|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Stem Cells and Ethics | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5940 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
I agree with you, but I was merely pointing to the fact that a sperm or egg has a different genotype to the fertilized egg, whereas other somatic cells differ from that egg only in expression of that genotype.
Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Fossil, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others. Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3322 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Doddy writes:
The feelings of morality that I have are exactly the things I try to avoid. Look at it this way. The people that tied Mathew Sheppard and beat him to death relied on their feelings of what morality was. The sons of a bitches that wanted to erect a statue to commemorate Sheppard's so-called "entrence into hell" also relied on their feelings of morality. Even our very "logical" nemesis jug also rely his feelings of morality on this issue. But, I don't think you should choose a particular stance just because it is easy to define, but rather you should choose one that matches the feelings of morality that you have, and leads to the most acceptable conclusions. I concluded a long time ago that these feelings of morality that everyone should have are not reliable at all. If I can't trust nemesis jug's feelings of morality, why should I trust my own?
You are are firefighter running down the corridor of a IVF clinic, which is on fire. You are looking for survivors. Inside a room, you see a six year old boy, huddled in the corner. On the other side of the room, in an open fridge, is a freezer box that is clearly marked as containing 24 human embryos from Subject A541. Suddenly, you hear the groaning of the roof truss above you - the room is in danger of collapse. There is no way you could make it across the room to save both - which do you save: the little boy, or 24 human embryos?
This scenario would definitely give me a moral dilemma IFF I consider all human life to be equal. I'm going to tell you another thing about my beliefs that will make everyone, conservatives and liberals alike, hate me. I don't believe that all human lives should be given the same weight. Furthermore, I believe that the value of life depends on the situation. In this particular case, I would definitely go and try to save the boy. Why? The boy would feel a great deal of pain before he dies. The embryos won't even feel a thing. They won't even complain. Heck, they won't even have an opinion on the matter. The boy I know for sure have some potential to contribute for the better of humanity. Furthermore, I know for sure that he will not just fall down and die for no apparent reason after I saved him. The embryos, on the other hand, have potentials that are too uncertain. For all I know, the rising temperature could have already at least lead the way to the death of the embryos. For all I know, they could simply be thrown away like so many other embryos. Permit me to introduce a scenario where I could potentially choose to rescue an embryo over a boy. Fire in building, boy on one side, embryo on other, could only save one, blah blah. The embryo happens to have the genetic makeup for an immunity against a terrible and deadly disease that could kill many people. In other words, an antibody could be made using what the future person that is currently this embryo. In this particular case, I might, and I must stress the word might, go to try to rescue the embryo and leave the boy.
I don't know about you, but to me the pain that the child will feel makes him by far the better choice to save. To me, the ability to think and feel is a much better indicator of humanness than simply possessing a set of unique human chromosomes.
See, by this definition of being able to feel pain and such would make an unborn child that is 30 minutes away from being born a person. Or, you could argue the other way and say that because a 2 day old child's consciousness is so primitive that he can't really feel pain the way we do therefore shouldn't be considered a person. I've thought through all of these. It stopped being so obvious, to me at least, after thinking about it for so long. It's a really big grey area. Edited by Tazmanian Devil, : changed "a" to "an" right before a word started with a vowel Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3322 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
You can't go the route of similarities in genetic makeup. The chimpanzee is 99.4% genetically identical to a typical human, which is more similar than some genetic disorders out there. Very shaddy area.
Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I honestly don't know how to define what a person is, Personhood is a less inclusive definition than human life, at least in the terms of medical practice for termination of life support. In the Terry Schiavo case there was no person left, but the brain stem was functional.
Legal Death, Legal Life, Personhood and Abortion again:
quote: Different families will make different choices. What we see from the survey is that 60% of the patients would donate the extra cell material to science. It is their right to make that decision. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3322 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
RAZD writes:
Oh no, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying they shouldn't have the right to make the decision. I'm just sharing my view, a view that is all too uncertain at this time. Different families will make different choices. What we see from the survey is that 60% of the patients would donate the extra cell material to science. It is their right to make that decision. Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
The crux of the matter is whether a clump of a dozen or so cells constitutes a human being, complete with all the human rights that come with that status. You could easily dehumanize us as well by noting, that, whether you were born or are still in utero doesn't take away that we too are a clump of cells.
If so, then the pro-lifers have a point, but then I wonder what God, that pro-lifer par excellence, has in mind with all those spontaneous abortions that happen to occur all the time, and have done so throughout human history. One is intentional and the other is an accident. That's like me asking God what He would do in relation to a man that slips and falls and compare it to a man who was bludgeoned to death. The stark difference is transparent. "The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You could easily dehumanize us as well by noting, that, whether you were born or are still in utero doesn't take away that we too are a clump of cells. That is why the definition of death says that we are a clump of cells with an operating brain stem and functioning circulation system -- something a cancerous growth on your arm does not have -- to keep from dehumanizing people on life support systems. Beyond that the concept of personhood includes the function of the whole brain to allow families to disconnect life support under extreme circumstances where there is no person but the clump of cells can be kept alive by artificial means. Once the upper brain goes -- like Terri Schiavo -- then all that is left is a clump of cells, and Elvis has left the building. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : stem\upper compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
That is why the definition of death says that we are a clump of cells with an operating brain and functioning circulation system -- something a cancerous growth on your arm does not have -- to keep from dehumanizing people on life support systems. A cell, is a cell, is a cell. Neither have a brain or a circulatory system. They simply comprise the brain and the circulatory system. At most they have a nucleus to dictate their functions. But all that is besides the point. The point is whether or not it is ethical. Lets suspend the ethical question momentarily to ask purely pragmatic questions-- like, what compelling indication is their that would allow us to play God in the first place? This is what we currently know: That adult stem cells have a proven success rate. Fetal stem cells are hypothesized to cure all sorts of maladies based on their pluripotency. The problem is that it metastasizes so quickly that its been nothing but destructive. "The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... like, what compelling indication is their that would allow us to play God in the first place? Exactly: passing laws to outlaw abortion based on religious conviction does that. Passing laws to outlaw stem cell research based on religious conviction does that. You presume to speak for your god. Stem cells can SAVE lives.
Fetal stem cells are hypothesized to cure all sorts of maladies based on their pluripotency. The problem is that it metastasizes so quickly that its been nothing but destructive. You have scientific literature that supports this assertion? Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : added religious conviction compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Personally, I'd rather be killed quick and simple rather than going through all the experiments the Nazi scientists did to their victims. I wouldn't, and you don't speak for everyone.
So, personally, I am against fertility treatments and invitros simply because the world is already filled with orphans. We simply don't need to add more misery to this front in human suffering, especially if we create dozens of children at a time (children by my own personal standard) only to pick out a few and kill off the rest. Off-topic; dear God I hope no one responds to this dribble.
As I have said before elsewhere, I believe that human life begins at the point of conception. Why? Because at this point in time noone can adequately define what a human is and by what standard we should strive for. I honestly don't know how to define what a person is, so I'd have to fall back to the safest possible point in time until we can better define what a person is. In other words, rather than taking a chance by picking a line in a grey area, I'd rather pick a line at the beginning of the grey area. Self-contradictory statement, lovely! By drawing your line where you do, you believe you are playing it on the safe side by not endangering some poor After all, our sense of what's right and what's wrong tells us that performing experiments on a human being is worse than killing him. Is letting one die from a terrible, yet curable, disease any better? Perhaps you could clear that up, then maybe I'll have more questions. Jon In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ En el mundo hay multitud de idiomas, y cada uno tiene su propio significado. - I Corintios 14:10
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Permit me to introduce a scenario where I could potentially choose to rescue an embryo over a boy. Fire in building, boy on one side, embryo on other, could only save one, blah blah. The embryo happens to have the genetic makeup for an immunity against a terrible and deadly disease that could kill many people. In other words, an antibody could be made using what the future person that is currently this embryo. In this particular case, I might, and I must stress the word might, go to try to rescue the embryo and leave the boy. And the embryo would be conveying this information to you via the Taz-embryo informational-connectedness property of the fabric of the Universe? I guess allowing that poor boy in the corner to die based on your imaginary information of the world-saving power of that embryo might be likened to the Puritans' convicting women to death based on the imaginary information that they were witches? Any chance you could explain how your scenario and, by association, your morality applies to the real world?
I've thought through all of these. Evidently not well enough. Jon Edited by Jon, : Tenses.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Perhaps it's sophistry, but I think I could reason my way around your legal death clause: the law you cite states that there must be a cessation of the functions mentioned. The fact that these functions weren't there in the first place means that they cannot have ceased. Then again, the same could be said of a rock.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
That's why pro-lifers will probably not object to doing stem cell research using rocks only.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
nemesis_juggernaut writes: You could easily dehumanize us as well by noting, that, whether you were born or are still in utero doesn't take away that we too are a clump of cells. We are not just any clump of cells. A large contingent of our cells forms a brain which is responsible for our having a personality. I'd say that constitutes a huge difference with an embryo of a few days old.
One [man-made abortions] is intentional and the other [spontaneous abortions] is an accident. That's like me asking God what He would do in relation to a man that slips and falls and compare it to a man who was bludgeoned to death. The stark difference is transparent. In that case I never again want to hear a pious Christian pronouncing that it's all in God's hands, because apparently it isn't. Edited by Parasomnium, : fixed quote "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin. Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
quote: Exactly: passing laws to outlaw abortion based on religious conviction does that. Passing laws to outlaw stem cell research based on religious conviction does that. You presume to speak for your god. Stem cells can SAVE lives. Getting rid of abortion saves lives! There is a greater chance for a fetus to come to full term and live out a normal life, such as you and I are were fortunate enough to have. (Thanks Mom! You're the best!) Than what embryonic stem cells have produced. Are you so caught up in the romanticism of what they speculate they might do, rather than knowing what we currently know?-- that they've produced nothing?
quote: You have scientific literature that supports this assertion? Naturally.
quote:-link Emphasis added on key words by Nemesis_Juggernaut Other links "The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024