in danger. So even there, a woman's ownership of her uterus is not absolute, but neither is the fetus's ownership of that uterus absolute. )

And what the heck is a "liberal" textbook?

 

Re: I would be proud if the Prius was an American developmen

I beg to differ on that when life begins is irrelevant or that this is simply a constitutional issue of rights.

How many laws do we have that are applied everyday despite the absolute right to life not being in the Constitution? How many murderers are put in jail even though we have no absolute right to life? How about police having the authority to involuntary hospitalize someone, regardless of their self-determination of their bodies? I can go on and on about how courts and congress have made similar statements that control our actions on a daily basis that did not take a constitutional amendment.

Scientifically, the baby inside of her is part of her, but it is not her 100% her body, half of it is from someone else. In my opinion, discarding when life begin is only a means of people rationlizing what they are doing. It is much easier to call it just a fetus being discarded rather than a human being.

I was trying to put the liberal in there be somewhat facetious, but I do understand that some take this boards very seriously and have a tendency to jump on what they see as a possible distraction in any way. However, I don't think anyone can disagree that psychology in general is more liberal in many of it's viewpoints than mainstream society. Consequently, some might say that the textbooks are then liberal in it's social policy viewpoints.

 

whoooaaaaa.

i glance at this thread for the first time in days and POW! stem cell debate?? hmm.

first. check out any major high-impact scientific journal. nature (subscription required) is a good example. the majority of results have the flaw that their results that can NOT BE REPLICATED. science in general isn't exactly under the impression that this will be the universal answer like the republicans are...

there are just as many, if not more, hurdles facing adult stem cells as embryonic stem cells. sure, they both hold promise. what you're seeing when you do google searches is BIAS. sure, they'll point out all the good things about adult cells to make you think they're great. but embryonic cells have not gone through all the years of possible dna damage/mutations, telomere shortening, and general effects of aging, which i believe gives them an advantage.

as an EXTREMELY hypothetical and extremely futuristic example... probably beyond all of our lifespans... how would you like to have adult stem cells implanted in your brain to repair damage from, say, a car accident... only to find out that particular line came from someone who ended up having a mutation related to invasive cancer? hmm. brain tumor, anyone? no thanks.

federal money is currently only available for use on cell lines that have already been developed. where does the enormous majority of research funding come from folks? any ideas? the nih, the cdc, the nsf. (as an aside, because of iraq guess what's happening to all those budgets in general? we're down to less than 15% of grant applications being funded in the first place. there goes all your American medical research developments) those are all government agencies. private funding is small and hard to come by.

the last thing i will address is not exactly when life begins, but a scientific fact regarding the process of embryonic development. human ova are arrested partway through the cell division cycle from puberty and until the time when they're released. they're in no way ready to immediately fuse nuclei with a sperm and become a diploid cell (like the rest of your cells, and capable of dividing). they are arrested in meiosis ii (metaphase for you inquiring ones). it takes the sperm cell penetrating the cell membrane to stimulate the rest of the process of cell division. (i even got out my human genetics notes for this one. just to make sure i got this all correctly)

essentially, the sperm nucleus just kinda hangs out waiting to fuse with the ovum nucleus whenever it's ready to do so. so the second the sperm fuses with the ovum, you essentially have a multinucleate cell. Not diploid and certainly not able to divide, at least not without instantly destroying itself. there is no opinion here. facts. i will not present my opinion on this because it's such a controversial issue and more than i care to get into.

 

Re: I would be proud if the Prius was an American developmen

This actually strenthens my argument. If there were some kind of absolute right to life, there would be no death penalty, and banning abortion altogether might be justified.

Contolling our actions is not the same as controlling our bodies. There is no court in America that would require you to donate a kidney, or even to donate your blood. Even if it saves lives. But somehow you must give over your uterus simply on the order of the state?

Rationalizing works both ways. You can "rationalize" that once conception occurs, the woman has lost all rights to her uterus by suggesting that the fetus has the full protection of the constitution and or the laws of the state. Sorry, I don't think the state has that right.

Are you suggesting that abortion would be OK if the husband approved? He being the other half and all. Sorry, but the concept of men owning the bodies of their wives or daughters went out about 50 years ago. And the fetus is never a part of the woman. It is attached to the placenta, which is attached to the inner wall of the uterus. It even has a totally separate blood supply that never mixes with the mothers. Saying it is a part of her is not scientific; metaphysical or philosophical maybe, but not scientific.

I disagree, and I'm a somebody. "Liberalism" is a world view or philosophy. Psychology books are an attempt to make scientific sense out of human behavior. No one would suggest that E=MC2 is a "viewpoint". Except maybe in Kansas.

 

Re: I would be proud if the Prius was an American developmen

I agree with a lot of what P4 said. Psychology, along with all of science is neither left nor right. It is the people who pay the scientists (or do not pay them if they don't like the results) that are left or right.
All scientists follow the scientific method. This method is intended to remove bias from research. If a scientist does not follow this and "cheats" every other scientist in their field will immediately discredit their work and hurt if not ruin the career of the cheater. There is no left or right in science, only facts, theories, and hypothesis.
BTW, I have a degree in behavioral psychology so I know how the scientific community works.

It's politics that is full of bias, blurring, obfuscations, red herring, and flat out lies. (both sides)

 

Re: I would be proud if the Prius was an American developmen

Having just read THE PRIUS THAT SHOOK THE WORLD from Toyota about the creation of the Prius, Toyota actually had a vision for a 21st century car.

The Big 3 never took hybrid technology seriously until they saw the first Prius unveiled in 1997. Then they created their own concept cars with hybrid technology but never put them into production until years later when they saw that the Prius would be a financial success. They simply did not think there was a market for hybrids.

Now they seem to be falling all over themselves trying to put hybrid vehicles into production. So much for the "vision" of American car manufacturers!

 

Re: I would be proud if the Prius was an American developmen

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dvdirv\";p=\"107677)</div>

dvdirv, are you trying to hijack this thread from the ongoing "Stem cell debate", how dare you! :mrgreen:

RE: "I would be proud if the Prius was an American development"; you might take solace from the fact that the overall body design DID come from the CALTY division of Toyota which is located in ....

...wait for it...

...The USA...

California to be specific. [Reference "The Prius that shook the world" page 143.]

OK, you guys can continue debating stem cells now, no reason "staying on topic" should have any meaning here.
:wink:

 

Re: I would be proud if the Prius was an American developmen

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"107432)</div>

Yet if there is no absolute right to life, why do we punish individuals for ending others?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"107432)</div>

Again, how about the laws that prevent us from taking our own life? Or laws meant to prohibit us from taking drugs? By your own words later in the post, you say that a child is not a part of the mother's uterus, so it really isn't a part of her right?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"107432)</div>

Just as I disagree that we as individuals have the right to kill a life.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"107432)</div>

I really would appreciate if you would stop reading my posts looking for someway in which I am trying to insinuate some extreme point of view and refuting what you think I said versus what I am actually talking about. I never insinuated that abortion is okay if the husband approved, or that men own women's bodies. Contrary, what I was alluding to the scientific certianity, that half of the genetic material in the child is not from the mother.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"107432)</div>

Obviously I was asking for that, since it is impossible for everyone to agree on anything!

I agree with your definition of psychology. However, I do not put 100% faith in any individual's ability to be completely unbiased when performing science (at least in the psychological field). Despite what I have been instructed about the objective nature of empiricism, I know too much about human nature to believe that psychological research is unbiased. Plus, I have seen and read too much biased research (either in it's implementation, in it's results, in it's interpretation) to not appreciate the societal and cultural aspects of research in psychology.

Either way, I don't expect us to agree on the area of stem cells, and I can fully agree to disagree.




Edit: I don't how much more my dialup can take reediting this to get all of the quoting correct!

 

Re: I would be proud if the Prius was an American developmen

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood\";p=\"107518)</div>

I can respect you opinion and your knowledge of the scientific method. However, as I have alluded to, my training in psychology so far (half-way to the Ph.D.) have exposed to too many ways of interpreting data, conclusions rejected based on the researchers previously held beliefs, or research discredit simply because of it's conclusion not being what people want to hear (For example, you probably remember the Rind et. al study in '98 that was in Psych Bulletin about child sexual abuse and all of the fallout out from that--leading to the special issue in the American Psychologist in March 2002 and tons of subsequent articles and editorials in scientific publications).

This is not deliberate "cheating" and I am not implying that psychological researchers are dishonest. Just that there are only as honest as they can be. BTW, I am not saying that we throw the baby out with the bathwater, but I believe that being aware for the potential for any research to be tinged with bias (my own included) helps us be better consumers of research. I try to keep the phrase, "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics," in mind when reading research. To take it as the "Gospel" just because it is objective science is not what I have learned so far in being aware of the limitations of research. There are simply too many ways to look at the data, not even accounting how you actually get the data.

I feel like I am repeating myself, but I am not rejecting the scientific method as biased, but rather humans ability to utlize the method as imperfect.

 

psychology is a rather tough discipline to interpret research... i took a few psych classes back in the day.

basic science (biology, chemistry, physics, blah blah blah and on and on) is in most cases much easier.

either way, we are all taught the scientific method. most of us in graduate schools are required to take ethics classes. (my total requirement in medical sciences is 24 hours. yuck. but i only have 2 hours left) we have to lead our generation and show future generations the way to do things.

and those of us that deviate from the path of ethical research... and are discovered intentionally displaying bias... well those people's careers are over. and they lose all respect from their colleagues.

is it worth it? no.

 

Re: I would be proud if the Prius was an American developmen

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dvdirv\";p=\"107677)</div>

I haven't read it yet, but it sure seems like Toyota was looking to the future. Although can you blame the Big 3? I mean it is hard to see past the Excursions and Suburbans!

 

Re: I would be proud if the Prius was an American developmen

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(micheal\";p=\"107869)</div>

I don't think you understand what an absolute right to life is. An absolute right is a right that cannot be taken away for ANY reason. When someone says there is no absolute right to life, it means nothing about a relative right to life.

One has nothing to do with the other. I think it is quite clear that there is no absolute right to life in the USA because under certain circumstances it is OK to kill. The State of Texas does it on a regular basis. And the State of Florida just made it easier for people to use handguns to kill, not only to protect their own lives, but to protect their property. Thus, in Florida and other states that have this kind of law, the "right to life" of a bad person is inferior to the property rights of another. Bang bang your dead, and I can go free.

But there IS a relative right to life in America, and it is indeed a fundamental right. But it is not absolute, as I said above. What "relative" means is that if you do something that society says is horrendous, you can be executed. BUT ONLY if you meet the criteria. This is what is meant by the word "relative" means as distinct from the word "absolute".

And the fetus does have a "relative" right to life, just like the rest of us. Prior to 24 weeks, the fetus has a right to life that is inferior to a woman's right to the ownership of her uterus. After 24 weeks, those "relative" rights change. After 24 weeks, the fetus has an increased right to life, but it is still inferior to the woman's right to life. Thus, what this means is that after 24 weeks, she can only have an abortion if her life is at stake.

It's all "relative". But it is NOT "absolute".

 

Re: I would be proud if the Prius was an American developmen

I see what you mean now.

While society does not hold there being an absolute right to life, I wonder how many individuals have the view of absolute right to life. For example, I wonder if those that take a life, regardless of the purity of their intetions feel guilty about it? The person that I know that has had an abortion still feel guilty about ending the life of their child 5 years later (and not because of any religiious or moral change). I've seen some articles saying this is typical (maybe evidence of inidividual there being some absolute right to life in our psyche, but obviously not enough to make any firm conclusions).

 

Wow.., thought this was about Toyota and the Americans...

Science is definetely more FACTUAL., but some science can be cold and unfeeling...anyway I won't start nothing here...hee hee.. Went to Ft Hood and saw 2 Pri's on the road., we honked at each other. I especially enjoyed the 49.5 MPG., and watching the other fools stomping it past 80. Back to the thread, in this area Americans have learning to do, and when gas gets more costly they will learn. Even my son was impressed, and one of the NCO's had a Prius., I was really impressed. He came back from Iraq, and unlike the other soldiers who all bought gas guzzling toys, he spend his on a gas mizzerly car, loaded and he loves it. He had a tire problem though and the Toyota Dealer there gave him all kinds of problems, telling him it would be 3 wks to get the tire, no rental available..anyway he called Goodyear, and BAM..problem solved.