Stem Cell Research

[Vassago]

I actually saw a video on tv a few days ago about new mothers who have parties at their homes where the placenta is made into a sort of spread and eaten with crackers. The participants lived in London. They had an attorney present who said there was nothing in British law that states it's illegal or unsanitary to do so. They also mentioned the low fat, high protein characteristics and health benefits of doing so.

Now in America, there was a family who tried to do the same. The parents were arrested for cannibalism. Go figure.

 

[Rich]

I actually saw a video on tv a few days ago about new mothers who have parties at their homes where the placenta is made into a sort of spread and eaten with crackers.

Yuk! and I bet the crackers were low fat

 

[Vassago]

Yuk! and I bet the crackers were low fat

Probably low sodium too. I wonder what the sodium content for placenta would be...

 

[Ron_dK]

Probably low sodium too. I wonder what the sodium content for placenta would be...

Somewhere between 76 and 82 % , depending on the temp of the placenta

 

[Friday]

My Dad is sitting in a care facility wasting away with Parkinson's Disease. I sometimes wonder if the stem cell 'war' would still be waged if leaders of the religous right all had Parkinson's Disease, or maybe some of their loved ones. It's easy to be high and mighty when you aren't betting against your own family. This is typical of the RR, ignorance is bliss.

 

[Adeptus]

My Dad is sitting in a care facility wasting away with Parkinson's Disease. I sometimes wonder if the stem cell 'war' would still be waged if leaders of the religous right all had Parkinson's Disease, or maybe some of their loved ones. It's easy to be high and mighty when you aren't betting against your own family. This is typical of the RR, ignorance is bliss.

This also seems to be how some diseases get the spotlight & celebrity backing... eg Michael J Fox, Christopher Reeves
If they weren't suffering from the problem, would they be so enthusiastic about supporting its research? (human nature I guess)

 

[Bodisathva]

If they weren't suffering from the problem, would they be so enthusiastic about supporting its research? (human nature I guess)

Does the motivation behind the support truly matter? There are certain members of the species that do nothing, unfortunately, without the prospect of personal gain. If they rally to a cause due to a perceived gain, they are still rallying behind the cause and the cause prospers. The only item really in question is the amount of kudos you bestow upon them for the perceived selflessness...and that takes away from the cause itself by placing emphasis upon the self in a selfless act.

Another philosophical morning...

 

[msp]

I actually saw a video on tv a few days ago about new mothers who have parties at their homes where the placenta is made into a sort of spread and eaten with crackers. The participants lived in London. They had an attorney present who said there was nothing in British law that states it's illegal or unsanitary to do so. They also mentioned the low fat, high protein characteristics and health benefits of doing so.

Now in America, there was a family who tried to do the same. The parents were arrested for cannibalism. Go figure.

Dis not Tom Cruise and his wife eat the placenta of their child. For those who want to try..http://www.twilightheadquarters.com/placenta.html

 

[Tasslehoff]

selfless act.

Another philosophical morning...

As long as we are being philosophical, then I have to say that there are no such things as "selfless acts" as defined as "doing something without regard to your self". Yet, it is integral to society to pretend that they do. Sort of like the term "double-think" from 1984.

An example of doing something without regard to yourself: Father throwing himself in front of a bullet to save his child.

If we examine that in terms of motivation, then there are two basic values at stake for the father. One, he could lose his life, which he values. Two, he could lose his son's life, which he also values. His action is decided by which he values greater. We only ever do what we want to do out of the options available. The father would have wanted to kill himself for his child because it would be saving the thing he valued most, thus it is selfish, and thus everything we do is selfish. It is impossible to do something soley, or in any part, for someone else by the very fact that the "someone else" is not your self, because you only ever do what you want to do, not what they want to do. In this way, you can never sacrifice what you most value--you can only ever sacrifice a lesser value to a greater one.

The point: what we really mean by "selfless" is the state of wanting to do and beneiftting from what benefits others. What we really mean by "selfish" is the state of wanting to do and benifitting from what does not benefit others.

I probably didn't make any sense, but this is actually a valid point that I brewed over for years. In the end, it pretty much comes down to the technical wording of a definition and that's all.

 

[Bodisathva]

The father would have wanted to kill himself for his child because it would be saving the thing he valued most, thus it is selfish, and thus everything we do is selfish.

but to follow your line of reasoning, the act of selfishness destroys the self and therefore becomes, by definition, selfless.

 

[Tasslehoff]

but to follow your line of reasoning, the act of selfishness destroys the self and therefore becomes, by definition, selfless.

No, because if that were true, suicide would be considered a selfless act.

Add on:

I might have mangled it, but trust me: you can't do something not for yourself.

 

[Vassago]

No, because if that were true, suicide would be considered a selfless act.

I can think of cases where this might be true.

 

[msp]

but to follow your line of reasoning, the act of selfishness destroys the self and therefore becomes, by definition, selfless.

Not if looked at the level of the Gene. By throwing himself in the path of the billet the father is insuring that his genetic information will be passed on to the next generation. hence the selfish gene.

 

[Bodisathva]

ok, ok, ok. Pessimists all

How about this, then...
The father, sacrifices(the operative term here) his life for the child:

1. for the pure love of the child = selfless act.
2. knowing he will die (suicide) but that his death will serve a greater purpose = selfless act
3. to insure his genetic code survives and therefore he himself survives vicariously through his offspring = twisted, but still destroys the self even though the original incentive was selfish. Passing of genetic material does not impart experiences or any portion of the self. Genetic transferrance of memory is NOT reality and just because someone shares your genetic code does not make them you

...unless you cloned yourself

...using stem cells

...and even then, different experiences at different developmental stages(nature vs. nurture) do create emotionally different people regardless of genetic makeup

 

[msp]

[*] to insure his genetic code survives and therefore he himself survives vicariously through his offspring = twisted, but still destroys the self even though the original incentive was selfish. Passing of genetic material does not impart experiences or any portion of the self. Genetic transferrance of memory is NOT reality and just because someone shares your genetic code does not make them you

it is not "the self", that is being protected (that is being simplistic. but the gene (or a percentage of them)..

 

[Bodisathva]

it is not "the self", that is being protected (that is being simplistic. but the gene (or a percentage of them)..

hence "self-less"

or, a more accurate exposition:

the Buddha was asked point-blank whether or not there was a self, he refused to answer. When later asked why, he said that to hold either that there is a self or that there is no self is to fall into extreme forms of wrong view that make the path of Buddhist practice impossible. Thus the question should be put aside. To understand what his silence on this question...we first have to look at his teachings on how questions should be asked and answered, and how to interpret his answers.

...unless he was cloned

...using stem cells

 

[msp]

hence "self-less"

or, a more accurate exposition:


...unless he was cloned

...using stem cells

But is is still the gen that is acting in a selfish way, i.e maximising its chances of being passed into the next generation..

 

[Tasslehoff]

I can think of cases where this might be true.

Using my definition of selfless, indeed, so can I.

 

[Tasslehoff]

ok, ok, ok. Pessimists all

How about this, then...
The father, sacrifices(the operative term here) his life for the child:

1. for the pure love of the child = selfless act.
2. knowing he will die (suicide) but that his death will serve a greater purpose = selfless act
3. to insure his genetic code survives and therefore he himself survives vicariously through his offspring = twisted, but still destroys the self even though the original incentive was selfish. Passing of genetic material does not impart experiences or any portion of the self. Genetic transferrance of memory is NOT reality and just because someone shares your genetic code does not make them you

...unless you cloned yourself

...using stem cells

...and even then, different experiences at different developmental stages(nature vs. nurture) do create emotionally different people regardless of genetic makeup

You are right, if you use my definition of the word 'selfless'.

 

[Karma]

Ok so lets change that slightly and save if the man saves a complete stranger and dies in the process is that not completley selfless?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1562729,00.html