stem cell research

[IsiliRunite]

Originally Posted by cacophony

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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, 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]

Originally Posted by gambit

Okay, I checked out Peter Singer's Wikipedia page, 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).

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 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]

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

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, Parkinson's, damaged hearts, cancer, Alzheimer's, 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 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!)