Page 1 of 1

PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2001 9:44 am
by Jamie
Stem Cell Research. What do you think about it? Here is a link to a fairly bare bones explanation of what Stem Cell Research is and its implications to science and health care. <A HREF="http://www.nih.gov/news/stemcell/primer.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.nih.gov/news/stemcell/primer.htm</A> .<P>Here's another link to summarize what all the controversy is about. To be fair though the arguments against do go beyond just Christian ethics. <A HREF="http://www.bioethix.org/resources/overviews/stemcell.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.bioethix.org/resources/overviews/stemcell.html</A> .<P>There are no real right or wrong answers to this one, but this is a very relevant topic in our government today.<P>Take care,<P>(Sir) Jamie<P>------------------
KCI in the Order of the Knights of Jubal
Probi Immotiqve Este: Be virtuous and cool. PIQE.
<A HREF="http://ivbalis.org" TARGET=_blank>http://ivbalis.org</A> <P>Clan of the Cats
<A HREF="http://clanofthecats.com" TARGET=_blank>http://clanofthecats.com</A> <P>"Of all God's creatures there is only one that cannot be made the slave of the lash. That one is the cat. If man could be crossed with a cat it would improve man, but it would deteriorate the cat."
- Mark Twain

PostPosted: Wed Aug 01, 2001 12:18 am
by TimberBram
Ah, yes. Stem cell research. My take is that as long as you do not destroy any Human life (and life does start at conception), you can research to your heart's content. And as the article pointed out, there are some impressive results with adult stem cells.<P>If that slows down research, so be it.
If that means I die of my cancer before a new treatment is found, so be it.<P>I needed to go through blood stem cell harvesting for an autologous bone marrow transplant (part of my cancer treatment). So I know that stem cell research has already had some beneficial results.<P>However, I'm not willing that anyone die, not even a foetus, so that I can live.<P>Peace and PIQE,
Sir Timber Bram.

PostPosted: Wed Aug 01, 2001 8:23 am
by BandMan2K
hmmm... it does pose a quandary. The whole idea of life and all. If i was to side with the U.S. government, then yes i would be for Stem Cell research. If however i side with the Christians and others who see life as from moment of conception, then no i would be against it. <P>
What would my answer be... I'd probably say no since i don't like the idea of taking a helpless life to help another, but if i were in the need to have a replacement organ or such, then i might be more favorable for it. For right now however, i'd have to side with the Christians and say no, no stem cell research.<P>I give up the floor now... <P>------------------
Sir Howard Seelye, KI:
Order of the Knights of Jubal (PIQE)<P>"Don't go getting me angry... not if you value your life!!"
Duo Maxwell, Gundam Wing<P>---begin CRFH!!! code---
F U+ IRC+ R RM--- H PSL++ FW S FR- WB- GN++ AI++ D&M BR- RPG- FDS-- BSL N P+++ W++ I+ E
---end CRFH!!! code---

PostPosted: Wed Aug 01, 2001 10:15 am
by Zolgar
I'll put my two cents worth in: I'm right, you're wrong.. End of subject..<P>Wait.. I have to give an opinion before I can say that.. Don't I? Darn..<P>Basically what Stemcell research is, is them wanting to clone human parts to creat organs for transplants.. Right?<P>If that's the case, then I'm against it.. I am really against man playing God.... Which scientists do more than enough of now.....<P>*grins* Now I can say "I'm right, you're wrong... End of subject.." <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspot.com/KeenBoard/smile.gif"> J/K<P>------------------
To look death in the face
To end life, to take life
To damn this infernal race
Slay a man, slay his wife
Why, God, is it so simple
To destroy all we know
To make this world a temple
unto the demise we sow
And yet, it is so hard
to bring even the slightest
change to raise the standard
and, for once, give the world rest<P>(Okay, so, I'm not a good poet.)

PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2001 12:32 am
by Silver Adept
Greg is correct. The trick is not the actual stem cell. It's how the stem cell is obtained. <P>Now, before setting up my position, I'd like to interject a factoid that I believe may be true. <P>I have heard and seen in various places that it may be possible to derive stem cells from ordinary fat cells. Research is ongoing at this point, so I have nothing definite. <P>There. Factiod dispensed. <P>Now, setting up my position (which means I'm digging very deep to avoid being nuked.) <P>Position: I am against the usage of embyronic stem cells for research. <P>Why? Because I truly do believe that even embryos are potential lives that could be destroyed. I think that it's very possible that great geniuses could be destroyed because the embyro was not allowed to carry to term. <P>Although I'm not sure about where "life" begins, I'm more in favor of protecting the potential life than trying to advance the research. <P>That said, I'm not totally against stem cell research. As noted by the factoid above, I believe that an alternative method may be available that is less lethal and may produce the same results. I therefore throw my support in favor of the alternative researchers. <P>Okay, that's it. Fire away.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2001 1:31 am
by Atlas_v1.1
'Playing God'? There's no such thing, I'll argue. God(dess) created things. So do we. So we play God already.<P>What's the difference between creating the ability to heal otherwise unhealable diseases, and creating a sand castle on the beach? Scale. That's all the difference.<P>The other considerations, such as when life begins... Well, I, for one, believe the soul takes residence in the body at some point between conception and birth. My guess is, third month or so. Because, first of all, I'd notice a soul (yes I'm serious) hanging around when I and my GF have sex. Secondly, there isn't much to inhabit before three months or so into the process. You might as well say that bacteria have souls and we should keep them alive because of it.<P>So abortion early in the pregnancy is no problem, morally seen, for me. It has as much ethical impact as amputating a toe or finger. Not something easily done, by any means. But if leaving it there ruins something greater, remove it.<P>*dons flame-retardant suit in case anti-abortionists decide to turn militant like they so deplorably often do*

PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2001 5:58 am
by DBLMagus
Hmm, good possibility, there could be possible geniuses destroyed, or possible hitlers destroyed. The problem is that we don't know enough about how genetics effect personality and intelligence to be able to dictate if that person is going to be a genius. Of course theres also the fact that environment shapes the individual as much/more than genetics. One could also point out that the life which has been saved by the stem cells harvested could end up being someone who makes the world a better place. Divining the future has never been a precise art so we'd never know either way if the person is dead or not.<P>Hence the reason why science and ethics have to either go hand in hand or be completely seperate. On the one hand it would prevent alot of deaths. But on the other hand it could advance science much quicker if we had human "guinea pigs" right away as opposed to testing it on animals and hoping it will work on humans. <P>It'd be much easier if things were all black and white instead of shades of gray.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2001 6:48 am
by DBLMagus
I'd have to agree with Atlas on this one. If we remove organs from dead individuals to save another that isn't wrong correct? So under that thought process if something was never alive and it will cure another it is the right thing to do is it not? Of course that is the whole controversy. Whether or not it is alive. This problem has been thought of for ages and ages. Many families in which a child has some kind of disease that requires a marrow transplant it is not unheard of for that family to have another child just for the purpose of keeping the other alive. So basically they are "playing god" in those aspects although the child is "alive" by my thought when they're actually doing the marrow transplant. I don't have the benefit that Atlas does of being able to feel another soul there. I'm only a kinesthetic not a medium(or whatever term you wish to use for that particular ability).

Now I'm about to say something theological that may provoke certain groups so you might want to bypass the next paragraph.<P>For those who say that man plays God, were we not created in his image? If we were created in His/Her image then we would most likely have acquired similar thought and abilities. The power to create, not just through reproduction like in all living things, but to create things far beyond the possibilities that most people can dream. God has given us the ability to think and reason and create so we use it. <P>Ok end of the theological part now onto philosophical discussion.<P>So what is life as we know it? We say something is alive if they exhibit certain characteristics such as respiration, metabolism, capability of reproduction, etc. And we always bring up the idea of the soul when we talk about a life if it is of the genus homosapien. We always just assume that since it isn't a human then we can do whatever we want with it. Humans are mammals just like rats and apes. We use them to prolong our lives and they are tortured for it. Harvesting stem cells from something that never has to experience the suffering that the test animals go through is probably the most humane thing to do. There is no pain, there is no suffering, there is no life, yet it can save millions of people from cancer patients to those who need replacement organs. These things can all be healed through the use of stem cells which can be transformed with the right set of instructions into being anything from an eye, to skin, to braincells.
Theres other things I'd go on about but I don't have the time to continue at the moment so I'll probably continue the discourse later.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2001 6:49 am
by Greg
OK.... I'm prepared to give this one a go.<P>As I see it, the major issue is how the stem cells are "harvested", for want of a better word.<P>The basic argument against harvesting stem cells seems to be revolving around it "destroying life".<P>However, humans have been doing this for years, in the name of survival. Every time we pick an apple, or dig up a potato or carrot, or harvest wheat to make flour, these things destroy a life form.<P>However, most of us can happily nibble on a mung bean with our karma emerging from the experience undamaged.<P>What makes a human embryo any different? Perhaps, because it has the potential to develop in to a sentient entity. Because it has a soul?<P>Personally, I beleive that until a brain stem forms, an embryo does not have any sentience or self-awareness. It follows that this thing, whilst it is alive, would not have a soul. It is not even capable of independant survival at this stage.<P>Conceptually speaking, an embryo is a discrete life form, which is dependant upon it's host and whilst it is alive, is not capable of thought or communication. Merely consuming enegy and performing cell division.<P>From that perspective, it's not much different from a germ or virus, but we don't accuse people who take penicillin of being mass-murderers.<P>Really, most people aren't against killing life forms, merely intelligent life. And unless you're vegetarian, even intelligent life isn't that big a deal. <P>So the question is, how can you have a soul without a functioning brain. My opinion is that you can't. To have a soul, an entity must have intelligence and self awareness. Until higher brain functions have developed, these are not present therefore no soul is present.<P>Just my $0.022 (inc. GST) worth.<P>Regards,
Sir Greg<P>------------------
-------------
Sir Gregory of Melbourne, KI
Knight of the <A HREF="http://www.ivbalis.org" TARGET=_blank>Order of Jubal</A>
"What I tell you three times is true..." - The Bellman

PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2001 8:13 am
by DBLMagus
just to play devils advocate (i'm so good at it ^_^) to Gregs comment about functioning brains and self awareness and intelligence.

The extreme form of what was said would be that those with mental handicaps preventing self awareness and high intelligence as well as those who have become "vegetables" due to drugs or massive brain trauma have no souls.<P>I'm not saying I don't agree with you Greg, In fact I fully agree with everything you said. I just feel that we should represent all sides of every argument even if I disagree with what I bring up. Besides it makes a much livlier discussion. <P>I'm a Gemini, it's my job to be on everyside at the same time ^_^

PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2001 12:40 am
by DBLMagus
That is the problem. Though darkness is necessary in the world for light to have purpose, there is still the possibility that evil could triumph. Yes, yes, I know, not a very happy thought. But that has always been a problem. We were given freewill so that we could make the choices, not be led by a higher power. Too many possibilities can give one a headache though. If we sit and think about every single possibility that can come from a source we'd be there for years. And I can't remember where it came from but there was a quote "Evil will only triumph when a good man does nothing." So I guess basically what I'm trying to say is that we can't just not do something becuase we fear the impact that it could have, such as terminating a life too early for us to be affected by it positively or negatively, especially when that something can save lives. It always happens in the earliest stages of a medicine. It is a painful fact of our existance, Death is always a possibility. I wish we were far enough scientifically that we did not need to destroy one life to save another, I wish that we did not live in a society where people felt the need to terminate a life prematurely so that it would not negatively affect their own lives. But that is how things are as of now. All we can do is try to live our lives as best as we are capable, to help others and to try to leave the world better than it was when we were brought into it. <P>Hmm, its amazing how a topic on medicine can go so far into philosophy and ethics.<P>Oh yeah, did any of you hear what the penalties for cloning were? I can't seem to find them anywhere since I heard the news that they made it illegal.

PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2001 1:30 am
by Atlas_v1.1
I believe I understand Greg's argument.<P>There is a group of Buddhists who call themselves Jainan. They do not eat anything that causes the death of a living thing. This includes plants. This basically restricts them to fruit and vegetables. They do not eat honey, eve, as that would be stealing from bees.
Naturally, they are viewed as complete idiots by most others.<P>A human embryo is merely a lump of cells until well into the pregnancy. To say that they have the potential to become great geniuses is nonsensical. They have equally much chance of becoming evil dictators who terrorize humanity and the world itself.
It can even be argued that a child does not have selfawareness until well after birth, when cognitive functions expand past sleeping and eating.<P>As for brain-dead people... Well, if the brain is dead, where is the soul?
As for retarded people - they have a soul, certainly. But it is limited by the flesh it inhabits. It always is.
As for severely braindamaged people, but not yet brain-dead, it's a grey area. I've witnessed a case where a poor slob had a little bit of brain function left as practically the only thing. His sensory organs had devolved past usefulness, and all he had was limited hearing. He was completely immobile, as far as muscular motion and nervous connection goes, and with practically no sensory input by touch. He was surviving only with great medical effort. Can that be considered life? Or just prolonged suffering in survival...<P>There is never a black or a white. There is only grey. The trick is to choose the lighter grey color.

PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2001 6:13 am
by DBLMagus
init tangetialinfo.bat
loading.
.
.
.
The druids had a similar philosophy to that of those Budhists you spoke of. Well the part about not eating living things, though they did kill plants in the use of their rituals but thats something else. If you have the reason why the Budhists didn't eat living things could you provide that to me? Becuase I sorta study religions and philosophies.<P>Anyway, the Druids did this becuase they believed that it debased the human spirit to take into themselves the spirits of animals. There were occasions when they did it but that is only in a certain ritual called the Wild Hunt but yet again thats even more tangential. <P>end tangentialinfo.bat<P>So maybe animals do have souls? Well maybe not souls but spirits though I don't know the difference between a soul and a spirit since many of the philosophies believe in reincarnation of the soul in which things move up from insects to animals to humans and if a person was truly horrid they might be brought back as a lower being again.<P>Just some food for thought. If reincarnation is the way of things... Well you can draw your own conclusion. <P>Oh and I am a practicing christian if theres any question about my religious practices, I just have a tendency to follow the part in scripture where it says you must question your faith for it to grow strong.

PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2001 8:33 am
by Jim Brockman
Well, well, well....
A lot going on here. Where do I start?<P>
Ok, For the Record I am against abortion at any stage of pregnancy. It is my belief that is Murder. (For religious perposes: we were given dominion over the earth and the animals, not each other. So it is ok to kill both animals and plants but not humans)
However, I also believe that this is going to occur no matter what any of us do. The best I can hope for is to convince others to believe as I do.
Meanwhile, if abortion was to be outlawed people would go to 'hacks' who for the right price would kill the child anyway and likely kill the mother. (For a good movie example of this see <I>Dirty Dancing</I>.) Though I use a monie as an example there are many records of this happeing in reality.
My point is, "Why take two lives in an attempt to save one".
For those that deside to abort, that becomes a matter between them and whatever they consider holy.<P>Stem cell research has a long way to go. If we can, we should limit the research to aborted (naturally or induced)fetuses. Or to adult stem cell research.<P>Abortion killing a genius vs. Hitler.
For starters Hitler was a genius, mad and wrong but still a genius.
Still, I don't think it would have made a difference if Hitler had been aborted or killed earlier in his life. The Germany of the time was ripe for someone like him. There were several people (that we know of) that could and would have stepped up in his place. [Some of the possible replacements would have been worse than Hitler]
Additionally, to get philisophical, without both 'good and evil' geniuses, or us more mundane types life and the struggle for a better life would be meaningless.
"Without the shadows the light would be meaningless".<P>I could go on and am willing to continue if anyone has a question. But for now I will stop.<P>Thanks, for listening.<P>*I always wear the fire resistant suit, so Flame away if you feel a need to."<P>------------------
"What you don't want yourself, don't do to others"
"If you desire to establish youself, Establish others"
- K'ung-fu-tzu<P>Jim ß®øçkmåñ CI

PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2001 8:40 am
by Jim Brockman
OH!!!!<P>About the reincarnation thing.<P>I see it going three ways.
1) You don't believe in it so you can ignore that whole aspect.
2) By killing an fetus that a soul was about to be reborn in you have just consigned that individual to go back to the end of the line and make him/her wait for an available fetus again. or
3) Since the soul was yet to be born he/she just moves to the next available fetus in line.<P>Please give me your thoughts on this.<P>------------------
"What you don't want yourself, don't do to others"
"If you desire to establish youself, Establish others"
- K'ung-fu-tzu<P>Jim ß®øçkmåñ CI

PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2001 11:51 am
by Silver Adept
Again, before returning to the position, throwing out some interesting things... <P>I can corroborate on the Jains. I think, also, though, there is a branch of Hinduism that also carries the name Jainism... although I'm not entirely sure on that. <P>Returning to the position now... <P>The "genius" argument is really more about the potential of a life. Admittedly, the potential can be for good or evil. I admit that. However, I believe that as humans, we cannot truly deny anyone their potential without making ourselves a lesser race because of it. <P>Even the Hitler argument has it's flaws. True, another Hitler could arise, but the world could become a much stronger place because of him, inching closer to a more harmonious existence as an end result. Therefore, the potential was realized, although in a more roundabout manner than a directly good person. By denying even an evil person's potential, we become lesser by not having to overcome it. <P>The road not often taken sometimes produces the best scenic views.

PostPosted: Sun Aug 05, 2001 2:56 am
by Greg
Firstly, with regard to the Jainan Buddhists, <A HREF="http://www.clanofthecats.com/d/20000911.html" TARGET=_blank>this is rather pertinent</A> (thanks Jamie!)<P>With regards to the question of whether animals have souls or spirits, personally I beleive that the merely have spirits. This is because the concept of a "soul" implies a belief in a higher power or God, a sense of right and wrong and the power to choose between them. Such self-determination requires self-awareness. That's the difference between intelligence and self-awareness. To expect a cat <B>not</B> to hunt mice and birds is asking it to be untrue to its nature. Are cats therefore evil, because they are killers?<P>Which, unfortunately, knocks the idea of reincarnation on the head for me. Because if animals don't have the choice and determination to choose right from wrong, then they have no ability to control their karma.<P>To clarify my feelings on abortion: I beleive that there are times when an abortion is justified (e.g. rape), however, I do not beleive that it should be used simply as a form of contraception. If you're going to do "it", take responsibility for the consequences, or think about the possibility of pregnancy beforehand.<P>In regards to the topic of Genius vs. Hitler: It's an interesting philosophical discussion, but ultimately irrelevant to stem cell research. If you take the line that an embryo is a human life, then <B>all</B> life is precious, whether it's a Mozart, Hitler or Joe Bloggs.<P>Finally, in regards to the concept of good vs. evil, I can personally attest that good has and will always triumph. I can say this with 100% certaintity, because <I>history is written by the winners!</I> Therefore, whoever wins will label themselves as good, and the ones that opposed them as evil.<P>That's my opinion. Fire away.<P>Regards,
Greg<P>
------------------
-------------
Sir Gregory of Melbourne, KI
Knight of the <A HREF="http://www.ivbalis.org" TARGET=_blank>Order of Jubal</A>
"What I tell you three times is true..." - The Bellman<p>[This message has been edited by Greg (edited 08-05-2001).]

PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2001 9:37 am
by spade78
From stem cells to do animals have spirits? Have we strayed a bit? <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspot.com/KeenBoard/smile.gif"> Oh well, since that was brought up here's my two cents on that issue: The concept of the spirit and the soul is purely a human invention to explain that natural phonema around him/her so since other animals aren't human then my answer to that question would be no, they don't have spirits or souls (but if they think they do then they ought to tell me!). <P>On the issue of stem cells (another two cents), I support the research and think that this is as promising an avenue towards cures for diseases and other forms of human suffering that has ever come around. I think the best way for this issue to be resolved is if technology is allowed to evolve to a viable solution and then deal with that question at that time. Who knows, if some point in the middle of that research another avenue comes up that is acceptable to all sides then this discussion now become moot, doesn't it? And would we have reached that point if we had spent all eternity bickering about it? Probably not. And does destroying the embryo cells (from which I think they extract the stem cells) represent such a reprehensible thing that it must be stopped at all costs? No, I think the priority should be with the living and not with the embryos that 'could' become a living, sentient human being. Not exploring the benefits of stem cell research might eventually cost us much more than we originally thought it would. I'd rather have traveled down that path and be the wiser for it than let others block my way and have me always thinking, what if....<P>Eugene - spade78<P>By the way I'm not religous or affiliated with any religous denomination if anybody had not caught on to that in the course of my little rant there! <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspot.com/KeenBoard/smile.gif">

PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2001 9:41 am
by spade78
From stem cells to do animals have spirits? Have we strayed a bit? <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspot.com/KeenBoard/smile.gif"> Oh well, since that was brought up here's my two cents on that issue: The concept of the spirit and the soul is purely a human invention to explain that natural phonema around him/her so since other animals aren't human then my answer to that question would be no, they don't have spirits or souls (but if they think they do then they ought to tell me!). <P>On the issue of stem cells (another two cents), I support the research and think that this is as promising an avenue towards cures for diseases and other forms of human suffering that has ever come around. I think the best way for this issue to be resolved is if technology is allowed to evolve to a viable solution and then deal with that question at that time. Who knows, if some point in the middle of that research another avenue comes up that is acceptable to all sides then this discussion now become moot, doesn't it? And would we have reached that point if we had spent all eternity bickering about it? Probably not. And does destroying the embryo cells (from which I think they extract the stem cells) represent such a reprehensible thing that it must be stopped at all costs? No, I think the priority should be with the living and not with the embryos that 'could' become a living, sentient human being. Not exploring the benefits of stem cell research might eventually cost us much more than we originally thought it would. I'd rather have traveled down that path and be the wiser for it than let others block my way and have me always thinking, what if....<P>Eugene - spade78<P>By the way I'm not religous or affiliated with any religous denomination if anybody had not caught on to that in the course of my little rant there! <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspot.com/KeenBoard/smile.gif">

PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2001 8:55 am
by Silver Adept
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally postulated by Greg:
<B><P>I can personally attest that good has and will always triumph. I can say this with 100% certaintity, because <I>history is written by the winners!</I> Therefore, whoever wins will label themselves as good, and the ones that opposed them as evil.
</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Full marks for that observation, Greg. I think it brings up an interesting point in the stem cell discussion, as well. In the current mindset, stem cell research using embyros is either acceptable or unacceptable because of the same concept, "good." Now which "good" will win? The Life is Precious, or the Scientific Cures? Both good, both important, but which one will prevail? <P>In any case, I stand modified. I still will support alternative methods, both on the grounds that I preiously mentioned, but also adding to that argument <I>in case the current method should prove inadvisable or insufficiently efficient and effective.</I><P>Throwing one's eggs into one basket is never good. However, given the choice between two effective methods, one embyronic, one not so, I will still choose the non-embyronic one. It could very well be that the non-embyronic one can be refined to the point where it will surpass the embyronic one in amount and quality of stem cells produced. And then what happens?

PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2001 9:13 am
by Gustav Snarp
I've only scanned this topic briefly, so someone may have already answered the question of why the Jains don't kill anything. Their basic belief is that all living things have a soul, even plants, and that to kill anything with a soul is equal to killing another person. Well, that's the short version anyway. Now I have always assumed that the Jains were a Hindu sect, as opposed to a Buddhist one, but I may be wrong. I'm going to have to do a bit of research.<P>As for Stem cell research, of course the real issue is how the cells are harvested. Do they come from aborted fetuses? Cloned fetuses? Each of these has it's problems. The question becomes, would abortion be encouraged more if the fetuses were being harvested for stem cells. This seems fairly unlikely to most of us, but in poorer countries it is not so unlikely. If they come from cloned fetuses then I stand against it for the time being. I don't believe that we should be involved in cloning of any life-form, let alone humans. I won't go so far as to say we shouldn't play God(dess), but I will say that we shouldn't muck about in things that we don't begin to understand. Cloning as well as stem cell research should be thoroughly examined before we take this technology any further. We have seen many examples of technology unleashed on the world without enough understanding of it's potential. Look at nuclear power (and warheads), DDT, and more recently, genetically engineered plants. Just because we CAN do something, doesn't necessarily mean that we SHOULD.<P>------------------
What you do may seem terribly unimportant, but it is terribly important that you do it anyway. - Mahatma Gandhi

PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2001 5:53 am
by Gustav Snarp
At the risk of being completely off topic, I did a bit of research on the Jains. OK, it was pretty lazy research, as I just asked a friend of mine who is exceedingly knowledgeable on all things Hindu and Buddhist. <P>The Jains are in fact a Hindu sect, not a Buddhist one. According to their mythology Jainism dates back 23 generations before Buddhism. Otherwise the postings described them pretty accurately. They will indeed eat only parts of the plant which do not require them to harm it. I believe this limits them to fruits and grains, as removing leaves would constitute harm. The nuns and monks wear masks to prevent their accidentaly inhaling and killing any insect, and sweep their path with a broom to avoid accidentally stepping on a bug. Apparently when a novice monk enters the temple his head is plucked bare and the hair tied to his leg, thus allowing any lice he may carry to have their fill until the hair falls off of its own accord. In this way they attain a shaved head without harming the lice. They build temples atop 500-1000ft mountains, scattered through out India, though most are in northwestern India. Jainism flourished during the time that Buddha was teaching, and had another swell in popularity between 500-1500AD. Thought you might enjoy that bit of information.<P>------------------
What you do may seem terribly unimportant, but it is terribly important that you do it anyway. - Mahatma Gandhi

PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2001 10:13 am
by Gustav Snarp
Here's something that might interest you all, as it pertains to webcomics and to the Jains. <A HREF="http://www.e-sheep.com/jain/" TARGET=_blank>http://www.e-sheep.com/jain/</A> <P>------------------
What you do may seem terribly unimportant, but it is terribly important that you do it anyway. - Mahatma Gandhi

PostPosted: Sat Aug 18, 2001 6:27 am
by Josh the Aspie
Okay then... I would like to adress several of the issues here. I only hope I will be non-inflamitory, and perhaps prevoke a little calm and introspective thought... I will admit that on such heavy topics, I am likely to use a bit of sensationalism. *was actualy crying myself while writing some parts of the post below*<P>First off, let me say, that in the united states, and other civilized counties, people are very often killed outright in hospitals. Before you start getting angry. Think about it.<P>Many organs in great demand can only be harvested when the body is still living, or only within a very short time after it dies. Many of these organs are taken from people in commas, who have little if any chance of waking up... but if you left one of them off the opperating table for just five more minutes... she might say "Mommie? are you there? Can I have my bear? It's cold" In many cases, it's possible, if not probbible.<P>In cases where organ donation was not discussed one way or another... and a family member has the legal right to decide... they sometimes decide to give up the organs.<P>So then when it comes right down to it... people die, with their consent or not... so that others might live, and have a better life. It's a fact.<P>People have died so that others might live for as long as man kind has existed... Soldiers falling on grenades to save their fellows. Kamakazi warriors sacrificing their lives, so that less lives would need to be risked by their compatriots. Mothers startving and working themselves to death to keep their children alive, and then giving them up to the monistary while on their death beds... some have died without meaning too, saving the lives around them as well. The unlucky private who looked up at the wrong time, taking the bullet meant for one of his fellows, who later turned the tied in the battle...<P>When it comes right down to it. If you believe that each of us has a fate, a predetermined destiny... a pourpose for which we are made... to make the world a better place... perhaps for some of us, that pourpose is to die, so that others might live. That is what I personaly believe... and so no matter when life begins... and even if it begins at different times for different people...<P>Thank you. That's all I have to say on the subject.
<P>------------------
No one can escape themselves forever, not even death. - Me
Tiss a poore minde indeede that kin only finde one way to spelle a worde.