• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

Why religion is against the biological immortality

religion immortality

  • Please log in to reply
171 replies to this topic

#151 serp777

  • Guest
  • 622 posts
  • 11
  • Location:who cares

Posted 27 February 2015 - 11:33 PM

Well  Christians don't get life in your view so they must not be human either.  How about blacks?  They defined them as not human before.  How about old people, do they ever become non human?

 

Sorry but you're a strawmaning ignoramous. Never said anything about Christians getting life or not. And blacks have functioning brains just like us, same with old people. The only case is where the person doesn't have a functioning brain, or doesnt have anything resembling a complicated nervous system. In both cases the consciousness is not there, and the consciousness is whats important since you might as well be a lifeless body without a brain. So if you take stem cells from an aborted fetus who you couldnt save anyways, then you can save a huge number of lives, and you're not killing anyone because the consciousness is what makes the person and it simply isnt there.

 

Now I know you're going to make the strawman about people with autism or mental retardation--they are still conscious and actually have very sophistocated brains--some intellectual capacities are not there but consciousness certainly is.

 

Again you would rather hundreds of thousands of people should die for the sake of your "ethics", against all neuroscience. A human being that is conscious is vastly more valuable than a human being who isnt.

 

I think not. That's selfish and im so glad we have the separation of church and state, because otherwise people would impose their medieval beliefs on us.


  • Unfriendly x 1
  • Agree x 1

#152 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 28 February 2015 - 12:11 AM

If you had an adult who was in a coma but there was every chance they would come out of it, would you deny them their humanity?  There is every chance that a fetus will continue to grow and go through all the other stages of human development unless you kill him or her.  Next, it is insane for you to claim I would deny life to hundreds of thousands because I am against you cutting up a small human being.



#153 Danail Bulgaria

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,212 posts
  • 421
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 28 February 2015 - 08:51 AM

Wait a minute. What exactly depends from you, @shadowhawk? If something is useful and needed, then it will be researched and done, independent of your views about it. Lol.

 

What is the purpose for opening your eyes for how not to die. Why is this so important? Listen to your religious propaganda and watch your videos, that teach the stupid folks how to lead forward the religious propaganda. When it comes the time for a new organ for you, well, simply die and submit to you lord, just as you like it. It is a free world, afterall, isn't it?



#154 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 02 March 2015 - 11:07 PM

You are not opening my eyes how not to die.  Someone dies who you stole the body part from.  You need to open your eyes.



#155 Danail Bulgaria

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,212 posts
  • 421
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 03 March 2015 - 09:44 AM

So far I didn't stole any body part. lol



#156 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 03 March 2015 - 08:59 PM

Good.



#157 addx

  • Guest
  • 711 posts
  • 184
  • Location:croatia
  • NO

Posted 14 March 2015 - 12:41 AM

 

Well  Christians don't get life in your view so they must not be human either.  How about blacks?  They defined them as not human before.  How about old people, do they ever become non human?

 

Sorry but you're a strawmaning ignoramous. Never said anything about Christians getting life or not. And blacks have functioning brains just like us, same with old people. The only case is where the person doesn't have a functioning brain, or doesnt have anything resembling a complicated nervous system. In both cases the consciousness is not there, and the consciousness is whats important since you might as well be a lifeless body without a brain. So if you take stem cells from an aborted fetus who you couldnt save anyways, then you can save a huge number of lives, and you're not killing anyone because the consciousness is what makes the person and it simply isnt there.

 

Now I know you're going to make the strawman about people with autism or mental retardation--they are still conscious and actually have very sophistocated brains--some intellectual capacities are not there but consciousness certainly is.

 

Again you would rather hundreds of thousands of people should die for the sake of your "ethics", against all neuroscience. A human being that is conscious is vastly more valuable than a human being who isnt.

 

I think not. That's selfish and im so glad we have the separation of church and state, because otherwise people would impose their medieval beliefs on us.

 

 

Still, I can imagine people inducing pregnancies just to produce fetuses for stem cells, if they get paid for it, not sure how that would turn out... it is wise to take religion into consideration, even though it always has issues presenting its view... I'm sure the argument as I stated it makes some sense.

 

I'm not really sure I'd like it if people achieved immortality by having a horde of women produce fetuses regularly for a fresh fetus stem cell supply or something along the lines of that. This would literally mean eating babies to stay immortal, heh.


Edited by addx, 14 March 2015 - 12:44 AM.


#158 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 14 March 2015 - 01:34 AM

Or cutting them up.  Immortality for whom?  Why not harvest the organs of anyone we define as less  than human and for whatever reason.  Sure, eat them, we don't want all that meat to go to waste.



#159 Danail Bulgaria

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,212 posts
  • 421
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 14 March 2015 - 06:24 AM

Who defines what moral is?

 

Inducing pregnancies just to produce fetuses for stem cells against the fact, that many people are dying today from a shortage of organs. What is more moral?

 

Have in mind the following:

Fetuses, that would be produced for that purpose would not exist anyway. Is it moral to destroy something, that would not exist anyway? Before it has been developed into a fully functional human.



#160 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 14 March 2015 - 07:14 PM

Every human defines what is right in their own eyes?  If we decide to beat you up and steal your body parts, that is right.  If you die in the process there are more humans than we need anyway.  Are children full functional people.  Lets take their body parts.  How about old people or those in the hospital?  How about cripples, they are not functional.  What you have done is impose your own selfish interests on a human life based upon what?  Your definition and dehumanizing of life so you can harvest their organs.  Shall we do that to you?  Is there Objective Morality?


  • Good Point x 1

#161 Danail Bulgaria

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,212 posts
  • 421
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 14 March 2015 - 11:21 PM

You keep not answering is it moral to destroy something, that would not exist anyway.

 

Plus you don't choose what is a worse moral - to use therapeutic cloning, or to let people die from shortage of organs?


Edited by seivtcho, 14 March 2015 - 11:22 PM.


#162 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 15 March 2015 - 12:09 AM

It is off topic but how could you say Hitler is immoral when he has as much right and authority as you do?  Where do morals come from?  Do we each do what is right in our own eyes?

 

in a world without a divine lawgiver, there can be no objective right and wrong, only our culturally and personally relative, subjective judgments. This means that it is impossible to condemn war, oppression, or crime as evil. Nor can one praise brotherhood, equality, and love as good. For in a universe without God, good and evil do not exist—there is only the bare valueless fact of existence, and there is no one to say that you are right and I am wrong. —William Lane Craig


Edited by shadowhawk, 15 March 2015 - 12:13 AM.


#163 addx

  • Guest
  • 711 posts
  • 184
  • Location:croatia
  • NO

Posted 15 March 2015 - 10:00 AM

Who defines what moral is?

 

Inducing pregnancies just to produce fetuses for stem cells against the fact, that many people are dying today from a shortage of organs. What is more moral?

 

Have in mind the following:

Fetuses, that would be produced for that purpose would not exist anyway. Is it moral to destroy something, that would not exist anyway? Before it has been developed into a fully functional human.

 

I don't really feel sorry for the fetuses, but the mothers from poor areas that will repeatedly do this in order to get money to survive, buy food or clothes or shelter etc. Pregnancy is a toll on the body, hormons, mind.  

 

People do die from a shortage of organs, but if purposefully inducing pregnancies and aborting fetuses just for organs or stem cells becomes something "normal" , most rich people will keep their private flocks of women from poor countries or areas to produce fetuses for their own personal immortality and you will end up with a situation where the privileged live forever on the backs of women being constantly pregnant but childless to support this and who do not have enough money to pay for the same procedure for themselves.  

 

At which point does the switch happen? Sure, someone's organ is failing, replace it, save a life, someone stem cells population is gone, replace it, but if you repeat this indefinitely you will produce immortality. It can hardly then be looked at as "saving lives" by producing fetuses, but it is means towards immortality - living past a natural "deadline".

 

Denying someone an unnatural lifetime or immortality does not seem like much of a moral transgression, compared to denyig a dying person an organ. But where is the difference, where is the border between the two perspectives?   

 

People corrupt everything beyond any imagination, which is why civilisation does need to be a bit more careful with how it proceeds.


Edited by addx, 15 March 2015 - 10:12 AM.


#164 Danail Bulgaria

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,212 posts
  • 421
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 15 March 2015 - 12:18 PM

It is off topic but how could you say Hitler is immoral when he has as much right and authority as you do?  Where do morals come from?  Do we each do what is right in our own eyes?

 

in a world without a divine lawgiver, there can be no objective right and wrong, only our culturally and personally relative, subjective judgments. This means that it is impossible to condemn war, oppression, or crime as evil. Nor can one praise brotherhood, equality, and love as good. For in a universe without God, good and evil do not exist—there is only the bare valueless fact of existence, and there is no one to say that you are right and I am wrong. —William Lane Craig

 

Nothing what I write is off topic. The questions, that you are not answering are important when it come to therapeutic cloning.
 

So, please answer is it moral to destroy something, that would not exist anyway, such as the fetus, made especially for destroying?

Also answer what is worse from the moral point of view - to use therapeutic cloning, or to let people die from shortage of organs? Extremely important question concerning the therapeutic cloning. Please, answer.

 

I haven't discussed Hitler yet. You are the one, who is putting him in the topic from time to time. And this is exactly what is off-topic. Hitler has nothing to do with embryos, fetuses, and therapeutic cloning. Of course, I am just an usual man with no high authority, and no "who knows what" right (law institutions) standing behind me.

 

Where the moral come from? lol. Exactly. Why I have to follow exactly your idea for moral?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who defines what moral is?

 

Inducing pregnancies just to produce fetuses for stem cells against the fact, that many people are dying today from a shortage of organs. What is more moral?

 

Have in mind the following:

Fetuses, that would be produced for that purpose would not exist anyway. Is it moral to destroy something, that would not exist anyway? Before it has been developed into a fully functional human.

 

I don't really feel sorry for the fetuses, but the mothers from poor areas that will repeatedly do this in order to get money to survive, buy food or clothes or shelter etc. Pregnancy is a toll on the body, hormons, mind.  

 

People do die from a shortage of organs, but if purposefully inducing pregnancies and aborting fetuses just for organs or stem cells becomes something "normal" , most rich people will keep their private flocks of women from poor countries or areas to produce fetuses for their own personal immortality and you will end up with a situation where the privileged live forever on the backs of women being constantly pregnant but childless to support this and who do not have enough money to pay for the same procedure for themselves.  

 

At which point does the switch happen? Sure, someone's organ is failing, replace it, save a life, someone stem cells population is gone, replace it, but if you repeat this indefinitely you will produce immortality. It can hardly then be looked at as "saving lives" by producing fetuses, but it is means towards immortality - living past a natural "deadline".

 

Denying someone an unnatural lifetime or immortality does not seem like much of a moral transgression, compared to denyig a dying person an organ. But where is the difference, where is the border between the two perspectives?   

 

People corrupt everything beyond any imagination, which is why civilisation does need to be a bit more careful with how it proceeds.

 

 

Very often in our life we have to choose between several bad things in order to end up with the smallest evil from them all. The mothers from poor areas may (and will, similarly with the surrogate mothership) do that for money. And here come the questions - is it better to open this type of income for them, or to keep them in their current economical state. Maybe, according to you it is better to halt this type of income for them, and keep them in their current economical state, but is it better or worse really? The practice of the surrogacy already is allowed in some countries. The countries, that allowed surrogate mothership don't have rich people, who keep their private flocks of women from poor countries. Instead, they developed a legal system in which the surrogate mother signs her contracts, receives her money, which are not bad money at all, completely legally, and only for her, (the clinic also gets payed from the future parents, but the money for the surrogate are clear from the very start, and are good money), bears the entire pregnancy under medical control, not only the first 1-2 months, needed for therapeutic cloning, and delivers the child to the parents, some times even without knowing and having the right to know who they are. Everything this happens in controlled medical environment on the safest possible way for the mother and for the child. And everybody is happy. So, the practice showed, that this of your concerns is not a concern.

 

"Sure, someone's organ is failing, replace it, save a life, someone stem cells population is gone, replace it, but if you repeat this indefinitely you will produce immortality."

Of course. This is what is all about. The main purpose. You will repeat this until another way pops put from the science.

 

The border between the two perspectives is seen if you consider many factors.

 

My main arguments for therapeutic cloning at the moment are:

 

- the cloned for organs fetus would not exist anyway, so it can be destroyed, after being formed.

- cloned fetus designed for body parts would not be a fully developed human.

- it doesn't have the desire to live.

- choosing between the death of the entire organism, and the therapeutic cloning, the therapeutic cloning is more acceptable.

- therapeutic cloning at the moment is the only theoretically feasible way of getting the most important organs for transplantation.


  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 1

#165 addx

  • Guest
  • 711 posts
  • 184
  • Location:croatia
  • NO

Posted 15 March 2015 - 05:00 PM

 And here come the questions - is it better to open this type of income for them, or to keep them in their current economical state. Maybe, according to you it is better to halt this type of income for them, and keep them in their current economical state, but is it better or worse really? The practice of the surrogacy already is allowed in some countries. The countries, that allowed surrogate mothership don't have rich people, who keep their private flocks of women from poor countries. Instead, they developed a legal system in which the surrogate mother signs her contracts, receives her money, which are not bad money at all, completely legally, and only for her, (the clinic also gets payed from the future parents, but the money for the surrogate are clear from the very start, and are good money), bears the entire pregnancy under medical control, not only the first 1-2 months, needed for therapeutic cloning, and delivers the child to the parents, some times even without knowing and having the right to know who they are. Everything this happens in controlled medical environment on the safest possible way for the mother and for the child. And everybody is happy. So, the practice showed, that this of your concerns is not a concern.

 

 

It might seem as a shortsighted "way out" for the poor mothers, but it's not really a way out but rather a "way in" to become financially dependent on abusing their bodies for other people. The rich will keep the fetus producing mothers poor and dependant on this income indefinitely. It's kinda similar to if you sad that offering some poor woman money for sex is "helping her", it's not really. I don't blame people for doing such things, but let's call them what they really are.

Also it will be easier for the immortal rich to keep and increase their assets (which increase by default in capitalism) and further increase disparity between the rich (1% of people owning 90% of wealth etc) and poor which is already too high. It doesn't really look good to me. We don't have to drag this conversation out anymore, I'm not militant about it, I just have an opinion, I do not aspire to enforce it on anyone. We obviously don't agree but I like the way we don't agree so let's keep it at that? :)


Edited by addx, 15 March 2015 - 05:05 PM.


#166 Danail Bulgaria

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,212 posts
  • 421
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 15 March 2015 - 05:58 PM

 

 

It might seem as a shortsighted "way out" for the poor mothers, but it's not really a way out but rather a "way in" to become financially dependent on abusing their bodies for other people. The rich will keep the fetus producing mothers poor and dependant on this income indefinitely. It's kinda similar to if you sad that offering some poor woman money for sex is "helping her", it's not really. I don't blame people for doing such things, but let's call them what they really are.

Also it will be easier for the immortal rich to keep and increase their assets (which increase by default in capitalism) and further increase disparity between the rich (1% of people owning 90% of wealth etc) and poor which is already too high. It doesn't really look good to me. We don't have to drag this conversation out anymore, I'm not militant about it, I just have an opinion, I do not aspire to enforce it on anyone. We obviously don't agree but I like the way we don't agree so let's keep it at that? :)

 

 

The rich may start to keep the fetus producing mothers poor and dependant on this income indefinitely, if the practice becomes illegal. The legal way will be something similar with the surrogacy.

 

The treatments will be expensive at the beginning, and will become cheaper with the time, until the moment of a standart availability, and even health ensurance covering. This is the standart evolution of all medical technologies. It is obvious with everything medical - CT scans, MRIs, stands placement, medical exams, whatever. The key is once it becomes a legal practice.



#167 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 16 March 2015 - 10:41 PM

I suggest anyone who cares for poor mothers, not to tempt them to kill their babies with money.  I'm sure no one here would buy aborted baby body parts.  Would you!


Edited by shadowhawk, 16 March 2015 - 10:42 PM.

  • Good Point x 1

#168 Danail Bulgaria

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,212 posts
  • 421
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 17 March 2015 - 07:17 AM

Hm... in the case of therapeutic cloning, their babies will not have their genetics and will not be theirs in biological terms.



#169 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 17 March 2015 - 09:50 PM

Whose will they be?



#170 Danail Bulgaria

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,212 posts
  • 421
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 18 March 2015 - 09:10 AM

In biological terms, they will be children of their biological parent - the man or woman, who has been cloned.



#171 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 18 March 2015 - 08:59 PM

They are humans in other words.


  • Good Point x 1

#172 kurdishfella

  • Guest
  • 2,397 posts
  • -71
  • Location:russia
  • NO

Posted 01 February 2022 - 10:21 PM

there is therapy for religious trauma. people with religiois mindset affects everything badly from nature to living animals being in proxomity

Edited by kurdishfella, 01 February 2022 - 10:22 PM.






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: religion, immortality

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users