Stem Cell Research article (page 11)

the_classicist

it's more intellectually dishonest to say that it's more of a philosophical/religious decision, than a biological one.
again, you say that life starts at conception, and yet the clump of cells do not display the 5 biological phenomena for the definition of life.

I'm saying it's both and you cannot seem to fathom that.

rhetoric rhetoric rhetoric. ; philosophy. ; is that all you have? ; you're like the energizer bunny for your technically bankrupt "philosophy" (religion). ; cells do not have rights the same way that a sentient/sapient clump of cells (human) does.
anyways, my wife says to log off and come have a beer. ; so, i must obey the master of universe. ; have a nice day. ; i'll check back later to see if you have become an atheist/immoral/murderous/cantankerous / naturalist. ; i have my hopes.

It's not rhetoric, it's a causal relationship.

the_classicist

i'll check back later to see if you have become an atheist/immoral/murderous/cantankerous / naturalist. ; i have my hopes.

I know a few atheistic naturalists who are against abortion. I don't really think that plays into it as you can make arguments from the natural evolutionary desire to propagate and preserve your race and that cloning plays with natural selection, which may have unforseen consequences.

rem

Reality includes human beings, which includes artificial mechanisms.

>> I'm saying that those cells which are produced by artificial means do have the right to life. I'm saying it's unethical to do so, especially when we fool with evolution according to our own whims on such silly subjects as hair colour.

That's a perfectly fine argument since it is a moral argument and not a scientific definition. My whole point all along is that our decisions on what is right or wrong here are all arbitrary and are internally consistant based on our presuppositions (i.e they are logical in some sense). Science cannot definitevely say which potential human is more deserving of rights. We just have to make a judgement call and we cannot be overly dogmatic.

I'm not saying that you are being dogmatic - this is a discussion forum and we are discussing opinions - but some people are overly dogmatic and feel that they should dictate their morality on the rest of society. That's what's frustrating about this topic.

rem

the_classicist

That's a perfectly fine argument since it is a moral argument and not a scientific definition. My whole point all along is that our decisions on what is right or wrong here are all arbitrary and are internally consistant based on our presuppositions (i.e they are logical in some sense). Science cannot definitevely say which potential human is more deserving of rights. We just have to make a judgement call and we cannot be overly dogmatic.

Agreed.

I'm not saying that you are being dogmatic - this is a discussion forum and we are discussing opinions - but some people are overly dogmatic and feel that they should dictate their morality on the rest of society. That's what's frustrating about this topic.

Well, topics like these are frustrating for all sides, I think. Everyone is set in their ways. I myself used to be quite a pro-aboritonist, but while I was an atheist, ironically, I changed my view.

EvilForce

*****I cloned embryo would still be a person, but it's unnatural to play with natural selection.****

Um...sorry to disappoint but nature itself is the greatest cloning agent. In about one of every 75 human conceptions, the fertilized ovum splits for some unknown reason and produces monozygotic (identical) twins. Each has an genetic makeup identical to the other. In cloning, this same operation is done intentionally in a laboratory. So again how is cloning "unnatural"?

Question for you Class.....do you go to public university or to a private/Bible college?

the_classicist

Question for you Class.....do you go to public university or to a private/Bible college?

The University of British Columbia. http://www.ubc.ca/ There are some private colleges on campus, though (for some reason).

Um...sorry to disappoint but nature itself is the greatest cloning agent. In about one of every 75 human conceptions, the fertilized ovum splits for some unknown reason and produces monozygotic (identical) twins. Each has an genetic makeup identical to the other. In cloning, this same operation is done intentionally in a laboratory. So again how is cloning "unnatural"?

While I usually have an answer for everything, I'd have to do more study. Indeed we have natural cloning, but it's simply not natural to take an adults DNA to create another identical person. And if many people did this to get children, it would narrow the gene pool.

the_classicist

I suppose you'd like to think about me as being a fundamentalist who still thinks that YEC is a viable theory going to an unregulated college that promotes that view and gives out unrecognized "degrees." If that helps your worldview, more power to you.

rem

As you can tell, my views are far from concrete on this issue, but I do believe there is a potential for a greater good with stem cell research using aborted embryos. I believe this outweighs the negative aspect of destroying potential human life because on the continuuom of potential life I see a zygote as closer to a clump of cell than an actual organism with a higher probability of human life. Again this is arbitrary, but in my context the good outweighs the bad by a large margin.

Where is the line drawn when a fetus becomes "human"? Again, it's arbitrary for me and i don't know the answer at this time... perhaps when pain is possible, sentience begins, probability of life hits a certain threshold (98% ?), etc. Then, for me, the equation becomes lopsided and the right of the child outweigh any "greater good".

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I believe the issue is too complex for a simple rule of "conception = human". It seems like simplistic black and white thinking to me.

I am an atheist, but I'm definitely not "pro-abortion" (is anyone?). I think abortion can be seen as both good and bad depending on the context.

rem

EvilForce

Class take a chill pill ! I was asking the question because I was going to suggest (as I am now) that you seek out a bioethicist professor on campus and take him to lunch. You would probably learn alot. Your world may not be so black and white afterwards. I highly encourage you to do this. If you were going to private school I would have pointed you in a different direction.

****While I usually have an answer for everything, I'd have to do more study.****
Usually I find I have a preconceived notion of everything and that my initial stand was wrong quite often ;)

Your debate on what is natural and what is not natural has dogged science and medicine down through the ages. Are organ transplants natural? Is using cadaver tissue natural? Is xenotransplantation natural? Xenografting is it ethical? Human test subjects? The list goes on and on. It's fine to question ethics as we need to continually understand our moral imperatives but schoolyard deity beliefs also need to be left where they belong. In church.

the_classicist

Class take a chill pill ! I was asking the question because I was going to suggest (as I am now) that you seek out a bioethicist professor on campus and take him to lunch. You would probably learn alot. Your world may not be so black and white afterwards. I highly encourage you to do this. If you were going to private school I would have pointed you in a different direction.

Yeah, sorry. I haven't had breakfast or lunch yet so the low blood sugar is starting to take a toll on me.

Stem Cell Research article

Share this