|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Stem Cells and Ethics | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The owners have spoken.
Fertility Patients Favor Donating Unused Embryos for Research (added) the Science article: Willingness to Donate Frozen Embryos for Stem Cell Research (/added) These are the owners of the genetic material. Ethically they can do with it what they want to do. It is their decision. Not congress, not schwubbia. That is all the argument that is necessary. Enjoy. social issues forum Edited by RAZD, : forum Edited by RAZD, : changed links 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
RAZD writes: These are the owners of the genetic material. Ethically they can do with it what they want to do. It is their decision. The pro-life lobby wields the argument that an embryo is a human being, and human beings belong to themselves. I doubt whether a human being would, if they could, decide to donate themselves wholesale to stem-cell research, while still alive. 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. 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. Either this God is malevolent, or he considers an embryo not yet human after all. Since the pro-lifers usually tout religious motives, their own premise presents them with an existential conundrum. "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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The pro-life lobby wields the argument that an embryo is a human being, and human beings belong to themselves. I doubt whether a human being would, if they could, decide to donate themselves wholesale to stem-cell research, while still alive. There is a real simple answer to this: have the cells declared legally dead. From Legal Death, Legal Life, Personhood and Abortion:
quote:(Note link is updated, original no longer works) As there is no circulatory system and no brain stem they are de facto legally dead. If removed from life support systems the cells will die. Once legal death is declared then the owners of the cell material can either have it disposed of (buried, cremated, whatever) OR they can donate all or parts to medical research or to transplant into living humans as they wish. This should also get around any restriction on using living cell material in research.
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. Dead humans do not have the rights that living humans have. The families of the dead humans then decide whether they want to dispose of the body (buried, cremated, whatever) OR they can donate all or parts to medical research or to transplant into living humans as they wish.
Since the pro-lifers usually tout religious motives, their own premise presents them with an existential conundrum. They have the right to be involved in the decisions of their families with regard to dead bodies and cells. They do not have the right to interfere in those decisions made by other families. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
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.
If theft is defined as taking possession of something that belongs to someone else, without their consent, and I take possession of something without anyone's consent, but which doesn't belong to anyone either (for example, a breath of air), then it's not theft, is it? Therefore, the law doesn't apply, and the cells aren't legally dead. What do you make of that? Mind you, I am playing the advocate of the devil here. I'm all for stem-cell research, without any ethical reservations. Edited by Parasomnium, : added theft example "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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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. And the counter argument to that is IF the functions necessary for the definition of death are not being exhibited, then the cells are not legally alive to begin with. This would be the same as cell material taken from donors for transplants: blood, kidneys, lungs, etc: where the donor is still a living human being the parts are not. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DorfMan Member (Idle past 6081 days) Posts: 282 From: New York Joined: |
Chimera embryos have right to life, say bishops
By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent Last Updated: 1:01pm BST 26/06/2007 Have your say Read comments Embryonic stem cells explainedHuman-animal hybrid embryos conceived in the laboratory - so-called “chimeras” - should be regarded as human and their mothers should be allowed to give birth to them, the Roman Catholic Church said yesterday. Under draft Government legislation to be debated by Parliament later this year, scientists will be given permission for the first time to create such embryos for research as long as they destroy them within two weeks. advertisementBut the Catholic bishops of England and Wales, in a submission to the Parliamentary joint committee scrutinising the draft legislation, said that the genetic mothers of “chimeras” should be able to raise them as their own children if they wished. The bishops said that they did not see why these “interspecies” embryos should be treated any differently than others. The wide-ranging draft Human Tissue and Embryo Bill, which aims to overhaul the laws on fertility treatment, will include sections on test tube babies, embryo research and abortion. Ministers say that the creation of animal-human embryos - created by injecting animal cells or DNA into human embryos or human cells into animal eggs - will be heavily regulated. They insist that it will be against the law to implant “chimeras” - named after the mythical creature that was half man and half animal - into a woman’s womb. The bishops, who believe that life begins at conception, said that they opposed the creation of any embryo solely for research, but they were also anxious to limit the destruction of such life once it had been brought into existence. In their submission to the committee, they said: “At the very least, embryos with a preponderance of human genes should be assumed to be embryonic human beings, and should be treated accordingly. “In particular, it should not be a crime to transfer them, or other human embryos, to the body of the woman providing the ovum, in cases where a human ovum has been used to create them. “Such a woman is the genetic mother, or partial mother, of the embryo; should she have a change of heart and wish to carry her child to term, she should not be prevented from doing so.” The draft Bill will also allow the screening of embryos for genetic or chromosomal abnormalities that might lead to serious medical conditions, disabilities, or miscarriage. It will permit doctors to check whether an embryo could provide a suitable tissue match for a sibling suffering from a life-threatening illness. The Bill would abolish the requirement for fertility clinics to consider the need for a father when deciding on treatment. This means clinics will no longer be able to deny treatment to lesbians and single mothers. The Catholic bishops said that most of the procedures covered by the Bill “should not be licensed under any circumstances”, principally on the grounds that they violate human rights. News: Breaking stories & updates - The Telegraph
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Exactly what is it that you find "disgusting?"
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5910 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
They insist that it will be against the law to implant “chimeras” - named after the mythical creature that was half man and half animal - into a woman’s womb. Bah. What about plant and human DNA? Maybe I could synthesize coffee in my brain... 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5910 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
RAZD writes: These are the owners of the genetic material. Ethically they can do with it what they want to do. It is their decision. Not congress, not schwubbia. It's good to see some public support for science, but many would liken it to parents who want to sell their children off for research. Thus, they would think the government does ethically have a right to intervene, just as the government does in the case of mistreated children. 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 3292 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
*sigh*
I've been hesitant to comment on this because what I have to say goes against the general liberal opinion. 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. This is the reason why I have been iffy with stem cell research. 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. Personally, I'd rather be killed quick and simple rather than going through all the experiments the Nazi scientists did to their victims. Now, notice that I said iffy, because although I have reservations on the issue, I do not outright oppose stem cell research. 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. No, I don't agree with the way Bush is putting it, because he hasn't explained clearly what his position on life is. All he's said after he vetoed the latest bill on stem cell research was that the bill would cross a moral line, a moral line that many of us see as a very large fuzzy grey area. Now, aren't you glad I don't usually share my opinion on this issue? 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3978 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.3 |
I agree with the stance taken by the infertility patients. Perhaps it would be instructive to consider the implications of pushing their opponents' reasoning to a logical conclusion.
Many--a number approaching "most"--embryos are spontaneously aborted for one reason or another. Whether by scattering a million eggs in the ocean or presenting monthly candidates to the womb, nature works by tossing up a thousand possibilities to each successful reproduction. If we are to see all embryos as persons, then we must set about the task of rescuing those embryos that would otherwise be rejected, for whatever reason, in the event of spontaneous abortion. Women would have to be checked monthly for fertilization events, and some intervention attempted to insure successful implantation and maturation of the embryo. If they (the embryos, not the women) are persons, our moral imperative to save them is as clear as a lifeguard's at a drowning. That is, of course, absurd, though that level of womb surveillance would be acceptable to many. A fertilized embryo is no more a person than one of my indvidual sperm. Edited by Omnivorous, : tpyo Real things always push back. -William James Save lives! Click here!Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC! ---------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5910 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
Omni writes: A fertilized embryo is no more a person than one of my indvidual sperm. I disagree. I think a fertilized embryo is qualitatively different from a sperm cell, as a sperm cell is haploid. But, I think that a fertilized egg is only quantitatively different from a skin cell, liver cell or brain cell. 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5910 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
Taz writes: 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. Nobody knows how to define a person. 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. As Omnivorous (and others before him) have pointed out, there are unacceptable moral conclusions to your particular view. Consider the following scenario:
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? 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. 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3978 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.3 |
I understand your numerical objection, but I stand by my observation that neither sperm nor fertilized eggs are persons.
Real things always push back. -William James Save lives! Click here!Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC! ---------------------------------------
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024