Embryonic Stem Cell Research (with embryos)

CivBase wrote:Is a painless death okay?

Non-feeling means one can't feel pain after all.

We already discussed this...

RT wrote:It is, by principle, wrong, as it has already exhibited such traits, or is at least loved by others. If a child who already exhibits those traits has its life extruded upon, and is made unconscious for the benefit of 'science,' it is wrong because its already human life has been unnaturally destroyed.

Civ wrote:Once again, what about animals? They are self-conscious and feel pain. Again, the moral is not that killing a conscious, feeling entity is wrong, but that killing a human is wrong.

Right, and that's because humans exhibit traits that animals do not. Humans are not made more sacred than animals simply by their title. They are made special by their ability to harbor emotions, contribute to society, and be loved and depended upon by others, ect. You're bringing up old points that have already been addressed.

actually, few animals, and no shrubberies can recognize themselves in a mirror, and therefore are not self aware, they may be able to process information and feel pain, but I don't think either occur while still an embryo, or is it an issue of persevering a potential life? No, it cant, because if it were merely to persevere life then why are 9 in 10 retarded babies aborted? It is to preserve the potential use of a human, no not that either, because why would we execute prisoners, when we could use them to diffuse a bomb in Ethiopia? Then it cant be for any reason at all?

Sigh...

Then it's all boiled down to personal morals that can't be changed no matter how much debating is done.

...

YES! Meaning that this was a blow out from the begining! God, why do we have the DUMBEST arguements?

x Gauz x wrote:...

YES! Meaning that this was a blow out from the begining! God, why do we have the DUMBEST arguements?

I like these ethical arguments that we so often partake in. They cause me to evaluate my own beliefs.

ReconToaster wrote:

x Gauz x wrote:...

YES! Meaning that this was a blow out from the begining! God, why do we have the DUMBEST arguements?

I like these ethical arguments that we so often partake in. They cause me to evaluate my own beliefs.

Yeah that's what I liked about the God one (for a while ). Thing about this is I have shockingly little empathy towards the subject so I decided I'd stay out of this one for the most part.

ReconToaster wrote:

Rasq wrote:My dad's involvement at My Lai was life too.
Sorry, it's off on a tangent, but so was his comment, and I wanted to address it

Your dad was at My Lai? Jesus....

And both great-grandfathers on my mother's side were security at Dachau. The whole "I was following orders" schtick runs in the family.

Actually, that was a bad attempt at humor. My dad never served in Vietnam.

ReconToaster wrote:

Civ wrote:What if the child was altered before birth to never be conscious? Would that be okay?

If that was its purpose all along? I really don't care. Indeed it gives me a bad feeling in my stomach, but I don't see anything ethically wrong with it.

Did you ever read "Next", by Micheal Crichton?

I'm opposed to genetic modification of humans in such a way, as that would mean that humans can be owned by corporations, in violation of the 13th Amendment.

TNine wrote:

CivBase wrote:An unconscious child doesn't feel a thing, just like an embryo. Is it okay to torment it then?

Animals can feel as much as we can, why is it okay to torment and devour them?

Yes, yes they do. And they are self-concious, thinking about something, in their sleep. I believe that self-consciousness is the point where an embryo becomes a human being. This fact cannot be proven wrong, nor right, but if society agrees on it, then it is right (cause morals work that way).

Morals work that way, but not right and wrong.
Society can decide that it is alright to lock up people in ghettos because of their heritage, and then use them as slave labor or cheap lab rats.

Ringleader wrote:how can you torment a non conscious, non feeling entity?

Its like torturing a bacteria.

Or mentally retarded people.
I've had to work in the classroom they were in one quarter in high school, and half of them weren't self-aware.

ReconToaster wrote:

x Gauz x wrote:...

YES! Meaning that this was a blow out from the begining! God, why do we have the DUMBEST arguements?

I like these ethical arguments that we so often partake in. They cause me to evaluate my own beliefs.

Ditto. Would be better without the morons who come in and add nothing.

Oh a nice little subtle insult I sense?

Whatever, I don't care, you can talk about killing babies all you want...

Rasq wrote:Or mentally retarded people.
I've had to work in the classroom they were in one quarter in high school, and half of them weren't self-aware.

I think most are somewhat self aware. At least, they are still conscious (aware of their surroundings) and emotionally attached to others.

Rasq wrote:Did you ever read "Next", by Micheal Crichton?

I'm opposed to genetic modification of humans in such a way, as that would mean that humans can be owned by corporations, in violation of the 13th Amendment.

I haven't read it, but I should. He was always and still is my favorite author of all time. Shame he died....

I own the book, but like many in my 'collection,' I never really got to reading it.

I'd be fine with a law prohibiting something like that. Some sort of preemptive legislation to keep some dirty things from happening. I mean, ethically, a human allowed to developed whilst being made eternally unconscious in any way shape or form FROM THE START, is something I don't necessarily have a problem with... but that's giving a bit too much responsibility and trust to the corporations partaking in such things.

Rasq wrote:Morals work that way, but not right and wrong.
Society can decide that it is alright to lock up people in ghettos because of their heritage

I saw a picture of Ann Frank quite recently... and it made me really sad.

x Gauz x wrote:...

YES! Meaning that this was a blow out from the begining! God, why do we have the DUMBEST arguements?

Because you added SO much to your side...

Yah, I'm like Recon. What better way to assure your values and beliefs than by putting them to the test? You don't need to be an expert to debate (it helps, but that's beside the point).

Okay I see...

Well I still think that stem cell research with embryos is okay, especially if the parents give them away of their own free will.

So long as it saves my life when I'm 20 sumthin because all I do is play video games, then I'm fine with it. They should also learn to grow people new eyes, mine are messed up from staring at the sun/projectors/other really bright stuff for long periods of time without blinking.

x Gauz x wrote:Okay I see...

Well I still think that stem cell research with embryos is okay, especially if the parents give them away of their own free will.

Most of them are cloned in a laboratory environment.

x Gauz x wrote:Okay I see...

Well I still think that stem cell research with embryos is okay, especially if the parents give them away of their own free will.

Our rights and freedoms are only good until they hinder others' rights and freedoms.

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:

TNine wrote:

CivBase wrote:An unconscious child doesn't feel a thing, just like an embryo. Is it okay to torment it then?

Animals can feel as much as we can, why is it okay to torment and devour them?

Yes, yes they do. And they are self-concious, thinking about something, in their sleep. I believe that self-consciousness is the point where an embryo becomes a human being. This fact cannot be proven wrong, nor right, but if society agrees on it, then it is right (cause morals work that way).

Morals work that way, but not right and wrong.
Society can decide that it is alright to lock up people in ghettos because of their heritage, and then use them as slave labor or cheap lab rats.

We believe that is wrong because our current society works that way. It's wrong because society tells us so.

ReconToaster wrote:

x Gauz x wrote:Okay I see...

Well I still think that stem cell research with embryos is okay, especially if the parents give them away of their own free will.

Most of them are cloned in a laboratory environment.

Wait, the US doesn't experiment with cloning though, or are you talking about a foriegn country?
Either way, still fine with clones..

CivBase wrote:

x Gauz x wrote:Okay I see...

Well I still think that stem cell research with embryos is okay, especially if the parents give them away of their own free will.

Our rights and freedoms are only good until they hinder others' rights and freedoms.

Since when is a Embryo considered human? It becomes a human, but I don't really think and Human or Civil rights apply to it. Especially not civil rights.

x Gauz x wrote:

CivBase wrote:

x Gauz x wrote:Okay I see...

Well I still think that stem cell research with embryos is okay, especially if the parents give them away of their own free will.

Our rights and freedoms are only good until they hinder others' rights and freedoms.

Since when is a Embryo considered human? It becomes a human, but I don't really think and Human or Civil rights apply to it. Especially not civil rights.

Paying attention to the thread helps.

ReconToaster wrote:

Rasq wrote:Or mentally retarded people.
I've had to work in the classroom they were in one quarter in high school, and half of them weren't self-aware.

I think most are somewhat self aware. At least, they are still conscious (aware of their surroundings) and emotionally attached to others.

About half of them are not self aware. I thought about testing it through the "Paint spot test", but the truth is, mental people scare me like clowns scare some people. And there's a lot of pity mixed into that.

ReconToaster wrote:I haven't read it, but I should. He was always and still is my favorite author of all time. Shame he died....

He's an alarmist, especially with his later books, but "Next" scared the Hell out of me.

ReconToaster wrote:

Rasq wrote:Morals work that way, but not right and wrong.
Society can decide that it is alright to lock up people in ghettos because of their heritage

I saw a picture of Ann Frank quite recently... and it made me really sad.

Have you ever seen the picture of Eli Wiesel in "Night"?
It was taken twenty years after, but his eyes are black, like tunnels. And there's this drawn, haunted look, like he's just calmly waken up from the worst nightmare of his life.

TNine wrote:
We believe that is wrong because our current society works that way. It's wrong because society tells us so.

Or maybe we can reduce morals to "Least harm to the most people."

Morals are for losers.

Well, it's pretty clear that you're messed up x Gauz x.

Rasq wrote:Have you ever seen the picture of Eli Wiesel in "Night"?
It was taken twenty years after, but his eyes are black, like tunnels. And there's this drawn, haunted look, like he's just calmly waken up from the worst nightmare of his life.

I don't think it would get to me nearly as much. Something about a 15 year old girl going through something like that... is much more impactful.

http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0309/lm01.html

Ever read "A Child Called It"?

I've read "Night" and it's sad, but I think "A Child Called It" is just as bad, if not worse.

CivBase wrote:Well, it's pretty clear that you're messed up x Gauz x.

No, only my other side is messed up.

my other side is the guy in my signature.

*sigh*

I rest my case.