|
|
|
Rubicon95
Skeptic Friend
USA
220 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 13:03:59 [Permalink]
|
BPS - thanks, I was going to try to respond but you nailed it for me
Mabuse has a better arguement.
The stem cell lines are going to be destroyed or put on ice until no longer viable. How is that more ethical than utilizing them for research on cures for those who are in need? If you are of the mindset that these embryo's are not "alive" than there is no moral quandry.
If you are of the mindset that the embryo's are "alive", than you have a moral dilemma. No matter what the embryo's are going to be destroyed. There is no debate on that. The debate should be. Should the lives be wasted in fire and ice? or Should the sacrifice of their potential lives bring benefit to others? and how can it be regulated?
The genie is out of the bottle. How do we deal with responsibly?
I'd say let the Fed fund it and regulate it to protect it from less ethical researchers
Bush has been very hypocritical with his respect for life stance.
"Angels we have heard on high, stem cells live but convicts fry"
|
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 06/22/2007 : 14:08:24 [Permalink]
|
BPS, the argument is that a blastocyst is human, because it is genetically human. To point out that your skin cells are genetically human is a perfectly valid point.
The argument being made by Rubicon, and apparently you now, is tha a blastocyst IS a human life. That destroying one is the moral equivilent of murder!
There is no equivilency, there is no actual moral dilemma, becaue no one can make any reasonable, evidence based (or otherwise) argument for it. The whole of most arguments is: A blastocyst can develope into a human, therefore it is a human.
Obviously that is false.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 16:18:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Rubicon95
Mabuse?!?!?!?!?
Maybe I wasn't clear. I am anti death penalty. |
Good for you!
Most of the self-professed American Christians I've met or talked to have been for the death penalty. Please forgive me for generalizing and unwittingly placing you in a category where you do not belong.
| For the President to say it is unethical to kill an embryo to save a human life yet believe Executing people on the premise to prevent violent crime is oxymoronic, contradictory and any other adjective you can think of. |
Especially "Compassionate Conservative". Your president is unfortunately the chosen representative of at least a quarter of your country.
| BTW, I do think fertilization clinics should be shut down and those that are infertile or have issues with child bearing should consider adoption, but that is my view and opinion. |
Your opinion harmonise with your anti-death penalty stance.
| Also, in conversations with people on the other side, I do agree with using existing stem cell lines for research but I'm not going to hype it as the be all and end all of all ailments, spinal cord injuries, alzheimer's. There's a potential but nothing's been proven yet. |
We don't know the full potential yet, that's why we need more research.
When scientists first invented the laser, it was a cool gadget, but skeptics said that there weren't any practical applications with it. History proved those skeptics wrong.
My point is: we can't assess the potential benefits of stem cell research before the research starts yielding practical applications, and we're far from that yet.
Mabuse said-
"The embryos that are being used for stem-cell research whould have been destroyed anyhow, so ethically, it's better to use them in the hopes of saving human life, than not using them at all."
hm... would it be ethical to remove organs from death row inmates to save person's life?
By your arguement, the answer is yes. Unless you don't view embryos as humans then the question should be when is someone considered a human.
|
(Disregarding the fact that I too am against death penalty:)
By my argument: Yes, once the convict on death row has been executed. Before that, the convict is a living functioning person with rights.
Until the moment they flick the switch, or inject the lethal poison, the execution can still be postponed and/or sentence reversed. Harvesting organs before that would be a gross violation, because the convict could potentially be innocent.
By harvesting the organs from an executed convict to save another human's life, the convict's debt to society will be at least partially paid back. It should be more a legal matter of to whom does the carcass belong? Does the government seize the belongings and holdings of the convict in order to make restitution to the victims of the convict's crime, or do relatives inherit him? Personally, I think it's the government's responsibility to take care of, and distribute salvaged body-parts. Relatives usually have no use for them since trading body-parts is illegal in most societies, but the government can act for the greater good of the society by giving transplants to someone needing it.
Regarding embryos:
Like Dude said, a blastocyte is not a human life viable enough to be granted the rights of a legal person. In fact, less than half of the fertilised eggs will even survive naturally. In my opinion an embryo and even a foetus should be considered a part of it's "mother" until it's able to live on physically separated from her. That would be around 7th month as it stands now. Until then, it should be up to the woman to decide what happens to her stem cells. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2007 : 00:19:20 [Permalink]
|
From Mab
| By harvesting the organs from an executed convict to save another human's life, the convict's debt to society will be at least partially paid back. It should be more a legal matter of to whom does the carcass belong? Does the government seize the belongings and holdings of the convict in order to make restitution to the victims of the convict's crime, or do relatives inherit him? Personally, I think it's the government's responsibility to take care of, and distribute salvaged body-parts. Relatives usually have no use for them since trading body-parts is illegal in most societies, but the government can act for the greater good of the society by giving transplants to someone needing it. |
I wonder if the electrocution or lethal injection adversely affect the organs.
Regarding embryos:
Like Dude said, a blastocyte is not a human life viable enough to be granted the rights of a legal person. In fact, less than half of the fertilised eggs will even survive naturally. In my opinion an embryo and even a foetus should be considered a part of it's "mother" until it's able to live on physically separated from her. That would be around 7th month as it stands now. Until then, it should be up to the woman to decide what happens to her stem cells. |
I agree with this.
Not sure who said this:
The stem cell lines are going to be destroyed or put on ice until no longer viable. How is that more ethical than utilizing them for research on cures for those who are in need? If you are of the mindset that these embryo's are not "alive" than there is no moral quandry. |
Rubicon attributes it to Mab. But as Dude pointed out earlier, the current stem cell lines were originally cultivated in mice feeder cells potentially contaminating the lines. We need the funds to cultivate clean stem cell lines. Only then can we learn whether stem cells hold the potential that is believed to be there. Until then, we can only speculate on what stem cell research will mean in terms of curing disease. |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2007 : 01:36:27 [Permalink]
|
Trish said:
I wonder if the electrocution or lethal injection adversely affect the organs.
|
Yes. If for no other reason than both methods stop breathing and circulation. Electricity obviously damages tissue, and the potassium used to kill in lethal injection would make it unlikely that the heart would be usable after.
If you wanted to harvest organs from a living body, you need to sustain that body (via artificial ventilation and possibly heart-lung bypass) while some organs are removed.
I'm anti-death penalty, but if the state is going to kill a person, I see no reason why it shouldn't also hervest their organs if they are viable. You are already taking their life, so why not let their organs help someone else?
I think the biggest barrier to anything like this would be finding a doctor willing to be the official state executioner. There may be one or two out there....
Really though, we should just abolish the death penalty.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2007 : 14:00:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
BPS, the argument is that a blastocyst is human, because it is genetically human. To point out that your skin cells are genetically human is a perfectly valid point.
The argument being made by Rubicon, and apparently you now, is tha a blastocyst IS a human life. That destroying one is the moral equivilent of murder!
There is no equivilency, there is no actual moral dilemma, becaue no one can make any reasonable, evidence based (or otherwise) argument for it. The whole of most arguments is: A blastocyst can develope into a human, therefore it is a human.
Obviously that is false.
|
What he said. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2007 : 19:25:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
If you wanted to harvest organs from a living body, you need to sustain that body (via artificial ventilation and possibly heart-lung bypass) while some organs are removed.
...
I think the biggest barrier to anything like this would be finding a doctor willing to be the official state executioner. |
Well, there's the solution: you induce a coma in the condemned, load him up with painkillers, hook him up to a heart/lung machine, harvest all the useful and healthy organs, and then have a non-doctor simply unplug the machine to actually carry out the execution (I'm sure you could get huge lines of volunteers). Technically speaking, the guy would still be alive because there would be a greater-than-zero chance that replacing all his organs could restore him to full health. So the doctor could easily convince himself that he was ethically off the hook.| Really though, we should just abolish the death penalty. |
Well, yeah. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2007 : 22:07:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Really though, we should just abolish the death penalty. |
Agreed. |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
|
|
|
Rubicon95
Skeptic Friend
USA
220 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2007 : 14:21:00 [Permalink]
|
Whoa.. Mabuse you really took the arguement and ran with it. It was a "Modest Proposal" like supposition. But since you clarified your position on life. The two proposals, stem cell research and harvest organs from death row inmates would have nothing in common.
Dude & Siberia, I can appreciate your point of view but I don't agree with it. I am not a biologist so I cannot appreciate data that is for or against the beginning of a human life.
My position based on a respect for life and anti-eugenics. All life must be respected and no one has the right to determine what is not human. It is an extreme view but one that has helped me appreciate life and it's diversity.
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2007 : 15:15:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Rubicon95
All life must be respected and no one has the right to determine what is not human. |
So I take it you're a vegan? You make absolutely no distinction between a human life and, say, sea monkeys?
| It is an extreme view but one that has helped me appreciate life and it's diversity. |
I would agree that it is an extreme view.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2007 : 17:40:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Rubicon95
The two proposals, stem cell research and harvest organs from death row inmates would have nothing in common. |
Actually, it would. Both situations would be using pieces of human tissue, that isn't meant to grow up to a human being, for the purpose of using them to heal sick people.
Some embryos are inplanted in the womb in order to eventually give produce a human life. But less than half of them gets inplanted. And not even all inplanted embryos grow to eventually be born.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2007 : 18:41:00 [Permalink]
|
Rubicon said:
| All life must be respected and no one has the right to determine what is not human. |
Sure we do. Everyone does it every day. Including you, unless you are going to claim something like what H.H. suggests?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2007 : 21:27:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Sure we do. Everyone does it every day. Including you, unless you are going to claim something like what H.H. suggests? |
Actually, the way Rubicon worded his statement, it's even worse than I suggested. He said "all life," which would mean that we can't even distinguish between plant or microbial life and human life. If taken literally, Rubicon's statement would mean that he couldn't eat anything that was once alive. Of course, I await his further clarification on this matter.
What I presume he meant is that "no one has the right to determine a zygote is not human," since Rubicon has already determined that it is.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 06/27/2007 21:31:53 |
|
|
|
Rubicon95
Skeptic Friend
USA
220 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2007 : 05:08:08 [Permalink]
|
What I presume he meant is that "no one has the right to determine a zygote is not human," since Rubicon has already determined that it is.
|
Yep that's it. I mean if I could say a Zygote is a non-human what is to prevent me from saying a Down Syndrome kid is not human?
I did do veganism for a while more out of health concerns. Then I had sushi with my boss... That ended the veganism.
There is nothing incompatible with respecting ALL LIFE and eating meat, plants, plankton, microbes.... Eat what you kill and don't let it go to waste. |
|
|
|
Rubicon95
Skeptic Friend
USA
220 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2007 : 05:10:57 [Permalink]
|
You make absolutely no distinction between a human life and, say, sea monkeys?
HH you're being ridiculous.
Sea Monkeys are more intelligent than most humans
Present company excluded...
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Stem Cell Veto
