Embryonic stem cell research
-
thealj wrote:
Obviously 50-100 cells in a clump are not capable of individual thought.
Neither is a 1 year old baby. Is that disposble as well? "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
espeir wrote:
Neither is a 1 year old baby. Is that disposble as well?
How do you know that? They move their hands, eyes and mouth independently. They have a brain and functioning cortex. If they are not capable of independent thought, then obviously at some moment they become capable of this amazing talent. Tell me then, when does this special moment occur? So, according to you, babies are automatons that suddenly and spontaneously achieve the capability of individual thought. That's an interesting idea with huge ethical implications. For instance, if they are not capable of independent thought then they must not possess individual personalities. That's quite incredible because if they don't possess a personality then they aren't really human in anything but shape and form. Interesting, interesting...
-
So, is multi-cellular life (a fetus) different from unicellular life? It takes approximately 24 hours from the time a sperm penetrates the outer barrier of the egg for the cell to commence division. Until the initial division it is considered a zygote - a unicellular object. Yet it is a unicellular object with the potential to become human and thus falls under the auspices of your definition - if you allow me to include multicellular objects in there as well. I could even take this further and bring up the Catholic church's stance on condoms and birth control, but I won't. Now, unfertilized eggs also have the potential of becoming human and they are also unique objects. When a female menstruates, such objects "go to waste", so to speak, in that they also fall under your definition. They have the potential to become human, are unicellular (like zygotes) and are the only object in the universe that has the potential to become human as such. So we cannot use unicellular vs. multicellular as a criteria for human life. So there is a problem here. Where is the distinction between life, potential life, and non-life? Let's forget about the bacteria bit as I was just using that for illustrative purposes. The inherent problem is at what point do we have something human? Clearly fertilization is an important event, but I do not believe that there is a distinct line drawn at some "magic fertilization moment" that occurs during fertilization. Obviously the situation is complicated. That being said, it is difficult to accept the veto of a president who allows abortion clinics to operate legally in the U.S. while banning embryonic stem cell research. It is hypocritical and I have a problem with that.
thealj wrote:
That being said, it is difficult to accept the veto of a president who allows abortion clinics to operate legally in the U.S. while banning embryonic stem cell research. It is hypocritical and I have a problem with that.
He doesn't allow abortion clinics. A left-wing supreme court stripped Americans of our constitutional power to restrict them. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
thealj wrote:
Okay, so when is that magic moment at which the fertilized embryo is no longer potentially human and suddenly becomes human? A human has very specific characteristics that make it human - characteristics not shared by a fertilized human egg. Obviously 50-100 cells in a clump are not capable of individual thought.
Thats the issue. There is no "magic moment". Human life is a continuum of development. There are merely arbitrary points which have some kind of significance to one philosophy compared to another. If "individual thought" is the arbitrary standard that has significance to you, than who gets to measure that? Is there some kind of universal standard of "indiviudla thought"? Does an infant the day after it was born have more "individual thought" than a chimp? A dog? A rat? If not, are the lives of those creatures to be considered more valuable than a human infant? How do you so accurately measure "individual thought" at any arbitrary stage of development that you are assured to never accicently kill someone who has it? The only non-arbitrary definition of a human life is the moment of coneption. I'm not presenting this as an anti-abortion argument, as we certainly kill humans every day for any number of completely arbitrary reasons. But I do think it is obscene to legitimize abortion by dehumanizing the process of human embryonic development. If people want abortion to be legal than fine lets have it, but lets not take the humanity out of what we are doing. At the very least we should be intellectually honest about what it is we are doing and why we are doing it. "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson -- modified at 13:52 Thursday 20th July, 2006
Stan Shannon wrote:
Thats the issue. There is no "magic moment". Human life is a continuum of development. There are merely arbitrary points which have some kind of significance to one philosophy compared to another. If "individual thought" is the arbitrary standard that has significance to you, than who gets to measure that? Is there some kind of universal standard of "indiviudla thought"? Does an infant the day after it was born have more "individual thought" than a chimp? A dog? A rat? If not, are the lives of those creatures to be considered more valuable than a human infant? How do you so accurately measure "individual thought" at any arbitrary stage of development that you are assured to never accicently kill someone who has it? The only non-arbitrary definition of a human life is the moment of coneption. I'm not presenting this as an anti-abortion argument, as we certainly kill humans every day for any number of completely arbitrary reasons. But I do think it is obscene to legitimize abortion by dehumanizing the process of human embryonic development. If people want abortion to be legal than fine lets have it, but lets not take the humanity out of what we are doing. At the very least we should be intellectually honest about what it is we are doing and why we are doing it.
Exactly.
-
So, is multi-cellular life (a fetus) different from unicellular life? It takes approximately 24 hours from the time a sperm penetrates the outer barrier of the egg for the cell to commence division. Until the initial division it is considered a zygote - a unicellular object. Yet it is a unicellular object with the potential to become human and thus falls under the auspices of your definition - if you allow me to include multicellular objects in there as well. I could even take this further and bring up the Catholic church's stance on condoms and birth control, but I won't. Now, unfertilized eggs also have the potential of becoming human and they are also unique objects. When a female menstruates, such objects "go to waste", so to speak, in that they also fall under your definition. They have the potential to become human, are unicellular (like zygotes) and are the only object in the universe that has the potential to become human as such. So we cannot use unicellular vs. multicellular as a criteria for human life. So there is a problem here. Where is the distinction between life, potential life, and non-life? Let's forget about the bacteria bit as I was just using that for illustrative purposes. The inherent problem is at what point do we have something human? Clearly fertilization is an important event, but I do not believe that there is a distinct line drawn at some "magic fertilization moment" that occurs during fertilization. Obviously the situation is complicated. That being said, it is difficult to accept the veto of a president who allows abortion clinics to operate legally in the U.S. while banning embryonic stem cell research. It is hypocritical and I have a problem with that.
Richard has already answered you. The particular unicelular life to which you are refering "has the POTENTIAL of becoming a human. It is the only object in the universe that does have that property. It is unique and as such should be viewed in perspective of its potential outcome." It's a PERSON-IN-POTENTIAL.
Silence is the voice of complicity. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. -- monty python Might I suggest that the universe was always the size of the cosmos. It is just that at one point the cosmos was the size of a marble. -- Colin Angus Mackay
-
thealj wrote:
That being said, it is difficult to accept the veto of a president who allows abortion clinics to operate legally in the U.S. while banning embryonic stem cell research. It is hypocritical and I have a problem with that.
He doesn't allow abortion clinics. A left-wing supreme court stripped Americans of our constitutional power to restrict them. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
I don't see him doing anything to counter them.
-
Richard has already answered you. The particular unicelular life to which you are refering "has the POTENTIAL of becoming a human. It is the only object in the universe that does have that property. It is unique and as such should be viewed in perspective of its potential outcome." It's a PERSON-IN-POTENTIAL.
Silence is the voice of complicity. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. -- monty python Might I suggest that the universe was always the size of the cosmos. It is just that at one point the cosmos was the size of a marble. -- Colin Angus Mackay
ahz wrote:
It's a PERSON-IN-POTENTIAL.
So is an unfertilized egg. What's your point?
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Thats the issue. There is no "magic moment". Human life is a continuum of development. There are merely arbitrary points which have some kind of significance to one philosophy compared to another. If "individual thought" is the arbitrary standard that has significance to you, than who gets to measure that? Is there some kind of universal standard of "indiviudla thought"? Does an infant the day after it was born have more "individual thought" than a chimp? A dog? A rat? If not, are the lives of those creatures to be considered more valuable than a human infant? How do you so accurately measure "individual thought" at any arbitrary stage of development that you are assured to never accicently kill someone who has it? The only non-arbitrary definition of a human life is the moment of coneption. I'm not presenting this as an anti-abortion argument, as we certainly kill humans every day for any number of completely arbitrary reasons. But I do think it is obscene to legitimize abortion by dehumanizing the process of human embryonic development. If people want abortion to be legal than fine lets have it, but lets not take the humanity out of what we are doing. At the very least we should be intellectually honest about what it is we are doing and why we are doing it.
Exactly.
thealj wrote:
Exactly.
Thanks for agreeing that it is stupid to compare a human at any stage of development to a bacteria. "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
-
So, is multi-cellular life (a fetus) different from unicellular life? It takes approximately 24 hours from the time a sperm penetrates the outer barrier of the egg for the cell to commence division. Until the initial division it is considered a zygote - a unicellular object. Yet it is a unicellular object with the potential to become human and thus falls under the auspices of your definition - if you allow me to include multicellular objects in there as well. I could even take this further and bring up the Catholic church's stance on condoms and birth control, but I won't. Now, unfertilized eggs also have the potential of becoming human and they are also unique objects. When a female menstruates, such objects "go to waste", so to speak, in that they also fall under your definition. They have the potential to become human, are unicellular (like zygotes) and are the only object in the universe that has the potential to become human as such. So we cannot use unicellular vs. multicellular as a criteria for human life. So there is a problem here. Where is the distinction between life, potential life, and non-life? Let's forget about the bacteria bit as I was just using that for illustrative purposes. The inherent problem is at what point do we have something human? Clearly fertilization is an important event, but I do not believe that there is a distinct line drawn at some "magic fertilization moment" that occurs during fertilization. Obviously the situation is complicated. That being said, it is difficult to accept the veto of a president who allows abortion clinics to operate legally in the U.S. while banning embryonic stem cell research. It is hypocritical and I have a problem with that.
thealj wrote:
That being said, it is difficult to accept the veto of a president who allows abortion clinics to operate legally in the U.S. while banning embryonic stem cell research. It is hypocritical and I have a problem with that.
I agree with most of what you said until this last paragraph. Our president does not have the authority to close abortion clinics, nor should he. He does have the power of veto which he is within his rights to use, though I believe this is the first time Bush has done so. Congress can override his veto if they get enough votes (2/3?). He has placed (or tried to place) justices on the supreme court that may, some day, have the opportunity to reverse the roe v. wade decision, but Bush really can't do anything else. It is all part of our checks and balances system, which actually works pretty well. (It might be argued that it would work even better when someone smarter than a stalk of celery is at the helm, but Bush has actually demonstrated how even a complete buffoon cannot destroy this country, even though he has tried his hardest. Yes, I will now run away after my pot shot.)
-
thealj wrote:
Okay, so when is that magic moment at which the fertilized embryo is no longer potentially human and suddenly becomes human? A human has very specific characteristics that make it human - characteristics not shared by a fertilized human egg. Obviously 50-100 cells in a clump are not capable of individual thought.
Thats the issue. There is no "magic moment". Human life is a continuum of development. There are merely arbitrary points which have some kind of significance to one philosophy compared to another. If "individual thought" is the arbitrary standard that has significance to you, than who gets to measure that? Is there some kind of universal standard of "indiviudla thought"? Does an infant the day after it was born have more "individual thought" than a chimp? A dog? A rat? If not, are the lives of those creatures to be considered more valuable than a human infant? How do you so accurately measure "individual thought" at any arbitrary stage of development that you are assured to never accicently kill someone who has it? The only non-arbitrary definition of a human life is the moment of coneption. I'm not presenting this as an anti-abortion argument, as we certainly kill humans every day for any number of completely arbitrary reasons. But I do think it is obscene to legitimize abortion by dehumanizing the process of human embryonic development. If people want abortion to be legal than fine lets have it, but lets not take the humanity out of what we are doing. At the very least we should be intellectually honest about what it is we are doing and why we are doing it. "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson -- modified at 13:52 Thursday 20th July, 2006
very well written.
Silence is the voice of complicity. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. -- monty python Might I suggest that the universe was always the size of the cosmos. It is just that at one point the cosmos was the size of a marble. -- Colin Angus Mackay
-
ahz wrote:
It's a PERSON-IN-POTENTIAL.
So is an unfertilized egg. What's your point?
thealj wrote:
So is an unfertilized egg. What's your point?
No it's not. It's only half the equation. That's my point. You're making strawman arguements.
Silence is the voice of complicity. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. -- monty python Might I suggest that the universe was always the size of the cosmos. It is just that at one point the cosmos was the size of a marble. -- Colin Angus Mackay
-
I don't see him doing anything to counter them.
Roberts and Alito. That's all he has the power to do. "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
-
espeir wrote:
Neither is a 1 year old baby. Is that disposble as well?
How do you know that? They move their hands, eyes and mouth independently. They have a brain and functioning cortex. If they are not capable of independent thought, then obviously at some moment they become capable of this amazing talent. Tell me then, when does this special moment occur? So, according to you, babies are automatons that suddenly and spontaneously achieve the capability of individual thought. That's an interesting idea with huge ethical implications. For instance, if they are not capable of independent thought then they must not possess individual personalities. That's quite incredible because if they don't possess a personality then they aren't really human in anything but shape and form. Interesting, interesting...
thealj wrote:
How do you know that? They move their hands, eyes and mouth independently. They have a brain and functioning cortex. If they are not capable of independent thought, then obviously at some moment they become capable of this amazing talent. Tell me then, when does this special moment occur?
"Thought" and "reaction" are not equivalent unless you're suggesting that infanticide is equivalent to killing a cow. This "special moment" is not known and will never be known because humanity attributes something special to humans (commonly known as a soul, but atheists and other physicallists may differ on the terminology). I therefore deem the "special moment" to be as early as possible.
thealj wrote:
So, according to you, babies are automatons that suddenly and spontaneously achieve the capability of individual thought. That's an interesting idea with huge ethical implications. For instance, if they are not capable of independent thought then they must not possess individual personalities. That's quite incredible because if they don't possess a personality then they aren't really human in anything but shape and form. Interesting, interesting...
That's the point I'm getting at, but you're the one that suggested "independent thought" (whether that means) is the determining factor of humanity. Unless you're contending absurd notions like cows are the same as humans, your suggestion falls apart. As an example, tell me your earliest memory. Mine is at about age 4. I do not have any recollection of "individual thought" prior to that. If I had "individual thoughts", there would be some record of them in my head. My intellectual capacity and capabilities were similar to that of a cow (some may say they still are). What I am saying is that "individual thought" is not humanity's deterministic property. It's the soul...That "special thing" that separates us from the animals. You're suggesting that you are no longer human when you go into a coma because you're incapable of individual thought and can therefore be morally killed. I would also like to be commended for stating that liberals lack individual thought and by your logic can also be morally killed. Oh wait...too late. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy -- modified at 14:18 Thursday 20th July, 2006
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
That link "agrees" with neither side. It lists advantages and disadvantages of both. However, toward the end of the article (guess you didn't get that far) it says, "The potential of embryonic stem cells to provide other differentiated cell types needs to be investigated. The production of cardiac muscle cells, which have thus far been evasive, would hold tremendous promise for the number one killer: heart disease."
And adult stem cells can do the same thing (per the same link). Again, if you were literate at all, you would realize that the question I'm asking is why does the left so blindly support embryonic stem cell research as a universal panacea when it's not based in any sort of scientific reality. Adult stem cells have yielded much better results and that article (if you actually do read it) lists far more advantages for adult stem cells over embryonic stem cells. So why the overwhelming support for inferior science? Is the left anti-science in order to support a political position? I have yet to see a reasonable explanation for that position. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
espeir wrote:
And adult stem cells can do the same thing (per the same link).
Again, according to the article, one of the advantages of embryonic stem cells is that they are: "Flexible: They have the potential to make any body cell." This is not true of adult stem cells, and is one of the reasons research should proceed on both fronts. The mere fact that the advantages differ at all would seem to indicate as much. Again, you ignore the fact that embryonic stem cell research is supported by a majority of the scientific community, consensus within the biomed field, the American public (by a 2:1 margin), and congressional vote, instead choosing to cite a single researcher interviewed on right-wing radio, couple that with your own biased speculation, and turn it into yet another pointless rant against the left. It's not "the left" that supports it. It's the majority. The majority of scientists, the majority of citizens, and the majority of our elected representatives.
-
ahz wrote:
It's a PERSON-IN-POTENTIAL.
So is an unfertilized egg. What's your point?
-
thealj wrote:
So is an unfertilized egg. What's your point?
No it's not. It's only half the equation. That's my point. You're making strawman arguements.
Silence is the voice of complicity. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. -- monty python Might I suggest that the universe was always the size of the cosmos. It is just that at one point the cosmos was the size of a marble. -- Colin Angus Mackay
It's not a strawman, I am not putting words in your mouth. I am simply stating that an unfertilized egg also has the potential to become human as well. I was trying to get you to realize that it is important to be specific in arguments such as these. The key issue is not the "potential" part, rather it is the moment of fertilization that sets into motion a chain of significant events. It is the potential of the fertilized egg that is important. While the moment of fertilization is not "magical" in itself, so to speak, what it does is initiate a long-term and complicated biological process whose end result is the creation of a human.
-
ahz wrote:
It's a PERSON-IN-POTENTIAL.
So is an unfertilized egg. What's your point?
Potential is not the right word. You are correct than an unfertalized egg, or a sperm have the potential to become human. But that is only a statistical probability. A fertilized egg is the moment of beginning, of creation. The process of an actual human life has begun. It is underway. It is on the road. It has set sail. It has taken off. Its good to go. "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
-
thealj wrote:
That being said, it is difficult to accept the veto of a president who allows abortion clinics to operate legally in the U.S. while banning embryonic stem cell research. It is hypocritical and I have a problem with that.
I agree with most of what you said until this last paragraph. Our president does not have the authority to close abortion clinics, nor should he. He does have the power of veto which he is within his rights to use, though I believe this is the first time Bush has done so. Congress can override his veto if they get enough votes (2/3?). He has placed (or tried to place) justices on the supreme court that may, some day, have the opportunity to reverse the roe v. wade decision, but Bush really can't do anything else. It is all part of our checks and balances system, which actually works pretty well. (It might be argued that it would work even better when someone smarter than a stalk of celery is at the helm, but Bush has actually demonstrated how even a complete buffoon cannot destroy this country, even though he has tried his hardest. Yes, I will now run away after my pot shot.)
Okay, I accept your argument.
-
Let me begin by saying that I know nothing technical whatsoever about this subject. Personally, I oppose it because I find it absolutely immoral and a bit sci-fi bizarre to kill one person to medically benefit another (it's like soul-sucking or something). But there is something I else that I find quite politically bizarre, and that's the left's unwavering support for federal tax dollars (which basically only benefit big pharmaceutical businesses) for something that is really very unproven. This morning I was stuck in traffic for an hour and wound up listening to a conservative radio show (not Rush Limbaugh...and believe it or not I don't typically listen to right-wing radio) and they had called an MIT professor of molecular biology to discuss the topic. He said that he was once enthusiastic about embryonic stem cell research, but had changed his position a few years ago because embryonic stem cells always result in tumors when applied to adults. Apparently adult stem cell research has the same benefits without this problem. More interestingly, he said that numerous successful treatments have come from adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells have to date yielded no results. Pharmaceutical companies are also investing heavily in adult stem cell research, but not embryonic stem cell research. This professor's assertion (which may be in dispute...as I'm no expert I can't say) supports a suspicion that I've held for some time. I think the left has irrationally attached itself to embryonic stem cell research not because of the potential but because of its association to abortion. In other words, by attaching the concept of "life" to abortion, it confuses the issue to where abortion is no longer merely justified by "personal choice", but implies that those who oppose abortion are actually anti-life (thereby reversing the political position on the issue). In other words, the current "pro-choice" crowd would become the "pro-life" crowd and the current "pro-life" crowd would become the "pro-disease" crowd. That's my crazy theory for the day. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
Funny. The same people that ban the law for the sake of life are the same people justifying killing thousands of people in Iraq for whatever reason. All rubbish. -------- "I say no to drugs, but they don't listen." - Marilyn Manson
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Vygotsky in his studies into cognitive development established fact that newborn babies already possess certain mental functions, thus a measurable degree of consciousness.
What is a "degree of consciousness"? A dog has that as well. Is killing a baby therefore equivalent to killing a cow or pig (as their level of consciousness is undoubtedly similar)?
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Nature definition shows that the base meaning in terms of childhood (not just humankind but any creature) indicates a state of in-built actions and re-actions of an abstract kind.
I don't understand. Can you reword this? If you're stating that babies act and react, the same could be applied to early fetuses.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Nurture is the cultivation of the life-form from where Nature apparently concludes. In order for a child of some life-form to become a worthwhile and valuable member of that life-form's society, the influences of Nature is insufficient. Caring for and instruction of the child by parents and perhaps others of that species is necessary. This not just ensures that the child of such species conforms to expectations but to become a candidate for the promulgation of their kind.
I don't understand this either. Are you saying that life begins once "nature" hands off to "nurture"? This still does not clarify any particular point of development, since many 3rd trimester babies are capable of living outside the womb, but remain to complete development. And does the mother not nurture the fetus during development (by eating properly and not drinking, for example)? "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
Nature/Nurture debate - yes it is still on-going. Consciousness is subjective. It has different meanings according to who you read. And yes, technically, this is correct, though our morals would never allow - your question - Is killing a baby therefore equivalent to killing a cow or pig (as their level of consciousness is undoubtedly similar) My partner is doing a college course in Early Years, and the following references are some of the many of the resources she has has available as I write. 1. http://www.coe.missouri.edu/~pgermann/projects/Sci.\_Inquiry/Epistemology/epistemology.html 2. http://edpsychserver.ed.vt.edu/workshops/tohe1999/text/doo2.pdf 3. Richard Gross 'Psychology - The Science of Mind and Behaviour' 3rd Edition, ISBN 0 340 64762 0 published 1996 Hodder & Stoughton 4. Penny Tassoni 'BTEC National Early Years' 2nd Edition, ISBN 0 435 46372 1. Heinemann 5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive\_neuroscience accessed 6. http://www.azinet.com/ 7. http://www.leemsilver.net/SilverArticles/02SilverEvolution.pdf 8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?call=bv.View..ShowTOC&rid=gnd.TOC&depth=10
-
thealj wrote:
Exactly.
Thanks for agreeing that it is stupid to compare a human at any stage of development to a bacteria. "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
Stan Shannon wrote:
Thanks for agreeing that it is stupid to compare a human at any stage of development to a bacteria.
:laugh: Is that all you wanted? Then fine. I agree it's silly. I used the comparison deliberately only to illustrate a point.
