Kira Peikoff Posted August 12, 2009 Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 Hello all, As a writer and a passionate supporter of stem cell research--who was present at President Bush's historic 2006 veto--I was moved enough to write a novel that captures the human emotions and high stakes on both sides of this conflict. THE UNHOLY GRAIL is the first novel to take on the topic of stem cell research and how it affects human lives. The science in the novel is based on cutting-edge research currently being conducted at UC-Irvine. If you're interested, I invite you to check out my website: www.kirapeikoff.com Find out what life is like in a world that places more value on the unborn than the living--a world frighteningly like our own. Sincerely, Kira Peikoff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsiklon Posted January 10, 2010 Report Share Posted January 10, 2010 Hello all, As a writer and a passionate supporter of stem cell research--who was present at President Bush's historic 2006 veto--I was moved enough to write a novel that captures the human emotions and high stakes on both sides of this conflict. THE UNHOLY GRAIL is the first novel to take on the topic of stem cell research and how it affects human lives. The science in the novel is based on cutting-edge research currently being conducted at UC-Irvine. If you're interested, I invite you to check out my website: www.kirapeikoff.com Find out what life is like in a world that places more value on the unborn than the living--a world frighteningly like our own. Sincerely, Kira Peikoff Those opposed to stem cell research are superstitious fools who base their opinions on sentimentality rather than reason and cold hard facts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC Posted January 10, 2010 Report Share Posted January 10, 2010 (edited) Those opposed to stem cell research are superstitious fools who base their opinions on sentimentality rather than reason and cold hard facts. Mostly true. Just remember that those that oppose the government funding of stem cell research are correct even though they usually are in opposition for the wrong reasons. The government should never support or oppose any type of scientific research assuming of course that nobody's rights are being violated in the process. *** Mod's note *** Discussion about government funding of science -- in general, not just stem cells -- has been split into a separate topic. - sN *** end Mod's note *** Edited January 10, 2010 by softwareNerd Added 'split topic' note Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD26 Posted January 10, 2010 Report Share Posted January 10, 2010 www.kirapeikoff.com Find out what life is like in a world that places more value on the unborn than the living--a world frighteningly like our own. Sincerely, Kira Peikoff Kira, sounds like a very interesting book. Has it been released as of yet? Didn't find any links on your website. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
intellectualammo Posted January 10, 2010 Report Share Posted January 10, 2010 Kira, sounds like a very interesting book. Has it been released as of yet? Didn't find any links on your website. As far as the last email I had gotten, no. Here is another thread Kira started here, my last post in it explains more about the current status: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=17245 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Christensen Posted January 10, 2010 Report Share Posted January 10, 2010 I am all for stem cell research and medical uses as long as the stem cells do not come from human embryo's. When humanity starts farming humans then a moral line has been crossed. The dignity and respect for man has been lost at that point. Men are not like cattle or penicillin that can just be harvested or slaughtered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsiklon Posted January 10, 2010 Report Share Posted January 10, 2010 I am all for stem cell research and medical uses as long as the stem cells do not come from human embryo's. When humanity starts farming humans then a moral line has been crossed. The dignity and respect for man has been lost at that point. Men are not like cattle or penicillin that can just be harvested or slaughtered. Fair enough. When it comes to something like stem cell research I concur that federal funding isn't actually necessary to make it happen. But the thing about science and scientific research is this: If you don't do it, somebody else will. So if human embryonic stem cell research is outlawed in the US it WILL be conducted elswhere and if such research leads to new lifesaving/rehabilitating treatments that are effective, then those of us with enough money will go abroad to countries where such treaments are available. Bear in mind that a human embryo is basically a ball of cells that are genetically human and its not rational to equate an embryo with a fully formed living person. What makes a person a person is a functioning brain(i.e. sentience). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD26 Posted January 10, 2010 Report Share Posted January 10, 2010 (edited) But the thing about science and scientific research is this: If you don't do it, somebody else will. So if human embryonic stem cell research is outlawed in the US it WILL be conducted elswhere and if such research leads to new lifesaving/rehabilitating treatments that are effective, then those of us with enough money will go abroad to countries where such treaments are available. So, following your logic, since some countries have used orphans and the handicapped for medical research, you say it should be done here in the name of research also? Why not harvest organs and limbs from those individuals too for those that need it? Edited January 10, 2010 by SD26 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gags Posted January 10, 2010 Report Share Posted January 10, 2010 I am all for stem cell research and medical uses as long as the stem cells do not come from human embryo's. When humanity starts farming humans then a moral line has been crossed. The dignity and respect for man has been lost at that point. Men are not like cattle or penicillin that can just be harvested or slaughtered. Based on your statement, I assume that you're also against a woman's right to an abortion. Is that correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freestyle Posted January 10, 2010 Report Share Posted January 10, 2010 Based on your statement, I assume that you're also against a woman's right to an abortion. Is that correct? I'd point out that unless a woman is doing it herself, she has no actual right to any medical procedure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD26 Posted January 10, 2010 Report Share Posted January 10, 2010 I'd point out that unless a woman is doing it herself, she has no actual right to any medical procedure. If another will provide a paid service of abortion, does a woman have the right to purchase an abortion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsiklon Posted January 11, 2010 Report Share Posted January 11, 2010 So, following your logic, since some countries have used orphans and the handicapped for medical research, you say it should be done here in the name of research also? Why not harvest organs and limbs from those individuals too for those that need it? Because orphans and the handicapped are sentient, whereas embryos are Not(neither are the brain dead). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gags Posted January 11, 2010 Report Share Posted January 11, 2010 I'd point out that unless a woman is doing it herself, she has no actual right to any medical procedure. She most certainly does have a right to a medical procedure such as abortion (or any other one, for that matter) if she's able to pay for it. Why didn't you answer my original question? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gags Posted January 11, 2010 Report Share Posted January 11, 2010 Because orphans and the handicapped are sentient, whereas embryos are Not(neither are the brain dead). Whether a being is sentient does not determine if it has rights. Using that as the standard, animals would have rights, which they do not. If you're interested, this has been discussed very thoroughly in other threads on here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsiklon Posted January 11, 2010 Report Share Posted January 11, 2010 Whether a being is sentient does not determine if it has rights. Using that as the standard, animals would have rights, which they do not. If you're interested, this has been discussed very thoroughly in other threads on here. I am interested....But if sentience does not determine if a being has rights, then WHAT does? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gags Posted January 11, 2010 Report Share Posted January 11, 2010 I am interested....But if sentience does not determine if a being has rights, then WHAT does? Rights apply only to beings who are capable of volitional thought, which is different from sentience. This thread on abortion discusses it in depth. http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...amp;hl=abortion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freestyle Posted January 11, 2010 Report Share Posted January 11, 2010 (edited) If another will provide a paid service of abortion, does a woman have the right to purchase an abortion? If another will NOT provide the service, does she still have a right to have it done? And then, by whom? Her right is to choose freely to contract for anything so long as it does not violate any rights of another individual. She most certainly does have a right to a medical procedure such as abortion (or any other one, for that matter) if she's able to pay for it. Why didn't you answer my original question? I wasn't who you originally asked that question to. I am pointing out that you don't have a right to have a medical procedure because that implies an obligation on somebody else. It just isn't a right. I'll grant you that no person or government has a right to prohibit you from having a procedure you choose to have and can arrange to have done. Since I don't believe anyone can (or has yet to) make a valid case that the rights of a human embryo equal or supersede the rights of a human woman, then no one has a right to stop a woman from taking that action with a consenting doctor. Edited January 11, 2010 by freestyle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
intellectualammo Posted January 11, 2010 Report Share Posted January 11, 2010 When humanity starts farming humans then a moral line has been crossed. What about manufacturing them, like gynoids and androids? I welcome in the Bionic Age. Farming humans, like with genetic engineering and advances later on, will be cool as fuck. All this really along the lines of what I think is like a Nietzschean sense of the overman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gags Posted January 11, 2010 Report Share Posted January 11, 2010 I wasn't who you originally asked that question to. Oops. I am pointing out that you don't have a right to have a medical procedure because that implies an obligation on somebody else. It just isn't a right. I'll grant you that no person or government has a right to prohibit you from having a procedure you choose to have and can arrange to have done. When you're dealing with Objectivists on an Objectivist discussion board, I think you can generally assume that when people are talking about the "right to abortion", they are simply using that as a shorthand for saying that a woman has a right to freely contract with a medical professional to provide her with those services, as long as she is able to pay for them. Obviously there is no "right" to force someone to provide an abortion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
themadkat Posted January 11, 2010 Report Share Posted January 11, 2010 Based on your statement, I assume that you're also against a woman's right to an abortion. Is that correct? Based on his other posts on the board, I think you are correct. The guy comes off much more like a conservative than an Objectivist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Sophia~ Posted January 11, 2010 Report Share Posted January 11, 2010 (edited) I am all for stem cell research and medical uses as long as the stem cells do not come from human embryo's. Restricting research to solely adult stem cell studies severely hampers medical progress of life saving importance. You pretty much saying that a clump of undifferentiated cells is above a fully developed human being. (Undifferentiated state is before a cell turns into a type of a cell). At the same time, embryonic stem cells cannot themselves develop into a full organism. ------------------------- All embroynic stem cell lines have been derived from “spare” embryos created during in-vitro fertilization. Embryos that otherwise would have been (and are) destroyed. Typically in the process of IVF over 20 mature ova is extracted. After fertilization procedure, out of these, 2-4 healthy-looking embryos are implanted in the woman's uterus. The surplus embryos are either frozen in liquid nitrogen (and out of those about 25% die during the freezing/thawing process when the first implantation was not successful) or simply discarded (often down the drain). It is these embryos, which otherwise ARE being discarded, that scientists use/want to use for research. Preventing stem cell research only prevents medical progress - it does not "save" any embryos. When humanity starts farming humans then a moral line has been crossed. The dignity and respect for man has been lost at that point. Men are not like cattle or penicillin that can just be harvested or slaughtered. We are talking here about undifferentiated clump of cells, typically less than five days after fertilization. Farming humans, for organs for example, would have been immoral. Two different things. Edited January 11, 2010 by ~Sophia~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdTesla Posted July 18, 2010 Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 Kira, If you're still reading this forum, a request: would you provide a non-Flash web access also? My iPad cannot get there from here! I therefore cannot read anything there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wherestheobjectivity Posted July 29, 2010 Report Share Posted July 29, 2010 So... This post was about a novel. And from the excerpt on Kira Peikoff's website, one can tell it has a very fascinating conflict of values driving the plot. Debates about embyronic rights, abortions and so-on...how in the hell are these relevant? If you think women should be forcibly prevented from getting an abortion, you are evil. If you think people should be kept from healing themselves by way of technology which uses embryos, you are evil. The point of Kira's post was to inform us that she's presenting a world wherein most people think those ridiculous things--and the subsequent hell experienced in such a world. She assumed that people on this forum would appreciate such a presentation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.