[Grug]

And you have a moral obligation to ensure that it's done without exploiting embryos.

You have free will to make your own moral choices.  That doesn't change whether they are morally good or morally bad ones.

Morals don't come into it. It's a clear cut definition in science.
Fogging it up with philosophical explanations and morality is impeding so much of a medical breakthrough its just diabolical.

@ngtm1r

[Goober5000]

Morals don't come into it. It's a clear cut definition in science.
Fogging it up with philosophical explanations and morality is impeding so much of a medical breakthrough its just diabolical.

Isnt' that a moral judgement?

[karajorma]

It's a moral judgement on your point of view. Not on the research itself.

[Eightball]

Morals don't come into it. It's a clear cut definition in science.

Wow!  The Nazis were into that too!

Hey, make no moral judgements...

[Flipside]

Duck and Cover people!...

[Goober5000]

You don't need to bring in the Nazis.  Just invoke the Japanese.  Remove random organs and chop off limbs, all in the name of science.

[Grug]

See, now that's the philosophical fog I was talking about.
Stem cells are clearly not a person. End of story.

Morals apply to people because they are sentient, highly developed beings. Stem cells are well... cells.
Trying to counter that they are people too, is just a form of said fog. Plain silly IMO. >..>

[Ace]

Ya, but it's not up to you, isn't it?

If one is forced into an existence with no ability to unmake that act, there is no free will.

Free will isn't absolute.  We don't have a choice whether to exist.  We do have a choice what to make of it. We aren't able to jump up and fly around.  We are able to invent airplanes.

Your analogy is false and incorrect. Technology transcends the physical limitations of the species. However your theological structure denies comprable trascendence beyond the inevitable binary opposition faced: paradise or torment.

Limited free will is not free will at all. The act of creation alone is coercive and even moreso when *any* action is channeled into only two outcomes.

More outcomes, (willful non-existence being but one, the antithesis of the entire act of creation) ideally infinite possible variability,  is necessary for true free will. Such outcomes are not permissable within the orthodox Christian, Judaic, or Muslim faith structures. Thus free will does not exist within your religions, making the god-head coercive which contradicts the concept of absolute good.

[karajorma]

Morals don't come into it. It's a clear cut definition in science.

Wow!  The Nazis were into that too!

Hey, make no moral judgements...

The Nazi's were into building planes too. Should we stop with that as well?

You'd better make a much clearer point. Blanket statements are easy to make and harder to disprove because you're expecting anyone answering to state your side of the debate too. If you want to claim that embryological stem cell research is close to Nazism you're going to have to state why. I suspect I know what you're on about but if you can't be bothered to state your case properly why should I waste my time refuting it?

[Goober5000]

See, now that's the philosophical fog I was talking about.
Stem cells are clearly not a person. End of story.

It's certainly not the end of the story if your faith says that they are, for reasons which science can neither prove nor disprove.

Your analogy is false and incorrect. Technology transcends the physical limitations of the species. However your theological structure denies comprable trascendence beyond the inevitable binary opposition faced: paradise or torment.

Huh?

Limited free will is not free will at all. The act of creation alone is coercive and even moreso when *any* action is channeled into only two outcomes.

More outcomes, (willful non-existence being but one, the antithesis of the entire act of creation) ideally infinite possible variability,  is necessary for true free will. Such outcomes are not permissable within the orthodox Christian, Judaic, or Muslim faith structures. Thus free will does not exist within your religions, making the god-head coercive which contradicts the concept of absolute good.

Okay, then we don't have absolute free will, according to your definition.  But we can still make our own individual moral choices within a certain set of limitations.

And coercing doesn't contradict absolute good.  A parent can let her toddler run amok in the back yard, but will prevent him from doing so in the front yard, because there's a possibility he might run into the street.

EDIT: 10,000th post

[Grug]

See, now that's the philosophical fog I was talking about.
Stem cells are clearly not a person. End of story.

It's certainly not the end of the story if your faith says that they are, for reasons which science can neither prove nor disprove.

A matter of faith (a particular branch of faith even) is not a matter of science, keep it in the church. To blindly impede the research of science without any other reason or evidence except faith is folly. It is the end of the story, because yours starts where your faith begins.
Science is not about the whim of the almighty. If it is wrong to you, be consolidated in those that will be judged or whatever. Don't go brandishing your ideals around on others. >..>

[NGTM-1R]

A matter of faith (a particular branch of faith even) is not a matter of science, keep it in the church. To blindly impede the research of science without any other reason or evidence except faith is folly. It is the end of the story, because yours starts where your faith begins.
Science is not about the whim of the almighty. If it is wrong to you, be consolidated in those that will be judged or whatever. Don't go brandishing your ideals around on others. >..>

If you're not willing to stand up for your ideals, regardless of whatever, then you're not faithful in them, much less your religion. You cannot truly make such a distinction between secular and religious life if you actually believe, because you would then act on your belief.

[Ford Prefect]

"Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies." --Friedrich Nietzsche

[aldo_14]

See, now that's the philosophical fog I was talking about.
Stem cells are clearly not a person. End of story.

It's certainly not the end of the story if your faith says that they are, for reasons which science can neither prove nor disprove.

It's also certainly not a reason to deny those who disagree with you the option of care derived from the research.  It also raises to me a fundamental question regarding free will, as in the free will not to adhere to a specific religious orthodoxy if any.  When a moral objection is derived from that religion (and it's not even common across, for example, all Christianity - recently the Church of Scotland IIRC said it didn't object to the use of IVF eggs in stem cell research as they - and I forget the exact quote - wouldn't be used for reproductive purposes anyways), then at most I think you can only legislate it across people who share that religion.

 

Morals don't come into it. It's a clear cut definition in science.

Wow!  The Nazis were into that too!

Hey, make no moral judgements...

I think the Nazis had what you might call clear cut 'moral' convictions too.  That any rational person could tell they were immoral didn't make them any less convictions.  I mean, if you want to get in science vs morality, then you have to recognise morals can be rather warped from any perspective.

[Grug]

I was waiting for Goober to reply. >..>

But yeah, that particular morality is a choice of belief. One when defined by pure science is quite clear. If that is one's belief, then refuse treatment in hopsitals. Same deal as with resuscitation.

Why is it so hard to see both views, and allow for both sides their choice, rather than blatenly push one's view on the other by banning it all together?

[Goober5000]

I have no problem with allowing others to make their own personal choices regarding whether to drink alcohol, support the war or oppose it, marry whom they wish, etc.  It's their right to decide for themselves.  But I can't support the same with regard to fetal stem cell research because there is another person involved.  Fetal stem cell research infringes on the rights of the fetus.

I don't even think it's wrong to use the knowledge gained from fetal stem cell research, as it's a sunk cost and presumably the deed was already done by the time the patient came along and used that knowledge.  But the research itself, as well as anything that directly relies on a supply on fetal stem cells, should be probited.

Surely scientists can be content researching adult stem cells?  They've already made progress on many fronts in that area.

[aldo_14]

I have no problem with allowing others to make their own personal choices regarding whether to drink alcohol, support the war or oppose it, marry whom they wish, etc.  It's their right to decide for themselves.  But I can't support the same with regard to fetal stem cell research because there is another person involved.  Fetal stem cell research infringes on the rights of the fetus.

I don't even think it's wrong to use the knowledge gained from fetal stem cell research, as it's a sunk cost and presumably the deed was already done by the time the patient came along and used that knowledge.  But the research itself, as well as anything that directly relies on a supply on fetal stem cells should be probited.

(Hmm, this is a bit of a retread)

Well, the infringes upon person is the whole debate; even in italics, it's not a fact.  I would say in scientific terms the converse arguement is far, far stronger in that a blastocyst isn't.  Moreso, the cells used are not being garnered from blastocysts specifically aborted for the purpose (created, perhaps, which is a side argeument as well), and the research itself does nothing to encourage, discourage or even comment upon the abortion issue.  Likewise for the use of fertilized-but-discarded IVF eggs.

Anyways.  Key point, there is not another person involved.  There is the possibility you may consider another person to be involved, in spite of the general scientific consensus, but that possibility has to be weighed against a massive potential benefit that you'd be removing for those who disagree with your view.

Surely scientists can be content researching adult stem cells?  They've already made progress on many fronts in that area.

Um, no.  Otherwise they wouldn't be asking, nay begging, to do so.  Think I said why way back, namely that adult stem cells are very limited in what they can be 'turned' into.

[Grug]

Aldo pretty much beat me to the punch.

The fact of the matter is that the "other person's" existance is subject to one's viewpoint, contrare to the science which pretty much describes that it is not a person.
What say you to the already discarded matter?
Would it not be better if used for research of a beneficial gain to humanity?
Rather than discarding the cells or prohibiting all the research under the possibility, nigh the belief of the existance of a soul in a miniscule cell?

I'm positive that if there is an all knowing being making our existance possible, that it would be quite understanding of our plight to benefit humanity in this regard.

[Goober5000]

Anyways.  Key point, there is not another person involved.  There is the possibility you may consider another person to be involved, in spite of the general scientific consensus, but that possibility has to be weighed against a massive potential benefit that you'd be removing for those who disagree with your view.

On one side, you have a substantial potential benefit.  On the other, you have the taking of (what many believe is) the life of a person.  And the life of a person far outweighs any potential benefits gained by his death.

It's one thing for a person to sacrifice his life voluntarily for science.  It's quite another for it to be forced upon him without his consent.

I'm positive that if there is an all knowing being making our existance possible, that it would be quite understanding of our plight to benefit humanity in this regard.

Understanding, probably.  Approving, probably not.

[Turambar]

i prefer to step back from the earth a bit.  all we are, all any of this is, is the grime coating a rock, floating around a fusion reaction, in the middle of a sea of nothingness

when you realize the truth of the grime, everything else, made up things like god and nations, becomes incredibly trivial