Micheal J Fox Interview W/Katie Couric

[BigLew]

http://forums.yellowworld.org/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=4

Go MJF

[bluemonq]

Uhh...huh?

[BigLew]

oops

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=2129742n&channel=eveningnews

[Yeahman]

A couple of celebs came together to repond to Fox's ad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nguJQ_dRPXw

[BigLew]

A couple of celebs came together to repond to Fox's ad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nguJQ_dRPXw
That ad was already shown in full during his interview with Katie Couric.

[haplesshobo]

A couple of celebs came together to repond to Fox's ad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nguJQ_dRPXw

That ad just lacks the same moral authority and effectiveness of the Fox ad. Instead of just using healthy celebs, it would have been more effective to choose somebody who also suffers from Parkinsons but says even a cure wouldn't justify using stem cell research.

[friedfishribs]

What's amazing is how Fox only wants his voice to be heard. These perfectly healthy celebrities who immediately condemn stem cell research are trying to gag the issue by painting the issue as black and white. They're selling the idea that change and progress are morally wrong. Fox on the otherhand, who actually visibly suffers from Parkinson's, only wants to bring stem cell research to public awareness and have the voter's decide on its moral grounding.

Here's a guy who is slowly dying because of the beliefs of other people - but he still doesn't condemn them for having those beliefs. That's a lot of devotion to democracy, and it's an ideal that his opponents don't seem to share.

[Faithless]

Rush has sunken to a new low by making fun of MJF.

A statement from the Parkinson's Disease Society (http://www.parkinsons.org.uk/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=101678):

...
"Parkinson's is a progressive, neurological condition with, as yet, no known cause or cure. The three main symptoms are tremor, slowness of movement and muscle rigidity which can have an affect on all aspects of a person's life, including walking, talking and even smiling.

The main treatment for Parkinson's is drugs and a side effect of one of the most widely used Parkinson's drugs, Levodopa, is the dyskinesia, or uncontrollable movement, seen in Michael J Fox in his commercial for US Democrat candidate Claire McCaskill.

When Levodopa is working to its best effect, by releasing muscle stiffness and slowness and allowing the person to move around, often the worst dyskinetic symptoms are also experienced. Without medication, freezing is more likely to occur and many people find they cannot move at all.
...

[thaite]

They're both dying slow deaths; MJF from Parkinson's, Rush from declining ratings and growing irrelevance. How Rush can make the assertion is beyond me, I mean, MJF isn't even that good an actor.

[Yeahman]

What's amazing is how Fox only wants his voice to be heard. These perfectly healthy celebrities who immediately condemn stem cell research are trying to gag the issue by painting the issue as black and white. They're selling the idea that change and progress are morally wrong. Fox on the otherhand, who actually visibly suffers from Parkinson's, only wants to bring stem cell research to public awareness and have the voter's decide on its moral grounding.

Here's a guy who is slowly dying because of the beliefs of other people - but he still doesn't condemn them for having those beliefs. That's a lot of devotion to democracy, and it's an ideal that his opponents don't seem to share.
You seem to be very understanding of the other side. I'm glad you don't condemn people for their beliefs. :rolleyes:

Just a couple of minor corrections though:
1. The celebs do not condemn stem cell research. They've stated that they actually support it.
2. I don't see how raising awareness through ads is gagging the issue.
3. It's black and white in that you can only vote "yes" or "no."
4. They believe that change and progress is morally good.
5. Fox wants voters to vote for embryonic stem cell research. He isn't exactly neutral.
6. I don't think the beliefs of others are killing him. I think Parkinson's is.
7. His opponents want voters to vote against embryonic stem cell research. Devotion to democracy?

[friedfishribs]

You seem to be very understanding of the other side. I'm glad you don't condemn people for their beliefs. :rolleyes:

I'm surprised Fox doesn't condemn people for their beliefs. Personally, however, I think it's despicable, not to mention hypocritical, for pro-life religious fanatics to quietly make it illegal to save lives through medical research.

Just a couple of minor corrections though:
1. The celebs do not condemn stem cell research. They've stated that they actually support it.
2. I don't see how raising awareness through ads is gagging the issue.
3. It's black and white in that you can only vote "yes" or "no."
4. They believe that change and progress is morally good.
5. Fox wants voters to vote for embryonic stem cell research. He isn't exactly neutral.
6. I don't think the beliefs of others are killing him. I think Parkinson's is.
7. His opponents want voters to vote against embryonic stem cell research. Devotion to democracy?

I find it hard to believe that any of these celebrities truly support stem cell research. I don't know who they are, and I won't bother looking up whatever perspective they happen to have. Just in case this fits the bill though, I want to say that supporting adult stem cell research is not supporting stem cell research.

Raising awareness is often easily confused with de facto censorship. The crux of the video lies on gagging the debate through a stance that's vehemently anti-progressive. They're playing on the natural human tendency to fear change, using dark ominous words like "loopholes" and "cloning," and fear-mongering is the easiest way to stifle actual intelligent debate. The final actor's words are especially telling, "You don't know... don't do it." They're not asking people to find out the pros and cons themselves, they're telling people to support the status quo.

And it's easy to see why they're doing it. Embryonic stem cell research is the most promising cure for neurobiological diseases and simple brain and spinal cord injuries. Previously incurable damage to the brain is now within reach of medical science. No one will deny any of this in practical scientific debate, that's why the fanatics need to force their personally religious beliefs on the rest of America.

[Yeahman]

I believe we have a new Liberal King in the house. Congratulations friedfishribs. All pay heed to his dogmatic decrees.

[friedfishribs]

This reminds me of the time I complained about racism, then someone used the fact that I was Asian to disregard my opinion.

[monkeygone2]

Liberal King?

[monkeygone2]

At this rate, any advancements will have to come from Europe.

I wonder if the aggressively harsh opposition will stick to their guns if they, or their loved ones, are in need of treatment.

[Yeahman]

This reminds me of the time I complained about racism, then someone used the fact that I was Asian to disregard my opinion.
Your opinion is that everyone who disagrees with you on this issue is stupid. Why shouldn't your proclamations be disregarded?

At this rate, any advancements will have to come from Europe.
Or California.
Oh and I was just wondering why you didn't say "South Korea." They are the more advanced at embryonic stem cell research, after all. Italy bans it. Germany severely restricts it.

I wonder if the aggressively harsh opposition will stick to their guns if they, or their loved ones, are in need of treatment.
No need to wonder. Michael Reagan stuck to his guns. It's not too hard, especially in light of the fact that embryonic stem cell research has not produced any cures.

[monkeygone2]

All pay heed to his dogmatic decrees.

Irony?

[monkeygone2]

No need to wonder. Michael Reagan stuck to his guns. It's not too hard, especially in light of the fact that embryonic stem cell research has not produced any cures.

There can't be a cure without RESEARCH which takes time.

I pray there will be advancements and cures sooner than later. I'm just wondering if the harsh opposition will stick to their guns once these cures are here.

Maybe they'll have a change of heart: I'm sure there's plenty of money to be made... If some meds are in pill form, I know Rush is always looking for a new high...

[Yeahman]

Irony?
And the irony is...?

[monkeygone2]

Dogmatic decrees.

[Yeahman]

Dogmatic decrees are ironic because they're dogmatic decrees?
Now there's an ironic dogmatic decree, if I ever saw one.

[power puff girl]

the republican party is out of touch with the american public over this because the religious right has hijacked the party.

[friedfishribs]

Your opinion is that everyone who disagrees with you on this issue is stupid. Why shouldn't your proclamations be disregarded?

Not stupid, just fanatical. Religious beliefs are fine unless they come at the expense of human life. If you've made previous comments about your stance on stem cell research and I've accidentally missed them, then I'm sorry, but as far as I can tell, you're in a poorly defined spot to accuse me of anything. I support stem cell research, as I've said, your stance seems to revolve around making snide comments.

The issue here isn't even stem cell research. Whoever heard of the systematic censuring of medical research? It's unheard of outside of the context of the pro-life religious right. The issue is the fashion in which stem cell research is brought into the public awareness. Specifically, how MJF chose to do it as opposed to his opponents.

And yes, stem cell research has yet to deliver any cures, but that might be because of the federal bans on using the existing embryonic stem cells that are currently going to waste.

[Yeahman]

the republican party is out of touch with the american public over this because the religious right has hijacked the party.
So is the Democratic party out of touch with the American public on partial-birth abortion too? Did Planned Parenthood hijack the party?

Not stupid, just fanatical. Religious beliefs are fine unless they come at the expense of human life.
And you have proof that embryos are not human life?

The issue here isn't even stem cell research. Whoever heard of the systematic censuring of medical research? It's unheard of outside of the context of the pro-life religious right. The issue is the fashion in which stem cell research is brought into the public awareness. Specifically, how MJF chose to do it as opposed to his opponents.
You do know that you're the only radical who thinks that Patricia Heaton is trying to censure the scientific community, right?

[monkeygone2]

Dogmatic decrees are ironic because they're dogmatic decrees?
Now there's an ironic dogmatic decree, if I ever saw one.

^ I love Groucho Marx too!
I just thought it was funny you mentioned someone's "dogmatic decrees" earlier. Certain people (who are against stem cell research) cannot function without dogmatic decrees. Whether it's science, spirituality, family issues...

[friedfishribs]

And you have proof that embryos are not human life?

I don't see the Republican party organizing en masse to have these embryos sent to fertilization clinics, then adopted by families, I just see existing embryo lines, key to finding cures to neurodegenerative diseases, going to waste.

Personally, I don't think the embryoes constitute human life. There certainly is the potential for human life, but that same potential is in every sperm cell and every egg. I wonder why pro-life activists aren't more concerned with the thousands of starving orphans all around the country and the millions all around the world. Apparently, single cells that, through an artificial, complicated, and expensive process, can eventually become fetuses, have more priority than actual human children who are dying. Of course, these cells are also more relevant than the actual human beings whose personalities, motor skills, intellect, and memory are rotting away from the brain on downward. I also hope none of these embryoes have genetic predispositions for neurodegenerative diseases, or else they might face trouble, assuming they actually come to be alive, 70 years down the road.

[Yeahman]

A sperm cannot become a human. I have never heard of a sperm growing into a baby. Embryos do. I heard the head of the embryonic stem cell research agency in the UK use your line a couple of weeks ago. Dumb argument. Why isn't a fetus a human life? Why is a newborn a human life? At what point does it become human life?

Challenging the other activities of pro-lifers doesn't help your argument. I can ask you why, if you're so for saving lives, you aren't out helping people. A pro-lifer like Mother Teresa did it. Why aren't you a hypocrite?

Argue against their position on embryonic stem cell research on its merits. Why does believing that embryos are human lives, make people "despicable" (your word)?

I'd like an answer to those 3 questions.

[yoMAMA]

politics is an ugly contact sport.

both the liberals and the conservatives should stop whining.

[friedfishribs]

A sperm cannot become a human. I have never heard of a sperm growing into a baby. Embryos do. I heard the head of the embryonic stem cell research agency in the UK use your line a couple of weeks ago. Dumb argument. Why isn't a fetus a human life? Why is a newborn a human life? At what point does it become human life?

That's a good question, and one of the primary flaws in the pro-life argument. There is no absolute determinant for when genetic material constitutes human life. I maintain that there is a certain period of development when a fetus is simply an extension of a woman's body, you think otherwise. But as we debate these two differing opinions, people are waiting on the cures that can be delivered by embryonic stem cell research.

Your sperm contains half the necessary genetic material to create life. That is potential life. If you truly are concerned with every individual potential life, then you should be trying to make sure every sperm cell in your testes finds there way into eggs. Then you'd better hope that the zygote isn't naturally aborted as is most often the case. Pro-lifers should worry that typically, after insemination, the zygote is unable to cling to the uterus and is flushed out, thus the high probability of failure in artificial insemination. In fact, pro-lifers should also be concerned high chance of failure in fertility clinics - "babies" are dying there everyday.

Challenging the other activities of pro-lifers doesn't help your argument. I can ask you why, if you're so for saving lives, you aren't out helping people. A pro-lifer like Mother Teresa did it. Why aren't you a hypocrite?

This isn't a question of general empathy, it specifically deals with the pro-life stance on embryonic stem cells. I used orphans to draw a parallel and point out fallacies in the pro-life cause. They purport to be concerned with all human life, in any way shape or form, but that clearly is not the case. They are selectively focusing on embryoes when there are more pressing issues at stake.

On the otherhand, people who support stem cell research have very simple and specific demands: they want cures.

Argue against their position on embryonic stem cell research on its merits. Why does believing that embryos are human lives, make people "despicable" (your word)?

Because I see cells on one hand, and people that have completely lost their mental faculties on the other. I see a lucky few patients destined for private care, separated from familes and former lives. I know the unlucky end up sipping rain water out of gutters. Or frozen on street corners, muscles unresponsive, babbling to themselves with facial features pasted in a constant nightmarish grimace. I see brains deteriorating from inside out, rotting out into a hollow shell, taking with them every individual sense of dignity, and eventually, identity. Because I see embryoes that will never end up in fertility clinics and people that fight to make sure they go wasted. Because I see children born without properly developed brains, I see people suffering from severe head trauma, I see amnesiacs, I see brain lesions caused by asphyxiation, I see stroke patients, and I see a group of people that want to make sure all of these people stay that way.

[Yeahman]

That's a good question, and one of the primary flaws in the pro-life argument. There is no absolute determinant for when genetic material constitutes human life. I maintain that there is a certain period of development when a fetus is simply an extension of a woman's body, you think otherwise. But as we debate these two differing opinions, people are waiting on the cures that can be delivered by embryonic stem cell research.
Then there's the same flaw on the pro-choice side. If there is no absolute determinant, why do you think it's OK to draw a line after embryo but before natural birth (or viability)?

Your sperm contains half the necessary genetic material to create life. That is potential life. If you truly are concerned with every individual potential life, then you should be trying to make sure every sperm cell in your testes finds there way into eggs. Then you'd better hope that the zygote isn't naturally aborted as is most often the case. Pro-lifers should worry that typically, after insemination, the zygote is unable to cling to the uterus and is flushed out, thus the high probability of failure in artificial insemination. In fact, pro-lifers should also be concerned high chance of failure in fertility clinics - "babies" are dying there everyday.
I'm not concerned with potential life. I'm concerned with life.
Natural death of a zygote isn't murder. If you die of cancer, I'm not going to punish you for getting cancer. If you die from a gunshot wound, I'd like to punish the person who shot you.
Pro-lifers are concerned with failures in fertility clinics.

This isn't a question of general empathy, it specifically deals with the pro-life stance on embryonic stem cells. I used orphans to draw a parallel and point out fallacies in the pro-life cause. They purport to be concerned with all human life, in any way shape or form, but that clearly is not the case. They are selectively focusing on embryoes when there are more pressing issues at stake.
What is more pressing than life?

On the otherhand, people who support stem cell research have very simple and specific demands: they want cures.
People who oppose embryonic stem cell research have a very simple and specific demand; they want to save lives. They have no problem with adult stem cell research.

Because I see cells on one hand, and people that have completely lost their mental faculties on the other. I see a lucky few patients destined for private care, separated from familes and former lives. I know the unlucky end up sipping rain water out of gutters. Or frozen on street corners, muscles unresponsive, babbling to themselves with facial features pasted in a constant nightmarish grimace. I see brains deteriorating from inside out, rotting out into a hollow shell, taking with them every individual sense of dignity, and eventually, identity. Because I see embryoes that will never end up in fertility clinics and people that fight to make sure they go wasted. Because I see children born without properly developed brains, I see people suffering from severe head trauma, I see amnesiacs, I see brain lesions caused by asphyxiation, I see stroke patients, and I see a group of people that want to make sure all of these people stay that way.
So it is despicable to see embryos as life? It's a simple question. If embryos are life, the rest of your argument fails. We should never kill a portion of society for the benefit of another.

[yoMAMA]

the republican party is out of touch with the american public over this because the religious right has hijacked the party.

the GOP are just using the rr for votes.

GOP elites looking down on the RR as unsophisticated rednecks that can be easily taken advantage of-

this from the new book from the former director of the white house faith base initiatives office.

[friedfishribs]

Then there's the same flaw on the pro-choice side. If there is no absolute determinant, why do you think it's OK to draw a line after embryo but before natural birth (or viability)?

I'm not concerned with potential life. I'm concerned with life.
Natural death of a zygote isn't murder. If you die of cancer, I'm not going to punish you for getting cancer. If you die from a gunshot wound, I'd like to punish the person who shot you.
Pro-lifers are concerned with failures in fertility clinics.

What is more pressing than life?

People who oppose embryonic stem cell research have a very simple and specific demand; they want to save lives. They have no problem with adult stem cell research.

So it is despicable to see embryos as life? It's a simple question. If embryos are life, the rest of your argument fails. We should never kill a portion of society for the benefit of another.

How far do you want to generalize your definition of life? If it truly is a subjective determinant, then why don't you let the relevant participants decide for themselves? If I happen to believe that every individual sperm cell constitutes life, then should I be allowed to impose my dogmatic views on the bodies of other people? If you truly believe you have the right to define "life" for the rest of the world, then you have to realize that you are sacrificing a portion of society for another - you're sacrificing people with neurodegenerative diseases for embyroes.

[Yeahman]

How far do you want to generalize your definition of life? If it truly is a subjective determinant, then why don't you let the relevant participants decide for themselves? If I happen to believe that every individual sperm cell constitutes life, then should I be allowed to impose my dogmatic views on the bodies of other people? If you truly believe you have the right to define "life" for the rest of the world, then you have to realize that you are sacrificing a portion of society for another - you're sacrificing people with neurodegenerative diseases for embyroes.
I'm not saying it's subjective. As far as I'm concerned, life begins at conception, objectively. You are saying that's it subjective and objective at the same time. You say that there is no absolute point but that it's after embryo and before birth (I assume). Why should we obey your dogmatic views?
We aren't going to let people decide who they can and cannot kill. If I believe that life begins at age 8, should I have the right to kill a 7-year old?
I fully acknowledge that we may be foregoing medical innovations if we ban embryonic stem cell research. We also forgo medical innovation when we ban experimentation on other unwilling humans. It is gravely immoral to kill the unwilling in order to benefit others and everyone but you seems to agree.

[friedfishribs]

You're missing the point. You believe that life begins at conception, I don't. The definition of life is interpreted differently for every individual, thus it is subjective.

If me and my girlfriend decide that we want to have an abortion, or that we want the potential cures afforded by stem cell research, we're operating from our own individual definitions of life. You might not agree with us, but we're not forcing our opinions upon you. However, if you decide to prevent stem cell research, you're clearly forcing your opinion of life upon us. And by doing so, you're condemning a segment of the population to death.

Edit: Isn't it gravely immoral to allow people to die in the name of beliefs they don't share?

[bluemonq]

I fully acknowledge that we may be foregoing medical innovations if we ban embryonic stem cell research. We also forgo medical innovation when we ban experimentation on other unwilling humans. It is gravely immoral to kill the unwilling in order to benefit others and everyone but you seems to agree.
Just out of curiosity, do you also object to animal experiementation?

[Yeahman]

You're missing the point. You believe that life begins at conception, I don't. The definition of life is interpreted differently for every individual, thus it is subjective.

If me and my girlfriend decide that we want to have an abortion, or that we want the potential cures afforded by stem cell research, we're operating from our own individual definitions of life. You might not agree with us, but we're not forcing our opinions upon you. However, if you decide to prevent stem cell research, you're clearly forcing your opinion of life upon us. And by doing so, you're condemning a segment of the population to death.

Edit: Isn't it gravely immoral to allow people to die in the name of beliefs they don't share?
So if I believe that life begins at age 8, I can kill my 7-year old child?
My point is that it doesn't matter what I, as an individual, think, or what you, as an individual, think. If society thinks that the 7-year old is deserving of protection, there is absolutely nothing wrong with legislating that.

Just out of curiosity, do you also object to animal experiementation?
Depends on the experiment. If it's torturous experimentation, I would object unless it is necessary to save a human life.

[BigLew]

Comparing an 8 year old to an embryo is ridiculous and you know it. Your not helping to persuade anyone who was on the fence with that statement.

I sure wish pro lifers would have such a passionate fit about the pics of 7 or 8 year old Iraqi kids heads we see with chunks of head missing.

[bluemonq]

If society thinks that the 7-year old is deserving of protection, there is absolutely nothing wrong with legislating that.
What is "society"? 50% +1?
Depends on the experiment. If it's torturous experimentation, I would object unless it is necessary to save a human life.
Define torturous, please. Also, let us say we have already have a medication that can save someone from dying for five years; let's say it's for AIDS. However, the new, untested medication is projected to give the patient an additional two years, due to current computer models of viral evolution, and the model has been accepted by most if not all scientists. On the other hand, it has yet to be tested, and researchers are about to begin animal trials. Would you find that acceptable? What about an additional year? 6 months? 3 months?

[Yeahman]

Comparing an 8 year old to an embryo is ridiculous and you know it. Your not helping to persuade anyone who was on the fence with that statement.
So let me ask you, at what precise point in development does it cease to be OK to kill the (potential) human life?

I'm not trying to persuade anyone about embryonic stem cell research. I'm just pointing out the fallacy in friedfishribs's argument.

What is "society"? 50% +1?
Depends on the method of government. If a majority of people want to ban embryonic stem cell research, how can that possibly be objectively wrong?

Define torturous, please. Also, let us say we have already have a medication that can save someone from dying for five years; let's say it's for AIDS. However, the new, untested medication is projected to give the patient an additional two years, due to current computer models of viral evolution, and the model has been accepted by most if not all scientists. On the other hand, it has yet to be tested, and researchers are about to begin animal trials. Would you find that acceptable? What about an additional year? 6 months? 3 months?
I have no answer at the moment. What do you think? And what is the point of this line of questioning?

[bluemonq]

Depends on the method of government. If a majority of people want to ban embryonic stem cell research, how can that possibly be objectively wrong?
So you're saying that the side of any issue that has more supporters is objectively right.
I have no answer at the moment. What do you think? And what is the point of this line of questioning?
You made this statement earlier:
I fully acknowledge that we may be foregoing medical innovations if we ban embryonic stem cell research. We also forgo medical innovation when we ban experimentation on other unwilling humans.
I am under the impression that you are equating the two, since you believe life originates at conception, while during the first few months it represents more of a *potential* of human life, resembling many "lower animals" in terms of its capabilities. You then stated that you find animal experiementation acceptable, even if it were torturous, as long as it could save a human life.

Just as there are many humans who would decline being experimented upon, I would hazard a guess that many animals, if they were capable of understanding what's being done to them, would also decline being experimental subjects. Let's say the animal being experiemented on was a moderately intelligent primate, an orangutan. You're a researcher at this pharmaceutical company, and you're working on a medicine to treat a rare disease (rare enough that 10 people in the world have it). The FDA isn't so easy-going and of course insists you run some drug trials. How many orangutan deaths would you find acceptable? A ballpark figure is good enough.

[BigLew]

ye110

I dont know and realy don't fuckin care, I'm just pointin ot how you compare an embryo to an 8 year old kid is fuckin stupid.

[friedfishribs]

So if I believe that life begins at age 8, I can kill my 7-year old child?
My point is that it doesn't matter what I, as an individual, think, or what you, as an individual, think. If society thinks that the 7-year old is deserving of protection, there is absolutely nothing wrong with legislating that.


Depends on the experiment. If it's torturous experimentation, I would object unless it is necessary to save a human life.

What is your stance exactly? That society determines morality, or legislation, or censorship? I support the democratic process, but I also believe in free expression, especially when it very literally translates into saving lives. I have my opinion and you have yours. My argument is based on each of us respecting the perspectives of the other. If you don't believe in stem cell research, don't support it, but, and here's the important part, don't prevent me from expressing my opinion as well.

I don't condemn you for believing that embryoes equate to life, I condemn you for trying to impose that belief on me.

There are also inherent fallacies in the pro-life argument that you haven't yet addressed. It is still selectively defending the right to live for certain genetic material, rather than all genetic material, as well as selectively "saving" some lives over others. And this huge movement to ban the research of embryoes would have much more credibility if it also simultaneously sought a way to actually give them life. Where's the fund raising for fertilization clinics? Where's the church petitions to adopt these cells? You still haven't given me an argument for why letting them go to waste is any better than using them to save lives.

[Yeahman]

So you're saying that the side of any issue that has more supporters is objectively right.
I was using the secular line of reasoning. As far as I'm concerned, it's always wrong even if everyone's for it.
But if a majority believe that it is wrong, why shouldn't it be banned?
It is completely inconsistent to say that if someone believes that it's murder, they should nevertheless allow others to murder. Do you disagree?

I am under the impression that you are equating the two, since you believe life originates at conception, while during the first few months it represents more of a *potential* of human life, resembling many "lower animals" in terms of its capabilities. You then stated that you find animal experiementation acceptable, even if it were torturous, as long as it could save a human life.

Just as there are many humans who would decline being experimented upon, I would hazard a guess that many animals, if they were capable of understanding what's being done to them, would also decline being experimental subjects. Let's say the animal being experiemented on was a moderately intelligent primate, an orangutan. You're a researcher at this pharmaceutical company, and you're working on a medicine to treat a rare disease (rare enough that 10 people in the world have it). The FDA isn't so easy-going and of course insists you run some drug trials. How many orangutan deaths would you find acceptable? A ballpark figure is good enough.
I don't equate animals with humans. A chimp can be more intelligent than a mentally retarded baby. Which would you rather experiment on? Why can't you answer the question?

ye110

I dont know and realy don't fuckin care, I'm just pointin ot how you compare an embryo to an 8 year old kid is fuckin stupid.
Impeccable reasoning. You convinced me.

I could compare it to a tree or a rock. The point is that if someone believes something to be as deserving of life as you or I, why in the world would they not what to protect it? And in a democratic society why is it so wrong for the majority to ban something they believe to be gravely immoral?

What is your stance exactly? That society determines morality, or legislation, or censorship? I support the democratic process, but I also believe in free expression, especially when it very literally translates into saving lives. I have my opinion and you have yours. My argument is based on each of us respecting the perspectives of the other. If you don't believe in stem cell research, don't support it, but, and here's the important part, don't prevent me from expressing my opinion as well.

I don't condemn you for believing that embryoes equate to life, I condemn you for trying to impose that belief on me.
You can express all you want. But if society believes that an embryo is deserving of life, by all means they should ban its killing. I, as a member of society, impose lots of beliefs on you. I believe you shouldn't kill, steal, or rape. You impose those restrictions on me too. Why?

There are also inherent fallacies in the pro-life argument that you haven't yet addressed. It is still selectively defending the right to live for certain genetic material, rather than all genetic material, as well as selectively "saving" some lives over others. And this huge movement to ban the research of embryoes would have much more credibility if it also simultaneously sought a way to actually give them life. Where's the fund raising for fertilization clinics? Where's the church petitions to adopt these cells? You still haven't given me an argument for why letting them go to waste is any better than using them to save lives.
They aren't going to waste. That's illegal. They're frozen.
But even if they were wasted, it'd be a natural death. Nobody is opposed to allowing people to die naturally. It's killing that society bans.

[Arex]

I, for one, would rather experiment on the retarded baby than the chimp. I'd actually rather not do either, but if forced to make a decision, mental capacity is more important to me than the fact that one happens to be a fellow homo sapien. This is why I have no qualms about destroying a bunch of unused embryos with basically no potential for life outside of a freezer in an effort to save existing human lives.

Anyway, the fact of the matter is that saying "life" begins at conception is about as arbitrary as saying "life" begins at the first trimester or "life" begins at birth or at age 21. Unfortunately, because we are a nation of laws, lines have to be drawn somewhere and people will not universally agree upon the different considerations which go into drawing these arbitrary lines.

This is just one of those areas where the two sides can basically never come to an agreement because there is no middle ground--you either think it's murder to destroy an embryo or you do not. Obvoiusly, those that believe it's murder will try to prevent others from doing so. And those that don't think it's murder, presumably because they don't consider embryos to be human lives, will never understand why those against stem cell research value the lives of the embryos more than the lives of humans suffering from potentially curable diseases. Oh well.

[Yeahman]

Anyway, the fact of the matter is that saying "life" begins at conception is about as arbitrary as saying "life" begins at the first trimester or "life" begins at birth or at age 21. Unfortunately, because we are a nation of laws, lines have to be drawn somewhere and people will not universally agree upon the different considerations which go into drawing these arbitrary lines.

This is just one of those areas where the two sides can basically never come to an agreement because there is no middle ground--you either think it's murder to destroy an embryo or you do not. Obvoiusly, those that believe it's murder will try to prevent others from doing so. And those that don't think it's murder, presumably because they don't consider embryos to be human lives, will never understand why those against stem cell research value the lives of the embryos more than the lives of humans suffering from potentially curable diseases. Oh well.
Well said.

[friedfishribs]

I was using the secular line of reasoning. As far as I'm concerned, it's always wrong even if everyone's for it.
But if a majority believe that it is wrong, why shouldn't it be banned?
It is completely inconsistent to say that if someone believes that it's murder, they should nevertheless allow others to murder. Do you disagree?

I could compare it to a tree or a rock. The point is that if someone believes something to be as deserving of life as you or I, why in the world would they not what to protect it? And in a democratic society why is it so wrong for the majority to ban something they believe to be gravely immoral?

You can express all you want. But if society believes that an embryo is deserving of life, by all means they should ban its killing. I, as a member of society, impose lots of beliefs on you. I believe you shouldn't kill, steal, or rape. You impose those restrictions on me too. Why?

Stop trying to change the subject; this is not a debate on the function of social order. I might as well ask you why you prefer freedom over slavery, or whether America would be better as a totalitarian regime or as a democracy. You keep generalizing to the point of absurdity and forcing me to entertain your flights of fancy - which I have:

If I happen to believe that every individual sperm cell constitutes life, then should I be allowed to impose my dogmatic views on the bodies of other people?

Isn't it gravely immoral to allow people to die in the name of beliefs they don't share?

Here, I've already questioned the ability of people to form legal codes from personal moral viewpoints. This isn't a condemnation of social order, as seems to be your intepretation, it's a line of inquiry intended to illicit a very specific response that you need to provide. You have to realize that if you want to impose a belief on the rest of society (that embryos equate to human life), the burden of proof is on you. If you want to infringe upon my natural rights, then you have to give me a damn good reason. And mindlessly repeating the mantra that "IT JUST IS!" and "MIGHT MAKES RIGHT! just doesn't cut it.

They aren't going to waste. That's illegal. They're frozen.
But even if they were wasted, it'd be a natural death. Nobody is opposed to allowing people to die naturally. It's killing that society bans.

I would have assumed that nobody would be against medical research, but clearly that's not the case. You're just using "dying naturally" as a euphemism for selective empathy. People dying of diseases are not dying naturally, they're dying because of diseases, and you are against the research to find cures. You condemn a segment of the population no matter how many times you spin the same tired line and the contradiction remains the same.

[Yeahman]

Here, I've already questioned the ability of people to form legal codes from personal moral viewpoints. This isn't a condemnation of social order, as seems to be your intepretation, it's a line of inquiry intended to illicit a very specific response that you need to provide. You have to realize that if you want to impose a belief on the rest of society (that embryos equate to human life), the burden of proof is on you. If you want to infringe upon my natural rights, then you have to give me a damn good reason. And mindlessly repeating the mantra that "IT JUST IS!" and "MIGHT MAKES RIGHT! just doesn't cut it.
So answer my question about my right to kill my 7-year old child. Are you going to answer this or not?
The fact is that we, as a society, not any one individual, have determined that there is a countervailing compelling interest; the life of the child. It doesn't matter what you believe. Your "right" is trumped by a greater interest.

People dying of diseases are not dying naturally
:rolleyes:
So who should be punish when someone dies from heart disease?

[bluemonq]

I was using the secular line of reasoning. As far as I'm concerned, it's always wrong even if everyone's for it.
But if a majority believe that it is wrong, why shouldn't it be banned?
It is completely inconsistent to say that if someone believes that it's murder, they should nevertheless allow others to murder. Do you disagree?
Since you're saying that something can be wrong even if everyone's for it, then there exists the possibility for the situation that something can be right even if everyone's against it. Which brings me to the question: how can you (in the plural, general sense) be sure? Because you have religion? The Bible can be interpreted as saying that life begins at conception (Psalm 139:13-16), but why can you choose to accept certain portions of the Old Testament, and not, say, the part that talks about the stoning of wives who cheat on their husbands?

And just for fun, how do the Amish fit into your scheme of thinking? More specifically, the recent schoolhouse shooting incident. I suppose you'll want to clarify what "allowed" means to you, as the common one in society today seems to be "to be able to do something without being punished".
I don't equate animals with humans. A chimp can be more intelligent than a mentally retarded baby. Which would you rather experiment on? Why can't you answer the question? I couldn't answer that question because previously you had asked a different question; I can't read your mind. To answer your question now, it depends on what you mean by "baby". If you actually mean, one which has born, then the orangutan.
I could compare it to a tree or a rock. The point is that if someone believes something to be as deserving of life as you or I, why in the world would they not what to protect it? And in a democratic society why is it so wrong for the majority to ban something they believe to be gravely immoral?
In a pure democracy, there is nothing wrong with this, at least according to the rules of the game.

Newsflash: we don't live in a pure democracy. We live in a representative democracy, WITH a Bill of Rights to protect the minority in certain cases. If it were simply a matter of having enough people, we would have said goodbye to freedom of speech and (ir)religion a long time ago.
You can express all you want. But if society believes that an embryo is deserving of life, by all means they should ban its killing. I, as a member of society, impose lots of beliefs on you. I believe you shouldn't kill, steal, or rape. You impose those restrictions on me too. Why?
Because you don't want it to happen to you, and I don't want it to happen to me. And we have an armed force whom we've given power to guard against/punish those who might wish to do so. So again, you're pointing to a situation of "might makes right".
They aren't going to waste. That's illegal. They're frozen.But even if they were wasted, it'd be a natural death. Nobody is opposed to allowing people to die naturally. It's killing that society bans.
It is strictly procedure that the the parents, succesfully having a child through IVF, are allowed to decide what to do with the remaining, unimplanted embryos. One option is to dispose of them. People have chosen that option. So let's see: they were created at the order of the parents, and then destroyed at the order of the parents. Doesn't sound like a natural death to me.

[friedfishribs]

So answer my question about my right to kill my 7-year old child. Are you going to answer this or not?
The fact is that we, as a society, not any one individual, have determined that there is a countervailing compelling interest; the life of the child. It doesn't matter what you believe. Your "right" is trumped by a greater interest.

...the burden of proof is on you...mindlessly repeating the mantra that "IT JUST IS!" and "MIGHT MAKES RIGHT! just doesn't cut it.

Bush and the pro-lifers are not the sole representatives of society.

Is it right to kill a 7-year old? In what context? Certainly we deem it's necessary in terms of collateral damage - to preserve our foreign interests, we've killed women, children, and innocent civilians. The biochemical weapons we poured into Vietnam are still causing birth defects, the infrastructure we destroyed in Iraq still jeopardizes the life of every Iraqi baby... People have agreed to war, but have they truly agreed to the moral reprecussions? What is good and evil? I know for myself, but I don't know for others.

If you want to tell me what good and evil is in the context of embryoes, then step up. So far, the only argument you're trying to win is that pro-lifers have an exclusive right to impose their views upon general society.

:rolleyes:
So who should be punish when someone dies from heart disease?

Your father is dying of heart disease. I believe that medical intervention is immoral. You respectfully disagree. I impose my beliefs on you and your father for no reason outside of my own fanatacism. I condemn your father to death. Why do you have to think punitively? Isn't the violation of basic human rights obvious? Isn't it hypocritical for me to say that my beliefs support life when people are dying as a direct result of them?

I'm tired of your baiting. If you don't have an argument, then just say so. If you want to change the subject of the debate, then do so openly. If you do want to discuss the responsibility citizens have to uphold the social contract, then proceed with it.

[Yeahman]

Since you're saying that something can be wrong even if everyone's for it, then there exists the possibility for the situation that something can be right even if everyone's against it. Which brings me to the question: how can you (in the plural, general sense) be sure? Because you have religion? The Bible can be interpreted as saying that life begins at conception (Psalm 139:13-16), but why can you choose to accept certain portions of the Old Testament, and not, say, the part that talks about the stoning of wives who cheat on their husbands?
Psalm 139:13-16 reveals a truth. The Mosaic law was a set of dos and don'ts with punishments. They may or may not reveal any underlying truth. For example, cheating on your husband is still wrong. But the Mosaic law itself was abrogated by Jesus.

And just for fun, how do the Amish fit into your scheme of thinking? More specifically, the recent schoolhouse shooting incident. I suppose you'll want to clarify what "allowed" means to you, as the common one in society today seems to be "to be able to do something without being punished".
What does the schoolhouse shooting have to do with anything.

I couldn't answer that question because previously you had asked a different question; I can't read your mind. To answer your question now, it depends on what you mean by "baby". If you actually mean, one which has born, then the orangutan.
Why?

In a pure democracy, there is nothing wrong with this, at least according to the rules of the game.

Newsflash: we don't live in a pure democracy. We live in a representative democracy, WITH a Bill of Rights to protect the minority in certain cases. If it were simply a matter of having enough people, we would have said goodbye to freedom of speech and (ir)religion a long time ago.
Which Amendment addresses embryonic stem cell research?
Because there is none, it's being put to a vote in the states. So what is your problem with that?

Because you don't want it to happen to you, and I don't want it to happen to me. And we have an armed force whom we've given power to guard against/punish those who might wish to do so. So again, you're pointing to a situation of "might makes right".
I'm pointing to social reality. We tell people what they can or cannot do all the time. Is it wrong to say that you can't rape people? friedfishribs says that we should not impose our beliefs on the rapist.

It is strictly procedure that the the parents, succesfully having a child through IVF, are allowed to decide what to do with the remaining, unimplanted embryos. One option is to dispose of them. People have chosen that option. So let's see: they were created at the order of the parents, and then destroyed at the order of the parents. Doesn't sound like a natural death to me.
And what should a pro-lifer want to do with them?

[friedfishribs]

I'm pointing to social reality. We tell people what they can or cannot do all the time. Is it wrong to say that you can't rape people? friedfishribs says that we should not impose our beliefs on the rapist.

I can attack the straw man too.

Yelloman says that we should never question the social majority. That the fascist regime imposed by democratically-elected Hitler was the paragon of moral integrity. By extension, Yelloman is a racist who believes in ethnic cleansing. Even though this has nothing to do with the argument, I've now attacked the validity of Yelloman's opinions through distortion and oversimplifcation. Who needs an argument when baseless accusations and attempts to censor are so much easier?

[Yeahman]

I can attack the straw man too.

Yelloman says that we should never question the social majority. That the fascist regime imposed by democratically-elected Hitler was the paragon of moral integrity. By extension, Yelloman is a racist who believes in ethnic cleansing. Even though this has nothing to do with the argument, I've now attacked the validity of Yelloman's opinions through distortion and oversimplifcation. Who needs an argument when baseless accusations and attempts to censor are so much easier?
So defend your position that when society imposes one belief it's OK but when it imposes another, it is not.

[friedfishribs]

So defend your position that when society imposes one belief it's OK but when it imposes another, it is not.

You're oversimplifying my argument.

...I've already questioned the ability of people to form legal codes from personal moral viewpoints. This isn't a condemnation of social order, as seems to be your intepretation, it's a line of inquiry intended to illicit a very specific response that you need to provide. You have to realize that if you want to impose a belief on the rest of society (that embryos equate to human life), the burden of proof is on you.

[Yeahman]

What proof? It's a moral question.
Prove to me that a 7-year old deserves to live.

[friedfishribs]

Is it right to kill a 7-year old? In what context? Certainly we deem it's necessary in terms of collateral damage - to preserve our foreign interests, we've killed women, children, and innocent civilians. The biochemical weapons we poured into Vietnam are still causing birth defects, the infrastructure we destroyed in Iraq still jeopardizes the life of every Iraqi baby... People have agreed to war, but have they truly agreed to the moral reprecussions?

What is your moral standpoint? There are children who die in order for our society to continue. Morality must have its basis. If you can't explain it, then why are you willing to kill for it?

Edit: I think we've sidetracked this topic far enough. If you'd like, we can keep a personal dialogue going in personal messages.

[Yeahman]

So you're position is that your 7-year old child doesn't deserve to live?
What is your basis for denying parents the right to kill their own children? At age 7, or we can make it age 1, they aren't contributing to society. They're only "potential", right?

[BigLew]

This has become completely fucking pointless.

[friedfishribs]

So you're position is that your 7-year old child doesn't deserve to live?
What is your basis for denying parents the right to kill their own children? At age 7, or we can make it age 1, they aren't contributing to society. They're only "potential", right?

I tried to PM you but my message was too long. I'm going to start a new thread in the Whatever section so I can properly address your question without going too far off topic.

[BigLew]

Original Point: Micheal J Fox is the man and if you don't think so jesus does not love you. Good night.

[bluemonq]

But the Mosaic law itself was abrogated by Jesus.
Forgive my ignorance (which may seem to be of Biblical portions), but I was under the impression that the Ten Commandments are part of Mosaic Law, and that it's still taught in Sunday School. So you're telling me that they're being taught something completely irrelevant, or at least in a fashion that is distorted from the original message? Also, isn't Leviticus 18:22 ("You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination.") part of Mosaic Law?
Why?
Because I am take the very anthrocentric view that humans are "worth" more than animals. However, every day that I wake up, the cynical part of me shifts the balance a little more towards the animals.
Which Amendment addresses embryonic stem cell research?
Because there is none, it's being put to a vote in the states. So what is your problem with that?
It's not about embryonic stem cell research, but about the comment (which I quoted for your convenience, but apparently people never read what's quoted):
And in a democratic society why is it so wrong for the majority to ban something they believe to be gravely immoral?
Just because there are 10 people who sees something as the proper way as opposed to 1 who might have a different view, it doesn't automatically make the 10 people right.
I'm pointing to social reality. We tell people what they can or cannot do all the time. Is it wrong to say that you can't rape people? friedfishribs says that we should not impose our beliefs on the rapist.
If you were to take the (preposterous) position that act of rape does not harm the victim, then banning rape just because a majority of people say it should be would indeed be ridiculous! Rape, murder, and theft are banned because there is clearysomething injurious that has been done.
And what should a pro-lifer want to do with them?
Since the destruction of zygotes (embryo is the improper term, if you believe life to begin at conception) is murder, if the pro-lifers are to be consistent, they should be in support of laws that would ban IVF as it is currently practiced and forbid parents from ordering the destruction of the embryos. All of them should also be sponsoring programs that encourage couples to adopt zygotes/embryos for implantation and birth.

[Yeahman]

Forgive my ignorance (which may seem to be of Biblical portions), but I was under the impression that the Ten Commandments are part of Mosaic Law, and that it's still taught in Sunday School. So you're telling me that they're being taught something completely irrelevant, or at least in a fashion that is distorted from the original message? Also, isn't Leviticus 18:22 ("You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination.") part of Mosaic Law?
Well the ban against homosexual acts is in the New Testament as well.
The moral laws of the Old Testament still apply and will always apply. The ritualistic laws and proscribed legal remedies do not. So the 10 Commandments still apply. Circumcision, however, is no longer required. Adultery is still prohibited but the proscribed legal penalty was specific to the Israelites and no longer apply.
This isn't even a Christian idea. The Jews separated the law into those that all Jews were bound by and those moral laws which bound even the gentiles.

Because I am take the very anthrocentric view that humans are "worth" more than animals. However, every day that I wake up, the cynical part of me shifts the balance a little more towards the animals.
Even a severely mentally retarded human?

Just because there are 10 people who sees something as the proper way as opposed to 1 who might have a different view, it doesn't automatically make the 10 people right.
So we have some fundamental rights which we have enshrined. But what about new problems that arise. How should they be resolved. I'm not saying that the majority is always right. But is there a better alternative?

If you were to take the (preposterous) position that act of rape does not harm the victim, then banning rape just because a majority of people say it should be would indeed be ridiculous! Rape, murder, and theft are banned because there is clearysomething injurious that has been done.
That is still an imposition of your beliefs upon someone who believes that he should be allowed to rape people.
My only point was that we impose our beliefs upon others all the time. It is not always wrong.

Since the destruction of zygotes (embryo is the improper term, if you believe life to begin at conception) is murder, if the pro-lifers are to be consistent, they should be in support of laws that would ban IVF as it is currently practiced and forbid parents from ordering the destruction of the embryos. All of them should also be sponsoring programs that encourage couples to adopt zygotes/embryos for implantation and birth.
The latter suggestion would be extremely difficult. The former is fair enough though. I'd say that most, if not all, pro-lifers are opposed to IVF if it results in discarding. Put it up for a vote and pro-lifers will vote to ban it.

[DragonKnight]

Man, makes you wonder how Jewish people feels about outsiders using the Torah and their other religious texts to start a pointless religious debate on an Asian-based message board. :rolleyes:

[bluemonq]

Well the ban against homosexual acts is in the New Testament as well.
The moral laws of the Old Testament still apply and will always apply. The ritualistic laws and proscribed legal remedies do not. So the 10 Commandments still apply. Circumcision, however, is no longer required. Adultery is still prohibited but the proscribed legal penalty was specific to the Israelites and no longer apply.
This isn't even a Christian idea. The Jews separated the law into those that all Jews were bound by and those moral laws which bound even the gentiles.
Please humor me this off-topic question: when you say that homosexuality is banned in the New Testament, are you referring to Paul's statements made in Romans, Corinthians, and Timothy? Didn't Paul also claim in Corinthians that "effeminate" males will not "inherit the Kingdom of God?" What's the rationale behind that? And bringing in another thread (sorry), if all of humanity originated from Adam and Eve, (and then we had that unfortunate Flood), aren't we doomed to incest?
Even a severely mentally retarded human?
Unless we're talking about something like a genius dog, I again point to my (eroding, but still relatively intact) anthrocentrism.
So we have some fundamental rights which we have enshrined. But what about new problems that arise. How should they be resolved. I'm not saying that the majority is always right. But is there a better alternative?


That is still an imposition of your beliefs upon someone who believes that he should be allowed to rape people.
My only point was that we impose our beliefs upon others all the time. It is not always wrong.
And my point is that imposing a belief just because there are more of you is right either. Furthermore, there is clear, immediate harm that is prevented by stopping a rapist. This is less apparent when we're talking about embyronic stem cell research on embryos that would otherwise be discarded. Interestingly enough, recent polls suggest that a large majority of the American population would rather excess zygotes be thrown out/incinerated/whatever than experimented upon.
The latter suggestion would be extremely difficult. The former is fair enough though. I'd say that most, if not all, pro-lifers are opposed to IVF if it results in discarding. Put it up for a vote and pro-lifers will vote to ban it.
It most certainly results in discarding, and it was even worse in the past. I'm surpised they've never raised a hue and cry about it.
Man, makes you wonder how Jewish people feels about outsiders using the Torah and their other religious texts to start a pointless religious debate on an Asian-based message board. :rolleyes:
Since one of the participants happen to be using the Torah aka the Old Testament as the rationale for his beliefs, those anonymous Jewish people can go take a flying leap as far as I'm concerned; it's quite relevant here.

[Yeahman]

Please humor me this off-topic question: when you say that homosexuality is banned in the New Testament, are you referring to Paul's statements made in Romans, Corinthians, and Timothy? Didn't Paul also claim in Corinthians that "effeminate" males will not "inherit the Kingdom of God?" What's the rationale behind that? And bringing in another thread (sorry), if all of humanity originated from Adam and Eve, (and then we had that unfortunate Flood), aren't we doomed to incest?
More accurate translation is "male prostitute."
If you're having relations with your 1st cousin (or 2nd cousin) or closer, you're doomed to incest.

[bluemonq]

Why 1st or 2nd cousin? Why not 3rd? Is is purely technical (relationships with relatives by marriage allowed)? What about 1st/2nd cousins once removed? Is this a Biblical proscription, or something that humans determined? If it's the latter, who did it? What's the justification for setting the line where it is?

[Yeahman]

It's in the Bible and a natural law. Avoiding complications due to consanguinity is the justification.

[bluemonq]

I'm having a little trouble finding the "first- and second-cousins are off-limits, but besides that it's ok" rule; chapter and verse please?

[BigLew]

Man, makes you wonder how Jewish people feels about outsiders using the Torah and their other religious texts to start a pointless religious debate on an Asian-based message board. :rolleyes:
Or how in general Christian bible thumpers ignore pieces of the Old Testement at thier convenience with the grand excuse of well "Jesus expunged that part."

It's no wonder some Christians are shocked when I tell them that Jesus was Jewish.

[Yeahman]

I'm having a little trouble finding the "first- and second-cousins are off-limits, but besides that it's ok" rule; chapter and verse please?
The Bible prohibits sex with your immediate family and their immediate family but stops there. No prohibitions against cousins.
The Catholic Church forbids (except under unusual circumstances) marriage within 4 degrees (all descendants of my great-great-grandparents).

[bluemonq]

The Bible prohibits sex with your immediate family and their immediate family but stops there. No prohibitions against cousins.
The Catholic Church forbids (except under unusual circumstances) marriage within 4 degrees (all descendants of my great-great-grandparents).
Do you happen to know what the various other sects of Christianity believe?

[Yeahman]

Do you happen to know what the various other sects of Christianity believe?
Catholics calculate by how many generations you go up (can't go up more than 4). The Eastern Orthodox calculate by counting every ancestor and descendant in the chain (can't go through more than 7 people). So the Catholic Church doesn't allow 3rd cousins to marry but does allow 4th cousins. The Orthodox Church doesn't allow 2nd cousins but does allow 3rd cousins.
With Protestants, it'd differ by church.