Mr. Card, you strongly support president Bush on many matters. What's your take on the proposed stem cell research bill veto? The issues you support are more or less arguable but I can usually see how one can agree with you, and sometimes I do myself. I hope you oppose the proposed veto (if it is at all possible for a religious person, I am the walrus here) because it is inconceivable to me how a rational man can suggest such a veto. It would be really interesting to know your opinion.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:it is inconceivable to me how a rational man can suggest such a veto
*shakes head sadly*
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Let's try a thought experiment.
Pretend you're a rational man who's suggested such a veto. How and why might you do this?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
You can make a case, probably a good case for such a veto. I don't think you can rationally argue for this being the ONLY veto in an 8-year term.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Why? There's been a remarkably pliant congress of his own party for the 5 and a half years he's been in office.
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
I had tried to pretend, honestly. The only argument I could come up with was that it might be dangerous to implement the stem cell technology into health care because of unknown side effects. Only this is ridiculous: any new technique is dangerous and requires study and experiment, and this one by far is not the most dangerous one. Besides, there are other application than health care. There is nothing else I can think of.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Try using the more precise title - embryonic stem cells - and see if anything springs to mind.
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
I guess I am not familiar enough with the subtleties of the subject. However, the only viable objection that I can see would be, if one has to initiate an embryo specifically for harvesting the cells. If this is the case (which I doubt), I can see why some people may object. I don't though.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Can you imagine why anybody would object to using aborted embryos?
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
No
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Then let's try this: can you imagine why anybody would have problems with using the bodies of murder victims for medical experimentation?
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
Maybe they feel that it promotes the abortion fetuses because the woman feels it might help people out.
I am assuming that was not a rhetorical question.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
Such a great exercise in developing logic.
Although Porter I fear that your efforts will probably be wasted.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I'll try to make sure it's not my fault. Posted by Objectivity (Member # 4553) on :
Aside for the moral questions, how about this...
Adult stem cells have been used to successfully treat hundreds of patients. There's at least one case of a person who had severe Parkinson's who is now virtually symptom free.
Embryonic stem cells have not once successfully treated anyone or any disease. Ever.
That's not to say that it isn't possible, but given the choice of spending billions of dollars on a treatment that has proven effectiveness and can cure people now, versus one for which the technology to even test potential uses hasn't been invented yet, the choice is incredibly clear.
Posted by Leroy (Member # 9533) on :
To Objectivity:
Can you tell us where you found that?--I'm not doubting you, I just would like to read more about the statistics.
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Then let's try this: can you imagine why anybody would have problems with using the bodies of murder victims for medical experimentation?
If we are still talking about a rational person, then no. Why would you mix murder with using a body?
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
Because Crocobar most of the people that oppose abortion feel that is the murder of an innocent human being, one that is incapable of defending himself.
When using aborted fetuses, people will feel like that the aborted fetus is a murder victim. And taking stem cells from said aborted fetus will seem as though you are conducting medical experiments on a murder victim.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
To me, it is slightly less horrible than when German-Dictator-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named did medical experiments on concentration camp prisoners.
But I will acknowledge that I am undereducated about the process, and that my view is considered extreme. I don't think I'm irrational, though. (I do have some irrational issues ... I know the difference.)
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
But embryonic stem cells don't come from aborted feti (fetuses, whatever). I don't know if I'm recalling correctly that there was discussion of successfully treating Parkinsons with tissue from aborted fetuses a few years ago.
No, the stem cells would come from embryos created solely for harvest. While this means they are never more than a few clumps of cells, it does seem wrong to use something potentially part of our species like a beef.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure OSC had a review once where he mentioned the many successes of work with adult stem cells and the lack of promise from work on the permitted lines of embryonic stem cells. There are several dozen embryonic stem cell lines available, but the researchers believe that somehow, if they had an unlimited supply of stem cell lines, their chances of success would be greater. I do not understand or sympathize with this belief. It seems somewhat fanciful.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Although I agree with Brownback's position, I do wish he has given footnote reference somewhere to source of his facts cited.
FG (that link is not to what he actually said on the Senate floor - that is a link to his press release on the matter. But he did make public statements to that effect, as well)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Crocobar:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Then let's try this: can you imagine why anybody would have problems with using the bodies of murder victims for medical experimentation?
If we are still talking about a rational person, then no.
Such a lack of imagination.
quote:Why would you mix murder with using a body?
I have no idea what this means.
Let's try it again: can you imagine any problems that could arrise if we used all the the bodies of executed felons as organ donors?
Posted by Kent (Member # 7850) on :
YOU GUYS ARE DRIVING ME NUTS!
The veto is NOT about legalizing stem cell research or anything else that the media is hyping up. The veto is about federally funding it. This is more about the role of government funding medical research. Even if this bill doesn't pass, California and several other states are planning on funding the research, as are many private businesses.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I once did a project on a Parkinson's paper using embryonic stem cells that had very promising results. Unfortunately, the website is no longer up and it has been 5 computers since I did that, so no reference. sorry, too lazy for a pubmed search right now. The problem with the comparison over the murdered body- you have to include that the murdered victim's family has signed him over to medical research and that the current plans for disposal included nothing respectful (incineration followed by dumping). Also, for ethical reasons, fertility clinics are the preferred source. Creating embryos still too much work to make it worth it. pooka- in order to make immortalized stem cells, you have to screw with them (primary cell lines would avoid this). Then add in contamination which is difficult to avoid. Then, look at aging. Every time you passage cells (embryonic or normal), they change. That's why when you do a cell experiment you want to keep passage numbers the same throughout. You can only get a certain number of cells for any given passsage. So, you harvest your stem cells and then immortalize them and make passage one. You get, let's say ten tubes at passage one. That is all you will ever have at that passage number. If each tube of P1 can create ten tubes worth of P2, the most at P2 you will ever have is 100 (and you now have none of P1 left). You start distributing your cells around the world, these are gone fast. Scientists would like to use the early passages because they are going to be the most like the original cells, but these are gone. So, scientists are forced to use cells which by nature are not ideal for their experiments. So, they don't count using an inability to make something work when using faulty tools as a failure.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:you have to include that the murdered victim's family has signed him over to medical research
Well, that's very generous of them after they had the person murdered/removed from life support for what were likely financial reasons.
P.S. I did not know that about the cell line purity, but I'm not sure how making a wider diversity of cells available addresses that.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:it is inconceivable to me how a rational man can suggest such a veto
Let's try a different angle:
Can you imagine any reason why a rational man would suggest vetoing a bill which spends public money on something which a large segment of the population is (rationally or irrationally -- it doesn't matter) against?
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shawshank: Because Crocobar most of the people that oppose abortion feel that is the murder of an innocent human being, one that is incapable of defending himself.
When using aborted fetuses, people will feel like that the aborted fetus is a murder victim. And taking stem cells from said aborted fetus will seem as though you are conducting medical experiments on a murder victim.
I have understood the point of comparison perfectly well. It is just that I do not see a connection between a murder and a usage of a body of a victim for an experiment. The experiment does not promote or justify murder in any way.
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kent: YOU GUYS ARE DRIVING ME NUTS!
The veto is NOT about legalizing stem cell research or anything else that the media is hyping up. The veto is about federally funding it. This is more about the role of government funding medical research. Even if this bill doesn't pass, California and several other states are planning on funding the research, as are many private businesses.
I admit that I do not know the details of this veto. That was not the point though, rather a spark that initiated a discussion. However, I doubt you would deny that it is not a lack of federal funds that prompts mr. president to suggest a veto on such a subject. Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Such a lack of imagination.
_Rational_ was the word. I can imagine plenty of emotions on such a subject of course.
quote:I have no idea what this means.
I meant to say that using a body of a murder victim does not justify the murder itself in any shape or from.
quote: Let's try it again: can you imagine any problems that could arrise if we used all the the bodies of executed felons as organ donors?
If there are no expressed wishes of the executed or whoever has power of attorney for them, I do not see a problem in using the organs. That is not to say that this is allowed under current law, I do not know what the law says on the subject.
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:it is inconceivable to me how a rational man can suggest such a veto
Let's try a different angle:
Can you imagine any reason why a rational man would suggest vetoing a bill which spends public money on something which a large segment of the population is (rationally or irrationally -- it doesn't matter) against?
I'll make the point of my question more clear: I do not care about financing the research, only about forbidding it. I only used the veto to make an emotionally stronger beginning statement, and it is misleading. So, forget about the veto and the money.
On a seconf thought, I'd like to answer this as well. In my understanding, this is a difference between a pure democracy and a constitutional republic (that we live in, right?) The point of having a president is that he can make an unpopular judgement call. If any wish of the majority was satisfied as you imply, you may find yourself executed just because the majority didn't like you based, say, on your religious belief. That's why the word "democracy" should not fly around as much as it does these days.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I do not care about financing the research, only about forbidding it.
If that's true, I have no idea what your problem is. Stem cell research is perfectly legal in the US. All Bush is trying to stop with his vetoe is financing the research with federal money.
quote:If there are no expressed wishes of the executed or whoever has power of attorney for them, I do not see a problem in using the organs.
Can you imagine us executing more and more people because of the great benefits "law-abiding" citizens receive from their organs?
"Every execution saves a life."
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:it is inconceivable to me how a rational man can suggest such a veto ----I admit that I do not know the details of this veto.
Maybe you should learn the details before spouting off like that. Of course it's inconceivable if you don't know the facts.
quote:However, I doubt you would deny that it is not a lack of federal funds that prompts mr. president to suggest a veto on such a subject.
Bush has said that because so many Americans feel it is morally wrong, it is inappropriate for public money to fund it.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
quote:Bush has said that because so many Americans feel it is morally wrong, it is inappropriate for public money to fund it.
However, there are many more Americans that feel it is an appropriate use for public money. If that is the criteria, then Bush is taking the wrong action.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Artemisia -- do you have statistics to back up that those people are in the majority? And are those statistics ONLY on embryonic stem cells - not all general stem cell research?
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
quote:Can you imagine us executing more and more people because of the great benefits "law-abiding" citizens receive from their organs?
"Every execution saves a life."
No, I cannot imagine that. Are you saying that the pemission to use organs of the executed will create too much a temptation for judges to condemn people to death unlawfully? I think it's a stretch. Anyway, this has gone too far from the original question of acceptability of the stem cell research. Let's not fork into legal area too. What I am trying to learn is why people object to the stem cell research. You do object, don't you?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
If you honestly cannot imagine that happening, then I am at a loss as to how I can communicate with you.
If you're just saying that you cannot imagine it because you don't want to "lose" a point, then I still am at a loss as to how I can communicate with you.
If we are just not understanding each other, I'm still at a loss.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I think most scientists have trouble with connecting the idea to abortion at all. We look at the situation and say, ok, millions of fetuses being thrown away as medical waste. If we could have them, we have the potential to save lives. Otherwise, they just go to the dump. At no point are we saying that how the fetuses got to the dumpster was acceptable, just that using them to save lives is better than trashing them. And in many ways, I think this is far more respectful of the dead. On the federal funding issue, I have not read the guidelines for a few years. When I did, the funding restriction was such that if I get even a dollar from federal funding for any project, I could not use them at all- even if the stem cell research was supported entirely by an outside source (good scientists have multiple grants and multiple projects). Also, since the university received federal grants, if you worked in a university building, you could not use stem cells at all. So, the federal funding source in essence forbid most researchers. This may have changed since I read the rules.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Not all scientists have multiple grants and multiple projects. Most scientists work for labs, and the labs may or may not have multiple grants or projects depending on size and specialization. Any given scientist spends most of their time on one thing- I believe.
So some people think the majority are against killing embryos, and some think the majority are for stem cell research. Since no one knows...
quote:The point of having a president is that he can make an unpopular judgement call.
doesn't really apply, I guess. Anyway, I don't think it's the president's job to always make the unpopular call, regardless of his own opinions. Otherwise we could use a magic 8 ball for president.
Do I get that you are hung up on the word "Veto" meaning "I forbid"?
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
This does somewhat address the multiple lab issue. So, that hasn't changed. Also, addresses some of the problems with current lines. And apparantly, this bill that Bush vetoed would not allow for creation of new lines, just use of any line. Cell lines are usually provided for free or cost of shipping, so no fear of people making more profits off creation of new lines.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Some people think an embryo is a baby. In that case, whether there is profit from the sale or not doesn't matter if the baby is killed. Why is that so hard for some people to understand? The "it's not a baby until it breathes" line is just as irrational (in my humble opinion). But no one seems to want to put a definite mark on the calendar anywhere in between.
I tried to advance 7 weeks once and was excoriated for it. So I've gone back to saying "from conception." Some people really don't know how to build a bridge.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
The baby is dead. Whether or not I use it to make stem cells or not, it is still dead. Nothing I do changes that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Can you take usable stem cells from a dead embryo?
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
Depends on how we define death. But, by the time stem cell production comes in, the baby's fate has been determined.
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: If you honestly cannot imagine that happening, then I am at a loss as to how I can communicate with you.
If you're just saying that you cannot imagine it because you don't want to "lose" a point, then I still am at a loss as to how I can communicate with you.
If we are just not understanding each other, I'm still at a loss.
I am not trying to win or lose any point since the purpose of my question is to understand something, not to convince anybody. In particular, I am trying to see if there is a rational (that is not based on faith or emotion) reason that would make a person to object to the stem cell research. You do not have to work through allusions and analogies with me. If you have such a reason, just state it, I'll do my best to understand. However, it is beneficial for the sake of discussion, that you examine your reason first, that it is based on reasonable assumptions, and is logical.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:reason that would make a person to object to the stem cell research
(Note: you should specify it as embryonic stem cell research.)
1. Human life begins at the moment when fertilization is complete.
2. Taking the stem cells kills a human being.
3. Therefore it is immoral to do so.
4. This is not made acceptable or moral because someone else is going to kill the human being in some other fashion.
quote:If you have such a reason, just state it, I'll do my best to understand.
The reason I, and I'm guessing MPH, has been working through allusions is to try to encourage you to take an honest look at other people's beliefs.
I frankly don't believe that you can't imagine this, and I doubt MPH does either. Had you done a modicum of research on the subject, you'd have found several well-written editorials and essays on the subject.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I think he/she isn't understanding because of this statement
quote: I am trying to see if there is a rational (that is not based on faith or emotion) reason
Obviously, if our personal beliefs within ourselves he classifies as "faith or emotion" then he thinks it isn't rational. So I don't know how to understand what he means by "rational" when my own definition of rational comes from my personal moral/ethical code.
FG
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
Let's clarify my position.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: 1. Human life begins at the moment when fertilization is complete.
I neither agree nor disagree. I am willing to keep discussion in the framework of this assumption.
quote: 2. Taking the stem cells kills a human being.
This may be true (may be not) but I do not suggest this. There are ways to harvest stem cells after the fate of the embryo is decided, i.e. from just miscarried one-month-old embryo. It is alive from the stem cells point of view but there is no way it is going to survive.
quote: 3. Therefore it is immoral to do so.
I agree that it is immoral to kill embryo for its cells if we assume it is human from conception. As I said, let's accept this for the sake of argument.
quote: 4. This is not made acceptable or moral because someone else is going to kill the human being in some other fashion.
It isn't. I do not suggest it.
quote:...Had you done a modicum of research on the subject, you'd have found several well-written editorials and essays on the subject.
This sounds an awful lot like "I do not want to talk to you" to me. I might just want to talk, or I might want to learn what this forum has to say on the subject. I am not even pretending that I am an expert on the subject but so are most of the people. I am curious to know the train of their thought.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Croc, it sounds like you agree or could agree with everything Dag said, so why is it you cannot imagine a rational person objecting to the practice?
Another of my concerns would be that they're not going to wait around for women to miscarry so they can get their stem cells. I worry about the creation of human embryos for the purpose of medical research on embryonic stem cells.
That may not be what this veto is about; I'm less familiar with the particulars. But it is a concern.
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Farmgirl: ... our personal beliefs within ourselves he classifies as "faith or emotion" then he thinks it isn't rational. So I don't know how to understand what he means by "rational" when my own definition of rational comes from my personal moral/ethical code.
And your moral/ethical code comes from..? If you consider yourself rational, you won't have a problem with understanding that everything derived from your religious beliefs may not be taken as valid by someone who does not share your beliefs.
I defined what I meant by "rational" explicitely. I think the word "rational" is appropriate. Here's a quotation.
quote:dictionary.com: rational - Influenced by reasoning rather than by emotion. - relating to, based on, or guided by reason, principle, fairness, logic, a legitimate state interest, or a consideration of fact.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If you consider yourself rational, you won't have a problem with understanding that everything derived from your religious beliefs may not be taken as valid by someone who does not share your beliefs.
Yes, but we're not the ones who aren't understanding others. You are.
It's not that you disagree - heck, I'm not even sure all of the people who have addressed you agree on the subject. There are lots of disagreements on this subject.
It's that you're unable to view those who disagree with you as doing so for rational reasons. This makes us think it is pointless to speak with you on the subject.
When I listed a rational rationale for supporting the veto, you proceeded to list reasons why you disagreed with the rationale, which demonstrates to me that you still don't get why your original post was problematic.
You don't have to agree with the rationale to think it rational.
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: Croc, it sounds like you agree or could agree with everything Dag said, so why is it you cannot imagine a rational person objecting to the practice?
Because I hasn't read a single reason yet, and I honestly do not see a reason myself. I understand that people are concerned about killing embryos but this is not what I am asking about. Let's get cells from dead or doomed embryos.
quote: Another of my concerns would be that they're not going to wait around for women to miscarry so they can get their stem cells. I worry about the creation of human embryos for the purpose of medical research on embryonic stem cells.
I may be afraid that my son will speed and get in an accident if I buy him a car that he needs for transportation. I will still buy a car though, and will do my best to advise him.
quote: That may not be what this veto is about; I'm less familiar with the particulars. But it is a concern.
Forget about the veto.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: Let's get cells from dead or doomed embryos.
The "or doomed" has the same problems as "non-doomed" embryos. And this veto doesn't deal with "dead" embryos. It deals with ones currently in storage in IVF clinics. They may be doomed, but the they will be killed by the act of taking their stem cells.
You need to start exhibiting some good faith in this discussion. Your ongoing refutation of the reasons given belie your interest in discovering what others think on the subject.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
It seems like common sense to me that the embryos absolutely have to be living for them to do any good. Dead cells wouldn't be able to do what is needed for medical research, right? So they have to use live cells from living embryos to do this research?
(An honest question; if we're talking about harvesting cells from miscarriages or other already-dead embryos, that makes a difference, to me.)
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: It's that you're unable to view those who disagree with you as doing so for rational reasons. This makes us think it is pointless to speak with you on the subject.
There's a lot of opinion in this statement of yours. Anyway, if you give me a reason, I'll either accept it or tell you why I think it is irrational. After that you'll have your turn. That how a discussion works I believe.
quote: When I listed a rational rationale for supporting the veto, you proceeded to list reasons why you disagreed with the rationale, which demonstrates to me that you still don't get why your original post was problematic.
I agreed (see above) that my original post was problematic in that I quoted the veto without understanding that it is mainly about money and not about principle (at least formally). I explained that the purpose of mine was to learn about the opinions of this forum on why they may think stem cell research should not be allowed. I did not agree with you about your take on what a president should do based on majority's opinion but that's another topic, let's not discuss it in parallel.
quote: You don't have to agree with the rationale to think it rational.
Absolutely!
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: ... (An honest question; if we're talking about harvesting cells from miscarriages or other already-dead embryos, that makes a difference, to me.) [/QB]
A cell and an embryo being alive are two very different things. As far as I know, there are plenty of living cells in a half-decomposed corpse many days after death. I think that harvesting cells from a dead embryo is very similar to harvesting organs from a dead person.
Let me say once again that I do not argue (at the moment) for harvesting cells from a living embryo, much less for killing an embryo by doing so.
As with the question when the embryo is alive, it is uncertain when it is dead. If you throw just fertilized egg from the body, it is my understanding that the cell (the egg) will lose its chance of developing further much earlier than it is technically (read biologically) dead.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:The reason I, and I'm guessing MPH, has been working through allusions is to try to encourage you to take an honest look at other people's beliefs.
I frankly don't believe that you can't imagine this, and I doubt MPH does either.
Quoted here, just in case Crocobar missed it the first time.
quote:However, it is beneficial for the sake of discussion, that you examine your reason first, that it is based on reasonable assumptions, and is logical.
I think you need to examine your assumptions, namely that you know what my view on the subject is.
I haven't been advocating anything in this thread, except that it is possible for a rational person to be against spending federal money on embryonic stem cell research.
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: The "or doomed" has the same problems as "non-doomed" embryos.
I agree in a sence that if it is alive, we probably should not touch it. What I meant by doomed was: if you have an "alive" embryo in a freezer, do whatever you would do with it if there were no stem cell harvesting. Once the embryo is not alive by your standards, I will get to it with a cleaver.
quote: And this veto doesn't deal with "dead" embryos.
Please, please forget the veto.
quote: It deals with ones currently in storage in IVF clinics. They may be doomed, but the they will be killed by the act of taking their stem cells.
See above.
quote: You need to start exhibiting some good faith in this discussion. Your ongoing refutation of the reasons given belie your interest in discovering what others think on the subject.
You probably meant to say that _you think_ that I need...whatever I needed. I explain why I refute the reasons, and I do not refute all that's said. I am not going to accept the reasons that are faulty just so it would prove my interest in the discussion.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I would be willing to concede that there are reasons to oppose stem cell researches, though I do not personally agree with them. However, I still think that the rationale needs to extend beyond embryos are life that deserve respect. You can easily be pro-life and pro-embryonic stem cell research (Utah's Senator Hatch comes to mind).
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholar: I would be willing to concede that there are reasons to oppose stem cell researches, though I do not personally agree with them. However, I still think that the rationale needs to extend beyond embryos are life that deserve respect. You can easily be pro-life and pro-embryonic stem cell research (Utah's Senator Hatch comes to mind).
Scholar, let's get past not killing embryos first, it is proving difficult as it is.
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
quote: I think you need to examine your assumptions, namely that you know what my view on the subject is
I do not know your view, so I am asking.
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: ... I haven't been advocating anything in this thread, except that it is possible for a rational person to be against spending federal money on embryonic stem cell research.
We do not have a disagreement then. Only, this is beside the point, mainly because of my misleading first statement. It would be interesting to learn your opinion on the subject of the thread.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:We do not have a disagreement then.
I don't see how you can say that. You have repeatedly said that you cannot imagine a rational person doing so. Have you changed your mind?
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:We do not have a disagreement then.
I don't see how you can say that. You have repeatedly said that you cannot imagine a rational person doing so. Have you changed your mind?
I am not asking about funding the research. I've explained repeatedly through this thread that my mention of the veto hasn't a place in this discussion. I agree that a rational person may be against spending money on any research. My question, however, is not about funding. Once again, forget I've ever mentioned the veto.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
It seems you keep changing the debate. Now we're only talking about why a rational person would object to harvesting stem cells from an already-dead embryo for use in research? That is, to me, a very different situation than what actually goes on, and a very different situation than what most people object to, and a different situation than what Pres. Bush wants to ve - wait - not supposed to mention that.
So if you want a rational reason why Pres. Bush or any other person might object to stem-cell research, you can't put so many restrictions on the discussion that we're no longer talking about the things people object to.
I wouldn't personally object to using cells from an already-dead embryo for research, but I would object to using cells from a soon-to-be-dead embryo. Just like I would object to taking the eyes out of a person with a terminal disease just so we could experiment on them (he's going to die soon, he won't need them!). Of course, I object to the existence of doomed embryos in the first place. We shouldn't create life just to destroy it or just to experiment upon it.
Now. Tell me why my reason for objecting is irrational.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
It's a very cloudy area for me, because I am not sure what I really believe about when life begins.
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: It seems you keep changing the debate. Now we're only talking about why a rational person would object to harvesting stem cells from an already-dead embryo for use in research?
It only seems so. This was my original question, at least in my mind. I try to abstain from mixing this discussion with a totally different question of harvesting cells from "living" embryos because I understand that this is a question "since when the embryos are alive". Nobody has any knowledge about this but many different opinions exist based on person's beliefs. Hence the discussion would be fruitless.
quote: ... So if you want a rational reason why Pres. Bush or any other person might object to stem-cell research, you can't put so many restrictions on the discussion that we're no longer talking about the things people object to.
I don't put restrictions, only clarify what I am interested in. You are welcome to express your thoughts on any subject. It won't clarify the discussion though.
quote: I wouldn't personally object to using cells from an already-dead embryo for research...
Neither would I. That's why I wonder why would anyone.
quote: but I would object to using cells from a soon-to-be-dead embryo. Just like I would object to taking the eyes out of a person with a terminal disease just so we could experiment on them (he's going to die soon, he won't need them!). Of course, I object to the existence of doomed embryos in the first place. We shouldn't create life just to destroy it or just to experiment upon it.
Now. Tell me why my reason for objecting is irrational.
I don't think that you reason against killing living beings is irrational.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Can you imagine any reason why a rational man would suggest vetoing a bill which spends public money on something which a large segment of the population is (rationally or irrationally -- it doesn't matter) against?
Actually, a majority of the population is FOR it. According to MSN.
Just to sum things up, people who object against stem cell research, really seem to object to destroying embryos only.
Apart from that there was an argument comparing using stem cells from dead embryos to using murder victims' bodies for medical experiments but it was abandoned.
I think I get the idea. However, I read a little bit about the stem cells research, and it does seem that the very first cells of an embryo are the most useful, so an issue of creating and destroying embryos solely for the purpose of harvesting the stem cells is unavoidable. If you feel like it, we can discuss it, although this is probably a matter of opinion, what is alive and what is not.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Actually, a majority of the population is FOR it. According to MSN.
That does not conflict with what I said in the slightest.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:Just to sum things up, people who object against stem cell research, really seem to object to destroying embryos only.
That would be my objection, yes.
To limit the conversation to "Why would you object to stem-cell research on stem-cells harvested from dead embryos" ignores the fact that they're not harvesting from dead embryos, and therefore ignores the entire reason for the objection (my objection, anyway).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The topic I think is more interesting about this is why our research establishment is in such a state that meaningful research can't be performed without federal funding.
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
"Meaningful" research costs a lot. For example, even such a country as USA cannot afford experimental particle physics anymore, it is being done solely by an international effort these days. A remark about grants above was very true. There are literary no scientific institutions in USA that do not have some federal support.
Posted by Objectivity (Member # 4553) on :
quote:Originally posted by Crocobar: This may be true (may be not) but I do not suggest this. There are ways to harvest stem cells after the fate of the embryo is decided, i.e. from just miscarried one-month-old embryo. It is alive from the stem cells point of view but there is no way it is going to survive.
Actually, embryonic stem cells are harvested 3-5 days after sperm and egg meet. At the age you discuss, it would be too late. Plus, I'm not sure if we realistically have the technology to collect (for lack of a better word) a "just miscarried one-month-old embryo."
I'm not sure about that, but just basing it on the difficulty doctors have in finding a heart beat until 6-8 weeks.
Posted by Objectivity (Member # 4553) on :
quote:Originally posted by Leroy: To Objectivity:
Can you tell us where you found that?--I'm not doubting you, I just would like to read more about the statistics.
The patient who was all-but-cured of Parkinson's is Dennis Turner. There are many websites about him and the lack of attention his amazing treatment received in the mainstream media.
Here is his testimony about his treatment in front of a Senate committee in 2004. His treatment took place in 1999.
As far as the ineffectiveness of embryonic stem cell treatments, it's hard to prove a negative. My best suggestion would be to keep asking for examples of people successfully treated with them. That will end the conversation because there aren't any, only potential.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Then let's try this: can you imagine why anybody would have problems with using the bodies of murder victims for medical experimentation?
mph, please imagine that to some people this is not at all equivelant. Besides, we DO use the bodies of murder victims for medical emperimentation!
Its not as if we murdered them, which is the connection I think you are trying to draw? Not everyone (obviously) thinks that an embryo is alive. That said, I think Crocobar is having you on, he understands what you are saying, but acts as if he doesn't, I suppose he believes this to be in itself, believable. It isn't though.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: The topic I think is more interesting about this is why our research establishment is in such a state that meaningful research can't be performed without federal funding.
I agree. As Bill Bryon noted in a recent book, "Given the choice between producing an anti-biotic that a patient will take for a week, or anti-depressants which patients will take for the rest of their lives, drug companies, not surprisingly, choose the latter."
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:mph, please imagine that to some people this is not at all equivelant.
I didn't say it was equivalent.
But whether you or I think it is equivalent is beside the point.
Here's the point: if you can understand why a rational person would have issues with doing it with murder victims and you can understand why a rational person would view them as equivalent, then you can understand why a rational person would have issues with doing it with embryos.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Crocobar: A cell and an embryo being alive are two very different things. As far as I know, there are plenty of living cells in a half-decomposed corpse many days after death. I think that harvesting cells from a dead embryo is very similar to harvesting organs from a dead person.
Leaving aside for the moment your issues with logic and respect for the thinking processes of other people, your scientific/medical "facts" are simply wrong.
The cells in a body need oxygen. When the heart and lungs stop functioning, all the cells in the body die. Never mind waiting a few days; within a few hours (at most!) all the cells will be dead. (With the exception of those few living cells in direct contact with oxygen, like those of the corneas.)
Not surprisingly, organs must be harvested very, very shortly after death.
Also, leaving aside the technology (or lack of same) needed to collect miscarried embryos/fetuses of any gestational age, it doesn't matter. Embryonic/fetal death generally precedes a miscarriage by hours or days. By the time most miscarriages (particularly very early miscarriages) begin, it is too late. Both to save the baby, and to harvest any living cells.
Back to the practical issues. How exactly would one collect such early miscarried embryos anyway? You're talking about collecting blood, tissue fragments, other fluids, and then sorting through them for a tiny embryo.
If you are going to pose hypotheticals, I recommend reading up a bit more on the topic.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: Actually, a majority of the population is FOR it. According to MSN.
I don't doubt that Americans answered this way, and again, I think it is misleadig. Because I was polled myself on this issue -- but the question was the very general "Are you opposed to stem cell research?"
That question does not divide between adult stem cell research and cord-blood research(which I am for) and embryonic stem cell research (which I am against). I cannot answer the question as it is posed by the media polls.
(edit: Last night after a local TV news story about the federal veto, they had a "poll" of viewers and the question, again was only "do you oppose stem cell research" -- not at all specifying embryonic, which is what the veto was about -- yet they were tying it to that story)
And I doubt many other Americans are even aware of the differences, or the repercussions of each. The majority of the population chooses to not educate themselves on many of the prominent issues of the day.
FG
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Does a person's opinion on when life begins determine the rationality of every other conclusion they are capable of drawing? (As I mentioned previously, pretty much every opinion on when life begins is irrational, the pro choice end of the spectrum as much as the pro-life).
You say it is pretty much a matter of opinion. I guess that in a metaphysical sense it could be the case, that one's child may not have a soul until one accepts the idea. But the existence of babies whose mothers were in denial that they were ever pregnant would seem to go against that. Saying it's a matter of opinion doesn't really advance rational discussion.
I had an interesting idea while talking with some folks the other day about disproportionate violence against pregnant women, and whether our view on the unborn not really being alive feeds such violence.
It was pointed out to me how men will sometimes revert to an animal nature of killing offspring that is not theirs. In our "my child, my choice" society, it is possible that men do not see the fetus as belonging to them, even where it is their child, creating animosity toward this object in their wife's body.
There is a lot of debate on the data about violence toward pregnant women, and it seems we are a long way off in establishing good data since states have different parameters for establishing what constitutes a pregnant victim. The seminal research was that partner homocide was the leading cause of death among pregnant women, but that was a localized study.
The GAO conducted a study where they found only 2.4 (NY) to 6.6% (NM) of domestic violence reports were against pregnant women, which may not seem alarming unless you factor in what percent of women are actually pregnant at any given time. These figures only included reports where the pregnancy ended in a live birth. Also, The figure for New York didn't include New York City. see page 25
[ July 20, 2006, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
quote:Artemisia -- do you have statistics to back up that those people are in the majority?
Last night's Time magazine put it at two thirds of the electorate.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Wow -- I just read the TIME article ONLINE and it really isn't too bad at presenting both viewpoints of the argument (unusual for TIME).
Again, as I said about, the question asked to most of the "populus" (where they get the 2/3rds of electorate) most likely asks about "stem cell research" in general, not specifically explaining the difference between embyronic and non-embryonic.
From that same article:
quote:The good news for all sides is that over the course of this long argument, researchers have learned more about how stem cells work, and the science has outrun the politics. Adult cells, such as those found in bone marrow, were thought to be less valuable than embryonic cells, which are "pluripotent" master cells that can turn into anything from a brain cell to a toenail. But adult cells may be more elastic than scientists thought, and could offer shortcuts to treatment that embryonic cells can't match.
It isn't like embryonic stem-cell research isn't going to happen (because of this veto). It is alive and well in Europe and Singapore, etc. But federal funds shouldn't be used for research that has debateable ethics. And other stem-cell research (Adult and cord-blood) is quite acceptable here.
FG
Posted by Dewdman42 (Member # 9588) on :
hmm. I hear ya. I myself am in favor of stem cell research. Its certainly possible that Bush veto'd it for reasons of religious belief. But I also think a case against it can also be made based purely on a non-religous ideal.
Perhaps it is a "slippery slope". Allow this and next thing you know we'll be cloning something and so on. To me the whole idea of genetic engineering is DANGEROUS to the extreme. Like we can out-smart evolution (or creation if you so believe). Forget about religous principles and just think about the consequences of what one thing can lead to another.
All that being said, looking at the short term, I personally have a hard time understanding why they would not want to use frozen embryos, most of which are going to be tossed in the trash can anyway, to do some good for many many people that are already living today. So personally I am in favor of it. If they feel the lives of Embryos must be saved, then one could argue that every single frozen embryo ever obtained should be nurtured to become a living human being That any negligence to do this would be also intepretted the same as if they were used for medical research. How can the religous community condemon the use of these tiny frozen, ill-fated embryos for medical research, yet just silently ignore the fact that if they are instead thrown in the trash can the human life is still never to be?
For the purposes of disclosure, I consider myself agnostic.
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Leaving aside for the moment your issues with logic and respect for the thinking processes of other people, your scientific/medical "facts" are simply wrong.
Leaving aside your unsubstantiated conclusions about my mental and social capabilities, none of my facts are wrong, it is how you read them. I have actually written very few facts, mostly my thoughts on the subject.
quote: The cells in a body need oxygen. When the heart and lungs stop functioning, all the cells in the body die. Never mind waiting a few days; within a few hours (at most!) all the cells will be dead. (With the exception of those few living cells in direct contact with oxygen, like those of the corneas.)
I am glad we agree on this subject. There are indeed plenty of living cells in a dead body.
quote: Not surprisingly, organs must be harvested very, very shortly after death.
This is due to the fact that you need a functioning organ rather than a few functioning individual cells.
quote: Also, leaving aside the technology (or lack of same) needed to collect miscarried embryos/fetuses of any gestational age, it doesn't matter. Embryonic/fetal death generally precedes a miscarriage by hours or days. By the time most miscarriages (particularly very early miscarriages) begin, it is too late. Both to save the baby, and to harvest any living cells.
Back to the practical issues. How exactly would one collect such early miscarried embryos anyway? You're talking about collecting blood, tissue fragments, other fluids, and then sorting through them for a tiny embryo.
I wrote "i.e. from just miscarried one-month-old embryo". I am guessing it was either "i." or "e." in "i.e." that got you puzzled. EDIT: I feel obligated to point out that that was sarcasm, I do not really think you misunderstood "i.e." I do think that you have either missed or forgotten that I'd used one-month-olds as an example and not as a preferable choice of a stem cell source though.
quote: If you are going to pose hypotheticals, I recommend reading up a bit more on the topic.
Noted.
[ July 20, 2006, 08:38 PM: Message edited by: Crocobar ]
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Does a person's opinion on when life begins determine the rationality of every other conclusion they are capable of drawing? (As I mentioned previously, pretty much every opinion on when life begins is irrational, the pro choice end of the spectrum as much as the pro-life).
You say it is pretty much a matter of opinion. I guess that in a metaphysical sense it could be the case, that one's child may not have a soul until one accepts the idea. But the existence of babies whose mothers were in denial that they were ever pregnant would seem to go against that. Saying it's a matter of opinion doesn't really advance rational discussion...
It is either a matter of opinion or a known fact. I do not see how anyone can know that since nobody knows what cognisant life is. So it is a matter of opinion, whether it advances the discussion or not.
[ July 20, 2006, 09:08 PM: Message edited by: Crocobar ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Just because it can't be known does not make it a matter of opinion.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
quote:I wrote "i.e. from just miscarried one-month-old embryo". I am guessing it was either "i." or "e." in "i.e." that got you puzzled. EDIT: I feel obligated to point out that that was sarcasm, I do not really think you misunderstood "i.e." I do think that you have either missed or forgotten that I'd used one-month-olds as an example and not as a preferable choice of a stem cell source though.
I'm not really interested in taking part in the conversation in its entirety, but perhaps if you'd correctly used "e.g." to indicate an example, rather than incorrectly using "i.e.," it wouldn't have confused rivka. And I feel obligated to point out that had you not been being sarcastic, I wouldn't have mentioned it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: [QUOTE] Here's the point: if you can understand why a rational person would have issues with doing it with murder victims and you can understand why a rational person would view them as equivalent, then you can understand why a rational person would have issues with doing it with embryos.
Well, in that case I DON'T understand how you can view experimenting on murder victims in the same way as experimenting on Embryos. I mean, aren't you claiming that embryos are alive?? Murder victims are, sadly, already dead, and their families can decide what is to be done with their bodies. How can you see that as an equivelant? It doesn't make sense the way you put it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
He was talking about dead embryos.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: I mean, aren't you claiming that embryos are alive??
Nope. I have claimed nothing of the kind.
All I've claimed is that a rational person can be against the bill that Bush has promised to veto.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
That I can agree with. But now I want to know- do you consider stem cells to be dead, or not alive? If you see the distinction I am going for- because I don't think (though I am not very knowledgeable) that DEAD stem cells are good for experimentation. The whole thing requires them to be biologically "living," or not dead.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
quote:And your moral/ethical code comes from..? If you consider yourself rational, you won't have a problem with understanding that everything derived from your religious beliefs may not be taken as valid by someone who does not share your beliefs.
I find this very insulting. People choose their religions because said religion lines up with their own moral/ethic code, not the other way round. Or do you mean to imply we're all brainwashed?
I think the problem in this debate is too many people are choosing to define life as "consciousness". If you abort a fetus in (from?) the womb before it's conscious, you're not taking away it's consciousness (where a large number of people now suddenly think it's no longer okay to have an abortion), but you are taking away its life.
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Just because it can't be known does not make it a matter of opinion.
You are right. In a strict logical sence if it cannot be known, it is irrelevant.
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Papa Moose:
quote:I wrote "i.e. from just miscarried one-month-old embryo". I am guessing it was either "i." or "e." in "i.e." that got you puzzled. EDIT: I feel obligated to point out that that was sarcasm, I do not really think you misunderstood "i.e." I do think that you have either missed or forgotten that I'd used one-month-olds as an example and not as a preferable choice of a stem cell source though.
I'm not really interested in taking part in the conversation in its entirety, but perhaps if you'd correctly used "e.g." to indicate an example, rather than incorrectly using "i.e.," it wouldn't have confused rivka. And I feel obligated to point out that had you not been being sarcastic, I wouldn't have mentioned it.
Hey, you were right to point that out. Although "i.e." can still be used in that context, I really meant "e.g." I probably thought about some other grammatical construct, and then changed it at the last moment so "i.e." stayed.
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
quote:Originally posted by cheiros do ender:
quote:And your moral/ethical code comes from..? If you consider yourself rational, you won't have a problem with understanding that everything derived from your religious beliefs may not be taken as valid by someone who does not share your beliefs.
I find this very insulting. People choose their religions because said religion lines up with their own moral/ethic code, not the other way round. Or do you mean to imply we're all brainwashed?
I did implied (although not intentionally, I just cannot help it, it follows from the arguments that I see as correct) that you most likely are either brainwashed or simply mistaken if you have faith in god. This is not at all the point I was trying to make, and I was certainly not trying to insult anyone.
I honestly do not see anything insulting in a statement that a rational person should understand that claims of his religion may not be accepted by those who have different beliefs.
If you are insulted by my implication that your moral system derives from you religion, and not the other way around, we may have a misunderstanding. As I see it, no matter how you got into your religion, after that the moral code is set for you by the religion. You previous system may coincide with it, and that may be the reason you've decided to accept this religion but this is irrelevant. Once you've joined, it is the religious teaching that tells you what's right and wrong. If you feel that this religion is right for you because your ethical system coincides with it, you do not really have faith in this god. You do not feel obligated to do as the god wants, you just happen to do so on your own. What happens if at some time you find that your ethical system deviates from the system of your religion?
quote:I think the problem in this debate is too many people are choosing to define life as "consciousness". If you abort a fetus in (from?) the womb before it's conscious, you're not taking away it's consciousness (where a large number of people now suddenly think it's no longer okay to have an abortion), but you are taking away its life.
I used the term "cognisant life" on this very purpose, I did not mean just conscience. If you oppose to taking any life, you live in denial. You take life in huge numbers every morning when you brush your teeth.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:I did implied (although not intentionally, I just cannot help it, it follows from the arguments that I see as correct) that you most likely are either brainwashed or simply mistaken if you have faith in god. This is not at all the point I was trying to make, and I was certainly not trying to insult anyone.
So, let me see if I understand this. You're saying that if a person believes in god they are either delusional or dumb. But because this wasn't the particular point you were making at the time, no one should take offense. Gotcha.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
If cognisant life is the metric you're using, then wouldn't we be justified in harvesting organs from comatose patients? Rationally speaking (according to your definition of rationality), there should be nothing wrong with this.
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
The problem is that I do not know how to define "cognisant". If I knew, the answer to all our problems would be simple: do not kill cognisant, otherwise do whatever you like. I would define comatose patients cognisant, at least if they have a chance to recover.
[ July 21, 2006, 07:26 PM: Message edited by: Crocobar ]
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk: So, let me see if I understand this. You're saying that if a person believes in god they are either delusional or dumb.
Do you honestly not see a difference between "mistaken" and "dumb"? I am mistaken quite often and I do not consider myself dumb. As for believing in god, there is no reason to believe in it, there could be no reason, otherwise it would be knowledge and not belief. A person can choose to believe in god, and many do. Those who think that they have a reason to believe in god, are in my understanding mistaken (perhaps because of some brainwashing). Those who choose to believe without a reason are in my understanding irrational.
quote: But because this wasn't the particular point you were making at the time, no one should take offense. Gotcha.
I do not see what is offensive. If I am right, it is silly to be offended by truth. If I am wrong, there is nothing to be offended by.
[ July 21, 2006, 07:42 PM: Message edited by: Crocobar ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The problem is that I do not know how to define "cognisant".
quote:In a strict logical sence if it cannot be known, it is irrelevant.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
That the moment when life begins "is irrelevant" is not an entirely inaccurate summary of why I choose to treat conception as the beginning of life.
Is a stem cell alive? I believe it's roughly equivalent to asking if a major organ is alive, in terms of the importance of that cell to the continued survival of the embryo. In the view that an embryo is a person, it would be like harvesting someone's organs not because they were on death's door, but because they were vibrantly healthy.
I guess that would make a good sci-fi story, you win and olympic gold medal and then you are broken down for parts. The Koreans are always getting pissed because they never get the honor.
Scientist lust for the use of these cells because they contain within them a mystery science does not well understand, which is how one cell can become any structure in the body.
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:The problem is that I do not know how to define "cognisant".
quote:In a strict logical sence if it cannot be known, it is irrelevant.
And?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Therefore "cognizant" must be irrelevant, right?
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
Of course not. That I do not know something does not mean that it cannot be known.
As a side note: I'm getting the point of the GRE analytical section more and more.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Of course not. That I do not know something does not mean that it cannot be known.
Ah, too many leaps for you. I'm sorry, I left out the middle steps thinking you would see them. My bad.
You also said this: "I do not see how anyone can know that since nobody knows what cognisant life is." So, regardless of what we might know in the future, right now, cognizant life is not something that is relevant to the determination of which life must be protected.
quote:I'm getting the point of the GRE analytical section more and more.
Really? Because it's hard to tell from your posts on this thread that you understand analytical thinking at all.
Posted by Gwen (Member # 9551) on :
quote:If cognisant life is the metric you're using, then wouldn't we be justified in harvesting organs from comatose patients? Rationally speaking (according to your definition of rationality), there should be nothing wrong with this.
quote:The problem is that I do not know how to define "cognisant". If I knew, the answer to all our problems would be simple: do not kill cognisant, otherwise do whatever you like. I would define comatose patients cognisant, at least if they have a chance to recover.
Waaait a minute...don't harvest major organs from comatose patients, because even though you can't tell if they're "cognisant," they might become so? How does this differ, ethically speaking, from embryos, except that embryos have a better chance to "recover" (i.e., grow into congnisance)? I take it you're against abortion and embryonic stem-cell research, then?
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: You also said this: "I do not see how anyone can know that since nobody knows what cognisant life is." So, regardless of what we might know in the future, right now, cognizant life is not something that is relevant to the determination of which life must be protected.
This is a crucial point: I do think that it is possible to know what cognisant life is, and it will be known to people. Only right now we do not know. Something is irrelevant in that context only if it cannot be known fundamentally. So, my comment on GRE analytical stands.
EDIT: I think you misunderstood my original statement about unknowable being irrelevant. If something cannot be known ever, it is irrelevant because it cannot affect anything, otherwise we might have learned about this something by its influence. Thus, no matter what you do about this unknowable something, you will never know the difference. This is why I think it is irrelevant. If, however, you act on assumption that something unknown at the moment is false, and it turns out to be true later, you will know that you were wrong. Knowing this, you may choose to wait till you know the unknown, while in case of unknowable there is no point in waiting. This is how I see the difference between unknown and unknowable.
[ July 22, 2006, 04:02 AM: Message edited by: Crocobar ]
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gwen: Waaait a minute...don't harvest major organs from comatose patients, because even though you can't tell if they're "cognisant," they might become so? How does this differ, ethically speaking, from embryos, except that embryos have a better chance to "recover" (i.e., grow into congnisance)? I take it you're against abortion and embryonic stem-cell research, then?
I do not have a writ-in-stone opinion on the stem cell research and abortion, I am thinking on it. There is a difference between a comatose patient and an embryo in my opinion though. I think that the large, perhaps the defining part of a human being is a sum of information gathered from experience that it is carrying. Since an embryo carries very little experience, it may not be a human at some point. Another major difference between me and most pro-life people is that I leave room for error while they must be on the safe side. For them better not do anything that leaves even a tiny possibility that they are taking human life. I am willing to stay optimal within my current best guess. I do not think that this difference can be reconciled. Thus, I am willing to allow abortions and destroying embryos for stem cells since my current understanding is that they are not human beings. I do allow that I may be wrong though.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
quote:Of course not. That I do not know something does not mean that it cannot be known.
God cannot be known? Says your half of the worlds population.
quote:Another major difference between me and most pro-life people is that I leave room for error while they must be on the safe side. For them better not do anything that leaves even a tiny possibility that they are taking human life. I am willing to stay optimal within my current best guess. I do not think that this difference can be reconciled
I think you might have a superiority complex.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
My only point is that many of the "embryos" that they wish to use are sitting in a freezer, never to truly become a baby. Eventually those "parents" will get tired of paying to keep them cold, and they'll be flushed down the drain. I hardly think that using those cells to help us potentially fight terrible diseases is any worse than treating them like a belly up goldfish.
Posted by Gwen (Member # 9551) on :
You'll know if X religion was right when you're dead. If that religion has an afterlife, anyway. Pity the poor atheist...she'll never get to gloat!
What's your room for error? And to which side are you willing to err?
I *think*, if I'm understanding you correctly, that it's better to err on the side of murdering embryos if it saves adult lives that we know are actually lives, than to err on the side of letting the adults die because we were too afraid that killing the embryos would be murder, because of relative risk. (We *know* that the second choice leaves someone dead, but we're not sure if the first does.) Still, I don't see how that's ethically different than killing comatose people, except if the "experience we're assuming the comatose people have" outweighs by far the "certain chance of 'recovery' the embryos have"...does it? DDaysh: doesn't the same apply to comatose people? On a related note, do you think that cord blood donation should be mandatory? Or at least, if the patients (mother, her significant other if she died, family if she was single) don't mind, assumed? What about organ donation?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:This is a crucial point: I do think that it is possible to know what cognisant life is, and it will be known to people. Only right now we do not know. Something is irrelevant in that context only if it cannot be known fundamentally. So, my comment on GRE analytical stands.
It's irrelevant now if it can't be known now. It might become relevant later. But, for the purposes of telling us how we should act now, it's still irrelevant.
What is relevant is not the thing that can't be known now, but the whether or not that thing will be knowable in the future.
FYI, I aced the analytic section on both the GRE and the LSATs, so cut the crap.
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: It's irrelevant now if it can't be known now. It might become relevant later. But, for the purposes of telling us how we should act now, it's still irrelevant.
This is incorrect. I assume you can figure out why. Ironically, this statement above is very much like an essay topic from GRE analytical that one is supposed to critique. If you cannot, ask for help.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I'd say it's not relevant because I believe the definition of "congizant" is relative.
By the way, do you favor scientific research on animals, Crocobar?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:This is incorrect. I assume you can figure out why. Ironically, this statement above is very much like an essay topic from GRE analytical that one is supposed to critique. If you cannot, ask for help.
No, the quoted part is incomplete, which is why I posted more that makes my statement complete and correct.
You are being imprecise, and using your imprecision to attempt to show me to be wrong.
It will fail, because I am not wrong.
Consider two propositions:
1.) Embryos are cognizant. 2.) We will know in the future whether or not embryos are cognizant.
Call the entity embodied by #1 "the cognizance of embryos." Call the entity embodied by #2 "the knowability of the cognizance of embryos."
If # 1 is currently unknowable (that is, we can't at this time evaluate a truth value for #1), then #1 is irrelevant to the making of determinations that rely on #1 being either true or false. It will have no effect on how we make such determinations, the only usable definition of "relevant to a determination."
However, if #1 is currently unknowable but #2 is known to be true, then, according to your own standards, #2 is relevant to the determination. That is, the outcome of the determination might be different if the truth value of #2 is different.
In other words, according to the principles you put in play here, the future knowability of the cognizance is relevant to the determination being made here and now; the actual cognizance of embryos is not.
Or in other other words, I am correct.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Of course there's that guy at Princeton who says we should be able to kill infants with treatable illnesses up to ??? in age. They are not more congizant than feti. So it can work both ways.
If you can't get a certain percentage on the GRE, could we declare you non-cognizant and use your body as we will?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I think it's no surprise that I don't buy the cognizance of a human organism as criteria for whether that organism should be killed.
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
To Dagonee: Let's take one step back, there are several misunderstandings between us.
From these two statements
quote:Originally posted by Crocobar: The problem is that I do not know how to define "cognisant".
In a strict logical sence if it cannot be known, it is irrelevant.
You have concluded that "cognizant is irrelevant".
This is incorrect. However, I believe that you have meant something different that you had written because when you begin explaining, you involve my other statements...
I have to run, I will post more tomorrow, just a quick clarification below.
1. I initially did not separate "cognizance" and "knowability of cognizance" in order to keep the discussion more understandable.
2. I agree with the statement that is A is not known, it is not relevant for the decision but its knowability is.
3. There is no such thing as "future knowability" or "present knowability", only "knowability". If something is knowable ever, it is knowable. If something is not knowable now, I do not see how it can become knowable. This was the most misleading for me.
4. The whole discussion has little relevance to the initial question of cognizance of embryons (still interesting though) because I said in the very beginning that I do not know how to define "cognizance". If something is not defined, the statement that it is known or unknown does not have a meaning.
To be continued...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:However, I believe that you have meant something different that you had written because when you begin explaining, you involve my other statements...
Honestly, I thought the analysis necessary to see the relevance would be obvious to you. I'm sorry it wasn't.
quote:I initially did not separate "cognizance" and "knowability of cognizance" in order to keep the discussion more understandable.
The discussion is both incomplete and inaccurate if you don't.
quote:There is no such thing as "future knowability" or "present knowability", only "knowability". If something is knowable ever, it is knowable. If something is not knowable now, I do not see how it can become knowable. This was the most misleading for me.
I used "future knowability" to mean "capable of being known in the future" and "present knowability" to mean "capable of being known now." It's useful to have two different names for two different referents.
quote:I agree with the statement that is A is not known, it is not relevant for the decision but its knowability is.
Good, because this has been my point all along.
quote:The whole discussion has little relevance to the initial question of cognizance of embryons (still interesting though) because I said in the very beginning that I do not know how to define "cognizance". If something is not defined, the statement that it is known or unknown does not have a meaning.
The question of cognizance of embryos is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not embryos should be used for medical experiments.
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I used "future knowability" to mean "capable of being known in the future" and "present knowability" to mean "capable of being known now." It's useful to have two different names for two different referents.
These are the same thing. If something is knowable in the future or, as you put it "capable of being known in the future", it is knowable right now.
quote: The question of cognizance of embryos is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not embryos should be used for medical experiments.
This statement has no meaning since there is no definition of "cognizance".
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:These are the same thing. If something is knowable in the future or, as you put it "capable of being known in the future", it is knowable right now.
No they're not the same thing. Suppose we want to know what's on the dark side of the moon. In 1950, it was unknowable in the present but known to be knowable in the future. In 1968, it was knowable in the present.
quote:This statement has no meaning since there is no definition of "cognizance".
So cognizance is irrelevant now? Make up your mind.
The statement has plenty of meaning. Whether or not an embryo has cognizance - however it turns out to be precisely defined - is irrelevant to whether or not it is moral to use them for experiments. Why is that difficult for you to understand?
I am making a moral proposition that the mental state of a human organism does not matter to whether we should use that organism in scientific experimentation that results in harm or destruction of that organism. It has plenty of meaning, and there are millions of people who do subscribe to it as a moral proposition, just as there are millions who reject it.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
Well.. embrios are definitely NOT cognizant because they don't even have a brain. At least that's my opinion of it. To Gwen: Cord blood stem cells ONLY create blood type cells.... while that can also be useful, it won't go very far in treating neurologically damaged patients. Right now they're trying to convince parents to bank babyteeth, since the stem cells can create many different types of tooth cells, including some that MIGHT be nerve cells. That though, is still a far away hope and dream. The thing that makes embryotic stem cells so promising is that they can become ANYTHING. As far as my point about murder or killing, it's because I personally don't think it matters much if killing an embryo is murder. My point is that we kill embryos all the time, so it's hypocritical of us to say we can kill them in some ways but NOT to help better other peoples lives. Embryos the do not get used in invitro-fertilization are often just "flushed" as I mentioned. Early term abortions are still completely legal, and beyond that, many of the most popular forms of birth control do nothing to prevent the creation of an embryo. Spermacides and condoms, yes, but "the pill" in most forms simply changes the female body so that the fertalized egg cannot attatch itself to the uterine wall. There isn't even a count on how many babies are potentially "murdered" in this way. Personally my belief is that the cells aren't a "baby" until someone loves them personally (be it the mother, or a doctor, or a society, whatever), but that's getting more morally philosophic than I wanted to. My main point is that, if we allow for the "murder" of embryos in all these ways, then it's simply STUPID of us to not allow the embryos to possibly save other people.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: Cord blood stem cells ONLY create blood type cells.
Link, please? That was not my understanding.
Posted by Gwen (Member # 9551) on :
I thought stem cells by definition were cells with the potential to become any other type of cell, in the appropriate environment. I agree that embryos that are going to be killed anyway might as well be used for stem cell research. I understand the point about using murder victims for research, or convicted murderers--and I can see how a rational person can hold any of most of the views expressed in this thread--but I doubt a significant number of people would abort a baby just because the stem cells could be used for people suffering from otherwise untreatable conditions. Someone asked people to come up with bumper stickers that bridge the gap between the left and right, preferably in an ironic way. One person's submission: "What would Jesus do with unused embryos?"
Posted by zinderel (Member # 9598) on :
It seems to me that those objecting to the embryonic stem cell research for religious reasons are operating under extremely pessimistic mindsets.
Isn't religion supposed to make you hopeful...?
As to the "When does life begin" thing...
Does anyone here object to eating vegetables? Using penicillin? Eating farm-fresh eggs?
Embryonic research uses an embryo that is usually little more than a cluster of cells with no discernable brain. Does something without a brain have a soul?
Most religious people that I've spoken to don't even believe pets have souls (Something I disagree with, but that's another issue entirely) yet go all crazy about embryos which don't even have a discernable brain...and therefore, no consciousness...yes, it's alive...but so is penicillin mold, and vegetables, and for that matter, farm-fresh eggs. So what's the big deal?
As to the issue of the Veto, well…Much like the talk Bush gave at the NAACP recently (FINALLY, after giving excuse after excuse to NOT go for 5 and a half years) and the anti-gay marriage amendment, it's all about politics and mobilizing his base: desperately trying to get his approval rating up out of the low 30’s and get his friends the votes they need to keep control of the government.
That his base (and others) continues to fall for these manipulative gestures doesn't speak too highly of his base, if you ask me...
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:It seems to me that those objecting to the embryonic stem cell research for religious reasons are operating under extremely pessimistic mindsets.
How so?
quote:Isn't religion supposed to make you hopeful...?
Sez who?
quote:Does something without a brain have a soul?
What on earth does the one have to do with the other? Are you claiming that souls have some physical parallel? Because I don't think anyone else was claiming that.
Posted by zinderel (Member # 9598) on :
How so? The whole "If we allow stem cell research, then it's not hard to imagine embryos being grown/stolen/etc for these purposes" and "If we allow stem cell research, how hard is it to imagine genetic engineering and cloning in the near future?" arguments that I see in almost every instance that stem cell research is mentioned.
So believing in a just, good God and heaven doesn't make you hopeful...?
And again, we get into the discussion about "Do pets have souls?" What determines a soul? Are humans the only thing that does? DO all living things have souls? We can't even prove that souls exist at all, so why not make the assumption that a soul is in some way connected to having an awareness of self and surroundings, otherwise, we get into an unpleasant area where we can't eat veggies either, because they have souls...LOL
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Realist ≠ pessimist
Hopeful, in a general sense? Sure. About specific human actions, or the tendency of people to do things that are not in their best interest, or otherwise should be avoided? No. Why would it?
Why do you get to define who has a soul, if you don't even believe they exist?
Posted by zinderel (Member # 9598) on :
I'm a realist, not a pessimist = the rallying cry of pessimists.
I choose to think that MOST humans will choose what is best for them AND others if given the choice.
Did I say I didn't believe souls exist? I don't think I did. I said we can't prove they exist. That's a far different thing.
[ July 24, 2006, 06:17 AM: Message edited by: zinderel ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Most religious people that I've spoken to don't even believe pets have souls (Something I disagree with, but that's another issue entirely) yet go all crazy about embryos which don't even have a discernable brain...and therefore, no consciousness...yes, it's alive...but so is penicillin mold, and vegetables, and for that matter, farm-fresh eggs. So what's the big deal?
You are responding to an incomplete version of what opponents are saying.
They are not saying, "Don't use embryos because they are alive." They are saying, "Don't use embryos because they are alive and they are human beings."
If you're going to construct a straw man, please have the courtesy to at least tie the straw together before jousting it. You've constructed a straw pile and patted yourself on the back for letting the wind blow it away.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Cognizant: aware(p): (sometimes followed by `of') having or showing knowledge or understanding or realization or perception
quote:DDDaysh Well.. embrios are definitely NOT cognizant because they don't even have a brain.
The argument that you are attempting to refute was not that embryos are cognizant. Read over the discussion again and see if you can find what is actually being discussed.
quote:Crocobar There is a difference between a comatose patient and an embryo in my opinion though. I think that the large, perhaps the defining part of a human being is a sum of information gathered from experience that it is carrying.
Convenient to add more qualifiers and change what is defining as a human being.
You keep changing your definition to support your already decided upon position. Rather than examine the issue rationally and see where your arguments lead you, you are constructing more and more arguments to support what you already believe. Perhaps you could use some of the open-minded rationality that you keep demanding others to display.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
if you don't like this webpage, there are a bunch more that cover it- this was just the first one that came up on a google search.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:In the past two years alone, research has demonstrated that cord blood stem cells can differentiate into other types of cells in the body. The regenerative qualities of stem cells have been brought to the forefront in the field of cellular repair. Stem cells have been labeled an important biological resource and researchers are conducting more and more studies to unlock the potential of umbilical cord blood stem cells in future applications for diseases like Alzheimer's, diabetes, heart and liver disease, muscular dystrophy, Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injury, and stroke.
quote:Cord-blood cell transplants are already becoming common as a therapy for diseases of the blood.
Now scientists like Low are finding that stem cells from umbilical cord blood—once thought capable only of turning into blood cells—may be able to grow into other kinds of cells as well.
(See a National Geographic magazine feature about the science of stem cells and the controversy surrounding them.)
Such advances are casting cord blood, previously regarded as medical waste left after childbirth, in a new light.
But while experts are optimistic about the future of cord blood as a source for new stem cell therapies, they disagree about how this potentially life-saving resource should be handled.
Yup, those are some of the studies I recall reading about. It may have been true at one point that cord blood cells only could be used to generate blood cells, but it just isn't true any longer. In fact, scholar, even the site you linked to says as much.
Dags, I appreciate the help, but aren't you BUSY???
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
(I think the word "busy" should link to his thread on the other side....) Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
We just arrived in Roanoke. Today is light review only.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
rivka- sorry if I was unclear. I was not actually trying to disprove you. I was just posting a site that discussed the potential since there was a debate and you asked for a link. Also, I am right now debating whether or not to store my baby's cord so I was interested enough to do the search and read a web site or two and thought I'd share. Sorry for the confusion.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Ah! Ok, thanks for clarifying. Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: [QB]
quote:These are the same thing. If something is knowable in the future or, as you put it "capable of being known in the future", it is knowable right now.
No they're not the same thing. Suppose we want to know what's on the dark side of the moon. In 1950, it was unknowable in the present but known to be knowable in the future. In 1968, it was knowable in the present.
They are the same thing. What's on the dark side of the moon was knowable in 1950 as well as in 1968. Knowable just means possible to know. It does not depend on humankind's technical capabilities. An example of unknowable would be existence of a particle that does not interact with anything. There is know way to know if such a particle exists. Recalling our argument about relevance, the existance of such a particle is irrelevant because it is unknowable.
If, on the other hand, this particle does interact with matter but so weakly that we cannot detect it by present means, the existence of such a particle is knowable but unknown at present.
Getting back to the example about the dark side of the moon: as I explained, its contents was knowable in 1950 and in 1968 but not 8 billion years ago. 8 billion years ago both statements "knowable and "unknowable" would have been meaningless because the moon did not exist yet. This is to illustrate the point of "cognizance" being meaningless (not relevant or irrelevant) at the moment.
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
quote:
quote:Crocobar There is a difference between a comatose patient and an embryo in my opinion though. I think that the large, perhaps the defining part of a human being is a sum of information gathered from experience that it is carrying.
Convenient to add more qualifiers and change what is defining as a human being.
You keep changing your definition to support your already decided upon position. Rather than examine the issue rationally and see where your arguments lead you, you are constructing more and more arguments to support what you already believe. Perhaps you could use some of the open-minded rationality that you keep demanding others to display.
You might have missed that I am not arguing any point in this thread, not yet anyway. If you read carefully from the beginning, you'll see that the purpose of this thread was to gather opinions why people think the stem cell research should or should not be allowed. I'd gotten a sum of opinions on that by the end of the second page of the thread, after which I stopped correcting the direction the thread was taking and just kept enjoying the discussion. Shortly after that we discussed with Dagonee quite an obscured but curious logical argument which bears little relevance to the initial topic. All my other posts merely either state my view on something without forcing it on others, or clarify some part of my previous statements.
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: So cognizance is irrelevant now? Make up your mind.
The statement has plenty of meaning. Whether or not an embryo has cognizance - however it turns out to be precisely defined - is irrelevant to whether or not it is moral to use them for experiments. Why is that difficult for you to understand?
No, the cognizance is meaningless because undefined. This is different from being irrelevant.
We agreed that "cognizance" is irrelevant for making the decision (its knowability is relevant). This holds true only if it is unknown at present. If you do not know how to define cognizance, you do not know if it is known. Hence, we need to define cognizance first, than see if it is unknown, only then it becomes irrelevant for the immediate decision. That sums up my very initial point: I do not know how to define cognizance, and this is the main problem in the whole embryo discussion for me.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
Thanks for the info about the cord blood cells. I had not heard that they had successfully gotten anything but blood from them. If I ever have another child, that may cause me to rethink my decision on not saving it. On the other hand, a lung cell is not a nerve cell, the jump from circulatory to respiratory doesn't seem as big to me as from anything else to nerve cells. I think the question about what stem cells CAN do however is still much based on how far along in development they are. Originally we are all one cell, and that I suppose is the original STEM. The further along we go, the more steming involved, and the less maliable the cells become, or at least that's how it seems to me.
Posted by zinderel (Member # 9598) on :
Quote from Dagonee: They are not saying, "Don't use embryos because they are alive." They are saying, "Don't use embryos because they are alive and they are human beings."
My point is, however, that the embryos which would be experimented on are NOT human beings, any more than vegetables, pets or penicillin. They are clusters of cells which in time may become human beings...and may, in time, be miscarried, or become a threat to the life of the mother, as my aunt had occur three times before finally getting pregnant for real.
At the point around which this arguement revolves, the embryos are clumps of cells. Period. NOT human beings, any more than a sperm or an ovum is a human being. Potential to be human does NOT equal human.
Posted by zinderel (Member # 9598) on :
Quote from Dagonee: They are not saying, "Don't use embryos because they are alive." They are saying, "Don't use embryos because they are alive and they are human beings."
My point is, however, that the embryos which would be experimented on are NOT human beings, any more than vegetables, pets or penicillin. They are clusters of cells which in time may become human beings...and may, in time, be miscarried, or become a threat to the life of the mother, as my aunt had occur three times before finally getting pregnant for real.
At the point around which this arguement revolves, the embryos are clumps of cells. Period. NOT human beings, any more than a sperm or an ovum is a human being. Potential to be human does NOT equal human.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)