stem cell research

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by myrrh

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.

Originally Posted by myrrh

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]

Originally Posted by Strangelet

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!

Originally Posted by Strangelet

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]

Originally Posted by myrrh

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, the frequency of 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]

Originally Posted 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Deckard

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]

Originally Posted by Strangelet

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]

Originally Posted by Deckard

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.