Printable View
Polls show most Americans support embryonic stem cell research,
Really?
What Polls??
Just like Research papers, why don't news articles post their sources???
Well, since we now know that Americans overwhelmingly want embryonic stem cell research, how do you fall on this issue?
In Bush's eternal (but paraphrased here) words, the "American people" do not want stem cell research. He must have conducted a survey of his own. :)
I feel I must also point out that the above paragraph is entirely sarcastic in nature.
And yes, of course we should support stem cell research. These aren't the Middle Ages, religious sentimentality is as useful as nipples on an armor plate.
Nothing wrong with stem cell research. I'm all for it.
The real issue is should embryo's be blendered for such research?
All for it. Of course I also would benefit from it as I have severe spinal chord damage so I am biased. My feelings can be summed up easily. Legal or not, women are going to abort their pregnancy. Might as well do some good with it. It may seem heartless to some, but that is how I feel.
A lot of people say that it shouldn't be done, for their moral reasons which, I feel, they don't understand very well. The issue is sentience, and then we delve into the debate of consciousness. I think that sentience and consciousness, according to our self-centered view of the universe, ought to be marked at the point at which the cerebral cortex develops in the head. Before that, butcher it if you'd like.Quote:
Originally Posted by NotLKH
I'm not jumping on this preliminary report about stem cells in amniotic fluid being as good as embryonic stem cells in their potential benefit, however, if furthur reports support this initial analysis, then:
If A is as good as B in potential, and A has fewer negative aspects then B, then should A be favored over B?
All for it. I think there is a big difference between destroying a clump of 30 cells and killing a living human being. The difficulty is where do we draw the line between lump of cells and living human being.... where do we define life as starting? I don't know the answer to that question, but I'm betting I would go with something around the stage of conciousness and the ability to feel pain. So, morally I have no problem with this.
http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp
If it makes it easier for the religous right to support it, then B would be the right way to go just to keep everyone happy. But I don't see why we should force people to suffer because of other peoples faith.Quote:
Originally Posted by NotLKH
I beg to differ. Life would go on without religious sentimentality but without armour plated nipples what would be the point?Quote:
religious sentimentality is as useful as nipples on an armor plate
I voted yes for research and would have voted yes for the nipples too, had there been an option.
Armor-plated nipples make it a little tougher to get through airport security, but they rarely if ever chafe. Plus its fun to confuse people into thinking its cold out.
So I vote yes.
If you cannot define when the beginning of life starts why take the chance and destroy something that could very well be a human being? I never understood people who stated they didn’t know when “life” began but had no trouble with abortion or using fertilized human embryos for research. Logically it makes no sense to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suzzi
X
If you don't know when life began, then why assume that it is as late as conception? The very act of sex would then involve a genocide greater than the holocaust. Furthermore, every woman could be a murderer for every month that she doesn't conceive. Lock em all up!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanith
After all, an egg could very well be a human being in that it could develop into one under the right circumstances. The same is true of embryos, fetuses, and small children. Each has the potential to turn into a human, but ONLY if certain conditions are met.
No, they should be blendered for daiquiris !Quote:
Originally Posted by NotLKH
That’s a really weak argument. If you understand anything at all about conception you should know that a sperm or an egg alone does not have the potential to be a human being. It is only the joining of these two do we get all the genetic material necessary to make up a human. If you were ignorant of this fact and missed this in Biology class, consider this a refresher course :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
X
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanith
Now I finally realise why Shaggy's such a terrible biologist.
Don't argue about something that ain't yours, if the person wants to give their embryo to help someone else, then why not... its their choice, especially when they where going to have an abortion anyway. I think its not our place to say what others can and can't do based on our morals, if we all did that, then i might as well start protesting about sex before marriage and homosexuals.
Actually, I am a biologist, so I happen to know that what you just stated is not actually true. While it is probably the case that two sperm cannot create a viable organism, as they lack all the organelles, two eggs certainly can create a viable organism, though not on their own. Furthermore, in many organisms, one egg is sufficient. While it is not currently possible in humans, it would be theoretcially possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanith
And this isn't a specious argument, either. The whole debate centers around increasing technology. The debate over embryonic stem cells only arose once we could identify and isolate them. The debate over when life began only began as technology got to the point where you had options other than: Live birth or dead birth. Whether a fetus is alive really didn't matter one way or the other until fairly recently. Heck, even healthy babies didn't tend to make it for more than a couple years until the last century or so.
So, if we can clone a viable human being out of a single egg, when does life begin? Once we get to the point that we can clone a viable human being out of any cell (Jurrasic Park was based on this concept, and the fundamental objections to it had to do with the age of the DNA, not the concept itself), when does life begin?
As technology advances, the beginning of life will blurr further and further. It has already blurred to the state where any point such as conception has become unremarkable to anybody who is familiar with what is currently possible.
I've never had an occasion to talk with someone who is against stem cell research based on the don't-destroy-life-by-harvesting-the-cells-from embryos argument, so I've never had the chance to ask them if they know that the embryos in question would be taken from embryos that would be discarded in any case.
In fact, every couple that persues in vitro fertilization to get around fertility issues, has several embryos created, so that multiple attempts at fertilization can be made.
Interestingly, if you were to divide these early on, you would create twins. How many times this can happen is not clear, but in theory, it could be infinite. As each one divides, separate the pieces, and continue.
Therefore, if life begins at conception, then certain other points that have to be considered:
Since all identical twins came from this one fertilized egg, and since the number of identical twins from this egg is potentially infinite, are identical twins the same person? If they are not, then they are all different people. Therefore, every time we DON'T split an embryo, we are killing off a viable human being by this argument. In other words, we could create this twin, who is a unique human being, but we choose not to. Is this not just as bad as destroying an unused embryo? Is this not just as bad as using an unused embryo for research that could heal people?
It is currently within our power that each fertilized egg is not a single person, but an entire population. We decide who lives and who dies by our actions. I have never heard any religious leader talk about this fact. If life begins at conception, we kill an infinite number of people with each child.
That's a spurious argument. It is almost equivalent to saying that I'm guilty of murder if I don't have a baby.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
I don't think it's all that spurious. There's a group out there who objects to the use of embryos for stem cells because it is the taking of a human life. The taking of a human life is defined as murder except in specific cases. Therefore, it is not all that surprising that these people say that abortion is murder, and destroying an embryo is abortion, so destroying an embryo is murder. Yet in this case, the embryo only exists because of scientific capability. This argument was not possible in the 70's, because you couldn't have a viable embryo to destroy in this way, even that recently.
Since this embryo only exists because of the technology, and since these groups say that destroying the embryo is murder, then why is one artificially sustained embryo different from another?
You have a cell, which will divide. You can pick up that cell with a pipette. If that cell is actually a couple cells, and one comes off, by the argument of those groups, that individual cell, which has the capacity to become a human, cannot be destroyed, but must be considered a unique human, because if we implanted it back into a human uterus, it would become a unique human. Therefore, at that initial stage, when undifferentiated cells each have the ability to become a human, or might all do so together, how many humans are there? As many as we want to count!
The reason these groups differentiate "not having a baby" appears to be the very probabilistic nature of conception. If you have sex without conceiving, that's fine, because no egg was fertilized, so no human was created (though we now know that that is not always the case). They are claiming that if the egg is fertilized, it must be considered a human. They are extending this to eggs which are fertilized in the abscense of sex, and to eggs which are fertilized in a way which would not produce a viable human without the direct intervention of technology.
I do see that not doing something that could be done is not the same as doing something that could be done, but to say that an embryo is one human, as the anti stem cell folks are saying, leads to some difficult ground. It clearly isn't a human, it is a potential human. It can't walk, talk, vote, chit-chat, etc. However, the point being made is that it can turn into a human...with our help, and therefore, it should have the full rights and protection as an actual human. Well, with our help, it could actually turn into an entire football team (by anybodies definition), so why should it be necessary that it be turned into only one person?
They are saying that not turning this blob of cells into a person is murder. Since it could just as easily be turned into many people, why is it right to make one person in this artificial way, when making many people from this blob of cells would be no more artificial? They have made the argument that it CAN be done, and therefore, it MUST be done. Those frozen embryos would die very quickly if we did not take action to keep them alive. There's nothing natural about that. They have zero chance of becoming people UNLESS we take positive action to create that outcome. And those groups are arguing that NOT doing this is murder. If we take positive action, there is no limit to the number of unique people that can be created. Two people can be created with no more effort than creating one. In fact, it can happen with the slip of the hand. They can't very well say that one has the right to live, and the other doesn't. Which would you choose, the one on the pipette, or the one which fell off?
To make the distinction with an in vitro fertilized egg, you end up splitting hairs when you say that destroying this thing is murder, or even wrong, but that's an argument which we have only been able to have for barely two decades.
Maybe we could use twins as a source - keep one and implant it, and save the other one for research. That way you get the best of both worlds.
Some people might say that that gives new meaning to the phrase "evil twin".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
If you pick a woman at random as you're walking down the street, you've got about a 50:50 chance that she could conceive should you, er... get it on. Therefore by failing to drag every other woman off into the bushes, you are by extension failing to create thousands of potential and unique human beings. Who are you to say that they shouldn't be given a chance at life?
So go on guys, if you don't want to be a murderer, be a rapist.
:afrog: [Clarification: Do not take this seriously]
Let's not stray into the off-limits zone, okay?
Sorry. I was attempting to illustrate the point that some arguments can be turned around into even the most extreme antithesis of their original intention.
Actually, the odds are considerably less than 50:50, but that was the only argument we COULD have about forty years ago. The argument now is about artificially created proto-potential humans. Things that would not have any potential to become humans without the direct and active involvement of medical science. If we ignored them, they would be food, like all other dead organic matter. We have already taken active steps to create and sustain them, and the argument is that this obligates us to continue them on into realizing their human potential, and that failing to do so is murder. However, we can continue them on into one or many humans. At that point, they are entirely aritficial. Artificially created, artificially sustained, and only potentially humans so long as we actively, and artifically make it so. Since we could create any number of humans with about the same effort, and it is murder not to make one human, why is it not murder to deny one unborn twin the full assistance that we are required to provide for the other?
My personal view is that life begins at the point the organism is viable outside the womb. If we get to the point where we can create a human from a fertilized egg (or an unfertilized egg) without ever using a human womb, then that's fine. Of course, it's also "A Brave New World". Until we get to that point, I think the place to draw the line is at the point of independent viability. I don't believe that because that is some magical point at which the soul enters the body, or anything like that. I believe that because the alternative gets too doggone thorny.
The trouble is that it becomes difficult to say at exactly what point independent life becomes viable. I don't think many people would argue that a group of a few cells could develop on its own into a normal human being. But the abortion limit in the UK is set at 24 weeks at present, and there is a lot of lobbying by concerned parties to reduce this on the grounds that they believe that a) a foetus this age is capable of experiencing pain and emotion and b) medical science is in such a state that there are some babies born at around this age that have been successfully raised, although not without a vast amount of extremely intensive care. But the boundaries are being ever pushed back, and as far as making decisions on these sorts of things goes, it is in my opinion better to have a black-and-white line than a grey area where different opinions will cause no end of problems.
zaza
Can your black-and-white line be arbitrary? My point is that as medical science advances, the line will ultimately become arbitrary, if it hasn't already. What do you do at that point?
What I was trying to get at is that the debate over stem cells from frozen, about to be discarded, extra embryos from fertility treatments has a problem. There are groups who are trying to argue that destroying them is murder, or at least amoral. They are saying that they are already human beings, and because you have the knowledge to produce babies from them that you MUST do so, and the alternative should be not just wrong, but a serious crime. It's a novel concept, as both you and Martin have pointed out. Because you can do so, you MUST, or else you are guilty of murder.
How do you get around that? Yes we can sustain increasingly young foetuses. There is no reason to assume that we won't reach the point where we can sustain them to the point where a womb is actually unnecessary. The point we have reached already, was unthinkable thirty years ago. Now it's common. It's unrealistic to assume that we won't reach the point where a womb is unnecessary, and groups are laying the groundwork for the belief that if you can create a baby out of these cells, that you MUST. That's the whole debate around stem cells. If it is immoral to destroy a clump of cells that could potentially be turned into a human through the intervention of science, then why should we stop at a single human, since through the intervention of science, there is currently no limit to the number of humans that could be created from that clump of cells.
So where does this lead? Will we say that when a sperm meets an egg, that thing that results is sacred, even if there is no woman to gestate that egg? Whooops, cloning can create a person without a sperm meeting an egg. Now what? Can we kill clones because they aren't actually human?
The difficulty of defining when life begins is becoming increasingly difficult. The people who have chosen conception as the starting point have largely done so out of ignorance rather than reasoned thought. They assume that this is a fixed point that will not move, but it already isn't a fixed point, and we are violating it every day. Taking the position that life begins at birth is even more problematic. Taking the view that life begins when it is sustainable might even exempt children from inclusion (you already aren't endowed with the full set of rights in this country until about age 18 or 21).
It may sound freaky, but there is nothing unsound about the argument. As medical science is advancing, the very concept of conception is going to become untenable. That's one of the things that makes cloning so unpalatable to some people. If we don't even need sperm to fertilize an egg, then not only do we lose that starting point for life (it's evaporated with Dolly, human cloning is just a matter of time, and not much time at that), but we lose the need for males in the population.
If you want to find something sacred in what it is to be human, best to stay ignorant of medical science these days. Best to pray for a new dark age, because the current advances are tearing down all the road signs in your belief system.