Stem Cell Research

[Xilren's Twin]

Doesn't the ethical argument against embryonic stem cell research require the concept of the sanctity of life? That being the case, how does a political party that supports the death penalty reconcile their obvious hypocrisy?

I typically shy away from these discussions b/c they general don't lead to people changing their minds but the above comment just made me raise my eyebrows.

It's no more hypocritical to be in a party that supports the death penalty and is opposed to abortion as it is to be in one that opposes the death penalty and supports the right to abortion.  If your looking for logic and consistency in political discussions you're fooling yourself.   Politics has very little to do with logic and well rounded philosophy, to think otherwise is beyond naive.  And I'm sure you know this, so beyond simply taking shots at conservatives or people with religous views, why bother to state your point this way?

Like it or not, hearing the phrase "embryonic stem cells" immediately draws a highly emotional "ick" factor reaction from a large segment of the population.  Once that happens you've lost your opportunity to enlighten people and make good arguments.

You want more reasonable public discourse, figure out a way to suddenly to make a largely ignorant and apathetic population suddenly become educated and motivated enough to engage in discussion.  Just don't hold your breath while you attempt it.

Xilren

[Roac]

Again, just because it is hard to get an embryo to the state of a fetus (yes, I know what the difference is,) does not make it any less important than a fetus.

You are correct here.  Sometimes people try to argue that because a fetus cannot survive "on its own", it has no rights to life.  This is a false conclusion; a healthy adult Human cannot survive on its own, either.  It requires restrictions on gravity, food, air, water, socialization, and so forth.  If we accept that removing a Human from environs that allow for life, and put them into environs that do not, it is murder and immoral.  Placing a Human in a hostile environment is a test for morality, not a test for Humanity.  The question comes back to whether the embryo is Human.

Why is something that less valuable just because it isn't to that one divine stage that somehow makes it a human or not a human?

Because Humanity is the test by which morality is judged.  Chemically and biologically, we literally are what we eat.  You are the biochemical sum of the food and water you've ingested over your life.  If your argument is that something which is not yet Human, but may be, must be protected as Human - then you are under moral obligation to protect every item of food and water as though it were Human.  If you tweak it so that your argument is that moral rulings apply to things which are not yet Human, but will be, in attempt to differentiate food from an embryo (!), you're no better off; there's no guarantee that the embryo will reach whatever arbitrary point in development you've set for Humanity, so you wouldn't be able to apply morality to the embryo at all.  Join DV in using them as Cheerio garnish.

As for the Bible post above, please read more of the New Testament. All but one of your examples are from the Old Testament.

I understand I may be somewhat rusty, but I am fairly certain that Christ's death (item #1) was NT, as was your reference to Revelations (#7).  Further, the concept of Original Sin was reaffirmed directly, as was all of the OT (every reference to "scripture" is OT references exclusively, as the NT had not been written).  Further realize that when we say "Bible", it includes OT and NT.

But, I understand your request for more NT references.  You may wish to read where God killed a man for failure to donate all his property to the new church.  And then his wife.  In fact that story addresses, again, and specifically, the issue of who is higher: a moral standard such as sanctity of life, or God's will.

Of course, there won't be as many references in the NT; the NT revolves around Christ's life (the gospels), and then Paul's letters, which delt with people's faith.  Acts is the only book, aside from Revelations, which is "active".  However, going through the letters, you should find plenty of examples where Paul tells this or that group God thinks they're being assholes (and at one point, that everyone's an asshole); and every time the only out is not some moral truism, but following God's will.  You may be unfamiliar with early church history, where there were factions galore, each spouting what was or wasn't moral.  Paul's, and by extention the NT and the Bible, response was to say that they're wrong.  God, being God, can do whatever the hell he wants, and he's the focus.  If he's pro-life, then you're pro-life.  If he says chocoembrypuffss are the new breakfast food of the day, then eat up.

That last bit isn't irrelevant.  The Bible cites many times where God breaks what would otherwise be considered a moral law.  Can't cherry pick your theology.

[Daeven]

Here is an positive reason why we at least need to examine ebmryonic stem cell research:

http://www.betterhumans.com/News/news.aspx?articleID=2004-10-07-1

Posted simply because it is imprtant for people to realise that there is more than theory involved here.

[Dark Vengeance]

I disagree with the notion that you are respecting the sanctity of life if you believe that you can impose the death penalty on those who do not share your views, and have themselves taken a life. That's very much a reflection of retributive justice, not unlike the concept of Shariah law as interpreted by rural ulema, that we are so quick to condemn. I understand retributive justice, though I don't agree with it, particularly as an alternative to transformative methods. What I don't understand is why somebody would advocate such a philosophy while simultaneously advocating that the sanctity of life must be respected as soon as the union of parental gametes takes place.

I'm not going to say this argument is without merit or substance, but consider why we don't charge police or soldiers with murder for all acts of killing in the line of duty, nor do we charge people who kill in self defense. Why don't we execute all convicted murderers?

The concept at play is the sanctity of **innocent** life. Obviously, the judgment of guilt or innocence is not determined the same way by a secular society as it is by an omnipotent deity.

Bring the noise.
Cheers............

[Dren]

Great discusions here.

Because Humanity is the test by which morality is judged. Chemically and biologically, we literally are what we eat. You are the biochemical sum of the food and water you've ingested over your life. If your argument is that something which is not yet Human, but may be, must be protected as Human - then you are under moral obligation to protect every item of food and water as though it were Human. If you tweak it so that your argument is that moral rulings apply to things which are not yet Human, but will be, in attempt to differentiate food from an embryo (!), you're no better off; there's no guarantee that the embryo will reach whatever arbitrary point in development you've set for Humanity, so you wouldn't be able to apply morality to the embryo at all. Join DV in using them as Cheerio garnish.

The problem I have with this argument is that food is used for much more than creating life.  That is not food's only natural purpose.  Before all of our science, the embryo's purpose is finite.  It has only one purpose and strives to be that which is a human life.

The creation of an embryo is not an accident.  It takes a specific action to make it so I have a hard time treating it as just something that is sitting around that we can do what we want with it (like eating like cereal...strange notion that is.)

...bible stuff...

You got me on a couple of those, but I still stick to what I said.  I do not have the answers to all of the strange things that were done (reference killing the man that didn't donate his full tilthe...yes that story troubles me too.)

Yes, Paul says we are pretty much assholes, but that is the whole point of Christianity.  None of us can live up to God's expectations.  That's why Jesus died for us.  I don't believe Paul says we should all just die because we suck, however.  Our lives are still important or why would this whole thing called life even happen?  We are all born with a purpose.  It is up to us to find it.

You are right.  The focus is on God.  But, God's focus is always on us, so it is cyclical.  I still believe his intent is for us to have full lives so that we can find our purpose in serving Him.

I'm trying not to cherry pick my theology.  I've come to my conclusion based on the quoted words of Jesus, which basically states that every life is worthwhile and born with a purpose.  The rest I accept on faith.  That's the tricky part.

[Dren]

Here is an positive reason why we at least need to examine ebmryonic stem cell research:

http://www.betterhumans.com/News/news.aspx?articleID=2004-10-07-1

Posted simply because it is imprtant for people to realise that there is more than theory involved here.

I think I understand what you are getting at here.  Is it worthwhile when it could save the unborns' life?  

It still isn't that straight forward for me.  I believe that an embryo is just as much a life as a fetus.  How many embryos must be used to save one fetus?  How many embryos must be used to let one man walk?  Is it really worth it?

If you say embryos are just things, then your answer would be yes.  My answer is no.

[Ardent]

Here is an positive reason why we at least need to examine ebmryonic stem cell research:

http://www.betterhumans.com/News/news.aspx?articleID=2004-10-07-1

Posted simply because it is imprtant for people to realise that there is more than theory involved here.

Saving babies' lives is a very, very good thing.

But.

Taking the position of the cold-hearted pragmatist, is it valid to question whether we are supposed to be repairing defective hearts in the womb? A small percentage of fetuses will have defective hearts. Maybe it's supposed to be that way.

This planet is not designed to accomodate an environment where all human beings are guaranteed to be born and live 100 years. Some die in the womb, some die at birth, some die before their natural time. Our planet has finite resources, and to put it in stark terms, we need a certain percentage of people to die so we can accomodate the new ones that make it through to birth.

Curing every disease? Ensuring every embryo that is conceived is born? Can Earth handle that many people?

At some point we need to stop ensuring that every potential life is born and start considering making things better for the lives that are already here.

[stray]

Earth can handle twice as many human beings as there are now, even under the pressures and abuse of industrialism. The real threat of overpopulation would come from something like, say...World Peace. But that in turn, would probably negate "world peace" sooner or later..

Anyways, sorry for the derail :)

[Dark Vengeance]

This planet is not designed to accomodate an environment where all human beings are guaranteed to be born and live 100 years. Some die in the womb, some die at birth, some die before their natural time. Our planet has finite resources, and to put it in stark terms, we need a certain percentage of people to die so we can accomodate the new ones that make it through to birth.

At that point we switch to plan B, which is a combination of 2 classic sci fi films:




I understand 30 year olds go best with white wine and just a dash of Charleton Heston.

Bring the noise.
Cheers............

EDIT: original pics came out too big, and one wouldn't link. Preview button is your friend.

[personman]

I think most people are visualizing fetuses, which are human as we know it - they have organs, nervous system, etc.

We're back to the original point.  If we accept that it is generally, and for our purposes, wrong to kill a Human, we still have to define what a Human is.  If you define it as "they have organs, nervous system, etc" - what about people with artificial organs or on life support?  No longer Human?

I'd say they are humans with a couple of chunks of metal helping the rest of their body live.  I'm not sure how an artificial heart compares to cells dividing, something no more organized into "Human" than the yeast that pisses out my beer.

The yeast cell may find my definition of Valuable Life questionable. But since it can't get past the eat, excrete, die stage we'll probably never know.  Which by the way is true for the vast majority of zygotes created.

Of course we define human in structural terms.  Whether we call it spirit or electrochemical it's pretty clear there has to be enough foundation there to hit the tipping point we call Human.  (if we ever do find scientific evidence of spirit/soul I'll bet even money it relies heavily on such basic systems as the Nervous system.)

Anything else brings us to full practice of Ahimsa, a moral/ethical code that taken to its logical conclusion means we can't even eat dirt or breathe open air.  I'm Pasu-Svabhava enough that I don't concern myself with anything that isn't obviously human to the unaided eye.

[Righ]

Our governmental concept of ethics is based on the will of the people, not a logical study.  The government cannot legally base its laws entirely off moral absolutism, since that would require religion.  As a result, we use something more akin to social relavism, which boils down to "whatever the people will accept".  I think pointing fingers at the government regarding the schizophrenic way it makes decisions is to miss the point, since that's how it's designed to make decisions.

You are actually describing moral relativism, not social relativism, which is quite different.

Good argument, because we are getting to the issue I have been trying to draw out. It is in fact unreasonable for a secular society's government to argue that they represent an ethical position, because it is not possible for the politicians of a democracy to represent themselves as having ethical imprimatur. We reach the crux of the problem - not that there are death sentences at the same time as there is a determination to to protect zygotes, but that it is presented as ethically determined. To present an ethical argument, it must be tested by the science of morailty, not by poll.

[Roac]

The creation of an embryo is not an accident. It takes a specific action to make it so I have a hard time treating it as just something that is sitting around that we can do what we want with it (like eating like cereal...strange notion that is.)

The creation of Wheaties isn't an accident, either.

I don't believe Paul says we should all just die because we suck, however.

Wages of sin are death.  I was pointing out a few times that God decided to collect on back pay.

You are right. The focus is on God. But, God's focus is always on us, so it is cyclical. I still believe his intent is for us to have full lives so that we can find our purpose in serving Him.

Which is what I hit on; the point for most monotheistic beliefs is a relationship between the diety and the created.  As for the purpose of the individually created, it could well be that your sole purpose in life is to serve as an example to others.

[Roac]

I'd say they are humans with a couple of chunks of metal helping the rest of their body live. I'm not sure how an artificial heart compares to cells dividing, something no more organized into "Human" than the yeast that pisses out my beer.

You tried to define Humanity in terms of organs, which would mean someone who lacked natural organs was not Human.  It's a case of you meaning what you say, but not saying what you mean.

The yeast cell may find my definition of Valuable Life questionable. But since it can't get past the eat, excrete, die stage we'll probably never know. Which by the way is true for the vast majority of zygotes created.

If it weren't for artificial death, most zygoes would form an oppinion on the subject.  So do you feel that it is moral to kill someone, as long as you can do so before they can form an oppinion on the matter?

Of course we define human in structural terms. Whether we call it spirit or electrochemical it's pretty clear there has to be enough foundation there to hit the tipping point we call Human.

Of course there's a tipping point.  The argument is over where that point lies.  If you define the point over the ownership of organs, transplantees or mechanical replacements become problematic.  If you define it by intellectual capacity, there could be some negativity towards the mentally retarded.  And maybe infants or near vegetables aren't human in your moral framework - long as you agree to that when you're defining human.

[Roac]

You are actually describing moral relativism, not social relativism, which is quite different.

Moral relativism is morality relative to the self.  Social (cultural) relativism is morality based on social standards, not individuals within that society, which is what I was addressing.  Democratic governments base their morals off social relativism, since one individual generally cannot get enough foothold to exert their will.  Dictatorships, however, sometimes can.

It is in fact unreasonable for a secular society's government to argue that they represent an ethical position, because it is not possible for the politicians of a democracy to represent themselves as having ethical imprimatur.

Untrue; social relativism, moral relativism, and moral absolutism are all ethical positions, all of which a democratic government can take.  Generally, it's impractical to take any aside from the first.  A democratic society may try to be Christian, Jewish, etc, but it's likely there will be those who object and push for different legislation.

We reach the crux of the problem - not that there are death sentences at the same time as there is a determination to to protect zygotes, but that it is presented as ethically determined. To present an ethical argument, it must be tested by the science of morailty, not by poll.

I'm not sure it's a problem, beyond misrepresentation.  What is moral is often passed by politicians as an intrinsic property, which implies moral absolutism; however, that is normally not what the politician is pushing for.  Long as it is passed as oppinion, it is either social or moral relativism, and fairly plainly marked as such.

[personman]

I'd say they are humans with a couple of chunks of metal helping the rest of their body live. I'm not sure how an artificial heart compares to cells dividing, something no more organized into "Human" than the yeast that pisses out my beer.

You tried to define Humanity in terms of organs, which would mean someone who lacked natural organs was not Human.  It's a case of you meaning what you say, but not saying what you mean.

Actually I did say what I mean - I referred to basic systems both in my initial post and my reply to your question and just happened to mention organs.  You disregard my true focus on base systems.

If it weren't for artificial death, most zygoes would form an oppinion on the subject. So do you feel that it is moral to kill someone, as long as you can do so before they can form an oppinion on the matter?

Well considering I've said as much several times yeah I'd have to agree again.  But that is because I'm forcing myself to breeze over your choice of words.  Your use of "someone" in this context is particularly hard to ignore but I'm trying.  "Some thing" would have been a more relevant choice.

But I'll accept your choice of words for a second: as I've posted elsewhere I have zero problem with killing certain people, and whatever "karmic burden" is involved I'm happy to take the chance it's offset by the good it brings other people who have not intentionally violated the life principle.  I'll say as much before &generic_deity and take my lumps.

Zygotes don't die an artificial death - death seems to be a pretty natural outcome of life.  Bearing in mind our current context is fertilization clinics, these zygotes are actually artificial life.  When I'm seedling my vegetables in hydroponics in anticipation of planting them a few months later I am through the use of equipment and man-made chemicals artificially creating life that is more organized and demonstrating actual base systemics than the zygotes we're discussing.

Not surprisingly the equipment and man-made chemicals are a bit more complex and heroic science in the average fertility clinic.  Clinics are in fact factory assembly lines of artificial life.

"Ed's womb was a rocky place where my seed could find no purchase."
-- H.I. "Hi" McDonnough

The conclusion of your (however hypothetical) point is that we could never artificially create zygotes because of the certainty the great majority would die due to failed fertilization.  Let alone the other poor ice cubes that get tossed out because one of their genetic siblings was already successfully implanted and carried to term.

I'm trying to picture the hue and cry of the world if we decided fertility clinics were immoral and must be shutdown.  Or even if the law mandated that no more than one zygote could be created at a time and the law permitted malpractice if it died.

Of course there's a tipping point. The argument is over where that point lies. If you define the point over the ownership of organs(...)

Except I don't.  Organs form after the base systems start - organs are extensions of the base systems.  Base systems bring complexity of which organ systems are the tangible result.

And maybe infants or near vegetables aren't human in your moral framework - long as you agree to that when you're defining human.

I'll again try to breeze over your choice of words and assume this is the impersonal "you".

Without Humanity defined based on systemic complexity, assuming Humanity and morality truly apply at the time of conception... we're back to my original post that I can't donate organs or allow a tumor to be excised and destroyed.  We'd certainly have to prohibit such things by doctors since their actions would be immoral.  Fertility clinics would be just another form of abortion clinic.

So I'm pretty comfortable with my interpretation of Humanity.  Stem cell research is completely moral in my mind - in fact I find it immoral that it would be limited.  (While I admire Bush's political deftness with his compromise, I found his reasoning tortured and convoluted.)

I see it as no different than excising a tumor or keeping a placenta/cord for experimentation.  After all it is quite conceivable that reproductive cloning could be done with any tissue so I'm back to facing these proposed conundrums.

Humanity as a dividing cell is incredibly problematic at every dimension of the issue.  The literal practice of Ahimsa simply is unsustainable.

(And as unacceptable as I personally find abortion to be I continue to support a woman's right to abortion.  I would prefer it be capped at eight week barring threat to the mother's life but at the same time I appreciate that many woman do not realize they are pregnant before that point. I let it stand.)

[Arcadian Del Sol]

Now that the thread has entered the realm of having to explain to one another the simple fact that human embryos are incapable of murder, and thus not eligible for the death penalty, then you only prove Haemish right - this thread, having survived to a 2nd page, demands the requisite retardo-lock.

[Dren]

I don't believe Paul says we should all just die because we suck, however.

Wages of sin are death.  I was pointing out a few times that God decided to collect on back pay.

Only if you die before you accept Jesus.  That is the only unforgivable sin.  You only get back pay if you try to do it on your own (without Jesus.)  Then you have to account for all your sins.

You get all of your precious life to understand that.  The trouble is, you never know exactly how long of a life you have.  The bible teaches that God DOES want you to love him.  That is what you were created for.  He gives you a chance to appreciate what he gave you.  If you don't take that chance, you go to hell.  That's the point of Christianity.  It isn't what you do.  It is what you believe.  The things you do will reflect what you believe.

[SirBruce]

Well, that's the Protestant view of Christianity, anyway.

Bruce

[Daeven]

I think I understand what you are getting at here.  Is it worthwhile when it could save the unborns' life?  

It still isn't that straight forward for me.  I believe that an embryo is just as much a life as a fetus.  How many embryos must be used to save one fetus?  How many embryos must be used to let one man walk?  Is it really worth it?

If you say embryos are just things, then your answer would be yes.  My answer is no.

So then you are for forcing all fertility clinic embryos to be implanted regardless of the woman’s desire and brought to full term? Or is it ok to toss out the ones we don't use int the process of in vitro fertilization? If it's ok to toss them, well, why not try to - with the parents consent - try to use them to further our knowledge?

I think the problem is that some people are extrapolating  a scenario in which millions of embryos are artificially created, put in blenders, and then farmed out to solve all of our societal ills – generally by poor women as they are paid for their ovum. Quite frankly, I do not see that scenario coming to pass. Rather, the main idea is that we establish a good stock of immortalized lines which can be utilized for research, and then – hopefully – we harvest the patients stem cells to correct whatever defect we are attempting to address.

In short, the objections seem to be to be morally derived from a fictional scenario (‘How many embryos must be used to let one man walk?’) that no one is proposing to come to pass.

You are right, I have absolutely zero problem with using unwanted IVF embryos for research purposes, because it strikes me as a far greater gift to humanity than throwing them out. Unless, naturally, your support my facetious scenario above.

As to what I was ‘getting at’ I was simply pointing out that this stuff is not ‘hypothetical’ in any way. There are demonstrable applications to this research right now. Any ‘assumed point’ of my post you derived completely on your own.

[Dren]

Well, that's the Protestant view of Christianity, anyway.

Bruce

It's not just their view.  It is how the Bible describes it though, and that is what we are talking about.

[Dren]

Well, I seem to be miscommunicating.  I do not like the idea of making any embryos outside of the body.  Whether that is to be used for fertilization clinics is beside the point.  Now my point just moves to how many embryos have to be discarded to make one viable one for this couple that can't naturally have a baby.  So, no, I wouldn't force implanting embryos since I don't want them made in the first place.  In fact, I wouldn't force anyone to do anything.  That's beyond my power and I wouldn't want that power anyway.

I don't like the idea of creating embryos.  You don't mind it.  I think that is where you and I depart on this subject.  Anything from there on is pointless to debate.  You'll vote one way, I'll vote another.

If they can work on collecting the cells from anything other than embyros, I'd certainly be inclined to accept it.  They already have ways of getting it from some sources I'm fine with.  Like I said in my original post, I'm for them using cells to help people, just not embryonic stem cells.

Of course, that doesn't mean it won't happen or is happening.  I'm just one person stating how I feel on the subject.  The world will go on regardless.

[Roac]

Well considering I've said as much several times yeah I'd have to agree again. But that is because I'm forcing myself to breeze over your choice of words. Your use of "someone" in this context is particularly hard to ignore but I'm trying. "Some thing" would have been a more relevant choice.

My pencil will never be able to make a decision; using "some thing" would not be appropriate.  I was refering to a person, hence "someone".  Your agreement with my argument means that a significant amount of legally defined murders were moral acts.  Again, I was and am referring to people, not zygotes (whose "someone" status is in question).

Zygotes don't die an artificial death - death seems to be a pretty natural outcome of life.

Their (zygotes used in stem cell research) death is caused directly by man, which is defined as artificial.

Bearing in mind our current context is fertilization clinics, these zygotes are actually artificial life.

They were fertilized artificially.  The behavior of the zygote is natural.  Artificial life would require that everything after fertilization is also under man's control and design.

Except I don't. Organs form after the base systems start - organs are extensions of the base systems.

Except you did, even if you didn't mean to.  If you revise "Humanity" to be determined by "base systems", and that these systems are expressly NOT an organ(s), then what are these systems?

Without Humanity defined based on systemic complexity, assuming Humanity and morality truly apply at the time of conception... we're back to my original post that I can't donate organs or allow a tumor to be excised and destroyed ... I see it as no different than excising a tumor or keeping a placenta/cord for experimentation.

Except on this point, there isn't much discussion; an embryo is an independant parasitic entity.  Whether it fits our moral qualifications for human life or not may be up for debate, but the idea that it is "part of me" (the mother) is wrong.  If it meets the moral qualifications for Human, killing it is wrong; if not, killing it is no worse than killing a mosquito.

If you again redefine humanity to be based on total creature complexity (as opposed to "base systems"), then you're left at picking an extremely arbitrary complexity level to determine Humanity.  With that comes difficulty in determining when that point occurs, since "complexity" isn't something that is readily measurable.

[SirBruce]

Well, that's the Protestant view of Christianity, anyway.

Bruce

It's not just their view.  It is how the Bible describes it though, and that is what we are talking about.

That's one interpretation of the Bible.  The Catholic view is notably different from the one you described (works vs. faith).

Bruce

[Roac]

I don't like the idea of creating embryos. You don't mind it. I think that is where you and I depart on this subject. Anything from there on is pointless to debate. You'll vote one way, I'll vote another.

While you're not directing this at me, I'm going to toss something in here.  I don't know how I'd vote on the subject, which is why I laughed when someone said here I was pushing my view.   I want a satisfactory answer, which means a rational one.  The problem I constantly run into is that the decision is either "I'm against because it's immoral", or "I'm for because I don't care too much about moral concerns to find objection".  But, both of these views break down on a number of fronts; misunderstanding of the religion upon which moral absolutism is based, misunderstanding of logical consequence of some moral relativism stances (or religious ones, but most discussions along those lines don't even reach this point because of fundamental flaws in understanding of the religion itself), or lack of despire to be introspective enough to describe one's real motive, instead of redefining it every other paragraph.

[Dren]

Well, that's the Protestant view of Christianity, anyway.

Bruce

It's not just their view.  It is how the Bible describes it though, and that is what we are talking about.

That's one interpretation of the Bible.  The Catholic view is notably different from the one you described (works vs. faith).

Bruce

I disagree.  I think it is stated quite clearly in the Bible.  You are right.  Catholics view it differently.  I grew up Catholic until, you know, I actually read and studied (study) the Bible.  This is an old argument and one that will go nowhere so I'll just stop with "I disagree."

[Dren]

I don't like the idea of creating embryos. You don't mind it. I think that is where you and I depart on this subject. Anything from there on is pointless to debate. You'll vote one way, I'll vote another.

While you're not directing this at me, I'm going to toss something in here.  I don't know how I'd vote on the subject, which is why I laughed when someone said here I was pushing my view.   I want a satisfactory answer, which means a rational one.  The problem I constantly run into is that the decision is either "I'm against because it's immoral", or "I'm for because I don't care too much about moral concerns to find objection".  But, both of these views break down on a number of fronts; misunderstanding of the religion upon which moral absolutism is based, misunderstanding of logical consequence of some moral relativism stances (or religious ones, but most discussions along those lines don't even reach this point because of fundamental flaws in understanding of the religion itself), or lack of despire to be introspective enough to describe one's real motive, instead of redefining it every other paragraph.

Good points.  While I'm confortable with my religious view on the matter, I definately would like to have a logical one that doesn't require any leaps of faith too.

Let me know if you come up with that explanation that is all logic and requires no religion.  I'm looking for it myself.  For now, I'll stick with my opinion (and all the rhetoric I've based it on.)

[personman]

If you again redefine humanity to be based on total creature complexity (as opposed to "base systems"), then you're left at picking an extremely arbitrary complexity level to determine Humanity.  With that comes difficulty in determining when that point occurs, since "complexity" isn't something that is readily measurable.

Sure but then guess what - everything is arbitrary.  We're talking human perception after all.  And since that's the only perception that matters you'll just have to live with the fact my arbitrary line in the sand is no more or less certain than whatever you actually believe to be the line.

My definition of Human yields me something that is already self-aware and budding into sentience.  Your definition gets me the basic definition of All Life that exists.  I have a hard time accepting everything living is Human just because .2% of it's DNA overlaps with mine.

There are two facets to this topic, what is material and what is abstract.  Morality, ethics, spirituality - these are abstract so we've shied away from discussing these, particularly the last.  That leaves us with the material.

Total creature complexity does seems to be highly correlated to self-awareness and sentience.  Humans are recognizable because not only are the self-aware and sentient but their complex enough to have those traits.

Gould for example might have argued whether high complexity necessarily meant better evolved to environment, but nevertheless complexity is the key factor to self-awareness.

An aside to Dren - I appreciate your fully laying out your views on conception.  I respect your view and will defend your right to express and act on it.  And I'll vociferously oppose anything you asserted as being made public policy. :-)

[Dren]

Personman, actually you'd be surprised by what I think should be public policy (well, on other topics anyway.)  What I believe is right and wrong doesn't completely equate to what I think should be public policy.  While it would be dandy to have everyone think the way I do, I do not believe public policy will achieve that.  In fact, trying to *force* people into believing something is wrong, counterproductive, and actually cause more harm in some situations.

The only public policy I'm proposing in this case is to leave embryonic stem cell science alone.  Find different ways.  They are there, just not as easy.  I did delve into the act of making embryos in general, but let's stick to one topic at a time.  I already have a headache from this one. =)

[personman]

The only public policy I'm proposing in this case is to leave embryonic stem cell science alone.  Find different ways.  They are there, just not as easy.

We'll no doubt make headway in those other areas.

In the meantime the research continues.  The current US policy just means they gave up control over the process and it will be corporate execs making the moral decisions.

[Dren]

The only public policy I'm proposing in this case is to leave embryonic stem cell science alone.  Find different ways.  They are there, just not as easy.

We'll no doubt make headway in those other areas.

In the meantime the research continues.  The current US policy just means they gave up control over the process and it will be corporate execs making the moral decisions.

Most likely.  There is way too much money to be had here.  Somebody will grab it one way or the other.

[Samwise]

My definition of Human yields me something that is already self-aware and budding into sentience.  Your definition gets me the basic definition of All Life that exists.  I have a hard time accepting everything living is Human just because .2% of it's DNA overlaps with mine.

Since there's a lot of casting about for a logical definition of what is and isn't an independent human life, without any overly arbitrary lines drawn, I'll give it a shot.

1) The definition of life is well-trodden ground.  I'll assume going forward that we all know what "life" is and that it's a very large category.

2) Any organism whose DNA matches the human genome qualifies as "human".  Bacteria qualify as "life", but not "human", because their genomes aren't close enough matches.  The rigorous practical test for a "match" would require developing the DNA into a sexually mature organism and seeing if it could breed with a human; however, I think we can agree that any cell produced by a human, and any zygote produced by the union of human egg and a human sperm, is genetically human.

3) Any cell or organ that is integrated into a larger multicellular creature is not "independent".  In general, a group of functioning interconnected cells with the same exact DNA that depend on each other to maintain vital functions can be considered as belonging to the same creature.  The collection of genetically identical cells therefore comprises a single "life".

Therefore, an egg is human life, but it is part of a larger human creature, so it doesn't merit consideration as an independent human life.  Ditto for sperm - being produced by, dependent on, and genetically identical to a particular human, they are extensions of that human's body rather than independent creatures.

A fertilized zygote, however, is no longer considered a part of either parent's body, because it has a new and unique DNA combination that sets it apart as a new creature.  It is dependent on its mother's body, but the mother's body is not dependent on it - this makes it a parasite, but since it is not an integral part of the host body, it is still an independent creature, and, matching the definitions of "human" and "life", an independent human life.


Maybe it's just because I was raised Catholic, but this seems logically sound and practically self-evident to me.

Are all independent human lives inherently valuable enough for us to be morally concerned about, though?  Or do different human lives have different values, to the point where some are infinitely valuable and some are disposable?  That's the real question.

[personman]

Mainstream dictionaries usually give about five definitions for "human".  One matches your interpretation.  The rest are the material and abstract perspectives.  So technically you're in bounds but nothing complete enough to help fix whether stem cell research is supportable.

"Parasite" fails for a number of reasons.  The social definition clearly fails.  The scientific definition is a little more arguable but defines zygotes as symbiotics.  All parasites are symbiotes but not all symbiotes are parasites.  The difference is that the host derives benefit from the organism.  Parasites by formal definition do not benefit the host.

Can you get us closer to a fix on stem cell research?

We've beat up the concept of the relative value of human lives.  Adults are easy.  It's blobs of dividing cells with no clear complexity other than hormonal telegrams that are tough.

[Samwise]

From a strictly moral perspective, I'd say I more or less agree with DarkVengeance.  An embryo that's going to die anyway seems like fair game no matter how you look at it.  It's not that different from using a dead adult as an organ donor - we don't have a lot of moral obligation to dead humans, just live ones.  Creating an embryo for the sole purpose of destroying it, however, is pretty morally questionable, because now the process introduces human deaths that would never have otherwise happened.

From a legal perspective, though?  Well, lots of things are legal that are immoral, and lots of things are illegal that aren't immoral.  So even assuming that we can prove with certainty that stem cell research is immoral on an absolute scale, I don't think morality is necessarily a good basis for drafting laws.  Laws exist primarily to protect the state and keep it functioning (which includes good quality of life for its citizens).

The question, then, isn't "innocent or guilty".  Those are moral values.  The question is "citizen or not"?

Do embryos count as "citizens"?  Well, they don't contribute to the state much, that's for sure.  Killing them off doesn't hurt anyone else's freedoms or quality of life any.  So there doesn't seem to be a lot of reason for the law to protect them.

Then again, under that logic, parents should be free to kill their newborns - nobody but the parents is likely to care if a newborn bites the dust, so if they're happy with that, what's the harm?  Ditto for the homeless - nobody would really care if they were gone, as long as you didn't leave a mess on the sidewalk when you killed them.  Mental incompetents?  Criminals?  Fuhgeddaboutit.


Frankly, I can't really come up with a reason why killing anything that doesn't contribute to my society should be illegal under my society's rules.  I try not to think about it too hard, though.

[Roac]

Your definition gets me *stuff

I haven't defined humanity, but only used what you (and other) posters have given as definitions.  My deductions are based on your claims, so if you don't like it, don't look at me.

[jwinston2]

Just wanted to give everyone a site that if your in science you use daily.

www.pubmed.com

This is much more beneficial for those who are on academic campus or can setup a proxy to a campus. Others can read the abstracts but otherwise the journal articles will not be accessible. Please note these are journal articles and can be a.) Technical and b.) Boring. Those who are truly interested should enjoy. I suggest starting off with a search for, Science Stem Cell Possibilities Review, read the second review to give your self an idea. As for everything else proceed as you were, just wanted to give people a link to the real science being done everyday.