brighid

Gallimore,

That is why we have debate, regulation and ethical committees - to address the valid concerns of people such as yourself. The fear of the unknown potential, or even the foreseeable potential for some who may or may not abuse the system IS NOT a good argument against the ban on such research.

I am absolutely against genetic testing for employment, insurance, etc. I do not support our current adminstrations choice to allow such information to be freely available. I believe the privacy of the individual should be protected, but again all of these concerns can be addressed through critical dialogue and proper legislation.

Brighid

dk

Wanton: 1a 1 a archaic : hard to control : UNDISCIPLINED, UNRULY Merriam-Webster’s Dectionary ©

Monozygote twinning empirically proves hES cells have the capacity to heal themselves by producing an identical twin when injured. In vitro fertilization performed in a lab proves a human blastula is a living human organism (autonomous of the parents).

Hope I cleared that up.

brighid

That is part of it ... read on ... merciless, inhumane, malicious, are among those also. Merriam Webesters Dictionary, 10th Edition.

Was that actually the context you wanted to use - undisciplined ... your argument seemed to support a much more "viscious" bent on the scientific exploration of ESC Research. Please clarify.

Brighid

brighid

Okay?? I still don't see the relevancy that has in support of your argument that ESC is immoral.

A human blastula is not capable of autonomy from the womb or other scientifically controlled environment. It is completely dependent upon the mother or laboratory and if it was autonomous it could exist independently outside of the womb/lab.

Perhaps I am missing something?

Brighid

brighid

In approximately one to two hours I will be leaving for the holiday and I will not have access to this board, therefore I won’t be posting further but will get back to the discussion upon my return.

Have a great holiday.

Brighid

dk

dk: Josef Mengela would have certainly agreed with you brighid. From an ethical standpoint to destroy one life to better another life virtually violates every civilized standard of law. It seems to me human embryonic research arbitrarily ranks embryos as nonhuman.
LordSnooty: Right, but you're using a strawman. The reason such a high value is placed on human life is because human beings are sentient, concious, and capable of thought and feeling. The life forms we're discussing are not sentient. They have no thoughts, understanding, or emotion. They would be no more aware of their own existence than a rock would be.
dk: A human being in a comma is no more sentient, conscious, emotional or aware than a rock or an embryo. People are routinely placed in a state of induced comma for most major surgeries, and they don’t forfeit their right to life even though they are no more aware of their existence than a rock. Further there are many creatures that are sentient, conscious and emotional, and lack the “right to life”.

LordSnooty: We do not destroy one human life to save another. But tiny embryos are not in posession of those very qualities that give human life value in the first place. We should place no more moral value in these tiny cell clusters than we should in an individual sperm.
dk: I have no ideas what qualities you think give human beings an innate right to life, but so far you haven’t mentioned any. A human egg or sperm cell isn’t an organism anymore than a liver cell is a liver, and that’s a scientific fact. On the other hand all the scientific evidence indicates that human life begins at conception, each moment of an individuals life being contingent upon the previous until the individual dies, and we are all going to die. Lets be clear natural (unintended) deaths offend nobody, but when people intend to benefit from the destruction of human life then people get very upset. It is difficult to justify the destruction of one human life to benefit another, and by doing so people become eminent threats to one another. The only reasonable (civilized) alternative requires everyone to respect the right to life. Embryonic stem cell research submits human life to science, and that’s exactly what Josef Mengela did in his laboratory.

LordSnooty: To summarise, I fully support destroying human life in circumstances where the human concerned does not have a brain or nervous system. I hope that clears up this cretinous argument of semantics for you.
dk: A brain dead body has both a brain and a nervous system, but is a corpse. The right to life presumes all human beings are created equal under the law, you’re the one mixing apples and oranges. In fact the fertilized eggs of endangered species are protected under the full force of the law. It has been empirically proven that life begins at conception, and that the reckless use of biotechnology presents a threat to all human life on the planet. To surmise civilization must balance the benefits against the threat, and science absent moral constraints poses an eminent threat to humanity.

LordSnooty: The only cause for objection is if you believe the embryo is somehow endowed with supernatural powers of magic (ie, a soul), a view which has little credence amongst people of reason.
dk: That’s a ridiculous statement. Morality and civilization existed long before modern science on a metaphysical foundation. Therefore civilization is contingent upon morality not science. It’s been the claim to fame of rational philosophers that scientism offers a reliable basis for morality, independent of metaphysical moonshine. Nobody seriously questions the need to order human conduct (morality) except perhaps anarchists. The blooded 20th Century deposes traditional morality and ethics for a positive impasse called MutuallyAssuredDestruction that bet humanities future on nuclear war . In the 21st Century its pretty clear science will break through the impasse to afford every hair brained terrorist and megalomaniac the means to kill 10s thousands even 10s of millions. McVey horrified the USA with a truck bomb built from fertilizer, a technology that dates back 2 hundred years and routinely used by 18th Century farmers to clear farm land of trees. On 9/11 bin Laden demonstrated the destructive power of commercial technology by bringing the economy of Western Civilization world to a virtual standstill, and destroying about 3,000 good hard working people. You certainly can believe that science offers a reliable foundation for morality (world order), but in fact the empirical evidence is quite under whelming if it exists at all.

LordSnooty: Incidentally, for you to evoke the name of Josef Mengele to support your pathetic argument is truly disgusting. Mengele experimented on real, living, sentient humans, not blobs of cells. You are a disgrace to your cause. And that's really saying something.
dk: In my opinion applying a balance of moral and practical principles to the evidentiary facts delineates justice, while the rationalization of laws absent justice threatens a truly disgusting future. Josef Mengela experimented on twins for under the authority of science to provide a benefit to humankind. Mengela’s intentions were utilitarian but unethical because they recklessly submitted human life to the rigors of scientific authority, like a lab rat.

brighid

How so?

Please detail how the current form of ESC Research is “reckless” (being marked by a lack of proper caution, careless of consequences, irresponsible or adventurous) and presents a “threat to all human life on the planet.”

You seem to be stuck on the idea that a human zygote is not actually a human being, any more then as you admit a human liver cell is not a liver. Although an individual, human life begins at conception does not actually make it a human being. A zygote does not yet have a body, organs, skeletal structure, a working brain, nervous system, blood circulation or any of the features that could distinguish it as uniquely human and not a glump of cells of another organism – without much more thorough inspection. If liver cells aren’t by themselves a liver, but without the proper number and configuration are a whole liver – how can a bunch of cells, not yet differentiated into any human form (although alive and possessing human DNA) be a human being? A human cell alone is nothing more then a human cell. We are the totality of ALL of our cells working in tandem to make each person what he or she is, including the defective cells that cause cancer, the damaged cells that cause paralysis and the mutated cells that were altered by environmental pathogens that cause other disease. So if cells, such as liver cells are taken from a fully developed human being, taken to the lab and engineered to create a new liver for a patient needing a diseases or damage liver replaced – how is that ANY different then the removal of cells from a fertilized embryo? The cells removed from the liver will die, and they are alive and fit your definition of deserving of “rights” so explain how cells taken from a fertilized egg (that is not ALL of the cells yet to be a human being) is any different?

Brighid

dk

The context I meant to relay .was "hard to control". For example, the surplus of frozen embryos innate to the existing process of in vitro fertilization creates a circumstance where human life can be uncontrollability destroyed. The circumstance being thousands of detached frozen human embryos. They exist without dignity so there existence degrades all human life to demonstrate human apathy.

I once had a street bum collapse in front of me downtown Chicago going into work late 0at night. It was with a forced effort I bent down to see if the guy was dead, and to my relief found he still had bad breath and a heart beat. I had to walk about 15 yards, and all the while I was debating to myself, "Will I give this guy CPR". On reflection I had to admit how little I actually valued human life, apart from self interest and comfort. The moral decadence emanated from my hard heart, and had nothing to do with the bum. As a rule I'd say human life doesn't have much value in modern civilization, all bull shit aside I view this as a practical and moral pandemic.

LordSnooty

I mentioned them clearly. Any human being that has a brain and nervous system, and is thus capable of thought. That is a human. A tiny cell cluster is not a human. It may be technically classed as 'human life', but as I have said (again, and again, and again) this is an argument of semantics, so please stop trying to use it to defend your odd beliefs. The question is not whether the cells are human, but whether they are deserving of the same rights as a developed human being. The answer is clearly 'no', since they lack any of the distinguishing features which make them either a) human or b) intelligent.
And you honestly see no moral difference? No difference between torturing children in the name of 'science', and experimenting on a cluster of cells that have no intelligence, capacity for pain, conciousness, thoughts, nor ANYTHING else that would make them human? You can't tell the difference?
Yes, but why do you think that it? It's because they're endangered! The eggs could be used to repopulate an endangered or extinct species. It's got nothing to do with the morality of destroying a particular set of cells. Last thing I checked, humans weren't on the endangered list.
Judging from your attitude towards the sick people that could be cured by stem cell research, I'd say morality has everything to do with this debate - and it's firmly on the side of science.

You might think that morality is about saving cell clusters, banning contraception and abortion, and telling sick people to 'live with it', but don't expect many people here to agree with you.

Paul

[ November 26, 2002: Message edited by: LordSnooty ]</p>

**makTHRAX**

Although I do condone ESC research, from a medical point of view human life does began at the moment that the sperm fertilizes the egg. It is human life. However, one must also consider that even in both in utero and in vitro fertilization the probability that a fertilizd egg wll make it past 6 weeks is very low. I like to consider pre-fetal and even fetal 'beings' as more potential life then life. When their potential for life is zero, as is the case of
"harvesting" stem cells from blastocysts, then these blastocysts should be used to enhance or save already existing life.

thx,
makTHRAX