OT - Stem Cell Research, is it ethical?

Page 3 of 5  
wrote:

[snip thoughtful, but somewhat lengthy, commentary with which I largely agree]
I guess I'd put it this way: I see children, particularly infants and the unborn, as more deserving of protection than adults (though not intrinsically any more valuable) because they are more vulnerable. We adults have the ability to care for and defend ourselves, but they do not, at least not to the same extent, and it is therefore incumbent upon us to be more careful of their lives and safety than we are of our own.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug Miller wrote:

We /do/ seem to agree on much of the issue - so I'll push my luck a bit and engage in hairsplitting just were our views diverge...
I'm of the opinion that all are equally /deserving/ of protection; but that the /need/ for protection is greatest for the very young, diminishes with the onset of maturity, and then increases with old age.
I've found that we need to be as careful with the lives and safety of adults as we are with children. With children the need for care is obvious. It's less obviously so with adults; but a part of becoming adult in many cultures is learning to mask or even deny the needs that are so obvious in children.
We restrain ourselves from telling a child that (s)he is "stupid" because we recognize the damage that can bring about. As time passes and our children become adults, we remember their vulnerabilies and we still don't tell 'em that they're stupid - even when they make really poor decisions. Let me use that as evidence that we (sometimes) recognize that protection is appropriate regardless of age. "Stupid" is only for those we don't care about or don't respect as human beings.
At a rather elemental level, nearly everyone subscribes to the principle called "The Golden Rule": treat other people the way you'd like to be treated yourself. For most of us, it's the basis for how we relate to others when we're acting in a way we ourselves approve of (and I acknowlege that we don't always play by even our own rules.)
Out of that, if I put myself in my own embryonic "shoes" I find that I would rather be a short-lived but significant contribution to improvement of life (for even just one person) than be an unwanted, unloved, and resented ("Stupid!") child with an extremely high probability of becoming an emotionally broken and crippled adult who knows only how to /not/ love self or others. In fact, I'd even prefer an embryonic trip to the dumpster to that.
In the best of all possible worlds, every living being would be protected and cherished. Since that's not this world, I would settle for every life having its own unique purpose and value.
Having said all that, I'll edge back to where we seem to be in better agreement by saying that it'd be really good if all of the research objectives can be accomplished using /adult/ stem cells.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto, Iowa USA
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I certainly agree with you with respect to the need for protection. We part company, albeit slightly, on the extent to which protection is deserved. It seems to me that adults who are capable of protecting themselves not only need less protection, but deserve less as well -- in the sense that, to the extent that society feels that those adults deserve protection, society is tempted to foist that protection on those who may not want it. Example: I never, EVER, go anywhere in a car without wearing a seat belt. And if I'm driving, the car doesn't roll until everyone is wearing one. But I'm strongly opposed to legislation requiring adults to wear them -- while at the same time, I support laws requiring parents to buckle their kids.

We may have to agree to disagree here...

No -- they tell us that we're stupid. :-)

What you call protection in this context, I would call manners.

A paradox: you have to be born first, to be capable, eventually, of thinking such thoughts. And of course, as an adult, you're not really able to put yourself in the place of an embryo... which leads me to suspect that these hypothetical embryonic thoughts are really actual adult a priori beliefs.

I entirely agree -- which is exactly why I am opposed to the destruction of embryos, regardless of the reason -- and insist that there had better be a pretty darn good reason for the destruction of *any* human life. (Yes, that *is* an invitation to discuss the morality of capital punishment, if anyone's interested.)

We're definitely in complete agreement there.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Actually all of the promising stem cell research has been with adult-source stem cells. None of the promising results have been with fetal or umbilical stem cells.
The Bush administration has funded research with stem cells: Adult, umbilical, and existing strains of fetal. What the Bush administration refuses to fund is the creation of fetuses for the sole purpose of destroying said fetuses.
Using the all-important "Follow the Money" principle, one notes that that Big Pharma, when they must spend their OWN money, choose to spend it on adult stem cell research rather than fetal or umbilical. Given that there's no particular reason why for example a German pharmaceutical company would feel bound by American mores, that suggests to me that reason is purely capitalistic: They believe that adult stem cells are more promising, and vote with their dollars.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
in my last post spell check changed the 5th type of abortion to hysterectomy.. it should read hysterotomy
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

<snip of bandwitdh hogging diatribe and graphic description of medical procedures, every last one of them legal and life-saving, on occasion>
Mel. I apologize for assuming that you have a sense of irony, and offer my condolences on learning that you don't.
Ditto on the sense of humor.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm not that easily amused. But your hand-wringing and wailing over the collection of stem cells, and the bizarre extrapolation to abortion, is funny in a bleeding-heart conservative (tmSC) sort of way.
Just a heads up, Mel: stem cells aren't collected by dumpster diving at Planned Parenthood clinics.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

the bizarre extrapolation to abortion, is funny in a bleeding-heart conservative (tmSC) sort of way.
I'm going to try to help you understand, whether you agree to the views or not, where the extrapolation comes from....
Some say life begins at conception
Some say life begins at birth.
Nobody knows for sure.
If you believe meaningful life begins at conception then you believe that the loss of a fertilized egg is a loss of life.... accidental or intentional.
If you believe meaningful life begins at birth then you believe it doesn't matter until it draws breath.
There are many levels of belief in between. The above are the two extremes.
We, as a people, are being called to define our belief because of 1) abortion, 2) invetro fertilization, and 3) stem cell research.
If you align yourself on the life at conception side then you believe all of these issues warrant responsible consideration. I want to take the liberty to make the statement this view is the only view you know for sure that innocent life is being protected.
If you align yourself on the belief that there exist a particular stage in development before it can be called a meaningful life then you are merely guessing hence the often occurring need for justification. If you say that you can fertilize an egg and allow it to develop to a point and then discard it then you also say that same stage can be aborted. Hence the extrapolation.
Just to define my view....I'm not against stem cell research. As long as the material is collected in a responsible manner with consideration to the protection of innocent life. i.e. miscarriages, stillbirths, accidental death of a mother.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@sbcglobal.net says...
Mel, that was one of the few reasonable posts in this thread.

One small quibble to that.
I know that the woman carrying the fetus is a human. When the fetus becomes human is, as you say, a matter of opinion. When there is a conflict betwen the woman and the fetus, I'd have to come down on the side of the woman. That's the only justification I need.
--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

in
merely
Weigh that against the consequence to the woman (for most, an inconvenience, though of course, a major one) and to the fetus (death). So, if there's a possibility that the fetus is a person with rights, doesn't it deserve additional consideration because the penalty for being wrong is so great? Here's a question no one on the pro-abortion side wants to answer. Let's say for a moment that none of us truly knows if the fetus is a person with rights. Maybe it's a person, maybe it's not. Good Lord, what if you're wrong? 1.3 million persons are exterminated every year! If I'm wrong, a whole bunch of women are inconvenienced for 9 months. (Please leave out the rape cases and those causing death to the mother...they're a tiny fraction of the total).
todd
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Wrote:

becomes human is, as you say, a matter of opinion. When there is a conflict between the woman and the fetus, I'd have to come down on the side of the woman. That's the only justification I need.
First, I'd ask you to define conflict and then I'd ask you to apply the logic to the justification to ending any life... fetus to adult. Self-preservation I'll buy along with numerous other extenuating circumstances... personal inconvenience or the avoidance of unpleasant consequences due to poor decisions.... I have to draw the line there.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&q=author:bosco32v3%40yahoo.com +
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Absolutely.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com says...

Bullsh*t! Embryonic stem cells can be gotten from the thousands of frozen unwanted embryos which are going to be discarded anyway.
And defining a fetus, especially at a very early stage (blastocyst?) as a human being, is a religious belief, not a fact. One could equally hold the belief (also not a fact) that a fetus only becomes human when it is capable of surviving outside the womb without extraordinary measures.
The fact is that there is no scientific definition of the transition point from embryo to human.
--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Does that make it right?

Its cells contain human DNA.If it isn't human, what is it?

[but incorrectly]

To do so is equivalent to maintaining that a baby born sufficiently prematurely is not human.

That's because there is no transition. A human embryo is human from the beginning, just as a dog embryo is a dog from the beginning.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug Miller wrote:

Thank you, Doug. I have been reading this thread trying to think of the proper response and how to word it and you said exactly what I believe. Well said.
Glen
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@ix.netcom.com says...

And I suppose you both think an egg is a chicken, right?
Do you understand the word "potential"? A fetus is a potential human just as an egg is a potential chicken.
Anyway, this subject has been argued for decades and it still comes down to a religion trying to force others to live by its tenets.
And BTW, somebody said the argument is over when the fetus gets a soul. Well, there are a lot of folks who'd say "never" to that. If they're right, does that mean none of us are human?
End discusssionas far as I'm concerned. It's impossible to change the views of someone who bases their opinions on faith instead of facts.
To the rest of you, I apologize for responding in the first place. I've got to learn to ignore the trolls/fanatics/etc..
Perhaps I should lose "faith" that reason will change human minds. Shaw may well have been right.
--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<snip> End discusssionas far as I'm concerned. It's impossible to change the views of someone who bases their opinions on faith instead of facts.
Actually Larry.. according to your own words.. you've based your opinions on the absence of facts. And as far as understanding the word "potential"... I personally hesitate to remove value if the "potential" exists. In fact, that is exactly why I would attribute value. As far as not attributing a particular designation to an egg.. such as a "chicken" egg as you've chosen this example..... next time you make yourself breakfast ask yourself if lizard eggs will do just as well.....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

If they were mas--produced and thus cheap enough, and that's what people had been eating all their lives, they *would* have done just as well. There is nothing particularly appetizing about chickens in the flesh, or the factories used to produce them or their eggs.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<snip>If they were mas--produced and thus cheap enough, and that's what people had been eating all their lives, they *would* have done just as well. There is nothing particularly appetizing about chickens in the flesh, or the factories used to produce them or their eggs.
Ok.. you got me.... if embryos were mass produced and women were viewed as factories then this wouldn't be questioned by our society.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.