stem cell research

[cacophony]

hey look, a non-election thread!

bryantm3 brought up embryonic stem cell research in the john mccain thread and it got me thinking.

bush took a hard stance against federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. obama believes in relaxing these restrictions and allowing some federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. so it's not unlikely that we're going to see the debate over the morality of this kind of research bubble up in the next 4 years.

so what do you, joe sixpack, think about the issue? should embryonic stem cell research be pursued? do we have enough alternative stem cell sources to make embryonic sources obsolete? do embryonic stem cells provide greater promise that we cannot simply ignore? and finally, should public funding be provided for this research?

let's have a good old fashioned discussion.

[34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j]

I admit I don't know much about it but honestly I think stem-cell research is great and would lead to the biggest medical advances in the decade. And I don't think you will need abortions to do it, I remember them talking about getting stem-cells from parts of your own body, etc. etc. Maybe someday we can even grow them ourselves. And even if it does require an abortion, you would think the mother-to-not-be would be happy to know that she's saving a life or two in the process. It needs more research. It would be stupid to ignore this if it has even half the potential it's often claimed to...

[Strangelet]

let's have a good old fashioned discussion.
lets start with the arguments employed by the bushistas. this from the bush press conference back in the day

If this legislation became law, it would compel American taxpayers for the first time in our history to support the deliberate destruction of human embryos. I made it clear to Congress and to the American people that I will not allow our nation to cross this moral line.
In other words, his objective is to basically construct a hadrian's wall, a marginot line between our culture and the barbarians of sin. By drawing such a line, he's assuming that there exists a tipping point between medicine as a tool of humanism, and medicine as the harbinger of nihilism and a culture of reckless violence.

This argument appeals to a moral law of nature that its easier to commit greivous sin if previous sins of an equal or smaller magnitude have been committed in the past. IE the whole frog in the boiled water thingie.

What I find the most staggering is that this argument worked in redirecting the entire country's scientific endeavor at the expense of human suffering simply because it lead into the no man's land of "WHAT GOD THE LORD ON HIGH WANTS FROM HIS CHILDREN AS MANIFEST TO GEORGE W BUSH." That little underlying premise, that God hates embryo destruction for medical purposes, seemed to be just taken for granted.

I suppose its the nature of the beast when atheists are asked to refute religious arguments in public policy. The point is you have to go there, and do so in religious, ethical language. Especially when there's so many examples in history where these moon bats have drawn lines in much more odious places.


"If God had decreed from all eternity that a certain person should die of smallpox, it would be a frightful sin to avoid and annul that decree by the trick of vaccination." - Timothy Dwight, president of Yale
and


Edward Massey, in "The Dangerous and Sinful Practice of Inoculation." describes how clergymen and devout physicians formed an Anti-vaccination Society, declaring that "the law of God prohibits the practice." Some even proposed that those who gave inoculations should be tried for attempted murder.
so basically when it comes to the suffering of human beings, I think its important to follow the line of reasoning and ask, even in polite circles, who the fuck are you anyway to know what God wants?

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

lets start with the arguments employed by the bushistas. this from the bush press conference back in the day
In other words, his objective is to basically construct a hadrian's wall, a marginot line between our culture and the barbarians of sin. By drawing such a line, he's assuming that there exists a tipping point between medicine as a tool of humanism, and medicine as the harbinger of nihilism and a culture of reckless violence.

This argument appeals to a moral law of nature that its easier to commit greivous sin if previous sins of an equal or smaller magnitude have been committed in the past. IE the whole frog in the boiled water thingie.

What I find the most staggering is that this argument worked in redirecting the entire country's scientific endeavor at the expense of human suffering simply because it lead into the no man's land of "WHAT GOD THE LORD ON HIGH WANTS FROM HIS CHILDREN AS MANIFEST TO GEORGE W BUSH." That little underlying premise, that God hates embryo destruction for medical purposes, seemed to be just taken for granted.

I suppose its the nature of the beast when atheists are asked to refute religious arguments in public policy. The point is you have to go there, and do so in religious, ethical language. Especially when there's so many examples in history where these moon bats have drawn lines in much more odious places.

and

so basically when it comes to the suffering of human beings, I think its important to follow the line of reasoning and ask, even in polite circles, who the fuck are you anyway to know what God wants?


I've always loved a good spa treatment. Too.

[Deckard]

Yay, no election! :D

Well, in a nutshell, I'm in favour.

My problem with the argument that embryonic stem cell research devalues human life is that the very phrase 'human life' needs more qualification, but opponents rarely give it.

So what is this devaluing specifically?

I'm not going to attempt to argue against those who claim we're "playing God" - for obvious reasons. I don't wish to turn this into a religious thread by asking which God or gods, how we know that he/she/it/they exist, and how we know what he/she/it/they really want and whether we can really believe that his/her/its/their words in the relevant Holy book are the genuine ones, and not put there by primitive man/the Devil.

And fear of "playing Mother Nature" is little more than fear of going somewhere we've not gone before. A cursory glance through the history of scientific development and the various fears and oppositions that have accompanied pivotal moments should remind us of how selective we are about this reason.

But... I will just touch on something that I hear quite often - that it's because the future life – human or child - will be lost. The potential life.

People who hold this argument need to be reminded that the same future life could well have been lost had contraception been used, or (perhaps more appropriately for them) had abstinence been practised at that crucial moment in time. It seems to me one of those crazy philosophical arguments where it's almost impossible to find consistency. Unless the parents are having sex 24/7, then they're denying a future life - many future lives in fact. Even by having Child X, they're denying life to potential twins Y and Z. The argument that we shouldn't deny a future life it's child/adulthood seems to me to rest on incredibly shaky ground. Even if by some incredible feat, we turned into 24/7 baby-making machines, the resulting overpopulation would end up denying life - and quality of life - to many.

I know it seems like an over-the-top point to be making, but to me it points to the bankruptcy of this argument, and it's more than a little telling that the only way these people end up truly squaring this dilemma is by invoking the Lord, a higher power, an unquestionable dogma. So every sperm becomes sacred, and the Holy institution of marriage is the only environment in which we can procreate - but we don't think too closely beyond those simple easy-to-grasp rules. ANyway this is moving more on to issues surrounding abortion I guess. My point is that the very idea of opposing embryonic stem cell research based on the notion of it killing a potential life just seems groundless, because a potential life is a potential life, wherever in time it's born - a year away, 10 years or 14 billion years.

When it comes to issues involving the sanctity of human life, suffering is really the only barometer I use, whether it's the supposed/actual suffering of the newborn/foetus/cells, or the suffering of the parents - emotionally or physically. I can honestly say that, morally speaking, no other objections concern me.

should embryonic stem cell research be pursued?
As long as there are benefits, yes.

do we have enough alternative stem cell sources to make embryonic sources obsolete?
do embryonic stem cells provide greater promise that we cannot simply ignore?
Don't know enough about the science to know one way or the other. If embryonic stem cells do provide greater promise, then I would have no problem supporting that, and no moral objection.

should public funding be provided for this research?
I think so, just as public funding is provided for research involving testing on animals, something else that receives vocal opposition from members of that same funding public. I guess if the majority of the public were vehemently opposed to it, then that opposition - and any distress people feel - needs to be taken into account in the moral argument. But I don't believe opposition is anything like that strong. So yes public funding should be used, just as it's used for countless other areas of scientific research.

[Strangelet]

I've always loved a good spa treatment. Too.

i think we need to use you for medical research

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

One area that's never discussed within this arguement is the omnipotent monetary.

Who gains? Who losses?

Morality plays the magic curtain on many fronts.




And I don't mind being the thorn in many one's side. I like to think I'm good at it.

[Strangelet]

And I don't mind being the thorn in many one's side. I like to think I'm good at it.


you're good at removing any doubt you're an insufferable ass. back to the ignore list for you, sport. enjoy those drugs. inhale hard, mate.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

you're good at removing any doubt you're an insufferable ass. back to the ignore list for you, sport. enjoy those drugs. inhale hard, mate.


If it makes you feel better, sprout. Also, cannot go without commenting on this one, please, let me know when the right crowd(no political jab there, I think, maybe) say it's right.

Wishing you a reflective Veteran's Day as well. OK, now ignore me, and get back the the discussion on hand.

[Strangelet]

meanwhile, back to the adult conversation...:rolleyes:


I'm not going to attempt to argue against those who claim we're "playing God" - for obvious reasons. I don't wish to turn this into a religious thread by asking which God or gods, how we know that he/she/it/they exist, and how we know what he/she/it/they really want and whether we can really believe that his/her/its/their words in the relevant Holy book are the genuine ones, and not put there by primitive man/the Devil.


My point here is that if the people in charge are employing religious arguments then opponents, you or me, are more effective assuming the language of religion. handwaving and dismissing it all as fairy tales, while emotionally satisfying, just ends the debate. Which is not what you want to do when they are in power, as was the case during the bush administration. its a small point to make but it flows well into your next argument....


it's more than a little telling that the only way these people end up truly squaring this dilemma is by invoking the Lord, a higher power, an unquestionable dogma. So every sperm becomes sacred, and the Holy institution of marriage is the only environment in which we can procreate - but we don't think too closely beyond those simple easy-to-grasp rules.
however...


killing a potential life just seems groundless, because a potential life is a potential life, wherever in time it's born - a year away, 10 years or 14 billion years.
my understanding is that they don't even have this leg to stand on. these embryos are on their way to being destroyed. There's no real expectation of potential life here, even for those against using the embryos.


When it comes to issues involving the sanctity of human life, suffering is really the only barometer I use, whether it's the supposed/actual suffering of the newborn/foetus/cells, or the suffering of the parents - emotionally or physically. I can honestly say that, morally speaking, no other objections concern me.
and that's the humanist perspective in a nutshell from my understanding of it. and one that I firmly support.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

meanwhile, back to the adult conversation...:rolleyes:



My point here is that if the people in charge are employing religious arguments then opponents, you or me, are more effective assuming the language of religion. handwaving and dismissing it all as fairy tales, while emotionally satisfying, just ends the debate. Which is not what you want to do when they are in power, as was the case during the bush administration. its a small point to make but it flows well into your next argument....

however...

my understanding is that they don't even have this leg to stand on. these embryos are on their way to being destroyed. There's no real expectation of potential life here, even for those against using the embryos.

and that's the humanist perspective in a nutshell from my understanding of it. and one that I firmly support.

Atta boy. See how easy that was?

I'd love to hear your points on the monetary side of it all. Capitalism, now that's a slippery slope..

[Deckard]

My point here is that if the people in charge are employing religious arguments then opponents, you or me, are more effective assuming the language of religion. handwaving and dismissing it all as fairy tales, while emotionally satisfying, just ends the debate.
Sure, and I largely accept that, certainly in the sense that if the intention is to convince someone of the merit of an argument, then constantly scoffing about the Sky Pixie is only going to make them dig their heels in deeper. I understand that, and wasn't intending to suggest that that's the approach I'd take if ever in the situation of trying to sway a religious person's point of view.

The difficulty as I see it though, is that if religion IS the bottom line for those opponents, if we've debunked their argument and pointed out various contradictions and absurdities, and they're left with no option but to resort to the ultimate dogma "because the Good Lord tells us so", then how on earth do we successfully argue against that? Can you give any examples of how, by assuming the language of religion, such people could be convinced, without us coming across as, well, insincere and false? Because that's the whole problem of religion isn't it? That every convincing argument to the contrary is viewed as a test of faith, rather than on its own merit - and embryonic stem cell research is a classic example of that. Religion actually represents THE obstacle to accepting any alternative position at odds with what they think they're allowed to think. I appreciate what we don't do: ridicule and sneer and denigrate. But I genuinely have no idea what we DO do other than continue to calmly make the case FOR this kind of research - in ethical and philosophical terms (perhaps that's what you meant) - while, in the background, the enormously gradual process of encouraging people to relinquish the shackles of religion and have the confidence to think for themselves continues slowly and surely with education and scientific progress.

I know I said I didn't want to derail this thread by going into religion, but I guess it's unavoidable.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

I know I said I didn't want to derail this thread by going into religion, but I guess it's unavoidable.


You are correct sir.

Again, morality: The great, magic carpet ride behind the curtain.

[cacophony]

well here's something to consider:

i'm pro-choice. i support a woman's right to choose to carry or abort a pregnancy. however, i am against embryonic stem cell research. i'm also an atheist. chew on that for a second.

for me religion has nothing to do with it. god has nothing to do with it. and it doesn't necessarily rely on the argument that you're throwing away potential life because, as was stated earlier in the thread, stem cells from aborted fetuses would be discarded anyway.

i don't need a god figure to tell me to respect the creation of human life. i'm pro-choice but i'm better described as reluctantly pro-choice. i'm pro-choice because of the necessity to women's healtrh and human rights, not because i feel embryos are just silly little cellular clusters to be discarded without remorse. i see a fertilized egg is as special thing that would, if a billion and a half crucial developmental moments happen correctly, develop into a unique human being.

because of that, i have a hard time accepting the idea of using those discarded embryos for research. it smacks of a kind of cannibalism to me. now, i realize there's something contradictory in my view because i also support organ donation, which is essentially the same thing. however, with organ donation the donor had a choice in the matter before death. that's where i draw my moral line, i guess. it may help explain my view if i share the fact that i oppose the "bodies... the exhibition" show because the displayed cadavers were obtained from chinese prisons without the deceased's permission.

there's also the issue that abortions aren't the only source. people who participate in in vitro fertilization fertilize and store many eggs in the hopes that one will implant and gestate successfully. after their efforts are concluded, the extra fertilized eggs are discarded.

what's curious to me is that people use the in vitro example as though it's somehow a good thing, and therefore the argument for the discarded embryos' use in research is unrefutable. what makes no sense to me is how anyone can be pro-life but not against the in-vitro process of fertilizing and discarding eggs. it is essentially the same moral dilema. how many conservative right-wing pro-lifers participate in in vitro fertilization without a second thought? if you create 7 potential lives but only one gestates, you threw away 6 potential humans.

but i digress into abortion rights issues instead of stem cell research...

my point is, i'm gravely pro-choice, i don't support the practice of in vitro fertilization that results in an excess of fertilized eggs, and i don't support the notion of embryonic stem cell research. i am uncomfortable with the idea of my tax money going to support this research when private funding is available. i wouldn't expect to impose my view on the general public and try to block the research completely, but i would prefer not to be part of the funding and support.

and god plays no role in my opinion.


so what does that do for the arguments presented so far? what about those of us who aren't religious but morally object anyway?

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

so what does that do for the arguments presented so far? what about those of us who aren't religious but morally object anyway?


Good Luck?

[Strangelet]

so what does that do for the arguments presented so far? what about those of us who aren't religious but morally object anyway?

well you got me. I really don't know how to argue against that. Basically you do see a line that can't be crossed. it kind of boils down to utilitarian ethics versus rules based ethics, I guess? there's things you just take as sacred. end of? What is interesting is that maybe my complete comfort level is an artifact to my mormon upbringing, mormon politicians were pretty supportive of the research bill against the tide of the evangelical criticism. if I had grown up pentacostal and broke away from that maybe I would feel completely differently, even without any belief in God.

[34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j]

But... I will just touch on something that I hear quite often - that it's because the future life – human or child - will be lost. The potential life.

People who hold this argument need to be reminded that the same future life could well have been lost had contraception been used, or (perhaps more appropriately for them) had abstinence been practised at that crucial moment in time. It seems to me one of those crazy philosophical arguments where it's almost impossible to find consistency. Unless the parents are having sex 24/7, then they're denying a future life - many future lives in fact. Even by having Child X, they're denying life to potential twins Y and Z. The argument that we shouldn't deny a future life it's child/adulthood seems to me to rest on incredibly shaky ground. Even if by some incredible feat, we turned into 24/7 baby-making machines, the resulting overpopulation would end up denying life - and quality of life - to many.

I went to Catholic high school and made this same point when they argued against contraception. I mean the Bible is full of things that were great ideas 2000 years ago but it doesn't adapt to modern times. If Jesus came back today and decreed jaywalking, wouldn't it be ridiculous if 2000 years from now, when we all fly through tubes and wish ourselves cross-country, if jaywalking was still 'immoral'? Sure it is a good idea today to not jaywalk but come on who knows what kind of interpretation that gets in 2000 years. I mean knowing Jesus if we told him that one dead fetus could equal 3 lives that were definitely dead anyway I think he would probably choose to save the 3 people? (well let's assume they're all cute little tykes)

The point is I think researchers want to not just say let's abort our way out of any health crisis but rather let's see what these cells are made of and why they work? Unforunately we get into that moral dilemma where in order to save an indeterminate amount of lives we have to sacrifice a few.

[BeautifulBurnout]

Hmm. This whole question is difficult for me, and I have to say that I understand Cacophony's views entirely. But, on reflection (and I have been mulling this over for an hour or two before coming back and responding) I don't think I agree with her.

Thinking about it logically, if the foetus is abandoned in any event, their whole "life" had no meaning at all. It served no purpose for them to be conceived. If, on the other hand, something good could come out of their death, then it has to be the right thing to do in my book.

I would also add that it would be likely that foetal stem-cell research would reduce the amount of research on, and the amount of suffering caused to, living animals, which is also a benefit.

People leave their bodies to science, for medical research after their death. I know the tiny little proto-lives have no say in whether they should be researched-upon or not, but frankly they have no say in whether their existance is created or terminated either. So I don't personally feel it is a huge moral leap to go a stage further and create some kind of value out of the loss of their lives.

[Strangelet]

my point is, i'm gravely pro-choice, i don't support the practice of in vitro fertilization that results in an excess of fertilized eggs, and i don't support the notion of embryonic stem cell research. i am uncomfortable with the idea of my tax money going to support this research when private funding is available. i wouldn't expect to impose my view on the general public and try to block the research completely, but i would prefer not to be part of the funding and support.



I guess i have to agree with you. there's enough gray area here (and I didn't mean to earlier intimate you were being irrational, only that there's got to be a cultural aspect to these values). So I guess its best out of public funding. I just don't want some jackass rich kid from texas saying god told him we couldn't do it. like he's moses or something.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Wrong again, it's just mo. Nothing more, nothing less. Just mo. That's all it will ever be.

Right?

I love my whoooopliiisshhh moments. I've now accomplished something today. What time is it? I'm gonna have a drink now. Man, I'm good.

[Deckard]

for me religion has nothing to do with it. god has nothing to do with it. and it doesn't necessarily rely on the argument that you're throwing away potential life because, as was stated earlier in the thread, stem cells from aborted fetuses would be discarded anyway.

i don't need a god figure to tell me to respect the creation of human life. i'm pro-choice but i'm better described as reluctantly pro-choice. i'm pro-choice because of the necessity to women's healtrh and human rights, not because i feel embryos are just silly little cellular clusters to be discarded without remorse. i see a fertilized egg is as special thing that would, if a billion and a half crucial developmental moments happen correctly, develop into a unique human being.
I see what you're saying, however this is where I think my position splits away from yours. Instinctively, purely in terms of feelings, I share that same difference in how I feel about a fertilized egg as compared to an unfertilized one, between one that's closer to a human life and one that's less close - when the sperm and egg still have some distance between them. But the question is, why should that distance matter? Why even should the difference in complexity matter? There's still probability involved in the creation of the separate cells themselves, even before conception. Even that is remarkable. Why should the moment of conception itself be the defining moment that separates moral from immoral on an issue like embryonic stem cell research, if not for the sense of destroying a potential life by destroying the process that may lead to it?

From what I understand of what you're saying, the factor of 'potential life' does seem to be what this boils down to when you refer to the fertilized egg developing into a unique human being. I can identify with the feeling that, once we're past the stage of conception, we're interfering with a process that has already beaten many odds and is on the way to developing into something we can emotionally relate to - and ultimately ends up with an emotional state of its own. Something that most of us would agree IS sacred - a human being. But of course it's still not an actual human being yet, and in reality the only thing we're respecting is the sheer leaps of probability that have taken place to get as far as fertilization, the wonderfulness(?) of the fact of creation, and the potential of human life at the end of it. Appreciating those things is fine, but what does it mean to apply a moral distinction to them?

Another question might be: should the human life that will result from a currently separate individual egg and sperm cell be deemed less important than the human life that will result from a fertilized egg a second or a week or a month later when they join up? Sure, the fertilized egg is more advanced and closer to the stage of human life, and has undergone that whole chance encounter of egg meeting sperm - but is that a reason to assign it greater protection/sanctity, and use it as a measurement for judging whether an issue like human embryonic stem cell research is morally acceptable?

Here's what I think. As I see it, the line we're inclined to draw is essentially an arbitrary one based on how we instinctively feel ie. that interfering with one stage of complexity/development feels acceptable, while the other just feels wrong, or as you say, feels like cannibalism. And while that feeling might be perfectly natural and understandable given the unique status we afford the moment of conception, when you think about it, drawing a line at one particular moment of complexity, past one particular set of low-probability events, of the sperm and egg having no distance between them rather than having distance – well it seems somewhat irrational to use any of this as a moral yardstick without knowing fully why these things matter – and why going further back in the development process, they don't.

now, i realize there's something contradictory in my view because i also support organ donation, which is essentially the same thing. however, with organ donation the donor had a choice in the matter before death. that's where i draw my moral line,
The difference I'd draw is that most organ donors are human beings with awareness of themselves, their needs and wishes. An embryo, to my mind, is not - it's not that it's unable to communicate its wishes; it has no wishes – about anything. The only way I see the relevance of the 'embryo not having a choice' is if we view it through the prism of being the potential human life not having a hindsight choice – and as I wrote earlier, I don't see the 'potential human life' angle as one that can be consistently kept to. For me at this point in time, it really does only come down to the issue of the amount of suffering experienced, by whoever (and yes, I can see myself sliding back into the topic of abortion here!)

what's curious to me is that people use the in vitro example as though it's somehow a good thing, and therefore the argument for the discarded embryos' use in research is unrefutable. what makes no sense to me is how anyone can be pro-life but not against the in-vitro process of fertilizing and discarding eggs. it is essentially the same moral dilema.
I agree, it is an odd position.

i am uncomfortable with the idea of my tax money going to support this research when private funding is available. i wouldn't expect to impose my view on the general public and try to block the research completely, but i would prefer not to be part of the funding and support.
That's absolutely fair enough, and if enough people feel likewise, I'd say that's a good argument for blocking it, and for supporters like me to just accept that.

Honestly, I'm probably sounding more dispassionate and detached than I actually am when it comes to the wonder of life. Believe me I absolutely share that wonder (and not just human either – you should have seen me when my cat got pregnant!) though I can appreciate that you feel it far more deeply when you experience procreation first hand, so that will give you an insight that I will never have. All the views above are obviously what I feel in the absence of that insight - rightly or wrongly.

[bryantm3]

n-zero no. like i said in the thread previously, it's become a popular cause for politicians to throw around because the majority of america supports it— exactly like offshore drilling. obama had to drop his opposition of offshore drilling because the majority of americans disagreed with him. unfortunately, the majority isn't always right. most people don't know a lot about embryonic stem cell research except the vague promise that "it can save lives!". it is a logical fallacy- a false dillemna.

"Do we save a person suffering from a disability or do we save an unborn child?" is the question posed by the advocates of embryonic stem cell research. in the meantime, advances in the viability of adult (which are limited to reproducing cells of the body organ in which they came from) and placental (which are unlimited, like embryonic) have been largely ignored because the debate of embryonic stem cell research has been picked up by the politicians, and now noone would DARE oppose embryonic stem cell research. do you just HATE disabled people?

this is the same crap that came out of the bush administration calling all democrats unpatriotic. "either you're with us, or you're with the TRRURISTS!"

[bryantm3]

Yay, no election! :D

But... I will just touch on something that I hear quite often - that it's because the future life – human or child - will be lost. The potential life.

People who hold this argument need to be reminded that the same future life could well have been lost had contraception been used, or (perhaps more appropriately for them) had abstinence been practised at that crucial moment in time. It seems to me one of those crazy philosophical arguments where it's almost impossible to find consistency. Unless the parents are having sex 24/7, then they're denying a future life - many future lives in fact. Even by having Child X, they're denying life to potential twins Y and Z. The argument that we shouldn't deny a future life it's child/adulthood seems to me to rest on incredibly shaky ground. Even if by some incredible feat, we turned into 24/7 baby-making machines, the resulting overpopulation would end up denying life - and quality of life - to many.

i am pro-life. unlike many christians who take it to extremes, i do not believe that using condoms is wrong, or that we should have as many children as possible to expand the human race with 20 little bible thumpers running around the house. to me, the issue is "do you value a human life?" to me, once a child is concieved, it is a person. before that, it's up to the individual because it's their sperm and eggs.

to deny that an embryo is a person yet is absurd, especially because many of the same people are saying "How stupid are you that you don't believe global warming is happening?" the two things are so obvious that you'd have to be a complete idiot or in denial to not believe them. "but!" some say, "an embryo can't feel anything yet, so it's okay to kill them!". a baby can't speak or stand up or move around on its own yet, either, so i guess it's okay to kill them too! stating that abortion is okay simply because the baby in utero is not fully developed is a flawed argument from the get-go. it's like saying that a baby is not fully developed, therefore dumping them in a garbage can is perfectly OK.

what about "it depends on the mother to survive and cannot survive out of the uterus"? a born baby depends on the mother (ok, a parent) to survive and would die without one. but what about surrogate mothers? those aren't their babies in them, so is it still her body? not really. so the argument that a baby is an innate part of the mother's body is silly.

[bryantm3]

I see what you're saying, however this is where I think my position splits away from yours. Instinctively, purely in terms of feelings, I share that same difference in how I feel about a fertilized egg as compared to an unfertilized one, between one that's closer to a human life and one that's less close - when the sperm and egg still have some distance between them. But the question is, why should that distance matter? Why even should the difference in complexity matter? There's still probability involved in the creation of the separate cells themselves, even before conception. Even that is remarkable. Why should the moment of conception itself be the defining moment that separates moral from immoral on an issue like embryonic stem cell research, if not for the sense of destroying a potential life by destroying the process that may lead to it?

From what I understand of what you're saying, the factor of 'potential life' does seem to be what this boils down to when you refer to the fertilized egg developing into a unique human being. I can identify with the feeling that, once we're past the stage of conception, we're interfering with a process that has already beaten many odds and is on the way to developing into something we can emotionally relate to - and ultimately ends up with an emotional state of its own. Something that most of us would agree IS sacred - a human being. But of course it's still not an actual human being yet, and in reality the only thing we're respecting is the sheer leaps of probability that have taken place to get as far as fertilization, the wonderfulness(?) of the fact of creation, and the potential of human life at the end of it. Appreciating those things is fine, but what does it mean to apply a moral distinction to them?

Another question might be: should the human life that will result from a currently separate individual egg and sperm cell be deemed less important than the human life that will result from a fertilized egg a second or a week or a month later when they join up? Sure, the fertilized egg is more advanced and closer to the stage of human life, and has undergone that whole chance encounter of egg meeting sperm - but is that a reason to assign it greater protection/sanctity, and use it as a measurement for judging whether an issue like human embryonic stem cell research is morally acceptable?

Here's what I think. As I see it, the line we're inclined to draw is essentially an arbitrary one based on how we instinctively feel ie. that interfering with one stage of complexity/development feels acceptable, while the other just feels wrong, or as you say, feels like cannibalism. And while that feeling might be perfectly natural and understandable given the unique status we afford the moment of conception, when you think about it, drawing a line at one particular moment of complexity, past one particular set of low-probability events, of the sperm and egg having no distance between them rather than having distance – well it seems somewhat irrational to use any of this as a moral yardstick without knowing fully why these things matter – and why going further back in the development process, they don't.




if you leave your jizz on the bathroom floor it doesn't turn into a baby. even if you stick it in an incubator for 9 months it won't do anything except make a sticky mess. ditto with unfertilized eggs.

fertilized eggs develop on their own.

[Deckard]

the issue is "do you value a human life?" to me, once a child is concieved, it is a person. before that, it's up to the individual because it's their sperm and eggs.
Person is just an emotive label that indicates you think these cells should be sacred - what we're actually talking about is the potential of a person in the sense that we normally envisage a person - or if you really want to broaden your definition of the word person in that way, then let's at least acknowledge how these various stages of 'person'hood differ instead of trying to gloss over them - in other words, what it means for a 'person' at these different stages of development to suffer, what it means for this 'person' to otherwise have a sense of 'themselves' continuing into the future, etc. Because anyone can band around emotive words like baby and kill and gain the emotional upperhand. Anyone can refer to children and people, and appear to have an irrefutable argument. Actually, all you're doing is equating the conceived eggs with what they have the potential to become, and asserting that they should be treated the same without providing a convincing reason why that should be the case.

Calling any post-conception eggs a person actually means nothing other than awarding it some sort of sanctity based on what it has the potential to become, or based on how marvellous the process of creation is and it feels wrong to interfere with it, or on what I detailed in my previous post regarding the potential person argument. That's not to deny that we don't marvel at the prospect of a fertilized egg in a way that most of us don't about "our jizz". That's fine. But that's not sufficient reason in my eyes to award a fertilized egg that special sanctity over an unfertilized one.

if you leave your jizz on the bathroom floor it doesn't turn into a baby.
Then you're being distance-ist or discriminating on geography, temperature, etc - factors beyond its control, because it still has the potential to be a human life before you do what you do for it to end up there. That there are two elements (sperm and unfertilized egg) rather than one doesn't show that this twosome is not also a potential person, it just shows that you've managed to carelessly eject some of it onto the bathroom floor! I would suggest if you were being truly consistent, you would see and treat all 'life' as equally sacred, not just a certain stage of development. Of course that position leads to an absurdity, which is why I don't see how there's any sense in subscribing to it.

fertilized eggs develop on their own.
Not if you take them out and chuck 'em on the bathroom floor. You see my point? Unfertilized eggs are still very much part of an ongoing process called life - and while in the body, have that potential of ultimately leading to a unique human life.

[myrrh]

Well, I am against it. But, I am not against the actual stem cell research itself, what I am against is the process of getting those stem cell's to research on.

Let's face it, the whole 'potential to...' argument is weak because according to the definition of life- an embryo is alive. Therefor, you have to kill it to get the stem cells, and this is what I am against.

Now, I am also against abortion, unless the mother looks like she is going to die from the pregnancy (and with modern medicine the actual event of a mother dieing while giving birth etc, is becoming rare), so how can these cells be collected?

[Deckard]

...because according to the definition of life- an embryo is alive. Therefore....
But what does that actually mean, being alive? I mean, to the extent that you feel it should dictate the ethics underlying this?

[myrrh]

It means that in typical circumstance it will grow the be a human, and therefor we should not prevent it's opportunity to do so.

Let me clarify this- Before you can be a human, you need to be an embryo. The embryo is alive and going to grow into a human. You speak about 'potential' like the embryo can grow into a cat or cow, and we need to wait and see to make sure that it is a human. The embryo inside a human is a human embryo!

You said: "People who hold this argument need to be reminded that the same future life could well have been lost had contraception been used, or (perhaps more appropriately for them) had abstinence been practised at that crucial moment in time."

This is true, but the fact is that at the point of discussion, that being about embryo's, the above is irrelevant because conception had happen, and now you have a living organism inside the female.

[Strangelet]

From what I understand of what you're saying, the factor of 'potential life' does seem to be what this boils down to when you refer to the fertilized egg developing into a unique human being.


This is what I find interesting about cacophony's position as I understand it. I don't think she needs to agree that it boils down to potential life. I've always thought that it is the materialist/reductionists (those who don't believe in a soul for example) who have the most justification to criticize abortion and I guess stem cell research as well.

If you believe in a soul as what separates life from matter, then its your obligation to pinpoint the time and place where the soul enters into the mix. Which obviously can't be done empirically, and that means you just shake your bible, praise god, and play pin the soul on the uterus.

But if you believe that humanity is simply genetic code, brought through several stages of life where the embryonic stage is really no different than puberty as they are all transformations on the same set of DNA, you must say that something "human", therefore sacred, begins when the unique genetic code, unique and never to naturally reoccur, is created - the zygotic stage.

I mean its actually an argument that can be made, where as arguments based on the soul or even some mystical essence of humanity are generally arbitrary and outside observation.



Here's what I think. As I see it, the line we're inclined to draw is essentially an arbitrary one based on how we instinctively feel ie. that interfering with one stage of complexity/development feels acceptable, while the other just feels wrong, or as you say, feels like cannibalism.


this is where you and I agree. there is something cultural, personal going on here. Even more so, I think you and I want to just maximize the happiness (utilitarianism) because these embryos are on their way out to the land fill anyway, other people's suffering could be alleviated, and its not like using them will promote creating more abortions/embryos to satiate the scientists' needs. But at the same time there is an irrefutable line to be drawn (categorical ethics) when it comes to human life found anywhere from the constitution to the 10 commandments.

We're not going to solve which system of ethics is better equipped to guide our lives.

So at this point I think cacophony's right. Lets keep it out of public funding. Even I have to admit that Bush's ban on embryonic stem cell research has probably done noting more than encourage scientific breakthroughs in the field in the attempt at getting around the sticky issue of embryos. which means a lot of this whole conversation is moot, and the democratic push to overturn this ban could very will just be some kind of smug needling.

[Strangelet]

I didn't have time to give this justice, Decks, what with jOHN's devastating retorts and all.

wowwwweeeee jOHN you are awesome. you're quite the darktrain gadfly. or horsefly. or horse's ass. let me know when I'm getting warm here.


The difficulty as I see it though, is that if religion IS the bottom line for those opponents, if we've debunked their argument and pointed out various contradictions and absurdities, and they're left with no option but to resort to the ultimate dogma "because the Good Lord tells us so", then how on earth do we successfully argue against that?


like i said, simply ask "who the fuck are you to know what God wants?"


Can you give any examples of how, by assuming the language of religion, such people could be convinced, without us coming across as, well, insincere and false? Because that's the whole problem of religion isn't it? That every convincing argument to the contrary is viewed as a test of faith, rather than on its own merit - and embryonic stem cell research is a classic example of that. Religion actually represents THE obstacle to accepting any alternative position at odds with what they think they're allowed to think. I appreciate what we don't do: ridicule and sneer and denigrate. But I genuinely have no idea what we DO do other than continue to calmly make the case FOR this kind of research - in ethical and philosophical terms (perhaps that's what you meant) - while, in the background, the enormously gradual process of encouraging people to relinquish the shackles of religion and have the confidence to think for themselves continues slowly and surely with education and scientific progress.
well said point. I guess I just wanted to point out the difference between someone like chris hedges and richard dawkins, the latter well described by dubman a while back as one who "has no lulz in his heart" Its really easy to not come across as insincere. you genuinely assume the posibility there is a God, even a judeo christian God, then go from there. It helps me not punch some of my family members in the face when they tell me gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. And I suppose it keeps me from getting punched in the face when I resist calling them brainless fools.

[Deckard]

But what does that actually mean, being alive? I mean, to the extent that you feel it should dictate the ethics underlying this? It means that in typical circumstance it will grow the be a human, and therefor we should not prevent it's opportunity to do so.
Also in the right circumstances, an egg and sperm will join to eventually create an embryo which will typically grow to be a human. The odds may be stacked against that particular sperm and that particular egg joining, but the logic is the same, we're just going further back in the process. Clearly we culturally discriminate against that, and that's fair enough - but philosophically, what makes that discrimination fair? All I'm hearing is a circular argument that relies on the reason of an embryo being a potential human life, but without explaining why that in itself makes this type of stem cell research unethical. If it's as simple as Life=Sacred therefore it's wrong, well I'd still want more definition of what constitutes "life" to warrant that ethical stance. I understand the emotional difference, but I don't see it backed by anything substantial beyond that. Now that emotional difference may well be reason enough to ban public funding of this research – as I said, if enough people feel genuinely uncomfortable or aggrieved by it, that's fair enough. But for me that still doesn't address the underlying ethical division many of us choose to draw.

Before you can be a human, you need to be an embryo. The embryo is alive and going to grow into a human.
Before you can be an embryo, you need to be a separate sperm and egg. And I'm not "talking about 'potential' like it can grow into a cat or cow"(!) - I'm very definitely referring to human potential, I assure you! And since you're talking about a potential human as well ("in typical circumstance it will grow to be a human, and therefore we should not prevent its opportunity to do so") then my point is how far back do we take this? My sense is that we have a cultural 'feeling' about what feels right and wrong (or "not quite right"), but this feeling is not necessarily as grounded in logic as we think - it's partly to do with the closer proximity to the reconizable foetus and the emotional connection we have to that, and it's partly the sense of the odds against that particular sperm and that particular egg having joined, and us getting in the way of the unique human being that would likely result from that one-in-a-billion(?) chance encounter. Yet those still don't sound like adequate reasons to me personally.

You said: "People who hold this argument need to be reminded that the same future life could well have been lost had contraception been used, or (perhaps more appropriately for them) had abstinence been practised at that crucial moment in time."

This is true, but the fact is that at the point of discussion, that being about embryo's, the above is irrelevant because conception had happen, and now you have a living organism inside the female.
If you'll forgive me for saying, you're asserting rather than explaining here. So now we have a living organism inside the female. Right. But what does that mean, to be living? That it will grow into a human? We're back to square one, and the argument of potential human life. Why is that important? After all, the sperm and egg also represent potential human life.

[Deckard]

It helps me not punch some of my family members in the face when they tell me gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. And I suppose it keeps me from getting punched in the face when I resist calling them brainless fools.
That's always a good start!

But if you believe that humanity is simply genetic code, brought through several stages of life where the embryonic stage is really no different than puberty as they are all transformations on the same set of DNA, you must say that something "human", therefore sacred, begins when the unique genetic code, unique and never to naturally reoccur, is created - the zygotic stage.
This is a good point, and I think you may have highlighted the different perspective I have by raising it. My position would be that whether and where we call something human and/or sacred is unimportant, irrelevant - it's just a label we ascribe at some point that feels right to us. Ultimately, to me, it doesn't matter whether it's deemed human or not yet human. So at the risk of sounding like a complete heathen, sanctity (even in a non-religious sense) is playing no role in how I think about this. The issue of suffering - whether it's of a baby/foetus/embryo/egg, or of a mother - is all that sways my thinking when we're talking about the ethics underpinning it. Whether we decide something is human at conception is, for me, irrelevant. Suffering is the only factor I feel confident in using as a barometer for this.

I'm sorry I'm going to have to reply to your other points later, work is piling up, but the perspective you brought on those who believe in a soul and those who don't is a genuinely interesting one.

[cacophony]

Now, I am also against abortion, unless the mother looks like she is going to die from the pregnancy (and with modern medicine the actual event of a mother dieing while giving birth etc, is becoming rare), so how can these cells be collected?

Since 1970, (http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic3212.htm) the frequency of ectopic pregnancy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectopic_pregnancy) has increased 6-fold, and it now occurs in 2% of all pregnancies. An estimated 108,800 ectopic pregnancies in 1992 resulted in 58,200 hospitalizations with an estimated cost of $1.1 billion.let's outlaw abortion and let 2% of all pregnancies result in death.

there is no way to anticipate whether an ectopic pregnancy will kill the mother at the point that the pregnancy is discovered. there is a high likelihood but no way to definitively identify one as life threatening moreso than another. abortion is necessarily the treatment for such abnormal pregnancies, even though death is not guaranteed.

[bryantm3]

Deckard, your argument is just as or more circular than mine. You keep going back to 'well, sperm and unfertilized eggs are sacred because they could potentially make life like an embryo could', but you completely ignore or throw away the fact that an embryo is alive with an existentialistic 'what is life anyway?' argument.

well, let's consult dictionary.com and wikipedia. these are both fairly secular resources.

dictionary.com:
life
   /laɪf/
noun, plural lives  /laɪvz/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [lahyvz]
adjective
–noun
1. the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.

let's do a checklist:

unfertilized eggs:
1. growth through metabolism? no.
2. reproduction? no.
3. adaptation to environment? no.

embryo:
1. growth through metabolism? yes.
2. reproduction? yes.
3. adaptation to environment? this one is iffy; an egg cannot survive outside of the womb, but a grown human cannot survive in subzero temperatures, either. so there are differing conditions in the sensitivity of the person at different stages of life.

wikipedia:
Life is a state that distinguishes organisms from non-living objects, such as non-life, and dead organisms. Living organisms are capable of growth and reproduction, some can communicate and many can adapt to their environment through changes originating internally. A physical characteristic of life is that it feeds on negative entropy. In more detail, according to physicists such as John Bernal, Erwin Schrödinger, Eugene Wigner, and John Avery, life is a member of the class of phenomena which are open or continuous systems able to decrease their internal entropy at the expense of substances or free energy taken in from the environment and subsequently rejected in a degraded form (see: entropy and life).

unfertilized eggs:
1. growth and reproduction? no.
2. communicate and adapt to environment? no.
3. feeds on negative entropy? no.

embryo:
1. growth and reproduction? yes.
2. communicate and adapt to environment? yes.
3. feeds on negative entropy? yes.

now, let's look at the definition of circular reasoning.

Circular Reasoning – supporting a premise with the premise rather than a conclusion.


Circular reasoning is an attempt to support a statement by simply repeating the statement in different or stronger terms. In this fallacy, the reason given is nothing more than a restatement of the conclusion that poses as the reason for the conclusion. To say, “You should exercise because it’s good for you” is really saying, “You should exercise because you should exercise.”

It shares much with the false authority fallacy because we accept these statements based solely on the fact that someone else claims it to be so. Often, we feel we can trust another person so much that we often accept his claims without testing the logic. This is called blind trust, and it is very dangerous. We might as well just talk in circles.

[BeautifulBurnout]

Ho hum.

I thought this would happen. It has polarised into a pro-life vs pro-choice argument, which is an argument that neither side is going to "win", frankly, because the views are so very deeply entrenched. :(

[Deckard]

Still, it's fun exploring each other's views, no? ;)

[Deckard]

Deckard, your argument is just as or more circular than mine. You keep going back to 'well, sperm and unfertilized eggs are sacred because they could potentially make life like an embryo could', but you completely ignore or throw away the fact that an embryo is alive with an existentialistic 'what is life anyway?' argument.

well, let's consult dictionary.com and wikipedia. these are both fairly secular resources.

dictionary.com:
life
/laɪf/
noun, plural lives /laɪvz/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [lahyvz]
adjective
–noun
1. the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.

let's do a checklist:

unfertilized eggs:
1. growth through metabolism? no.
2. reproduction? no.
3. adaptation to environment? no.

embryo:
1. growth through metabolism? yes.
2. reproduction? yes.
3. adaptation to environment? this one is iffy; an egg cannot survive outside of the womb, but a grown human cannot survive in subzero temperatures, either. so there are differing conditions in the sensitivity of the person at different stages of life.

wikipedia:
Life is a state that distinguishes organisms from non-living objects, such as non-life, and dead organisms. Living organisms are capable of growth and reproduction, some can communicate and many can adapt to their environment through changes originating internally. A physical characteristic of life is that it feeds on negative entropy. In more detail, according to physicists such as John Bernal, Erwin Schrödinger, Eugene Wigner, and John Avery, life is a member of the class of phenomena which are open or continuous systems able to decrease their internal entropy at the expense of substances or free energy taken in from the environment and subsequently rejected in a degraded form (see: entropy and life).

unfertilized eggs:
1. growth and reproduction? no.
2. communicate and adapt to environment? no.
3. feeds on negative entropy? no.

embryo:
1. growth and reproduction? yes.
2. communicate and adapt to environment? yes.
3. feeds on negative entropy? yes.

I agree with you about the differences between an embryo and an unfertilized egg in terms of factors like growth through metabolism, and how we typically classify life. There's no disputing that.

I disagree that these factors - passing these thresholds - should necessarily introduce a moral threshold to a topic like stem cell research. If there is no suffering by anyone, I genuinely don't see why the loss of any 'potential' child/adult life should be a hindrance.

But then I readily admit I don't share the notion of sanctity. Wonder, yes. Awe, yes. Beauty, yes. Sanctity? No.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

I agree with you about the differences between an embryo and an unfertilized egg in terms of factors like growth through metabolism, and how we typically classify life. There's no disputing that.

I disagree that these factors - passing these thresholds - should necessarily introduce a moral threshold to a topic like stem cell research. If there is no suffering by anyone, I genuinely don't see why the loss of any 'potential' child/adult life should be a hindrance.

But then I readily admit I don't share the notion of sanctity. Wonder, yes. Awe, yes. Beauty, yes. Sanctity? No.


Yeah, and let us back track to how many pro-lifers also voted pro-war. Man, too early for a drink just yet, but I'm def. gonna have one later.

[cacophony]

This is what I find interesting about cacophony's position as I understand it. I don't think she needs to agree that it boils down to potential life. I've always thought that it is the materialist/reductionists (those who don't believe in a soul for example) who have the most justification to criticize abortion and I guess stem cell research as well.

If you believe in a soul as what separates life from matter, then its your obligation to pinpoint the time and place where the soul enters into the mix. Which obviously can't be done empirically, and that means you just shake your bible, praise god, and play pin the soul on the uterus.

But if you believe that humanity is simply genetic code, brought through several stages of life where the embryonic stage is really no different than puberty as they are all transformations on the same set of DNA, you must say that something "human", therefore sacred, begins when the unique genetic code, unique and never to naturally reoccur, is created - the zygotic stage.
you understand my position correctly.

[cacophony]

Still, it's fun exploring each other's views, no? ;)
that was the purpose of the thread. not to "win" or convert anyone, but to discuss the merits of each side of the argument and perhaps see something new.

personally i think a lot about this issue because it's taken me a long time to really solidify the rationale behind my gut feeling. like pointing out that i support organ donation which contradicts my stance on the use of fetal tissue. i know i don't have the ultimate answer or the most water-tight argument so i'm interested in reading how others view the issue because it helps my own opinion evolve.

[gambit]

Well, I've been steering clear of this topic until I felt I could add something new or relevant to the discussion, and from the looks of it, I would be reiterating arguments that have been said already.

So instead, I'm going to throw a couple of points into the ring and let everyone make of it as they will. These aren't opinions, just new points of discussion.

1) With the talk about stem cells not having a choice in the matter for research, I'm reminded of the people the Nazis experimented on in the concentration camps. They did not have a choice in the matter, yet physicians today still wrestle with using the data gathered from the Nazi experimentations. From Wikipedia:

The modern body of medical knowledge about how the human body reacts to freezing to the point of death is based almost exclusively on these Nazi experiments. This, together with the recent use of data from Nazi research into the effects of phosgene gas, has proved controversial and presents an ethical dilemma for modern physicians who do not agree with the methods used to obtain these data.Thoughts?


2) This is a passage from the book The President of Good & Evil by noted philosopher, Peter Singer. In his book he mostly argues President Bush and his policies from a philosophical stand point, and one of the issues he touches is stem cell research. This paragraph is a factual one, not an argument one way or the other, about miscarriages--mostly ones that women never know about. I follow it with a question he poses for discussion.

Every year in the United States, millions of embryos die. Each of them had the unique genetic potential of an individual human being. These embryos do not die in laboratories, nor in abortion clinics, nor after women have taken RU486, the "abortion pill." They die as part of a natural process that has, as far as we know, been going on as long as there have been human beings. Some scientists estimate that for every embryo that becomes a child, four fertilized eggs fail to make it. Others think that the ratio is closer to one lost fertilized egg for every child born. Even on the lower estimate, more than three million embryos die annually in the United States from natural causes. These are embryos that have failed to implant in the woman's uterus. They are released with her menstrual bleeding. In most cases the woman never even knows that she conceived.

Should we feel that this loss of embryos is a terrible thing, a kind of ongoing holocaust? If each human embryo is "something precious to be protected," then surely this is how we should feel.Thoughts?

[BeautifulBurnout]

Sorry! Don't get me wrong, I didn't mean to put a downer on the thread (man). Only that I am just about all discussed out on pro-choice and thought "oh no not again" when it started going in that direction.

Yes, it is interesting to explore everyone's views and yes this is an amazing subject to be discussing and apologies for appearing ratty. :)

I will just revert to my first post which is, if the foetuses are going to be lost anyway, at least let their "lives" produce something good. Or something.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

2) This is a passage from the book The President of Good & Evil by noted philosopher, Peter Singer.

Man the irony just keeps getting bigger and thicker, no?

[Deckard]

that was the purpose of the thread. not to "win" or convert anyone, but to discuss the merits of each side of the argument and perhaps see something new.
Agreed. Something like this, it's a very, well, philosophical issue. There will never be the elusive right answer that convinces everyone outright. If only it was that easy! At most, some of the points raised make us (certainly make me) think about things in a slightly new way. That's certainly how I've reached my current position, and that's far from set in stone. Finding the paradoxes are all part of the fun. I find ethical issues surrounding life, death, even speciesism and animal rights - to be fascinating.

[Deckard]

BB, you didn't appear ratty.

[BeautifulBurnout]

Every year in the United States, millions of embryos die. Each of them had the unique genetic potential of an individual human being. These embryos do not die in laboratories, nor in abortion clinics, nor after women have taken RU486, the "abortion pill." They die as part of a natural process that has, as far as we know, been going on as long as there have been human beings. Some scientists estimate that for every embryo that becomes a child, four fertilized eggs fail to make it. Others think that the ratio is closer to one lost fertilized egg for every child born. Even on the lower estimate, more than three million embryos die annually in the United States from natural causes. These are embryos that have failed to implant in the woman's uterus. They are released with her menstrual bleeding. In most cases the woman never even knows that she conceived.

Should we feel that this loss of embryos is a terrible thing, a kind of ongoing holocaust? If each human embryo is "something precious to be protected," then surely this is how we should feel.

You see, now you have got me on this one. I had a miscarriage 15 yrs ago at 12 weeks gestation. If somehow the doctors had "retrieved" this foetus, a foetus that I loved and wanted, and if doctors then asked me whether I would agree to stem cell research, I really have no idea what I would have responded. So now that has opened a whole can of worms as far as my position on stem-cell research. Surely I can't mean "yeah, it's fine for every other woman's rejected foetuses, but not for mine" can I?

On the other hand, if I had not wanted that pregnancy, would I have felt differently about it? I can see thinking too hard about this is liable to give me a headache.

In terms of "is every loss of embryo an ongoing holocaust" my answer would have to be an emphatic no, though. Miscarriages are usually for a good reason that have nothing to do with any actions of the mother and everything to do with the foetus not being viable for whatever reason and the uterus rejecting it.

[gambit]

I'm pretty we're talking about embryos and not fetuses in that passage. I don't know if you could perform stem cell research with a fetus; I assume it's only with a embryo.

Also, I'm sorry to hear about that, BB. *hug*

[BeautifulBurnout]

I'm pretty we're talking about embryos and not fetuses in that passage. I don't know if you could perform stem cell research with a fetus; I assume it's only with a embryo.

Also, I'm sorry to hear about that, BB. *hug*

Aw thanks.

Actually yeah, I am confusing foetus and embryo cos I guess I dunno at what stage one morphs into the other? I don't know whether stem-cell can be performed on a foetus or not, frankly. Although isn't there something about stem-cells being available from in umbilical cords? Or am I completely barking up the wrong tree? I am really not informed enough on this subject to comment sensibly, so I should get onto wikipedia and check it out a bit more first.

[Sean]

What an interesting thread. I have to say that posts like the one from Cacophony surprised me by presenting an argument against stem cell research that I had never heard, and that frankly, makes a lot of sense to me. I personally don't share your subjective conclusions when it gets into the issue of "cannibalism", and I appreciate Deckard and BB representing the view that I agree with very clearly, but I believe I have to agree with your conclusions about public financing, Cacophony.

And now onto this post by bryantm3:

Deckard, your argument is just as or more circular than mine. You keep going back to 'well, sperm and unfertilized eggs are sacred because they could potentially make life like an embryo could', but you completely ignore or throw away the fact that an embryo is alive with an existentialistic 'what is life anyway?' argument.

well, let's consult dictionary.com and wikipedia. these are both fairly secular resources.

dictionary.com:
life
   /laɪf/
noun, plural lives  /laɪvz/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [lahyvz]
adjective
–noun
1. the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.While the dictionary.com definition seems pretty cut and dry, I believe it's slightly misleading. Apparently, human eggs are capable of parthenogenic activation (http://books.google.com/books?id=dT6yBSh5S-kC&pg=PA44&lpg=PA44&dq=parthenogenic+activation+egg&source=web&ots=I7ATPcVkmd&sig=jXORevjSr8DbP-q0f_gWleY7DTs&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result), which is basically the activation and development of the egg absent fertilization by sperm. Beyond that, there are cellular biologists who currently consider anything that is a cell to be "alive", which would include egg and sperm. And let's not ignore our evolutionary origins, which in recent years, we've traced all the way back to Choanoflagellates (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080701165050.htm) - sperm-like single-celled organisms that are the "evolutionary link between single-celled and multi-celled organisms". And finally, if you stop and imagine a hypothetical scenario or two keeping Choanoflagellates in mind, it's hard to imagine not referring to a sperm as being alive. Imagine a Mars rover analyzing some soil and discovering a sperm. Aside from being completely freaked out, would we not conclude that this was a form of life? A little, wiggly, single-celled organism flopping around on another planet?

So I believe Deckard's point stands, which is that the argument of exactly when the parts necessary to create a human life actually become a human life simply can't be won. A sperm and an egg are arguably living entities whose sole purposes are to join together to create a complete, human chromosomal complement (the point at which you assert the human life begins), but we could then go on to debate whether or not this small cluster of unformed cells that has no fingers, toes, limbs, brains, organs, nerve endings, thoughts, emotions, etc, actually constitutes a "human" life any more than the sperm and the egg do as two halves of the human chromosomal complement. After all, whether it's incomplete chromosomes, an incomplete nervous system, or an incomplete body, it's simply incomplete. So as has been noted, this is an un-winnable debate because the only conclusions we can reach based on our current scientific knowledge are purely subjective.

now, let's look at the definition of circular reasoning.

Circular Reasoning – supporting a premise with the premise rather than a conclusion.

Circular reasoning is an attempt to support a statement by simply repeating the statement in different or stronger terms. In this fallacy, the reason given is nothing more than a restatement of the conclusion that poses as the reason for the conclusion. To say, “You should exercise because it’s good for you” is really saying, “You should exercise because you should exercise.”

It shares much with the false authority fallacy because we accept these statements based solely on the fact that someone else claims it to be so. Often, we feel we can trust another person so much that we often accept his claims without testing the logic. This is called blind trust, and it is very dangerous. We might as well just talk in circles.I actually don't see Deckard employing circular reasoning here. All he's saying is that based on what we know definitively through science, there is no clear conclusion about exactly when a human life begins. Simply noting the limits of our knowledge as a species is not circular logic, it's a conclusion based on fact.

That of course doesn't mean that we can't all hold our personal beliefs on the subject. After all, that's where scientific discovery originates - with a hypothesis. And as I mentioned earlier, this thread has been very eye-opening for me thanks to the varied positions and reasoning people have on it all.

[cacophony]

1) With the talk about stem cells not having a choice in the matter for research, I'm reminded of the people the Nazis experimented on in the concentration camps. They did not have a choice in the matter, yet physicians today still wrestle with using the data gathered from the Nazi experimentations. From Wikipedia:

Thoughts?

well the thing is, no one is arguing for the continuation and public funding of nazi research practices. the knowledge gained from suffering isn't necessarily tainted in and of itself. hell, the spread of pandemic diseases is what gave us our modern understanding of hygiene and sanitation. the question is whether you deliberately and willfully allow for the practice of induced death or suffering in an effort to derive new scientific data. like establishing new concentration camps to run similar experiments. or unleashing a pandemic disease in order to study its effects.

Every year in the United States, millions of embryos die. Each of them had the unique genetic potential of an individual human being. These embryos do not die in laboratories, nor in abortion clinics, nor after women have taken RU486, the "abortion pill." They die as part of a natural process that has, as far as we know, been going on as long as there have been human beings. Some scientists estimate that for every embryo that becomes a child, four fertilized eggs fail to make it. Others think that the ratio is closer to one lost fertilized egg for every child born. Even on the lower estimate, more than three million embryos die annually in the United States from natural causes. These are embryos that have failed to implant in the woman's uterus. They are released with her menstrual bleeding. In most cases the woman never even knows that she conceived.

Should we feel that this loss of embryos is a terrible thing, a kind of ongoing holocaust? If each human embryo is "something precious to be protected," then surely this is how we should feel.

Thoughts?
again, natural termination is entirely different from induced termination. scores of people die every day from natual causes. that's not an argument to euthanize without consent and use the cadavers for research.

[cacophony]

also, allow me to throw out own parallel for argument's sake: soylent green (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green).

:D

[gambit]

"Soylent green is people!!!"

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

"Soylent green is people!!!"

As well as, something like, 98% of the dust particles you see floating in the sunlight through your window during dusk & dawn.

I swear, I'm totally straight right now.

[BeautifulBurnout]

also, allow me to throw out own parallel for argument's sake: soylent green (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green).

:D

This should have had a spoiler alert! Now you have ruined it for people!







;)

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

I've always thought soylent green as being in the lame department. Mum loved it, but she was British.(??)

***********

OK I had to step away from this and come back to it. BB got to do it, so I can too.

Hey Stranglet-Guy-w/C(when you decide it‘s right and when it‘s not right), I’m a bit confused.

Post #6, Post #8, and Post #10

#6..-….Research..John.
#8..-….No ignore…John.
#10..-….OK….Research..On..John..Again.


Like that?

[cacophony]

This should have had a spoiler alert! Now you have ruined it for people!
BUT WE'VE GOT TO STOP THEM SOMEHOW!!!

i love that movie. but seriously, similar moral dilemma. sort of.

[bryantm3]

Agreed. Something like this, it's a very, well, philosophical issue. There will never be the elusive right answer that convinces everyone outright. If only it was that easy! At most, some of the points raised make us (certainly make me) think about things in a slightly new way. That's certainly how I've reached my current position, and that's far from set in stone. Finding the paradoxes are all part of the fun. I find ethical issues surrounding life, death, even speciesism and animal rights - to be fascinating.

agreed— i'll argue my point into the ground, but i enjoy hearing new arguments on the issue that i had never heard before, like cacophony's. i'm not angry, i just love debating.

[gambit]

Okay, I have a friend who's working on a medical degree and worked in a stem cell lab for a month. I'm trying to coax his perspective on this because I think it might be interesting to read.

In the meantime, he gave me a link to stem cell basics if anyone is interested.

http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics1.asp

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Okay, I have a friend who's working on a medical degree and worked in a stem cell lab for a month. I'm trying to coax his perspective on this because I think it might be interesting to read.

In the meantime, he gave me a link to stem cell basics if anyone is interested.

http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics1.asp

I knew a guy who worked at a bath house too.

[IsiliRunite]

To give you an idea how much stem cells are still relatively new to science, they still teach Mitosis in detial in college-level classes and mention as a footnote that the vast majority of your cells replicate using stem cells hahah

[Deckard]

gambit, I meant to get round to tackling your points,

1) With the talk about stem cells not having a choice in the matter for research, I'm reminded of the people the Nazis experimented on in the concentration camps. They did not have a choice in the matter, yet physicians today still wrestle with using the data gathered from the Nazi experimentations.
The way I think I'd view a situation like that, once data has been gathered, once knowledge has been acquired, and providing that knowledge isn't being put to a questionable use (which is a separate matter), then there's nothing to be gained from 'un-knowing' it, or rather not using it, other than in a symbolic way, to spare the feelings of those currently alive for whom it matters. As Cacophony said, the knowledge gained from suffering shouldn't itself necessarily be tainted.


2) This is a passage from the book The President of Good & Evil by noted philosopher, Peter Singer. In his book he mostly argues President Bush and his policies from a philosophical stand point, and one of the issues he touches is stem cell research. This paragraph is a factual one, not an argument one way or the other, about miscarriages--mostly ones that women never know about. I follow it with a question he poses for discussion.

Every year in the United States, millions of embryos die. Each of them had the unique genetic potential of an individual human being. These embryos do not die in laboratories, nor in abortion clinics, nor after women have taken RU486, the "abortion pill." They die as part of a natural process that has, as far as we know, been going on as long as there have been human beings. Some scientists estimate that for every embryo that becomes a child, four fertilized eggs fail to make it. Others think that the ratio is closer to one lost fertilized egg for every child born. Even on the lower estimate, more than three million embryos die annually in the United States from natural causes. These are embryos that have failed to implant in the woman's uterus. They are released with her menstrual bleeding. In most cases the woman never even knows that she conceived.

Should we feel that this loss of embryos is a terrible thing, a kind of ongoing holocaust? If each human embryo is "something precious to be protected," then surely this is how we should feel.
Thoughts?
I wasn't aware of this. No, I don't personally see that as any kind of holocaust, nor feel a need to view it though the lens of some'one' being killed.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

I wasn't aware of this. No, I don't personally see that as any kind of holocaust, nor feel a need to view it though the lens of some'one' being killed.




I think you've just been added to a terrorist list.

[cacophony]

i'm going to admit something here that's going to sound mean. when i visit this forum to see what's been posted and i see a thread like this lists jOHN rODRIGUEZ as the last poster, i'm reluctant to click because i know it won't be anything worth reading.

it's just an incredibly huge amount of posting to say absolutely nothing of value.

[gambit]

The way I think I'd view a situation like that, once data has been gathered, once knowledge has been acquired, and providing that knowledge isn't being put to a questionable use (which is a separate matter), then there's nothing to be gained from 'un-knowing' it, or rather not using it, other than in a symbolic way, to spare the feelings of those currently alive for whom it matters. As Cacophony said, the knowledge gained from suffering shouldn't itself necessarily be tainted.I agree with what you and cacophony said. This thought came from cacophony calling it "a sort of cannablism" and from someone (I'm not sure who) mentioning the embryos don't have a choice in the matter. And the way my weird brain works, it reminded me of the Nazi experiments.

I wasn't aware of this. No, I don't personally see that as any kind of holocaust, nor feel a need to view it though the lens of some'one' being killed.This factoid was aimed at the anti-stem cell crowd, especially those who are staunchly anti-abortion. If you care so much about the deaths of all embryos, well, so many die a year already. Unfortunately, no one with that position responded. Oh well.

[Sean]

i'm going to admit something here that's going to sound mean. when i visit this forum to see what's been posted and i see a thread like this lists jOHN rODRIGUEZ as the last poster, i'm reluctant to click because i know it won't be anything worth reading.

it's just an incredibly huge amount of posting to say absolutely nothing of value.That's why he's the only person on my ignore list.

And regarding the quote Gambit provided about embryos dying from natural causes, and asking "should we feel that this loss of embryos is a terrible thing, a kind of ongoing holocaust? If each human embryo is "something precious to be protected," then surely this is how we should feel", is Peter Singer really serious? The holocaust was hardly the result of naturally occurring events. There's a huge huge HUGE difference between the brutal and intentional rounding up, torturing, and murdering of millions of lucid, feeling human beings, compared to the natural process of an embryo failing to implant in a woman's uterus. I don't mean to direct any of that at you Gambit, but I hope the rest of Singer's book is better thought out than this question implies, otherwise it sounds like a complete waste of paper. :eek:

[gambit]

Alright, my friend has replied back to me. He worked in a stem cell lab for a month, so he knows a thing or two about the subject. I think he has made some particularly interesting points. For reference, "ESC" is embryonic stem cell, and I assume the little "h" in front stands for human.

Currently, hESC research in the US is limited to the eight cell lines that were derived prior to Bush putting ban on deriving new lines. So the research being done currently doesn't require the killing of embryos or anything like that... ESCs lines are "immortal" in the sense that they can grow and divide indefinitely. However, the US ban on deriving new lines is bad for a number of reasons.

One is that all of the existing hESC lines have been exposed to various animal products like bovine serum and are therefore unsuitable for human therapy. Another is that certain disease models require a different genetic background. For example, a lab outside the US has studied neuron outgrowth in a hESC line derived from a Down's Syndrome embryo. Another reason is that other countries don't have the Bush ban... so while they study genetic diseases and derive hESCs without animal products, the US lags behind.

There are a couple of different ways to get new stem cell lines. The main way is to fertilize an egg and let the embryo develop until it is 32 cells big (the blastula stage). At that point there is a little cluster of pluripotent cells (the inner cell mass), which you can harvest and cultivate in petri dishes as ESCs. This DOES "kill" that embryo, which is where most people get upset.

I put "kill" in quotes, because I think life of an embryo is more complex than a simple on/off state. If people think that human life begins at conception (and in some strictly biological sense, it does), then harvesting stem cells from an embryo may be murder (then again, maybe not... the ESCs being grown in labs are quite alive, biologically). But I feel that the definition of life is more complex than biological functioning. Consider that a brain-dead person on life support is "alive" in the sense that their cells are respirating, and we might feel attached to the body because it resembles a human. But in the sense of human life that has rights and legal protections... I don't see a human there. Without brain activity, it's just biological matter, albeit perhaps uncomfortably similar to a living person. Similarly, a blastula has no neurological activity, so from that standpoint, human ESCs are harvested before an embryo becomes alive in a meaningful way.

I think there's a popular misconception that hESCs are harvested from third-trimester babies or something, but they're not. At the blastula stage, a human embryo is all but indistinguishable from a starfish embryo. However, even IF one strongly feels that killing blastulas is murder, they need to realize that there are thousands of blastulas just going to waste at in-vitro fertility clinics already. IVF clinics don't fertilize just one egg... they take several, and the leftovers are usually frozen for a few years and then discarded. Those embryos are fated to die anyway, so why not do some research good with them? The amount of waste here is really unfortunate.

There's a second way of harvesting hESCs from blastulas, in theory. I don't think it has been done in practice, though this may be because of the moratorium on deriving new lines in the US. Basically instead of pulling all of the inner cells out of the blastula, you pull out just one. Amazingly, the embryo can recover from the loss of a cell or two just fine (fertility clinics do this to determine whether an in vitro fertilized embryo has genetic disorders: pull one cell and analyze its DNA). This technique is much more difficult, partly because individual ESCs don't like to grow when they're isolated and need to exist in colonies. People on this campus and elsewhere are working on developing means to grow ESCs individually though, so that's just a technological hurdle. That technique would allow the embryo to continue developing, although it seems beside the point... odds are it's going to be discarded anyway.

There are a couple of other ways to derive stem cells, although they aren't really tried-and-true. One is called reprogramming, where you take a differentiated adult cell and manipulate it into becoming ESC-like. This has kinda, sorta been done, although the final product is not a true ESC.

There's also another technique called Altered Nuclear Transfer, which I hesitate to even mention because it's so nonsensical to me. Basically the idea is that destroying blastulas is murder because that blastula would have "naturally" grown up to become a baby (which is fallacious, actually... a blastula needs to implant in a womb in order to grow beyond a couple of days old, so a blastula in an IVF clinic will "naturally" expire). But anyway, following that logic, a group of researchers decided to engineer a genetic time-bomb which causes the embryo to "naturally" expire regardless of its setting (nevermind that "natural" now means "following the artificial programming we have given it"). So it's OK to kill an ANT embryo, because it possesses no potential for becoming a baby. Whatever. Bonus points too for circular logic: engineering a genetic time-bomb into a human would be monstrous, but these embryos have no potential for becoming human, so it's OK; they have no potential for becoming human because... they've had a time-bomb engineered into them!

Those are the main ways of acquiring new hESC lines that I know of. Finally, there's some speculation that there are undifferentiated fetal cells floating around in the womb, and these could possibly be cultivated as hESCs once we figure out how. If you've heard of people wanting to freeze their child's umbilical cord blood for potential future use, that's why... there are supposedly ESC-like cells in there. I really haven't kept up on the state of that research though.

[gambit]

I don't mean to direct any of that at you Gambit, but I hope the rest of Singer's book is better thought out than this question implies, otherwise it sounds like a complete waste of paper. :eek:No, it's all right. Singer was just trying to prove a point. If you think that all embryos are sacred, well then, I got some news for you. Trust me, he's more sane and rational than that, and I admittedly stopped at a certain point that might've made him look otherwise.

[cacophony]

This factoid was aimed at the anti-stem cell crowd, especially those who are staunchly anti-abortion. If you care so much about the deaths of all embryos, well, so many die a year already. Unfortunately, no one with that position responded. Oh well.
i think those with that position would respond similarly to how i responded. there's a fundamental difference between death by nature and death by intent.

[cacophony]

Consider that a brain-dead person on life support is "alive" in the sense that their cells are respirating, and we might feel attached to the body because it resembles a human. But in the sense of human life that has rights and legal protections... I don't see a human there. Without brain activity, it's just biological matter, albeit perhaps uncomfortably similar to a living person. Similarly, a blastula has no neurological activity, so from that standpoint, human ESCs are harvested before an embryo becomes alive in a meaningful way.
see, this is why i wanted to start this thread. i stated my position earlier but this argument gives me something to think about. i need to chew on this for a bit because it's an excellent point.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

i'm going to admit something here that's going to sound mean. when i visit this forum to see what's been posted and i see a thread like this lists jOHN rODRIGUEZ as the last poster, i'm reluctant to click because i know it won't be anything worth reading.

it's just an incredibly huge amount of posting to say absolutely nothing of value.



And I'm heartbroken.

[gambit]

i think those with that position would respond similarly to how i responded. there's a fundamental difference between death by nature and death by intent.I think you're right.

---------------------------------

I particularly like this statement, "IVF clinics don't fertilize just one egg... they take several, and the leftovers are usually frozen for a few years and then discarded. Those embryos are fated to die anyway, so why not do some research good with them?" This has been my practical opinion. We can certainly argue the merits of IVF, but the fact is that no one (as far as I know) is proposing it should be outlawed. It happens, and several embryos are left over.

If we agree that every embryo is meaningful and special in its own way, then creating these embryos with the knowledge that the majority of them are going to be destroyed takes away their meaning. These embryos' "lives" become meaningless, and, I would argue, stem cell research gives their "lives" meaning.

[cacophony]

And I'm heartbroken.
darling, i would love to see you participate in the actual discussion. but all you do is post random bits and then say something like "i'm drunk."

[cacophony]

If we agree that every embryo is meaningful and special in its own way, then creating these embryos with the knowledge that the majority of them are going to be destroyed takes away their meaning.
ageed. which is why i personally don't support the methodology. but a bigger issue for me is that there are all those pro-life groups out there trying to take away my rights as a woman, but supporting IVF when ultimately abortion and IVF create the same outcome. except with abortion you destroy one embryo at a time. with IVF you can create a dozen and discard them all at once later.

[gambit]

Oh, the hypocrisy! Too bad they'll never see it. Even if we (not you and me, but me and the right) disagree on this issue, it would be nice if they could be consistent.

[gambit]

I asked my friend a couple follow-up questions, namely a clarification on the "h" and whether the original lines are still in use. He also addresses federal funds for research.

Yeah, hESC = human embryonic stem cell. To my knowledge the five (not eight, I was mistaken) original lines are still in use, although I think some are used more than others. I seem to recall that one or two that are predominantly used, while at least one or two of them are kinda poorly behaved and not really used at all. I'm looking for more info online but not finding it.

Bush's ban was only on deriving new lines because that destroys additional embryos. It was basically a pro-life law. Also, I should clear up that the ban is only against using federal grant money to derive and research new lines. Private funds can still be used, but honestly the US federal government is the largest research sponsor in the world, so cutting that out presents a huge obstacle to the research. People in the US have derived new hESC lines using private grants, for example Jamie Thomson derived two new lines in defined, animal-free media. However, labs can't touch those lines unless they can demonstrate that not one dime of federal money will support their work on those lines (which is very, very difficult).

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

darling, i would love to see you participate in the actual discussion. but all you do is post random bits and then say something like "i'm drunk."


yeah, yeah, yeah.

My favorite part of "When Doves Cry" is when Prince sings the darling lyric part.

Like that? j/k

[Rog]

jOHN, you are a fookin nutter....but that's not particularly wrong......ish:p:D

[bryantm3]

ageed. which is why i personally don't support the methodology. but a bigger issue for me is that there are all those pro-life groups out there trying to take away my rights as a woman, but supporting IVF when ultimately abortion and IVF create the same outcome. except with abortion you destroy one embryo at a time. with IVF you can create a dozen and discard them all at once later.

which is why IVF is a very iffy iffy thing to me. i wouldn't want to ever take away a person's last chance at having a child, but it does seem like an awful waste of life.

[cacophony]

which is why IVF is a very iffy iffy thing to me. i wouldn't want to ever take away a person's last chance at having a child, but it does seem like an awful waste of life.
this seems like a fairly wishy washy position on the issue, considering how strongly you spoke out against abortion.

IVF is becoming more and more common in spite of the fact that true infertility is not more common (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-12-19-fertility_N.htm). it's becoming a tool used by people who have difficulty conceiving, not absolute infertility. in a way, IVF has become a method of convenience (i use that term loosely because it's not actually convenient per se) because people know it can be effective and see no reason to try to conceive for years before turning to medical intervention for help. so because people don't want to wait or run the entire gamut of options before finally trying IVF as a last resort, thousands of embryos are created and subsequently die.

each IVF treatment results in multiple embryo deaths. a single person who partakes of IVF is like a dozen people having abortions.

so why is abortion bad and IVF is this sympathetic, "oh i don't want to deny people the chance to have a child" issue?

my theory is that it's all about the sin of sex. if you have an abortion, you were out slutting it up. but if you want to have a child you're engaged in something virtuous. killing dozens of embryos in the name of virtuous procreation is apparently okay. but killing one embryo because you were an ammoral whore is not.

[cacophony]

IVF info: (http://www.webmd.com/infertility-and-reproduction/guide/in_vitro_fertilization?page=2)


Success Rates

Success rates for IVF vary depending on a number of factors, including the reason for infertility, where you're having the procedure done, and your age. The CDC compile national statistics for all assisted reproductive technology procedures performed in the U.S. The statistics group together all procedures that constitute assisted reproduction technology (ART), including IVF, GIFT and ZIFT, although IVF is by far the most common. The most recent report from 2000 found:
Successful pregnancy was achieved in 30.7% of all cycles.
About 69% of the cycles carried out did not produce a pregnancy.
Less than 1% of all cycles resulted in an ectopic pregnancy.
About 11% of these pregnancies involved multiple fetuses.
About 83% of pregnancies resulted in a live birth.
About 17% of pregnancies resulted in miscarriage, induced abortion, or a stillbirth.

if successful pregnancy was aciheved in 30% of all cycles, then 70% of all cycles resulted in no pregnancy, meaning the embryos died.

To increase the chances of pregnancy, most IVF experts recommend transferring three or four embryos at a time.

so those cycles that resulted in no pregnancy could have lost up to 4 embryos.

what i want to know is, why isn't the pro-life community concerned with tihs?

[IsiliRunite]

my theory is that it's all about the sin of sex. if you have an abortion, you were out slutting it up. but if you want to have a child you're engaged in something virtuous. killing dozens of embryos in the name of virtuous procreation is apparently okay. but killing one embryo because you were an ammoral whore is not.
Are you comparing IVF and abortion here?

And is it the case that fertilized embryos are destroyed in the process of IVF? Does this have to happen or it is just convenient to create a whole batch and up the odds?

[myrrh]

hmm... lot's of info to read, but I just want to comment quick to gambit about not responding.

I agree with cacophony that there is a difference between death by nature and death by intent.

[gambit]

hmm... lot's of info to read, but I just want to comment quick to gambit about not responding.

I agree with cacophony that there is a difference between death by nature and death by intent.Agreed. Just for the record on the Singer passage, there are eleven pages in that book about this subject. I could quote forever and flesh out his opinion on the matter, but I'm not going to quote eleven pages. And also for the record, I am not quoting Singer because I agree with him. Just furthering the discussion.

[gambit]

Okay, I checked out Peter Singer's Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer), and it has his rather interesting view of abortion. I would assume that it matches his view with regard to stem cell research since consistency is one of his hallmarks. Again, I don't necessarily endorse this view, just providing another argument (read: don't shoot the messenger).

Consistent with his general ethical theory, Singer holds that the right to life is intrinsically tied to a being's capacity to hold preferences, which in turn is intrinsically tied to a being's capacity to feel pain and pleasure. In his view, the central argument against abortion is equivalent to the following logical syllogism: First premise: It is wrong to take innocent human life.
Second premise: From conception onwards, the embryo or fetus is innocent, human and alive.
Conclusion: It is wrong to take the life of the embryo or fetus.
In his book Rethinking Life and Death Singer asserts that, if we take the premises at face value, the argument is deductively valid. Singer comments that those who do not generally think abortion is wrong attack the second premise, suggesting that the fetus becomes a 'human' or 'alive' at some point after conception; however, Singer remarks that human development is a gradual process, that it is nearly impossible to mark a particular moment in time as the moment at which human life begins.

Singer's argument for abortion differs from many other proponents of abortion; rather than attacking the second premise of the anti-abortion argument, Singer attacks the first premise, denying that it is wrong to take innocent human life: [The argument that a fetus is not alive] is a resort to a convenient fiction that turns an evidently living being into one that legally is not alive. Instead of accepting such fictions, we should recognise that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being's life. (Rethinking Life and Death 105)
Singer states that arguments for or against abortion should be based on utilitarian calculation which weighs the preferences of a mother against the preferences of the fetus. A preference is anything sought to be obtained or avoided; all forms of benefit or harm caused to a being correspond directly with the satisfaction or frustration of one or more of its preferences. Since a capacity to experience suffering or satisfaction is a prerequisite to having any preferences at all, and a fetus (up to around 18 weeks) has no capacity to suffer or feel satisfaction, it is not possible for fetuses to hold any preferences at all. In a utilitarian calculation, there is nothing to weigh against a mother's preferences to have an abortion, therefore abortion is morally permissible.

[Deckard]

Okay, I checked out Peter Singer's Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer), and it has his rather interesting view of abortion. I would assume that it matches his view with regard to stem cell research since consistency is one of his hallmarks. Again, I don't necessarily endorse this view, just providing another argument (read: don't shoot the messenger).
Consistent with his general ethical theory, Singer holds that the right to life is intrinsically tied to a being's capacity to hold preferences, which in turn is intrinsically tied to a being's capacity to feel pain and pleasure. In his view, the central argument against abortion is equivalent to the following logical syllogism:
First premise: It is wrong to take innocent human life.
Second premise: From conception onwards, the embryo or fetus is innocent, human and alive.
Conclusion: It is wrong to take the life of the embryo or fetus.
In his book Rethinking Life and Death Singer asserts that, if we take the premises at face value, the argument is deductively valid. Singer comments that those who do not generally think abortion is wrong attack the second premise, suggesting that the fetus becomes a 'human' or 'alive' at some point after conception; however, Singer remarks that human development is a gradual process, that it is nearly impossible to mark a particular moment in time as the moment at which human life begins.

Singer's argument for abortion differs from many other proponents of abortion; rather than attacking the second premise of the anti-abortion argument, Singer attacks the first premise, denying that it is wrong to take innocent human life:
[The argument that a fetus is not alive] is a resort to a convenient fiction that turns an evidently living being into one that legally is not alive. Instead of accepting such fictions, we should recognise that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being's life. (Rethinking Life and Death 105)
Singer states that arguments for or against abortion should be based on utilitarian calculation which weighs the preferences of a mother against the preferences of the fetus. A preference is anything sought to be obtained or avoided; all forms of benefit or harm caused to a being correspond directly with the satisfaction or frustration of one or more of its preferences. Since a capacity to experience suffering or satisfaction is a prerequisite to having any preferences at all, and a fetus (up to around 18 weeks) has no capacity to suffer or feel satisfaction, it is not possible for fetuses to hold any preferences at all. In a utilitarian calculation, there is nothing to weigh against a mother's preferences to have an abortion, therefore abortion is morally permissible.
OK, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say - with the caveat that I don't currently have sufficient time to do the topic justice - I think, from my reading of the above, that I'm more-or-less in agreement with him.

I'd be very interested to read his book (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Rethinking-Life-Death-Collapse-Traditional/dp/0312144016/) to see where (and how far) he takes this thinking.

(EDIT: ...and thanks gambit for introducing me to him)

[gambit]

You're welcome. Back in college, I had to buy his Writings on an Ethical Life book for a class, and it has chapters from a variety of his books that cover a ton of subjects. Even if you disagree with him, and I probably do myself (haven't read a lot of his work yet), Singer is always an interesting read because he's intensely rational and consistent.

[cacophony]

Are you comparing IVF and abortion here?

And is it the case that fertilized embryos are destroyed in the process of IVF? Does this have to happen or it is just convenient to create a whole batch and up the odds?
yes i am directly comparing (rather, contrasting) the two.

it is the case that fertilized embryos are destroyed in the process of IVF. inevitably some of the fertilized embryos fail to implant and this is accepted as an expected outcome. yes, they fertilize multiple embryos in order to increase the odds that at least one will implant. this is why the number of multiple births (twins, triplets and supertwins like quads and quints) have jumped dramatically in the last decade.

it is a matter of trying to increase the odds, in a way a matter of convenience, that they fertilize multiple embryos knowing many will die in the process. it is also a common practice to fertilize extra embryos and freeze them to try again later if the first round yields no results. if pregnancy is achieved, the frozen ones are frequently destroyed because they are no longer needed.


by the way, i manage infertility and reproduction content for the #1 health website so i'll be happy to share anything else i know on the subject if anyone is curious. the irony that i manage the infertility content when i managed to get knocked up with twins on my first cycle does not escape me.

[Sean]

After reading all of this and taking time to absorb it, I keep coming back to the same personal conclusion. I just don't see a group of 32 cells as being a living person. And if we can ease the indisputable suffering and illnesses of actual living people who have developed to the point of having entire bodies, minds, and emotions by conducting experiments on groups of 32 cells, then that's absolutely fantastic in my opinion.

When exactly do cells transform into an actual person? I don't know, but I would say with absolute certainty that it's not at the 32 cell stage. Do I view this early stage of development as being "silly little cellular clusters to be discarded without remorse"? Not at all. In fact, I'm absolutely awe-struck by the formation of life. But again, in choosing between living people suffering from paralysis (http://www.webmd.com/brain/news/20060621/stem-cells-help-reverse-paralysis), Parkinson's (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080118101925.htm), damaged hearts (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/67070.php), cancer (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/health/21canc.html), Alzheimer's (http://www.ageconcern.org.uk/AgeConcern/News_MoreInfo.asp?Articleid=18013888&titleID=Stem+cell+Alzheimer's+treatment+discovered +(19.12.06)), or any of the other problems that we can potentially solve through stem cell research, or a group of 32 cells that doesn't even have a brain to think or feel with, the choice is easy for me. I'm sure we all know someone who is suffering, or has suffered from one or more of these diseases, and it's a hands-down, absolute certainty that what they had to go through was indescribably worse than what a cluster of 32 cells being used for research does, no matter how amazing that cluster of cells is.

I'm all for being as sensitive as we can be to the moral hesitations that some people have in pursuing this important research, but not to the point that we're actually hindering progress towards curing these debilitating, deadly diseases and conditions.

[Sean]

Now this (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/06/obama.stem.cell/index.html) is good news. Or at least it is to me. On Monday, Obama will be reversing Bush's ban on stem cell research.

[Deckard]

Good news to me. I welcome it. Be interesting to see the kind of protests that occur (as I'm sure they will) once this is in place.

(Btw, should also add thanks to Cacophony for showing that not every opponent of it is a foaming-at-the-mouth Bible basher!)

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

(Btw, should also add thanks to Cacophony for showing that not every opponent of it is a foaming-at-the-mouth Bible basher!)


Then they must be on the losing $$ side of the arguement.

[Sean]

(Btw, should also add thanks to Cacophony for showing that not every opponent of it is a foaming-at-the-mouth Bible basher!)Yeah - that's actually why I went back and added this story to this thread instead of starting a new one. Lots of interesting points were made here already, and I'd love to hear more now that this ban is being overturned.

[Rog]

i've deleted your other thread Sean..........my first act as a moderator:eek:

[IsiliRunite]

Quick question... do any organizations still do research or treatment with stem cells that come to be as a result of sexual human zygote formation?

[Sean]

i've deleted your other thread Sean..........my first act as a moderator:eek:Thanks Rog! Well done! :)

[BeautifulBurnout]

Just heard a very interesting chap from the U of Michigan on Radio 4 explaining that Bush span this whole thing as being "killing embryos that could be babies" as such, which is completely false.

The embryos used are ones that, for a variety of reasons, would never be used for in vitro fertilisation or any other form of fertility treatment and would have been discarded. So they would never develop into human beings as such.

[IsiliRunite]

Its funny you mention UM because today's school paper mentions their editor's prediciton that Obama lifting stem cell research is going to make our various research departments successful.

"He made the point that in his administration, there will be an open and honest discussion of science underlining their decisions, and that science policy with be based on science and not based on ideology."

Sounds slightly arrogant, as though ideology and misinformation are prerequisites for one another.

[BeautifulBurnout]

Sounds slightly arrogant, as though ideology and misinformation are prerequisites for one another.

I don't think that's arrogant - I think it is a realistic take on things, personally.

Res ipsa loquitur, as us weird guys say. "The thing speaks for itself". Are you able to give me any examples of ideological-based policy decisions that weren't based on misinformation of some form or another? ;):)

[Deckard]

Its funny you mention UM because today's school paper mentions their editor's prediciton that Obama lifting stem cell research is going to make our various research departments successful.

"He made the point that in his administration, there will be an open and honest discussion of science underlining their decisions, and that science policy with be based on science and not based on ideology."

Sounds slightly arrogant, as though ideology and misinformation are prerequisites for one another.
I understand what you're saying, but I think it's clear what (s)he probably means, no?

Kind of like the difference between evidence and dogma, or between fluid views and fixed ones. Yes people can be dogmatic about science, even about a particular aspect of it. But science by its definition is open, not closed.

[cacophony]

Quick question... do any organizations still do research or treatment with stem cells that come to be as a result of sexual human zygote formation?
yes. they're simply not eligible to receive funding from the US government. at least before now.

the thing is, this is a largely symbolic action. private funding for human embryonic stem cell research exists so it's not like this kind of research was on the verge of stagnation. and the US gov't still allowed funding for research based on pre-existing cell lines. meaning some embyronic lines were grandfathered and didn't violate the funding ban. other research has focused on pluripotent stem cells, which are non-embryonic.

i know a guy who works in stem cells and i keep trying to get him to post here and share. he'd be able to speak more intelligently about it than i can.

[cacophony]

also, because i know you're dying to know my opinion on this (;)), i have mixed emotions about the decision. i understand obama's motive and i agree that the US has to renew its leadership in the world in the field of science. the bush years threatened to send us back to the days of explaining natural phenomena as feats of the gods. science needs to have its good name restored and it's important that government separate itself from religious ideology.

however. even a secular society has to be based on a common sense of morality. an ideology, if you will. if no consensus can be reached, is it the government's place to decide the issue? if 49% of the population is against the idea of embryonic stem cell research(according to a recent pew poll), is it justifiable to put tax-derived government money towards support of it?

take the abortion issue. i assume most of us here agree that abortions should be legal, private and safe. but the country is split almost evenly on the issue. would it be right for the government to fund abortion clinics?

i guess this is where i feel like government should take a step back. where such a tiny sliver of majority exists that it is almost statistically insignificant, i feel the government should simply abstain from financial commitment. sure, make it legal, make it safe, create opportunity. but don't reach into the pockets of the people who are strongly against it to advance the cause.

but that's just me.

[Juanita Rodriguez]

One point that's always missed in the anti-stem cell front is their inability to disassociate most stem cells do not come from aborted fetuses. The last I read, only 5% are from abortions.

If I recall correct, the majority of cells come from bone marrow.

I've just read the entire arguement and in every post it's the ugly word abortion.

Like many others opposed, I'm sure my post will go in one ear and out the other. I'm not allowed to say sucking blind fks, I guess huh?

LET'S SEE IF JUANITA GET BANNED TOMORROW!!!

I'll be baaaaaack.


AND, yet to hear the win/lose monetary side of the arguement. ;) and, again ;)

[bryantm3]

well, the debate is over embryonic stem cell research, which, by definition, comes from embryos. most of these embryos are frozen in labs waiting to be used by the women and men that donated them... that's where my disapproval begins. storing sperm is okay. it's a little weird for people to have kids they don't know about, but, whatever floats their boat. storing unfertilized eggs is okay. those are both parts of the body that cannot survive, or grow into a human being, on their own. however, after conception, the embryo will develop into a human being unless there is intervention- which is freezing. that's when you are restricting the right of a person to grow and develop.

[BeautifulBurnout]

however, after conception, the embryo will develop into a human being unless there is intervention- which is freezing. that's when you are restricting the right of a person to grow and develop.

Well that isn't strictly true. The embryos are created in vitro to be used by couples who can't conceive naturally. They always create many more embryos than they will actually end up using. And the embryo will only grow and develop if it is implanted into a womb. All the while they are in a test tube they aren't really a life.

The embryos that are used for stem cell research are those that would be discarded anyway. Nobody is going to implant them and "grow a baby" from them. So really the question is this - better in the dustbin or used for research that could help save other's lives?

[Deckard]

however, after conception, the embryo will develop into a human being unless there is intervention- which is freezing.

As BB points out, intervention is also necessary for the embryo to develop by us "intervening" to plant it into the womb.

All the while they are in a test tube they aren't really a life.
Before anyone calls you on it, I just want to point out, I know what you meant by 'life' - sense of suffering/self awareness, perhaps a sense of self stretching into the future, etc. And in that sense, I agree - I also judge the two states differently. It's still life, but I know where you're coming from.

(Oh god, I don't want to get bogged down in this one again! :D )

[cacophony]

Well that isn't strictly true. The embryos are created in vitro to be used by couples who can't conceive naturally. They always create many more embryos than they will actually end up using. And the embryo will only grow and develop if it is implanted into a womb. All the while they are in a test tube they aren't really a life.

it's splitting hairs at that point. no one is arguing whether or not the embryo will develop unless it's implanted into a womb. so far science hasn't been able to invent an electrified womb, and until that day we can all assume we're all on the page that says, "p.s. please add womb."

you could have also split the hair by saying not every fertilized egg grows into a healthy baby that gestates normally and can survive on its own after 9 months (give or take). either way you take the guts out of the argument by making the obvious point.

it's pretty clear that bryantm3's point is ultimately a "where does life begin" statement. if a person believes fundamentally that life begins at conception then the test tube argument is a moot point.

The embryos that are used for stem cell research are those that would be discarded anyway. Nobody is going to implant them and "grow a baby" from them. So really the question is this - better in the dustbin or used for research that could help save other's lives?

well humans are made up of quite a bit of protein. since people are going to die anyway, why don't we process them into food sources?

deliberately hyperbolic, as is my specialty.

the point is that the "why let them go to waste" argument doesn't hold water if you believe those embryos were lives. look, we don't even do organ donation unless the deceased has given written consent. so obviously it's not just an issue of pragmatism. there's a strong, if illogical instinct in humans to protect and preserve, even when a person's free will can no longer intervene. it seems to me that that sets a kind of precedent. we establish that rights exist on one end of the non-life spectrum, why don't they exist at the other?

additionally, it's a bit highfalutin to make the claim that these destroyed embryos are going to save lives. by and large they're not. the vast majority of these embryos will be destroyed in the effort to pursue scientific theory to a dead end, with research collected along the way. so far stem cells have yielded very few practical results. while it's true that embryonic stem cells have the advantage of being programmable so that they can develop into any kind of cell, making their research applications fairly limitless, there are enough non-embryonic stem cell sources available that they should be the first line of resources for these early days of research. we THINK stem cells will save lives someday. we also thought gene therapy would cure cancer. there are countless scientific "breakthroughs" that have yet to yield much more than the promise of life in a far distant future.

fundamentally it comes down to the same old argument about where life begins. which is why i don't think it's appropriate for the US government to fund this research. the issue is so closely divided amongst the populace, for better or for worse. one side shouldn't have the right to trample the other. not while private funding and alternate sources and grandfathered lines exist.

[Juanita Rodriguez]

[quote=cacophony;109570... look, we don't even do organ donation unless the deceased has given written consent... and alternate sources and grandfathered lines exist.[/quote]

BUT, did you know (in some states) signing your name on the line of consent of organ donor, you are somewhat agreeing to be a test rat while still living?

AAAAH, throwing things off, as is my specialty.

Another thread on that sometime in the future. Maybe.

[cacophony]

make sure you send me about 50 random PMs when you get ready to start that thread.

[Juanita Rodriguez]

make sure you send me about 50 random PMs when you get ready to start that thread.

If it's puzzles you like, it's puzzles you'll get.

Everything's a puzzle though. So, like it or not it's puzzles you're gonna get.

[cacophony]

i read an item in wired about embryonic stem cell research today and the writer was discussing the concern in the scientific community about a potential provision in obama's proposed lift of the ban. apparently early drafts of the ban include a mandate that any new lines intended to be derived from the destruction of in-vitro embryos must have the informed consent of the parents. key word being "informed."

At issue are informed consent requirements for women who donated eggs left unused during fertility treatments, and eventually used to generate embryonic stem cells.

Though egg collection has long been governed by widely lauded consent standards established by the National Research Council and International Society for Stem Cell Research, those standards didn’t previously meet the letter of the NIH’s proposed law.

The NIH requires consent forms that clearly mention human embryonic stem cell research, forbid donating eggs for the benefit of a specific person, and contain various other stipulations that were generally mentioned during older consent processes, but not rigorously codified. These rules could have a massive impact on existing and proposed research.i'm just wondering what the general take on this is. i don't understand how you can argue against informing people of the eventual destination of their discarded embryos. why isn't it their right to know?

his argument seems to be that if people KNOW their embryos will be used for research, they'll be reluctant to donate. is that really an argument to not inform people? is that moral?

is it just me, because of my views on embyronic stem cell research?

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/escguideline/

[Sean]

As an advocate for stem cell research, I'm in full agreement with you. I see no reason why people shouldn't be informed on something like this. If they disagree with stem cell research and don't want their embryos used for it, then they should have that right.