Health and Religion

[IadixDev]

What has religion accomplished in the last 100 years?  Diddly-squat.

And we have destroyed 90% of our ecosystem and lost social cohesion, with two world war and a cold war, plus Hiroshima and all,but at least we have xannax and know how many rings there is on saturn and how many forces there is in the universe.

If you don't like progress, go live in Afganistan.  You will get all the social cohesion you so desperately desire.

The ecosystems are being destroyed because we reproduce like rabbits.  That is the root cause of our environmental issues.

To stop the destruction, we need to have a negative population growth rate or at least a near-zero growth rate.

But religious lunatics reproduce like there is no tomorrow.  You know, because that is what God (aka them) wants, LOL.

Im developper, i like science and technology, why so offensive lol

The ecosystem is being destroyed because we loose respect for life and the sacred in our race for developpement.

I dont even understand why you oppose systematically the two, after all originally science is a branch of greek philosophy, sophy coming from Sophia, which is a greek goddess of wisedom, also close to concept of trinity.

Negative growth rate, i expected more optimism from a great progressist scientist like you lol whats the use of all those force in the universe if in the end we cant use it To grow our population  

But yeah why not im living again when i go to Bali lol but there is still technology there. Afganistan maybe not, too much CIA Who want to promote capitalist développement with al Qaïda.

Its even quite ironical to see people like you promoting science as absence of bias and objectivity having so much preconcievied and stereotypical view about certain topics while calling everyone ignorant.

.

[IadixDev]

What has religion accomplished in the last 100 years?  Diddly-squat.

And we have destroyed 90% of our ecosystem and lost social cohesion, with two world war and a cold war, plus Hiroshima and all,but at least we have xannax and know how many rings there is on saturn and how many forces there is in the universe.

If you don't like progress, go live in Afganistan.  You will get all the social cohesion you so desperately desire.

You are correct af-newbie when you stated that the vast majority of humanity is ignorant.

The most dangerous manifestation of that ignorance is our insane and ill conceived push for power and technological supremacy. As a species we constantly ask can it be done? A wiser species would ask should it be done?

Our willingness to use violence on our fellows in the form of war coupled with the power technological supremacy provides makes the current human trajectory both unchangeable and tenuous at best. It does not take a genius to see that our society is in very deep trouble an out of control train running out of tracks.

It is insanity to work so hard to make this possible:
"Slaughterbots" | Presented by ALTER
Or this:
New Robot Makes Soldiers Obsolete (Bosstown Dynamics)

And those things are just the beginnings of what we are on the verge of unleashing on ourselves in our blind search of power without wisdom.

The Amish essentially have it right on this issue. We should be far far more selective and thoughtful with regards to our technology and technological advancement. Sadly the rest of humanity not only fails to understand their wisdom they often mocks them for it.

This Is How And Why The Amish Live Off The Grid
https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/this-is-how-and-why-the-amish-live-off-the-grid/

Amish are wrong on many things, including their abuse of women and children.  Their insistence on freezing their communities in the 1850s is hilarious and tragic at the same time.

Trust me, you don't want to live off-grid.  I tried it.  You will break your back just to prove a point to yourself that you can do it.  
Not to mention you will drop a shitload of money to set it up. Completely worthless exercise.

I agree with you that we have to be careful when adopting new technology.    
However, we have no choice.  The Luddite position or religious refusal is just silly.

We have to find a way to live with technological progress, be left behind or in the worse case be replaced by it.

Progress will happen whether we like it or not.

Science originally is not even about achieving things, or doing company or building technology. Science is about knowledge and understanding the rules of the universe, and not only thermodynamic and how many watt you can get from 1l of gas, and how much profits you can make out of it. And from the moment you are in this demarch of understanding law of universe, it require the proto thesis that the universe has law, that are constant and eternal, and that it obey To reason, which is in alignement with theology.

Technology can only bring real progress if it contain an humanist dimension to it, like in the platonic sense of percieving knowledge through the good like we percieve object through the Sun. Like the noble truth in budhism.

Otherwise it just become a tool to satisfy greed and ego, putting material needs above everything else, leading To a form of self destruction.

Religion is not opposed To knowledge or science in itself, on the contrary, the logos as the basis of rational thinking is a concept from theology, only in the measure that its taken in the Matrix of greed and ego, destroying eco system and exploiting children To build some technology as cheap as possible To make a maximum of profits in wall street. But its not really what science is about originally.

The relation between mathematics and physics is purely coincidental, and only hold if you believe the universe is ordered and follow reason, otherwise physics is a delusion like any other, with its lot of dogma used to justify the privilege of a ruling elite like the bad side of institutional religion, and no axiomatic grounding as a rational discipline.

They even put a shiva statue in front of the CERN, it show that scientific progress and religion are not fundementally opposed.

[af_newbie]

What has religion accomplished in the last 100 years?  Diddly-squat.

And we have destroyed 90% of our ecosystem and lost social cohesion, with two world war and a cold war, plus Hiroshima and all,but at least we have xannax and know how many rings there is on saturn and how many forces there is in the universe.

If you don't like progress, go live in Afganistan.  You will get all the social cohesion you so desperately desire.

You are correct af-newbie when you stated that the vast majority of humanity is ignorant.

The most dangerous manifestation of that ignorance is our insane and ill conceived push for power and technological supremacy. As a species we constantly ask can it be done? A wiser species would ask should it be done?

Our willingness to use violence on our fellows in the form of war coupled with the power technological supremacy provides makes the current human trajectory both unchangeable and tenuous at best. It does not take a genius to see that our society is in very deep trouble an out of control train running out of tracks.

It is insanity to work so hard to make this possible:
"Slaughterbots" | Presented by ALTER
Or this:
New Robot Makes Soldiers Obsolete (Bosstown Dynamics)

And those things are just the beginnings of what we are on the verge of unleashing on ourselves in our blind search of power without wisdom.

The Amish essentially have it right on this issue. We should be far far more selective and thoughtful with regards to our technology and technological advancement. Sadly the rest of humanity not only fails to understand their wisdom they often mocks them for it.

This Is How And Why The Amish Live Off The Grid
https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/this-is-how-and-why-the-amish-live-off-the-grid/

Amish are wrong on many things, including their abuse of women and children.  Their insistence on freezing their communities in the 1850s is hilarious and tragic at the same time.

Trust me, you don't want to live off-grid.  I tried it.  You will break your back just to prove a point to yourself that you can do it.  
Not to mention you will drop a shitload of money to set it up. Completely worthless exercise.

I agree with you that we have to be careful when adopting new technology.    
However, we have no choice.  The Luddite position or religious refusal is just silly.

We have to find a way to live with technological progress, be left behind or in the worse case be replaced by it.

Progress will happen whether we like it or not.

Science originally is not even about achieving things, or doing company or building technology. Science is about knowledge and understanding the rules of the universe, and not only thermodynamic and how many watt you can get from 1l of gas, and how much profits you can make out of it. And from the moment you are in this demarch of understanding law of universe, it require the proto thesis that the universe has law, that are constant and eternal, and that it obey To reason, which is in alignement with theology.

Technology can only bring real progress if it contain an humanist dimension to it, like in the platonic sense of percieving knowledge through the good like we percieve object through the Sun. Like the noble truth in budhism.

Otherwise it just become a tool to satisfy greed and ego, putting material needs above everything else, leading To a form of self destruction.

Religion is not opposed To knowledge or science in itself, on the contrary, the logos as the basis of rational thinking is a concept from theology, only in the measure that its taken in the Matrix of greed and ego, destroying eco system and exploiting children To build some technology as cheap as possible To make a maximum of profits in wall street. But its not really what science is about originally.

The relation between mathematics and physics is purely coincidental, and only hold if you believe the universe is ordered and follow reason, otherwise physics is a delusion like any other, with its lot of dogma used to justify the privilege of a ruling elite like the bad side of institutional religion, and no axiomatic grounding as a rational discipline.

They even put a shiva statue in front of the CERN, it show that scientific progress and religion are not fundementally opposed.

I guess you never heard of stem cell research being vehemently opposed by the US religious leaders.

https://www.pewforum.org/2008/07/17/stem-cell-research-at-the-crossroads-of-religion-and-politics/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5398703/

Religion has always been threatened by science as its theological foundations are being destroyed by science.

First, it was the flat Earth model, then Earth was in the center of the universe, then Earth was 6000 years old, then humans were created
by God from dirt, etc.  Religious nonsense after nonsense being invalidated by science.

Religion was always opposing science.

[IadixDev]

Religion is not about astronomy or supposed to give a description of the material world.

The geocentric model come from aristotle more than the bible as far as i know, and ironically he was more the science Guy of the team.

The relationship between catholic church and aristotle and natural science is complex.

 But its hard to say that catholic church was anti science by supporting the aristotle model because its the closest to science you could get at this time.

Science still cant explain life and consciousness either.

Most great scientist and philosopher were religious too.

[CoinCube]

I guess you never heard of stem cell research being vehemently opposed by the US religious leaders.

https://www.pewforum.org/2008/07/17/stem-cell-research-at-the-crossroads-of-religion-and-politics/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5398703/

There are very good reasons to oppose stem cell research in its current form.

https://stemcells.nih.gov/info/Regenerative_Medicine/2006Chapter1.htm
"Currently, there are nearly 400,000 IVF-produced embryos in frozen storage in the United States alone,4 most of which will be used to treat infertility, but some of which (~2.8%) are destined to be discarded. IVF-produced embryos that would otherwise have been discarded were the sources of the human ES cell lines derived prior to President Bush's policy decision of August 2001. These human ES cell lines are now currently eligible for federal funding."

There is something particularly monstrous about creating human life. Deciding its no longer wanted or needed for some convenience or economic reason and then instead of nurturing that life into birth and adulthood choosing to kill and experiment on it for knowledge and profit.

We don't need to become monsters to discover scientific answers. The same discoveries can be made in other ways. Sure it would probably take longer to figure it out indirectly but we are clever and could eventually accomplish it if that was our goal.

Were we were wise we would listen to religious on this issue and be very cautious seeking global common ground before inching forward slowly. Instead we race ahead with typical human stupidity.

One Year Later, Mystery Surrounds China’s Gene-Edited Babies
https://time.com/5741069/he-jiankui-china-scientist-gene-edited-babies/

Chinese scientist He Jiankui shocked the world by claiming he had helped make the first gene-edited babies. One year later, mystery surrounds his fate as well as theirs. He has not been seen publicly since January, his work has not been published and nothing is known about the health of the babies.
...
Since then, many people have called for regulations or a moratorium on similar work
...
“Nothing has changed,” said Dr. Kiran Musunuru, a University of Pennsylvania geneticist who just published a book about gene editing and the CRISPR babies case. “I think we’re farther from governing this” now than a year ago, said Hurlbut
...
Chinese officials have seized the remaining edited embryos and He’s lab records. “He caused unintended consequences in these twins,” Musunuru said of the gene editing. “We don’t know if it’s harming the kids.”

[af_newbie]

Religion is not about astronomy or supposed to give a description of the material world.

The geocentric model come from aristotle more than the bible as far as i know, and ironically he was more the science Guy of the team.

The relationship between catholic church and aristotle and natural science is complex.

 But its hard to say that catholic church was anti science by supporting the aristotle model because its the closest to science you could get at this time.

Science still cant explain life and consciousness either.

Most great scientist and philosopher were religious too.

They had no choice.

[af_newbie]

I guess you never heard of stem cell research being vehemently opposed by the US religious leaders.

https://www.pewforum.org/2008/07/17/stem-cell-research-at-the-crossroads-of-religion-and-politics/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5398703/

There are very good reasons to oppose stem cell research in its current form.

https://stemcells.nih.gov/info/Regenerative_Medicine/2006Chapter1.htm
"Currently, there are nearly 400,000 IVF-produced embryos in frozen storage in the United States alone,4 most of which will be used to treat infertility, but some of which (~2.8%) are destined to be discarded. IVF-produced embryos that would otherwise have been discarded were the sources of the human ES cell lines derived prior to President Bush's policy decision of August 2001. These human ES cell lines are now currently eligible for federal funding."

There is something particularly monstrous about creating human life. Deciding its no longer wanted or needed for some convenience or economic reason and then instead of nurturing that life into birth and adulthood choosing to kill and experiment on it for knowledge and profit.

We don't need to become monsters to discover scientific answers. The same discoveries can be made in other ways. Sure it would probably take longer to figure it out indirectly but we are clever and could eventually accomplish it if that was our goal.

Were we were wise we would listen to religious on this issue and be very cautious seeking global common ground before inching forward slowly. Instead we race ahead with typical human stupidity.

One Year Later, Mystery Surrounds China’s Gene-Edited Babies
https://time.com/5741069/he-jiankui-china-scientist-gene-edited-babies/

Chinese scientist He Jiankui shocked the world by claiming he had helped make the first gene-edited babies. One year later, mystery surrounds his fate as well as theirs. He has not been seen publicly since January, his work has not been published and nothing is known about the health of the babies.
...
Since then, many people have called for regulations or a moratorium on similar work
...
“Nothing has changed,” said Dr. Kiran Musunuru, a University of Pennsylvania geneticist who just published a book about gene editing and the CRISPR babies case. “I think we’re farther from governing this” now than a year ago, said Hurlbut
...
Chinese officials have seized the remaining edited embryos and He’s lab records. “He caused unintended consequences in these twins,” Musunuru said of the gene editing. “We don’t know if it’s harming the kids.”

I don't think finding a cure for deafness or blindness is monstrous.

[CoinCube]

I don't think finding a cure for deafness or blindness is monstrous.

That would entirely depend on that way one goes about finding the cure for deafness or blindness. If you don't understand that you should ponder this issue more.

Eva Kor, survivor of Nazi medical experiments at Auschwitz, dies at 85
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/eva-kor-survivor-of-nazi-medical-experiments-at-auschwitz-dies-at-85/2019/07/12/96118c2e-a35a-11e9-b732-41a79c2551bf_story.html

Eva Kor was 10 years old when she arrived at Auschwitz, the Nazi death camp in Poland where 1.1 million people, nearly all of them Jews, perished in the Holocaust. On the selection platform, her mother held on tightly to Eva and her twin sister, Miriam...

“Twins?” an SS guard called out. “Twins?”

“Is that good,” Mrs. Kor remembered her mother inquiring, if her daughters are twins? The guard said yes, and the sisters were taken away. They would never see their mother or the rest of their family again.

Eva and Miriam were among 1,500 sets of twins subjected to medical experiments by the infamous Nazi doctor Josef Mengele. Fewer than 200 of those victims are thought to have lived.

The medical experiments conducted there and at other Nazi camps had three purposes, according to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum: to improve medical treatment for German troops, to test new medical procedures and drugs, and to confirm Nazi views of the supremacy of the Aryan race.

Victims were subjected to extreme altitudes and temperatures, injected with pathogens and sterilized. They endured bone-grafting procedures and injections in their eyes to change their eye color. Many victims were permanently disfigured, sickened or weakened. Many more died.

“Everything in the world was done to me that would have killed me,” Mrs. Kor said years later in an interview, “and here I am alive.”

She recalled being stripped of her clothes and tied down by her arms as she endured repeated examinations lasting as long as eight hours. From one arm, her tormentors took blood. “They wanted to know how much blood a person can lose and still live,” Mrs. Kor said. In the other arm, she received injections, sometimes five at a time.

Once, she said, the experiments brought on a dangerously high fever.

“I was trembling,” Mrs. Kor told ABC News in 1999. “My arms and my legs were swollen, huge size,” with red patches. Mengele examined her, she said, and pronounced that she had two weeks to live.

Her sister, Miriam, sustained kidney damage so severe that her kidneys stopped growing; in 1987, Mrs. Kor donated a kidney to her.

Ms. Kor was an amazing woman and the entire article linked above is worth reading. For brevity's sake I quoted only a small portion.

[IadixDev]

Religion is not about astronomy or supposed to give a description of the material world.

The geocentric model come from aristotle more than the bible as far as i know, and ironically he was more the science Guy of the team.

The relationship between catholic church and aristotle and natural science is complex.

 But its hard to say that catholic church was anti science by supporting the aristotle model because its the closest to science you could get at this time.

Science still cant explain life and consciousness either.

Most great scientist and philosopher were religious too.

They had no choice.

Einstein riemann or newton had the choice. And even the others like liebniz, descartes etc Even if you look where algebra comes from, its also grounded in theology.

[af_newbie]

I don't think finding a cure for deafness or blindness is monstrous.

That would entirely depend on that way one goes about finding the cure for deafness or blindness. If you don't understand that you should ponder this issue more.

Eva Kor, survivor of Nazi medical experiments at Auschwitz, dies at 85
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/eva-kor-survivor-of-nazi-medical-experiments-at-auschwitz-dies-at-85/2019/07/12/96118c2e-a35a-11e9-b732-41a79c2551bf_story.html

Eva Kor was 10 years old when she arrived at Auschwitz, the Nazi death camp in Poland where 1.1 million people, nearly all of them Jews, perished in the Holocaust. On the selection platform, her mother held on tightly to Eva and her twin sister, Miriam...

“Twins?” an SS guard called out. “Twins?”

“Is that good,” Mrs. Kor remembered her mother inquiring, if her daughters are twins? The guard said yes, and the sisters were taken away. They would never see their mother or the rest of their family again.

Eva and Miriam were among 1,500 sets of twins subjected to medical experiments by the infamous Nazi doctor Josef Mengele. Fewer than 200 of those victims are thought to have lived.

The medical experiments conducted there and at other Nazi camps had three purposes, according to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum: to improve medical treatment for German troops, to test new medical procedures and drugs, and to confirm Nazi views of the supremacy of the Aryan race.

Victims were subjected to extreme altitudes and temperatures, injected with pathogens and sterilized. They endured bone-grafting procedures and injections in their eyes to change their eye color. Many victims were permanently disfigured, sickened or weakened. Many more died.

“Everything in the world was done to me that would have killed me,” Mrs. Kor said years later in an interview, “and here I am alive.”

She recalled being stripped of her clothes and tied down by her arms as she endured repeated examinations lasting as long as eight hours. From one arm, her tormentors took blood. “They wanted to know how much blood a person can lose and still live,” Mrs. Kor said. In the other arm, she received injections, sometimes five at a time.

Once, she said, the experiments brought on a dangerously high fever.

“I was trembling,” Mrs. Kor told ABC News in 1999. “My arms and my legs were swollen, huge size,” with red patches. Mengele examined her, she said, and pronounced that she had two weeks to live.

Her sister, Miriam, sustained kidney damage so severe that her kidneys stopped growing; in 1987, Mrs. Kor donated a kidney to her.

Ms. Kor was an amazing woman and the entire article linked above is worth reading. For brevity's sake I quoted only a small portion.

Why do you compare the medical experimentation done by Germans during WWII to stem cell research?  

Talk about false equivalence.

Hint:  stem cell research

[af_newbie]

Religion is not about astronomy or supposed to give a description of the material world.

The geocentric model come from aristotle more than the bible as far as i know, and ironically he was more the science Guy of the team.

The relationship between catholic church and aristotle and natural science is complex.

 But its hard to say that catholic church was anti science by supporting the aristotle model because its the closest to science you could get at this time.

Science still cant explain life and consciousness either.

Most great scientist and philosopher were religious too.

They had no choice.

Einstein riemann or newton had the choice. And even the others like liebniz, descartes etc Even if you look where algebra comes from, its also grounded in theology.

Sure.  Do you even know how education was conducted a few hundred years ago?

Did you read Descartes?  I did.  Basically, his philosophy comes down to this: God exists because we intuitively know he exists. LOL.
https://www.amazon.com/Philosophical-Writings-Wordsworth-Classics-Literature/dp/B0075M9KOI/ref=sr_1_7

He is apologizing for questioning the Catholic doctrines almost on every single page.  It is like he is writing to appease the censors and not to have his head separated from his neck.  But in the end, he was poisoned anyway.

I would love to talk to him today.  It would be fun to pick his brain without being afraid of what the Catholic Church might say.

 

[IadixDev]

I read descartes im french i know this story its part of our national history and culture

But what descartes also say is that our senses are misleading and we can only trust our thought, and doubt everything we see or hear, that material world is an illusion etc in itself its also what you find in most religions too. Its about power of the mind and of rational thinking, with his theory of the soul with the pineal gland etc i dont think he wrote that because of pressure from catholic church. And it still boil down to say there is more to the world than what the eyes can see and there is a divine inspiration beyond the mind as a pure mechanical system etc

The catholic church was suffocating a bit, but there was other branch of religions as well, like rosicrucian even if its a bit after, or cathares, templar ans other groups, rejecting the catholic dogma doesnt mean he was not into religion or believing in god.

Like liebniz Who is also one of the best mathematician and logistician, he was also critics of catholic church and some religious dogma, but he was still christian.

I dont really see where is this huge barrier between scientific research and religion in itself if you dont limit religious practice to catholic inquisition.

[CoinCube]

Why do you compare the medical experimentation done by Germans during WWII to stem cell research?  

Talk about false equivalence.

Hint:  stem cell research

Because both involve something monstrous that is justified by dehumanizing and reducing the victim to the level of mere object.
With stem cell research the experimentation and dissection is justified by claiming the embryo is not a real human life. With Nazi experimentation the medical experimentation was justified because the victims were not true valuable humans just Untermensch sub-man or subhumans. Their loss benefited the Übermensch with scientific knowledge and thus their sacrifice was justified for the greater good.

Its the same logical error in both cases.

As I said earlier there is something particularly monstrous about creating human life. Deciding its no longer wanted or needed for some convenience or economic reason and then instead of nurturing that life into birth and adulthood choosing to kill and experiment on it for knowledge and profit.

[af_newbie]

Why do you compare the medical experimentation done by Germans during WWII to stem cell research?  

Talk about false equivalence.

Hint:  stem cell research

Because both involve something monstrous that is justified by dehumanizing and reducing the victim to the level of mere object.
With stem cell research the experimentation and dissection is justified by claiming the embro is not a real human life. With Nazi experimentation the medical experimentation was justified because the victims were not true valuable humans just Untermensch sub-man or subhumans. Their loss benefited the Übermensch with scientific knowledge and thus their sacrifice was justified for the greater good.

Its the same logical error in both cases.

As I said earlier there is something particularly monstrous about creating human life. Deciding its no longer wanted or needed for some convenience or economic reason and then instead of nurturing that life into birth and adulthood choosing to kill and experiment on it for knowledge and profit.

Why do you think stem cells or pre-implantation embryos are the victims?

[CoinCube]

Because both involve something monstrous that is justified by dehumanizing and reducing the victim to the level of mere object.
With stem cell research the experimentation and dissection is justified by claiming the embro is not a real human life. With Nazi experimentation the medical experimentation was justified because the victims were not true valuable humans just Untermensch sub-man or subhumans. Their loss benefited the Übermensch with scientific knowledge and thus their sacrifice was justified for the greater good.

Its the same logical error in both cases.

As I said earlier there is something particularly monstrous about creating human life. Deciding its no longer wanted or needed for some convenience or economic reason and then instead of nurturing that life into birth and adulthood choosing to kill and experiment on it for knowledge and profit.

Why do you think stem cells or pre-implantation embryos are the victims?

Didn't I just make that clear?

Scientifically human life begins at conception. The only way to justify ending it with the goal of promoting scientific advancement is to dehumanize the early stages of that life and then claim it has no value.

Such dehumanization is a category error witnessed in its most extreme form in the Nazi experimentation but also prevalent in modern research on human embryos.

[IadixDev]

The nazi model infiltrated our society more than we can think, lot of nazi have been recruted in scientific position after ww2.

[af_newbie]

Because both involve something monstrous that is justified by dehumanizing and reducing the victim to the level of mere object.
With stem cell research the experimentation and dissection is justified by claiming the embro is not a real human life. With Nazi experimentation the medical experimentation was justified because the victims were not true valuable humans just Untermensch sub-man or subhumans. Their loss benefited the Übermensch with scientific knowledge and thus their sacrifice was justified for the greater good.

Its the same logical error in both cases.

As I said earlier there is something particularly monstrous about creating human life. Deciding its no longer wanted or needed for some convenience or economic reason and then instead of nurturing that life into birth and adulthood choosing to kill and experiment on it for knowledge and profit.

Why do you think stem cells or pre-implantation embryos are the victims?

Didn't I just make that clear?

Scientifically human life begins at conception. The only way to justify ending it with the goal of promoting scientific advancement is to dehumanize the early stages of that life and then claim it has no value.

Such dehumanization is a category error witnessed in its most extreme form in the Nazi experimentation but also prevalent in modern research on human embryos.

Oh, so you think a fertilized egg in the pre-implantation stage is a human?

And you think that doing research on stem cells is equivalent to doing medical experiments on humans?

Fascinating.

Are a bunch of eggs and sperm on a petri dish humans as well?

So I am guessing disposing of fertilized eggs constitutes genocide in your book, right?

Unbelievable.

[af_newbie]

The nazi model infiltrated our society more than we can think, lot of nazi have been recruted in scientific position after ww2.

The only parallel I see between Nazi Germany and Western democracies is patriotism, fervent nationalism, "Make XXX Great Again", etc.
This does not bode well for humanity.

Most scientists are not nationalists, most support internationalism.

Name one scientist who is a nationalist.

Read "Mein Kampf" before you open your mouth on the "nazi model".  Whatever that means.

Hitler was a German nationalist, first and foremost.

[CoinCube]

Oh, so you think a fertilized egg... is a human?
...
Fascinating.

Yes.

It is a human life in its most fragile form and long before the onset of consciousness but a human life nevertheless and deserving of the respect and sanctity that designation entails.

Its not complicated really.

A Scientific View of When Life Begins
https://lozierinstitute.org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/

That human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications). Moreover, it is entirely independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos. Indeed, this definition does not directly address the central ethical question surrounding the embryo: What value ought society place on human life at the earliest stages of development?  A neutral examination of the evidence merely establishes the onset of a new human life at a scientifically well-defined “moment of conception,” a conclusion that unequivocally indicates that human embryos from the one-cell stage forward are indeed living individuals of the human species; i.e., human beings.

[af_newbie]

Oh, so you think a fertilized egg... is a human?
...
Fascinating.

Yes.

It is a human life in its most fragile form and long before the onset of consciousness but a human life nevertheless and deserving of the respect and sanctity that designation entails.

Its not complicated really.

A Scientific View of When Life Begins
https://lozierinstitute.org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/

That human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications). Moreover, it is entirely independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos. Indeed, this definition does not directly address the central ethical question surrounding the embryo: What value ought society place on human life at the earliest stages of development?  A neutral examination of the evidence merely establishes the onset of a new human life at a scientifically well-defined “moment of conception,” a conclusion that unequivocally indicates that human embryos from the one-cell stage forward are indeed living individuals of the human species; i.e., human beings.

That is not what I asked.  Let me try again.

Is a fertilized egg a human, like you and me, or the children that were experimented on by the Nazis?

When do you consider an embryo to be a person?