[Ace]

It is quite simple really. These... beings aren't ever going to be given even the slightest chance for life. By doing this, they do contribute to save lives while they themselves will never have one.

In the end, it's all an issue of your being a hypocryte. I don't see you signing women up to be impregnated with these embryos. So in the end it doesn't matter whether or not you think they have some abstract soul, they aren't being given life.

The moral issue of them being 'killed for science' is not at hand. It is a moral issue of these beings existence actually being given some meaning to help others as opposed to being thrown away.

To that end, you are the one who is morally reprehensible. Instead of offering a chance for service to humanity/god/whathaveyou you condemn them to a brief and pointless corporeal existence.

[Goober5000]

But i don't interpret my car as starting thanks to divine intervention, even when i don't know why it took 5 goes.

Yeah, but starting the car is much more mundane than seeing somebody spontaneously healed of cancer in the middle of a prayer meeting.

Bloody big if.  And rather assumptative of what the good and evil is; you're making the implicit suggestion IMO that stem cell research falls into the evil category, but what about knowingly denying research that can help people without good rational reasons?

Stem cell research isn't the root moral issue.  The root moral issue is whether a blastocyst or embryo is a person.  In the good vs. evil battle, if "good" says it is, "evil" would say it isn't.  And both sides would lobby for prima facie summary judgements in their favor.

Organ donations can save people's lives too.  But we don't go harvesting organs from people in jails or mental institutions.

I'm not sure why the counterfeiting analogy is used, especially as it's an example of where you can have faith in something (i.e. the legitimacy of your money) but verify it as right or wrong by using simple rational measurements based upon fact.

You can verify faith too - through experience.

I've been to church.  I stopped going as soon as my parents felt I was old enough to make the choice.  don't assume my agnostic and now aetheistic beliefs have come about as a result of ignorance or inexperience; I'd say it's the opposite.  The more i learnt, the more I felt it was (no offence) a load of claptrap intended to assert control and power.

Well, a lot of it is.  But - sorry - when I meant "church", I didn't mean the institutional buildings.  I meant real church - Christians gathering together for friendship, fellowship, study, sharing meals, etc.  I'm guessing you haven't been exposed to that; few people are.  That's worthwhile.

[q]And even human establishments of Godly systems can be corrupted over time.  Polygamy, for example, wasn't prohibited in the early Christian church.[/q]

But really you're redefining what is and what is not 'Godly' within a modern context, with respect to modern opinions.  Polygamy is a perfectly natural, if perhaps rude & somewhat sexist, part of human nature and which remains in many societies as a perfectly acceptable practice.  This is a perfect example IMO of the use of religion as a social control.

The modern contextual opinion of polygamy is that it's "rude and sexist", isn't it?  But it's expressly permitted in the Bible (although it isn't the ideal).  This is one of the ways in which the church has gotten things backwards: polygamy is frowned upon while adultery is given a pass.

In the end, it's all an issue of your being a hypocryte. I don't see you signing women up to be impregnated with these embryos. So in the end it doesn't matter whether or not you think they have some abstract soul, they aren't being given life.

I'm not picketing the stem cell lines, either.  At this point, for me, it's all theoretical.  It doesn't change the rightness and wrongness of it; and it doesn't change what I would advise someone in a given situation.

The moral issue of them being 'killed for science' is not at hand. It is a moral issue of these beings existence actually being given some meaning to help others as opposed to being thrown away.

It's a tactical decision.  Yes, they've already been discarded/aborted/whatever, but the stem cell research lines are relying on them.  If some big fetal stem cell breakthrough happens in the future, there might be a high demand for them.  Just like we have organ donors now, we might have "blastocyst donors" for the fetal stem cell factories.

And organ donors are already dead too, but the difference is that they can consent beforehand.

To that end, you are the one who is morally reprehensible. Instead of offering a chance for service to humanity/god/whathaveyou you condemn them to a brief and pointless corporeal existence.

Actually, I see it as being allowed to die with whatever dignity they have left rather than be forced to be cut up and used in experiments.

[Turambar]

we might have "blastocyst donors" for the fetal stem cell factories.

that actually doesnt sound like a bad idea at all.   the little clump of cells goes from a mistake to a benefit to humanity

[aldo_14]

[q]
Yeah, but starting the car is much more mundane than seeing somebody spontaneously healed of cancer in the middle of a prayer meeting.[/q]

But both are an assumption of the cause of something inexplicable in the face of a person or persons knowledge.

[q]Stem cell research isn't the root moral issue.  The root moral issue is whether a blastocyst or embryo is a person.  In the good vs. evil battle, if "good" says it is, "evil" would say it isn't.  And both sides would lobby for prima facie summary judgements in their favor.

Organ donations can save people's lives too.  But we don't go harvesting organs from people in jails or mental institutions.[/q]

THat's muddling the issue; taking the possibilites of medical care offered by stem cells and turning it into an abstract person-or-no-person is removing one massive side of the equation here.  We are weighing the religious belief of 120 cells having a soul (effectively) against the massive potential cures for multiple diseases and disorders.  You may want to ignore the medical value of stem cells to reduce the cost of opposing it, but it cannot be removed from the discussion.  You have to consider how evil it is to want a cure for, say, altzheimers if you're going to judge who is 'good' and 'evil'.

And I'd note that people in jails or mental institutions are most verifiably people in scientific and medical terms, so that is a frankly insulting analogy.

[q]
Well, a lot of it is.  But - sorry - when I meant "church", I didn't mean the institutional buildings.  I meant real church - Christians gathering together for friendship, fellowship, study, sharing meals, etc.  I'm guessing you haven't been exposed to that; few people are.  That's worthwhile.[/q]

I'm sure a lot of people would say the same about scientology meetings.

[q]
The modern contextual opinion of polygamy is that it's "rude and sexist", isn't it?  But it's expressly permitted in the Bible (although it isn't the ideal).  This is one of the ways in which the church has gotten things backwards: polygamy is frowned upon while adultery is given a pass.[/q]

So what you are effectively saying is that even organized religion can't decide what their own holy book requires.  Why in the name of cell should it then be used to legislate over all society?  I mean, that is what we're talking about; denying all creeds and faiths (and non-faiths) hope on the basis of a religious belief.

EDIT; possibly relating a bit to the 'other' side of religious belief; http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1798944,00.html

[Grug]

In the good vs. evil battle, if "good" says it is, "evil" would say it isn't.  And both sides would lobby for prima facie summary judgements in their favor.

Oh so now we're evil for debating from the more logical side of things?

[Goober5000]

THat's muddling the issue; taking the possibilites of medical care offered by stem cells and turning it into an abstract person-or-no-person is removing one massive side of the equation here.  We are weighing the religious belief of 120 cells having a soul (effectively) against the massive potential cures for multiple diseases and disorders.  You may want to ignore the medical value of stem cells to reduce the cost of opposing it, but it cannot be removed from the discussion.  You have to consider how evil it is to want a cure for, say, altzheimers if you're going to judge who is 'good' and 'evil'.

And what is it you're doing?  Casting this issue strictly in terms of scientific benefits is removing one massive side of the equation: the disposition of a human life and a human soul.

A cure for Alzheimers at the cost of several thousand inanimate puddles of goo is certainly an easy choice.  But a cure for Alzheimer's at the cost of several thousand persons is another matter.

I'm not trying to minimize either side of the debate.  I'm just saying that the potential scientific advances, while significant, are outweighed by the inherent human dignity of the embryos.

I'm sure a lot of people would say the same about scientology meetings.

Well, I haven't been to scientology meetings.  But AFAIK scientology is all about demanding things from you.  On the other hand, the Christian meetings I've been to have been all about people having a genuine interest in being friends.

So what you are effectively saying is that even organized religion can't decide what their own holy book requires.  Why in the name of cell should it then be used to legislate over all society?  I mean, that is what we're talking about; denying all creeds and faiths (and non-faiths) hope on the basis of a religious belief.

Well, humans are fallible, so they're going to make mistakes legislating from either a secular or a religious point of view.  So, to minimize the places where things can go wrong, I'd advocate passing only the laws necessary to protect each individuals core rights (e.g. life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness) and then leave people to find God, or not, without the government interfering one way or the other.

EDIT; possibly relating a bit to the 'other' side of religious belief; http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1798944,00.html

Hmm.  Not sure how to respond to that, except to say that in my personal and local experience, it's not accurate.

In the good vs. evil battle, if "good" says it is, "evil" would say it isn't. And both sides would lobby for prima facie summary judgements in their favor.

Oh so now we're evil for debating from the more logical side of things?

How on earth did you get that from what I said?

Logic, like so many other things, is just a tool.  It's not intrinsicly good or evil.  But people can use it for both good and evil purposes.

[vyper]

[q]Well, humans are fallible, so they're going to make mistakes legislating from either a secular or a religious point of view.  So, to minimize the places where things can go wrong, I'd advocate passing only the laws necessary to protect each individuals core rights (e.g. life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness) and then leave people to find God, or not, without the government interfering one way or the other.[/q]

Except your definition of life is different from mine due to religious beliefs. Therefore any legislation on that "life" part is going to involve religion or secualr viewpoints.

[StratComm]

Except your definition of life is different from mine due to religious beliefs. Therefore any legislation on that "life" part is going to involve religion or secualr viewpoints.

Ding ding ding!

The only correct legislative approach would be to pass no laws concerning embryonic stem cells up until the point that there is consensus of the start of conscious life.  No one is forcing anyone to do the research, nor are they forcing anyone to use the products of that research (which would also be legislating morality in a sense) so passing a law banning it and passing no laws supporting it are not equivalent.

[aldo_14]

[q]And what is it you're doing?  Casting this issue strictly in terms of scientific benefits is removing one massive side of the equation: the disposition of a human life and a human soul.

A cure for Alzheimers at the cost of several thousand inanimate puddles of goo is certainly an easy choice.  But a cure for Alzheimer's at the cost of several thousand persons is another matter.

I'm not trying to minimize either side of the debate.  I'm just saying that the potential scientific advances, while significant, are outweighed by the inherent human dignity of the embryos.[/q]

I'm casting it in terms of neutral, non-religious and verifiable concepts. The idea of a soul is inherently religious and is a belief or viewpoint that has no form of scientific support.  The 'inherent human dignity' is exactly what is missing from viewing this in scientific terms; all the medical/scientific characteristics that we use to define individual personhood (i.e. what makes a human life more protected than, say, an amoeba) are not present in a blastocyst or even an early stage embryo.

If you want to include the concept of a soul, you also have to argue that your belief - the belief of that soul - takes precedence over all other beliefs and is worth denying the people holding these beliefs that opportunity.  I think you recognise that from a scientific and medical perspective it is an easy choice, which is why you're introducing the nebulous concept of a soul.

IIRC (and certainly if taking a hypothetical standpoint) some religions believe transplants are wrong; would you ban those across every person because of that?

[q]
Well, I haven't been to scientology meetings.  But AFAIK scientology is all about demanding things from you.  On the other hand, the Christian meetings I've been to have been all about people having a genuine interest in being friends.[/q]

All religious - nay, social - structures are self-reinforcing, from prayer meetings to footie teams.

[q]
Well, humans are fallible, so they're going to make mistakes legislating from either a secular or a religious point of view.  So, to minimize the places where things can go wrong, I'd advocate passing only the laws necessary to protect each individuals core rights (e.g. life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness) and then leave people to find God, or not, without the government interfering one way or the other.
[/q]

And the right to health as part of the right to life?

The only way you can ban stem-cell research in that type of legal structure is to insert a Christian definition of life (personhood) different to secular scientific knowledge.  You're defining the places 'where things can go wrong' by using a personal belief to define what you think will go wrong.  At least if we base laws, legislational upon rational evidence, we can change those things if we learn different; base it upon nothing more than belief and the justification is effectively arbitrary.  Even the terminology 'find God' is suppositional, implying there is actually a God to find.

[Bobboau]

you can't kill sacred life!

[Flipside]

What I'd like to know is how come condoms are murdering sperm and yet the withdrawal technique isn't?

[aldo_14]

What I'd like to know is how come condoms are murdering sperm and yet the withdrawal technique isn't?

Because it gives sperm a fighting chance!

[Grug]

It's medical experiments for the lot of ya!

I think I recall the catholic church finally reviewing the use of condoms as being unnacceptable.

[Goober5000]

I'm casting it in terms of neutral, non-religious and verifiable concepts. The idea of a soul is inherently religious and is a belief or viewpoint that has no form of scientific support.  The 'inherent human dignity' is exactly what is missing from viewing this in scientific terms; all the medical/scientific characteristics that we use to define individual personhood (i.e. what makes a human life more protected than, say, an amoeba) are not present in a blastocyst or even an early stage embryo.

There are lots of laws passed on belief.  Marriage laws, rape laws, ethics laws, etc.  We don't cite game theory when writing ethics laws; we appeal to the common good.

If you want to include the concept of a soul, you also have to argue that your belief - the belief of that soul - takes precedence over all other beliefs and is worth denying the people holding these beliefs that opportunity.  I think you recognise that from a scientific and medical perspective it is an easy choice, which is why you're introducing the nebulous concept of a soul.

I attempted to argue from a scientific, medical, and logical basis on the SectorGame thread.  And I thought my arguments were pretty coherent and firmly grounded, but I didn't manage to convince anyone.  So I tried the religious tack on this thread.

I think both the scientific and religious approaches hold up equally well in an argument.  But I think the religious approach is more reliable because scientific conclusions have been amended and overturned in the past, while God remains the same yesterday, today, and forever.

So I haven't been able to convince anyone using either scientific or religious arguments.  I'm not sure whether that points to others' stubbornness or my lack of skill as a debater.  Probably both.

IIRC (and certainly if taking a hypothetical standpoint) some religions believe transplants are wrong; would you ban those across every person because of that?

This is a different issue.  Whether a person accepts a transplant or not will only affect him, while allowing fetal stem cell research will harm fetuses more than it helps patients.  Outlawing transplants is an attempt to control a person's own moral decisions, while outlawing fetal stem cell research is an attempt to protect the rights of a defenseless person.  That's a significant difference IMHO.

And the right to health as part of the right to life?

One person's rights end where another person's rights begins.  A cancer patient does not have the right to be healed at the expense of an innocent person's life.

The only way you can ban stem-cell research in that type of legal structure is to insert a Christian definition of life (personhood) different to secular scientific knowledge.  You're defining the places 'where things can go wrong' by using a personal belief to define what you think will go wrong.  At least if we base laws, legislational upon rational evidence, we can change those things if we learn different; base it upon nothing more than belief and the justification is effectively arbitrary.  Even the terminology 'find God' is suppositional, implying there is actually a God to find.

Laws are neither based on science nor logic.  They're based on ethics and morality - traditionally, religion.  Laws are passed by common consent on shared values.  In Islamic countries they pass laws based on the Koran, and in Christian countries they pass laws based on the Bible.

The only place you're going to get laws passed on "rational evidence", logic, or game theory is in a country run by athiests.

[Flipside]

This is, to my mind, why Religion and Spiritualism is just as vital to humanity as Science and Technology, a good analogy would be that Science has the potential to be Humanities Brain, whilst Religion has the potential to be it's Heart. That's an idealism I know, but Science without Ethics is every bit as dangerous, I think, as Religion without Logic.

Edit : As for the whole Abortion thing, I'm not commenting either way, we can argue till we are blue in the face and not agree, nor change the minds of those that make the rules. I have my opinions, you have yours.

[Turambar]

The only place you're going to get laws passed on "rational evidence", logic, or game theory is in a country run by athiests.

can you tell me where to find this place?

it sounds awesome

[Ford Prefect]

There are lots of laws passed on belief.  Marriage laws, rape laws, ethics laws, etc.  We don't cite game theory when writing ethics laws; we appeal to the common good.

Belief in a common good does not refer to an unprovable ontological system; it's a condition based on the notion of happiness. Rape is illegal because its harmful consequences are self-evident. We have only to invoke the categorical imperative to defend laws against violence; they are in accordance with a maxim whose universalization we cannot help but desire. The same cannot be said for stem cell research because the argument against it is not based in the existence of self-evident consequences, but instead must refer to an external standard that is grounded in an unprovable ontological view. In contrast, the argument for stem cell research is based in the existence of positive, self-evident consequences. We do not need to refer to a standard grounded in dualism to prove that preventing disease is good.

Laws are neither based on science nor logic.  They're based on ethics and morality - traditionally, religion.  Laws are passed by common consent on shared values.  In Islamic countries they pass laws based on the Koran, and in Christian countries they pass laws based on the Bible.

The only place you're going to get laws passed on "rational evidence", logic, or game theory is in a country run by athiests.

Moral reasoning is a faculty that exists independently of religion, as is demonstrated by the scores of philosophers who wrote volumes on ethics without any reference to exclusively religious notions. It's a mistake to assume that ethics without religion are just cold logic; people who consciously reject the notion of god are equally predisposed to deriving ethical principles from emotional reactions.

[Goober5000]

can you tell me where to find this place?

it sounds awesome

North Korea?  China?  Soviet Russia?

[vyper]

... oh, oh that was too good. That was... *dies laughing* Sorry for the lack of constructive input, but given your last post Goob things couldn't get any worse...

[Flipside]

Doesn't America have a founding law regarding the mixture of Church and State?