Amen to that! It is very hard to change people's ideas and perspectives.
Most people tend to come to a conclusion and stick to it, often in the
face of evidence to the contrary. They begin to become territorial over
their beliefs, and to cluster into two groups "us" and "them", and argue
about who is "right" and who is "wrong". It becomes a power struggle to
see who "wins".
I don't think the question is who "thinks" and who "doesn't think". We
all think - but differently. We have no "proof" of the "truth" of one
side or another.
Each side of the stem cell argument has good points in my opinion. Here
is a summary, if I understand the issues correctly - and I may not:
Supporters of embryonic - argue that it will save post-birth life or
quality of life
Detractors of embryonic - argue that the concerns about life should not
be limited to post birth. If three day embroyos are not considered
"alive" then what about 4 day? 5? If we allow testing on 3 day old
embryos, then discover that it would be more helpful to do 4 day, then
5.. where does it stop?
Supporters of embryonic - argue that we need to pursue all avenues of
research to get to a cure faster
Detractors of embryonic - might argue if that is the reasoning, then why
don't we experiment on prisoners? We could probably find a cure even
faster
Supporters of embryonic - argue that if we are going to destroy embryos
anyway, why not get use from their destruction?
Detractors of embryonic - I think (and I am not sure) that the argument
would be that we don't want to create a market for "farming" embryos
I guess an overall argument I am hearing is:
Supporters of embryonic - science should not be deterred
Detractors of embryonic - God's will should not be deterred
The bottom line causing the problem is when does life begin? Neither
side can prove or disprove. If we could do this, I think the argument
could be solved. If you make the argument that life begins when brain
waves start, and ends when they end, then why can't we experiment on
people who are brain dead as well as embryos?
By the way, I am not promoting any of the above experiments, I am just
attempting to show the two logical sides of each argument. I am not
trying to start more arguments, I am trying to promote thinking about
the problem as opposed to ranting. It is late, I'm tired, and I'm
rambling now. I am sure there are a lot of problems with what I just
wrote.
I await more input, and my comeuppance! :)
Wendy
-----Original Message-----
From: Parkinson's Information Exchange Network
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of R.Rajaraman
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 9:51 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Moral certainty
Hi Wendy:
You are right. Science is after the ultimate truth, which is hard to
come by in the absence of all the info one needs to make a conclusion.
That
is why today's scientific fact is tomorrow's non-fact. As a scientist,
one
is always aware of such things. However, even scientists will refuse to
change their concepts, clinging to their own pet theories, until
everybody
else rejects the theory. A good example is my discovery of neosis, a
novel
type of cell division in cancer. I will not be surprized if people do
not
realize the significance of my findings even after two decades. We have
been
brainwahsed to think that there are only two types of cell division,
mitosis
and meiosis. Even for scientists it is hard to change the mindset. I can
undrerstand the problems of the common man. Look how long it took for
the
world to accept the truth that the earth is spherical and not flat!
Raj
***********
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn
