[Goober5000]

Seriously, though, how can you assign 'intrinsic value'?  All the intrinsic value based judgements that would place some restriction upon creation & use of blastocyts would surely be based on subjective personal views rather than any empirical basis, and you can't deny millions of patients medical treatments because your gut alone says it's wrong.

Intrinsic value is based on morality.  And morality is something shared by a lot of people, not just one person's gut.

Some people believe that animals are intrinsically as valuable as humans.  Because of this, they view it as wrong to experiment on animals for medical research, regardless of the potential benefits.  It's the same line of reasoning.

[Ghostavo]

Seriously, though, how can you assign 'intrinsic value'?  All the intrinsic value based judgements that would place some restriction upon creation & use of blastocyts would surely be based on subjective personal views rather than any empirical basis, and you can't deny millions of patients medical treatments because your gut alone says it's wrong.

Intrinsic value is based on morality.  And morality is something shared by a lot of people, not just one person's gut.

Some people believe that animals are intrinsically as valuable as humans.  Because of this, they view it as wrong to experiment on animals for medical research, regardless of the potential benefits.  It's the same line of reasoning.

And yet some people consider them animals not to be intrinsically as valuable as humans. And they don't view it as wrong to experiment on animals for medical research. How do you decide which is correct? There is a reason morality is subjective.

[Goober5000]

And yet some people consider them animals not to be intrinsically as valuable as humans. And they don't view it as wrong to experiment on animals for medical research. How do you decide which is correct? There is a reason morality is subjective.

But both groups agree that it is morally wrong to do certain kinds of experiments.  Where they differ is in degree, i.e. how much leeway one has in choosing subjects.  So it's a common principle, just different in the details.

[Ghostavo]

And yet some people consider them animals not to be intrinsically as valuable as humans. And they don't view it as wrong to experiment on animals for medical research. How do you decide which is correct? There is a reason morality is subjective.

But both groups agree that it is morally wrong to do certain kinds of experiments.  Where they differ is in degree, i.e. how much leeway one has in choosing subjects.  So it's a common principle, just different in the details.

And isn't this issue about stem cells just another "detail"? 

[Wild Fragaria]

Where do you stand if you being one of those patients, Mr Goober 5000?

[aldo_14]

Seriously, though, how can you assign 'intrinsic value'?  All the intrinsic value based judgements that would place some restriction upon creation & use of blastocyts would surely be based on subjective personal views rather than any empirical basis, and you can't deny millions of patients medical treatments because your gut alone says it's wrong.

Intrinsic value is based on morality.  And morality is something shared by a lot of people, not just one person's gut.

Some people believe that animals are intrinsically as valuable as humans.  Because of this, they view it as wrong to experiment on animals for medical research, regardless of the potential benefits.  It's the same line of reasoning.

But it is intrinsically unfair to apply someone or some groups morality based on nothing beyond gut feeling, regardless of how shared that is.  For example, some people believe it's cruel to eat meat - should we apply that to everyone without proof behind it?

What we have to consider with stem cells in particular, is that a lot of the research using embryonic cells has tremendous potential to save lives.  So how high should we value a 50-150 cell blastocyst, against a 40 year old with a potentially fatal and/or debilatating condition?  Is it right to deny the 40 year old - or anyone in that position - the right to treatment if we can't provide empirical evidence, unclouded by bias and personal opinion, to back that up?  Because the predominant arguement I've seen against embryonic stem cell research is based on the twin pillars of the 'slippery slope' and the belief that doctors/scientist are in some way inherently morally corrupt and would allow that slope.

[Goober5000]

And isn't this issue about stem cells just another "detail"? 

Not really.  The principle here is that you have be ethical and have integrity.  Some people are more strict, others less strict.  That is the "detail".

Where do you stand if you being one of those patients, Mr Goober 5000?

Animals are fair game as long as you aren't malicious.  With humans, you need informed consent.

But it is intrinsically unfair to apply someone or some groups morality based on nothing beyond gut feeling, regardless of how shared that is.  For example, some people believe it's cruel to eat meat - should we apply that to everyone without proof behind it?

I dunno.  I don't have a satisfactory answer to that - just that IMO it's a different situation, because it deals with animals instead of people.

What we have to consider with stem cells in particular, is that a lot of the research using embryonic cells has tremendous potential to save lives.  So how high should we value a 50-150 cell blastocyst, against a 40 year old with a potentially fatal and/or debilatating condition?  Is it right to deny the 40 year old - or anyone in that position - the right to treatment if we can't provide empirical evidence, unclouded by bias and personal opinion, to back that up?  Because the predominant arguement I've seen against embryonic stem cell research is based on the twin pillars of the 'slippery slope' and the belief that doctors/scientist are in some way inherently morally corrupt and would allow that slope.

I would say it's simply wrong -- you don't even need the slope.

Anyway this is a moral judgement, not a scientific one.  So I guess it's morality vs. morality here.

[aldo_14]

I dunno.  I don't have a satisfactory answer to that - just that IMO it's a different situation, because it deals with animals instead of people.

Can you give a reason why it's different for animals?  Why they are not so 'valuable' as people in this context?

I would say it's simply wrong -- you don't even need the slope.

Anyway this is a moral judgement, not a scientific one.  So I guess it's morality vs. morality here.

a) why don't you need the 'slope'? (define the slope first, I guess)
b) why is not scientific (or perhaps more appropriately, medical)?  Define what morality means in this context, because the morality issue comes in if you have some opinion that regards the blastocyst as more than a bunch of cells because AFAIK there is no scientific opinion/evidence to support that and hence it's morality based.

[Goober5000]

Can you give a reason why it's different for animals? Why they are not so 'valuable' as people in this context?

Humans are sentient, morally aware, intelligent (more so than other animals), artistic, creative, etc.  And, if you accept the Big Three religious view, are created in the image of God.  All these (the last one in particular) make us intrinsically more valuable.

a) why don't you need the 'slope'? (define the slope first, I guess)

A slippery slope happens when you start out with something that, while not bad in and of itself, can conceivably lead to something else, which can lead to something else, etc., which eventually leads to something that is bad.

Or, alternatively, it's something bad that progressively leads to something worse and worse.

IMHO, you don't need the slippery slope here because you start with something bad in the first place.

b) why is not scientific (or perhaps more appropriately, medical)? Define what morality means in this context, because the morality issue comes in if you have some opinion that regards the blastocyst as more than a bunch of cells because AFAIK there is no scientific opinion/evidence to support that and hence it's morality based.

Morality doesn't necessarily depend on science.  Some religions prohibit the eating of beef.  Now suppose that some way was found to cure cancer by using beef extract or whatever.  They would be morally prohibited from taking advantage of it.

[aldo_14]

Humans are sentient, morally aware, intelligent (more so than other animals), artistic, creative, etc.  And, if you accept the Big Three religious view, are created in the image of God.  All these (the last one in particular) make us intrinsically more valuable.

And does this distinction apply towards 50-150 undifferentiated cells.?

A slippery slope happens when you start out with something that, while not bad in and of itself, can conceivably lead to something else, which can lead to something else, etc., which eventually leads to something that is bad.

Or, alternatively, it's something bad that progressively leads to something worse and worse.

IMHO, you don't need the slippery slope here because you start with something bad in the first place.

The chance to find a cure for Altzheimers would be bad?  For diabetes, or parkinsons, or heart defects?

What part of this do you define as intrinsically bad, and to such an extent that all of humanity be denied the opportunities for cures the reasearch offers?

Morality doesn't necessarily depend on science.  Some religions prohibit the eating of beef.  Now suppose that some way was found to cure cancer by using beef extract or whatever.  They would be morally prohibited from taking advantage of it.

And would you take that cure away from everyone because of that moral belief?  would you remove the chance to find that cure?

[Goober5000]

Humans are sentient, morally aware, intelligent (more so than other animals), artistic, creative, etc.  And, if you accept the Big Three religious view, are created in the image of God.  All these (the last one in particular) make us intrinsically more valuable.

And does this distinction apply towards 50-150 undifferentiated cells.?

Yup.

The chance to find a cure for Altzheimers would be bad?  For diabetes, or parkinsons, or heart defects?

No.  Research on embyonic stem cells is bad because it destroys the embryo (or blastocyst) in the process.  Research on adult stem cells doesn't run into this problem.

Morality doesn't necessarily depend on science.  Some religions prohibit the eating of beef.  Now suppose that some way was found to cure cancer by using beef extract or whatever.  They would be morally prohibited from taking advantage of it.

And would you take that cure away from everyone because of that moral belief?  would you remove the chance to find that cure?

I wouldn't, because it's not my belief. I can't say whether they would.  Also, I don't know whether eating beef supposedly makes you worthy of death or simply reprobate.

[Ghostavo]

Goober, I hope you are being sarcastic.

[karajorma]

I wouldn't, because it's not my belief. I can't say whether they would. 

But you are insisting on a ban on stem cell research based on your beliefs. So in a similar fashion we can ignore you because it's not our beliefs right?

[aldo_14]

Yup.

Why?

No.  Research on embyonic stem cells is bad because it destroys the embryo (or blastocyst) in the process.  Research on adult stem cells doesn't run into this problem.

Except it's not as promising because adult cells are constrained to, at most, a subgroup of effective differentiations.  So you are still reducing if not removing the chance for cures.  I don't think, for example, anyone has been able to grow pure nerve cells from adult stem cells, but they have from embryonic.  And the question is, how much of that hope are you willing to take based on your belief alone?

I wouldn't, because it's not my belief. I can't say whether they would.  Also, I don't know whether eating beef supposedly makes you worthy of death or simply reprobate.

So woudl you agree with me that you shouldn't legislate on these issues except by the bias-neutral basis of scientific evidence?

[Goober5000]

But you are insisting on a ban on stem cell research based on your beliefs. So in a similar fashion we can ignore you because it's not our beliefs right?

Aren't you doing that already?

But you've got the right idea.  What this comes down to, basically, is a bunch of conflicting moralities.

Yup.

Why?

God said so?

Look: it's a helpless pile of cells.  I acknowledge that.  It isn't currently making any contributions to society, nor will it for several years.  I acknowledge that.  By all appearances, you ought to be able to toss it out the window without a second thought.  But I believe it possesses a soul, something that science cannot (currently) detect, and by virtue of that soul it is worth just as much as a 30-year-old CEO.

Except it's not as promising because adult cells are constrained to, at most, a subgroup of effective differentiations.  So you are still reducing if not removing the chance for cures.  I don't think, for example, anyone has been able to grow pure nerve cells from adult stem cells, but they have from embryonic.  And the question is, how much of that hope are you willing to take based on your belief alone?

Actually, I've heard that they've had more success (so far) with adult stem cells than embryonic stem cells.  I'm fine with using adult stem cells; I think it's a great medical breakthrough.  But if they prove not to work in the long run, we can't use embryonic cells - we must turn to other methods.

And I don't see this as hindering scientific process.  I see it as standing up for the embryos thoughtlessly discarded as a result of the research.

I wouldn't, because it's not my belief. I can't say whether they would.  Also, I don't know whether eating beef supposedly makes you worthy of death or simply reprobate.

So woudl you agree with me that you shouldn't legislate on these issues except by the bias-neutral basis of scientific evidence?

Not in this case.  I'm willing to compromise on some matters, but this is a matter of life and death.

[aldo_14]

God said so?

Look: it's a helpless pile of cells.  I acknowledge that.  It isn't currently making any contributions to society, nor will it for several years.  I acknowledge that.  By all appearances, you ought to be able to toss it out the window without a second thought.  But I believe it possesses a soul, something that science cannot (currently) detect, and by virtue of that soul it is worth just as much as a 30-year-old CEO.

So you would deny medical possibilities on your gut?  You'd support the legislative imposition of your own beliefs, founded by nothing beyond faith, upon others not sharing them?  Quite possibly costing lives?

Anyways, what exactly does the bible say about life beginning?  All I know of is a quote that “Life is in the blood.” (from Leviticus, I think), which wouldn't apply at the blastocyst stage as there isn't any blood.

Actually, I've heard that they've had more success (so far) with adult stem cells than embryonic stem cells.  But if that proves not to work in the long run, then we'd have to look elsewhere.

They've had about 3 times as long to work with adult stem cells (since the 60s), which are also 'simpler' by dint of being partially differentiated.  I think i mentioned that in my first post.

And I don't see this as hindering scientific process.  I see it as standing up for the embryos thoughtlessly discarded as a result of the research.

But they're not being discarded 'as a result', they're already discarded.  The whole issue of mass-production, so to speak, doesn't even enter into this stage because it's quite possible it could even lead to manufacturing abilities that avoid your moral qualms.

No.  I'm going to stand up for my beliefs, and undoubtedly they're going to stand up for theirs.

Even when it hurts others, and for a reason you cannot show beyond faith?

[Grug]

Bloody hell, I've got to stop making these threads. =/

[achtung]

Nah, these threads are great.  A good way for the debatees to apply their knowledge, and a good way for people like me to gain new ideas and perspectives on controversial (or not so controversial) subjects.

[Herra Tohtori]

Homework for everyone!  


Does a quark have a soul?

What about a nucleon...
...an atom
...a molecule
...a biomolecule
...a complex of biomolecules
...a procaryote (bacteria and archs)
...an eucaryote (single-cell organisms like amebas and stuff)
...multi-cellular organisms
...fish
...amphibians (frogs'n salamanders'n stuff)
...reptiles (mother****ing snakes)
...birds and mammals, including (but not excluded to)
...Canis Lupus
...Pan Troglodytes
...Australopitcheus Afarensis
...Homo Habilis
...Homo Erectus
...Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis
...Homo Sapiens Sapiens


Now, I'd personally be very happy if someone could tell me which of these have this entity called "soul" and which do not have it. Surely a "soul", if it exists in some form, is not encoded into Homo Sapiens Sapiensis DNA? Though if it's not, who can make a distinction between "thing A has no soul" and "thing B has a soul"? And where will the line be drawn?

Now, on the other hand, if we abandon the concept of "soul" for purely definitional reasons and consider the concept of "consciousness" instead, things become very much easier. (Yes, I'm getting to my point, don't hurry me... )

-I suppose we can agree that without sophisticated neural network there can be no consciousness existing in an organism. Therefore, an embryo doesn't have a consciousness.

-Now, I'm asking, if there is no conscious being but just a bunch of cells, what harm can there be for anything for not letting the embryo to develop into a fetus (something highly more sophisticated IMO)?

I mean, let us presume there is such thing as a "soul", be it whatever it is, attached to every embryo right from the fertilization. So, if this "soul" is what it's usually referred to as being immortal spirit, surely it would continue to exist even if the embryo to which it was "attached" was not let to develop?

If, on the other hand, you refer to "soul" as a value of a being and state that an embryo does have a similar value as your 30-year-old CEO because it COULD some day became a person contributing to society, my own opinion about this matter is this: The present matters. What could be does not matter a slightest bit to what is now*. In other words, if an embryo is a bunch of cells that cannot have a conscience, I have no trouble expereimenting with stem cells. It doesn't matter if it "could" be a new Einstein, because it's not that now. I would, on the other hand, be very much more careful to test thingz on beings with a sophisticated neural network on their headz, in which case it would be possible that they suffered because of testing.

*This does not mean that we should not think about the future. What I mean is this:

If you inherit a house that you have no use to, is not in particularly good condition, is a couple decades old, and you could profit by letting the firefighters practice on it, burn it down and then sell the soil to someone who would like to build a new house, you wouldn't probably think "Oh, but hundred years from now this house will be a significant example of 1980's architecture and will be an important monument of ugliness".

It is true that the house could be a monument of 1980's a hundred years from now. But it is also true that if you let the firefighters practice on it, theey might be able to bettle distinguish fires on other houses. Plus you'd get a good money of the soil. And we actually don't need more 1980's building as monuments.

In similar fashion, it is true that an embryo could develop into fetus and grow up to be a person. But it is also true that if scientist do their tests on embryo's cells, they might be able to cure and help people that already DO exist as conscient beings. Plus, the earth really doesn't need any more people than gets born even without letting embryos developing further on...

I hope someone can make some sense out of this babbling. It's not easy trying to explain complex philosophical opinions with some else language than your own...  

[Mefustae]

Well said Herra, an interesting point of view.

The problem as I see it is that people like Goob put too much value on human life. When you get down to the core of things, human life isn't worth squat. The fact of the matter is, there is no soul, no archane spirit, and no grand importance behind human existance whatsoever, and deep down everyone knows it. Indeed, importance and the right to exist is earned, not bestowed upon conception. These people who hold on to tired beliefs that there is something 'special' and of immense value within each and every human, while they may think they're being 'noble' and protecting those who cannot protect themselves, are just being selfish. Sticking up for one's belief is valid, but to do so in full knowledge that people - by which I mean people with families, friends, and actual importance to those around them - will die because of it, is just... loathsome.