[Boltzmann]

I wonder why people care so much about a blob of cells that doesn’t even have a brain…

Did you know that almost a quarter of them are naturally aborted? We should charge Mother Nature for murder, then.

To me, it’s the capability of having conscious experience that defines personhood (and thus the beginning of human rights).

 

[Boltzmann]

The slippery slope argument is what's known as a logical fallacy. If something is wrong now, it will still be wrong in the future, regardless of whatever other descisions we make. Of couse, I'm a moral relativist, so as far as I'm concered what's morally right is whatever society believes is right. Still, if we start experimenting on babies just because we let a few embryos that were going to die anyway serve a useful purpose, then our morals weren't worth much to begin with.

I think that you’re contradicting yourself here. If you were a true moral relativist, you would never make a value judgment about morals (you did it when you said “then our morals weren't worth much to begin with”).

If you think that morals that allow experiments on babies are not worth much, then you’re comparing it against some other moral code which you consider better.

BTW, I’m not a moral relativist. I think that some moral codes are better than others, and “society” or “culture” can’t justify everything. It doesn’t matter if a whole society thinks that it’s right to kill babies and experiment with them, they’re still wrong. On the other hand, it doesn’t matter to me whether the majority of a society thinks that a blob of cells has legal rights because it has a soul; they’re still wrong.

I try to ground my ethics on utilitarian grounds: the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Things are more complicated than this, but it’s a good start.

Anyway, I agree with you that slippery slope arguments are a logical fallacy.

 

[Boltzmann]

What I really meant there, was if one can't keep one small adjustment in your morality from leading to a big one, your morals aren't that stong to begin with. But yea, I see what you mean.

I understand what you meant now. Anyway, my objections against moral relativism still stand.

I used to believe in utilitarianism, but ultimately the concept seemed fundamentally flawed to me.

Well, utilitarianism is the basis of much of modern bioethics. Several arguments made by technoprogressives in general also rest on utilitarian premises, so I don’t see it as fundamentally flawed. IMHO itt needs to be expanded, but not fundamentally changed.

In the end, a moral code only makes sense if it works all the time.

In which sense do you say that a moral code “works”? You mean in the results generated by adopting it or in the sense of enforcing its moral precepts?

Eventually what I realized is that since you'll never have a moral code that always works (or at least I could never think of one) you might as well just believe in whatever morals you want.

A society that believed, for instance, that murdering your neighbor to steal his food is not an immoral act would quickly crumble. So some morals are provably better than others.

I don't think that morality is some inherent property of exhistance.

Neither do I.

It's just a by-product of society. As such, society might as well decide on what morality should be.

Nope, it’s a by-product of much more complicated processes. In the case of biologically evolved organisms (i.e. us) game theoretical considerations are of the utmost importance (although I don’t believe you should derive morality from evolution; as Hume has shown, the “is” cannot justify the “ought”) when thinking about how moral reasoning appeared.

See Richard Wright’s book The Moral Animal: Why We Are, the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology.

As I’ve exemplified in the murder case, some moral codes will produce better results (increase total happiness); IMO, we should embrace these and reject the ones which decrease total happiness (e.g. moral codes which allow slavery).

 

[Boltzmann]

This is the only area where I might stand against new technology, where it would logically take the lives of those who are not willing or have no wills of their own in its next steps. If someone made a choice to die and give stem cells, that would be different (and disturbing), but embryos cannot make such a choice.

Embryos before the 6th month don’t even have functional brains, so they’re merely a developing blob of cells. They aren’t “persons” by any reasonable definition other than magical thinking (which includes the belief that embryos have souls).

Embryos in the first weeks of development (which are great for harvesting stem cells) are easily spontaneously aborted. Embryos in this stage never had desires, completely lack the capability of having desires and their lack of a functional neurology makes it impossible for the experience any kind of qualia (including pain, pleasure or blind hope).

BTW, before you remind me that people in deep comas are also unable to experience any qualia, I’ll say that I do not advocate compulsory termination of life support. The comatose patient had desires before going into a coma, and as long as it’s economically feasible these desires should be respected (any good ethical code must respect people’s desires). Embryos never had any prior conscious experience, so they never had any desires or expectations to begin with. They will be persons only in the future (if all goes well), but they aren’t persons now.

I can’t see what’s so bad about taking a blob of cells devoid of any intelligence or conscious experience and using it to improve people’s lives. It’s just like when a living person donates a kidney for a transplant: you don’t get all emotional about a kidney, do you?

 

[Boltzmann]

Ah, but the argument now becomes when a person gains their right to live, and we launch into the pro-life, pro-choice debate. We know where we stand on that, and neither side is going to give an inch on it (which is why I'll make this brief). We both understand each others point of view, but we are fundamentally different and will act as such.

Yeah, I agree with you. This would go somewhat off-topic.

BTW, I’d argue that early embryos are not “persons” by any standards

It's also good to know that you stand against taking anything from the comatose .

As long as they expressed a wish to go on living hooked to life support equipment while they were alive and able to have wishes and desires. If they wanted to be disconnected, their wish should be respected despite the personal beliefs of anyone else (including the family). That’s why Living Wills are important.

And as soon as physicians declared the impossibility of coming out of the coma, the financial burden should be paid by the family and not the State.

Life support is too expensive, and tax money should go to people who have an actual chance of recovery rather than brainless shells.

 

[Boltzmann]

Anyways, it's all about what people value. Whoever thinks a human life in terms of cellular structure and finanual expenses won't ever appreciate or treasure human life as the opposite people do.

This is a rather rash statement. I’m able to appreciate human life, thank you very much.

But an embryo is just a blob of cells, not a human being. There’s a SHARP difference.

Food for thought : 1. If you were in a situation where your child/wife/husband/close one....life is endangered , can you really accept that it's for the sake of others? Easy to say yes now, harder to do that while experiencing it.

This is a straw man. I haven’t seen anyone arguing that living persons should be sacrificed for the sake of others (no matter how many). I’d never support such a thing.

But I do think that we can use a blob of cells to make the lives of living persons better.

2. It's very easy for someone to say that they want someone to take their life if they are in a "hopeless" medical condition. Yet, when that person faces death/knows his time is near , he/she will fight for his life.

It’s very easy for me to say it, since I’ve tried to take my own life twice. You don’t know me enough to tell whether I’ll fight for my life or not. If only I had stronger pills in 2002, I wouldn’t be around now (and if only hanging was easier…).

And even though I’ve decided to give myself a second chance since then, I don’t regret this past action of mine. I don’t fear death. I attach a higher value to life now, but I still don’t fear death. And I’d certainly give up my life if there was no hope of salvation (e.g. terminal cancer, a bad case of AIDS). And if you’d really read the literature on euthanasia, you’d see that a lot of people have fought for the right to die with dignity (look at the Hemlock Society, for instance).

You generalize too much, Elly, but you don’t know what others have been through.

(BTW, no one in real life knows what I’ve attempted, so I’m still considered a sane person by my parents.)

 

[Boltzmann]

I didn't say you DON'T appreciate human life, I said you don't appreciate human life as the other side do.

This is no argument. It’s just your personal bias.

Please read what I said before. This wasn't even an argument. It was food for thought, something to think about. I don't understand why are you so offended when I never mentioned you ( or anyone for that matter ) nor was I replying to anyone's quote.

I’m not offended, and I didn’t think you were talking to me. But you made a completely nonsensical statement, which has nothing to do with the topic (since no one here is supporting it), so I decided to stand up against it.

If you had really understood that no one here (and no scientist who wants to experiment with embryos’ stem cells) supports that, why did you bring it up in the first place?

An example of a statement that has nothing to do with the topic, just like your own:
Hey, food for thought: if a tachyon has negative masse does it mean that it’ll accelerate as it emits cerenkov radiation?

Again, why the hell do you think that I was talking to you specifically ? What you had ( or seemed to had judging from this post ) was the desire for death. But have you ever lived in a life threatening experience? That's the point here. It's our nature to fight for our lives when we feel our existance threatened ; despite what we said before about giving up life.

I didn’t think you were talking about me, but since you generalized you included me (and everyone else) in your statement.

In this reply you made another sweeping generalization and forgot to check out the euthanasia literature that I mentioned. According to your hypothesis, the euthanasia movement ranks should be empty of people with terminal diseases (since they would be fighting for their lives), but it’s not. Your hypothesis is simply wrong. Many people would rather die with dignity than be ravaged by disease (like terminal cancer, Alzheimer’s or AIDS).

Read 'em and I still stand to my point. Sudden circumentances dramatically changes people.

Like what? Too many people in these movements are already with terminal diseases. They’re not changing their views, they want to die, despite what your beliefs tell you (and the fact that you think you know what’s better to them, so you want to deny them this right).

I can tell you that if I ever find myself with a terminal disease, I want to choose when I’ll die rather than let the disease run its course. And I know I’ve the guts to do it.

It’s a lot easier to say what you think people will do (as is the case here; you think they’ll fight for their lives), than to actually predict their behavior. I’ll say it again: you generalize too much.

If people followed such simplistic models there would be no suicides and no people who want euthanasia.

Why thank you......for completely missing my point & the purpose of my previous post, that is.

You’re welcome.

 

[Boltzmann]

It was a comment, not an argument refuting what you/whoever said , thus you shouldn't have taken it as such from the first place.

A biased comment, nonetheless

Oh really? It is regarding this topic. It is paving the path for the second point. Now since we all regard human life as something that shouldnt be killed without a good reason, shouldn't we treat the embryo the same thing as well? ( Note : NOW I am argueing ).

I can’t see a brainless blob of cells which never had any desire (and neither has the capacity to have desires) as deserving the same ethical consideration of full-blown person.

2 Points to be made :
a ) Were'nt we all that "blob of cells" once a point of a time? On what basis are you regarding the starting point of human life form as 'not human' ?

Yes we began life as blob of cells. We only became ‘persons’ once we had brains capable of conscious thought (or experiencing external stimulus and giving rise to qualia). We didn’t exist before this, so we had no rights as persons (we weren’t persons to begin with).

b) You described the embryo as a "blob of cells". Well, aren't we all a bigger "blob of cells" atm ?

[UNDERSTATEMENT OF THE MONTH]You are totally out of touch with modern bioethics.[/UNDERSTATEMENT OF THE MONTH]

We’re a blob of cells with a brain capable of conscious thought and giving rise to qualia. It’s a completely different situation. We have hopes, desires, expectations, and we can be afraid, feel pain, pleasure… an embryo in the first months is UNABLE to do anything like this. It’s a non-person, really.

Your argument is the completely nonsensical one, since you couldn't draw the line of when exactly can we begin regarding a human life form as alive or not.

I can draw the line: conscious experience (which requires a brain).

If you argue that the embryo's cells are not regarded human yet because they havent began to specialise to organs and tissues, then you must have regarded anything perior to the 10th week of pregnancy ( 1'st Trimester ) as unalive.

Not “unalive”, but a non-person. Your heart is alive, but it’s not a person.

And I take that from someone who made a sweeping generalisiation about embryos?

This is laughable. Show me how a brainless embryo can feel pain, pleasure or have desires and I’ll say that you’re right. Anything else and you’re just rationalizing.

Dignity? Oh please, I spent a day reading euthanasian articles ( a few days after Terri Schiavo's death) in an effort to understand how those people think. How is giving up life worthy of self esteem? How is running away from pain worthy of respect? I never understood that twisted concept ever. It's contradictory in all it's essence. The only thought I can understand is the finanual costs. I am not with that, but I can see where they come from.

Your bias is taking the upper hand again. You speak highly against everyone else, but that’s rather easy to do from your comfortable position.

Anyway, let me put it to you this way: I don’t like pain (BTW, pain is an evolved mechanism, there’s nothing mysterious about it, as some people seem to think). Only masochists like to feel pain. Why would I want to feel unnecessary pain (for instance, when you have terminal cancer). I’m a fairly bright person now, why would I want to let my mind be ravaged by a disease such as Alzheimer’s, and see my once good memory disappear?

You see contradiction, but I only see self-consistency. If you praise pain so much, go burn your hand in the stove. I take my hand away when I put it in a hot surface; I run away from pain, thank you very much.

Call me a coward if you want, I don’t care about your judgment, but I won’t let anyone take this right from me (that’s why I’ve already have barbiturates stored). If I ever become a comatose patient, I hope my family does the right thing and pull the plug; that’s what I expect them to do.

BTW, the financial costs never entered the picture to me (and most people considering their options). So don’t speak about financial costs, because they have little bearing on the issue (especially when you’re insured).

Which is why I said, circumenstances change people Their situation isn't different from a suicider, it's full of despair. However, I dare them not to feel afraid from death if someone forcefully kidnapped them ( for example ) and pointed a gun in their face ( though after recovering from the shock, they'll probably ask for death again. Point I am making? Obviously, the contradiction and irony of the situation How is that significant to the previous dicussion? It points out that people in such condition can have a change in mind no matter how deperate they are. )

This is a baseless assumption. Where did you get this from? It seems to me that you made up this little thought experiment in your mind and you think that it proves your point. But AFAIK it has no basis on reality; except for the fact that those who are asking for euthanasia don’t want to die shot in the face but surrounded by their loved ones in a peaceful way (drugs that affect the CNS are the quickest and safest way to achieve this).

And I ll say it again, people can change no matter how bad their sitatuation is.

Yes, people change. But what if they don’t change and still disagree with your views. Do you think that we should force them to live?

Wouldn't that be great?

It would suck, because it would mean that a lot of self-determination would be lost in the world.

 

[Boltzmann]

So that means a 6 months old doesn't deserve the same ethical consideration , eh? This must be some new kind of disincrimination , a desire based one

Read more on ethics and the concept of personhood before trying to argue these issues. See http://www.philosophy.ucf.edu/law.html for an extensive bibliography.

We must invent a new device called "desire-o-meter". Once it detects a "desire" in a baby, then we can finally apply our ethical code on him/her, if else let them go to hell oO

No need for this. A functional brain gives rise to desires. It's a common fact, you know.

Define Hopes, desires, expectations, feelings...etc. I don't know what they are exactly in a bio/phyical sense, but what if they are existant from the start and the brain just couldnt use them yet? You're throwing a statement out of your baised hypothesis. And last time I checked, consciousness is linked to the neural functions of the brain, so we can safely assume that it's not present in first 6 weeks.

But that's my point. Hopes, desires, expectations and feelings are all generated in the brain. If you don't have a functional brain then you have none of the above. It's not a biased hypothesis, it's Neuroscience 101.

We don't even know when does a fetus starts it's own conscious thinking ( ie : it's own persona ).

He only has conscious thinking once he has a brain. You can't determine the exact instant when conscious thought happens, but we know that it can't happen without a functional brain. And this is rather easy to determine.

Right. An embryo with an actively working nervous system should theoratically "feel" ( or rather sense ) pain.

Indeed, that's right. That's why I opppose abortion after the 6th month.

Actually, that's part of the problem. Not everyone is insured around the world, some people chose to end their life because they can't pay the medical costs anymore ( check the 3rd world countries ). Others value money over their personal treatment, ( ie : "Why continue wasting money when nothing is gained"....)

Imagine that you're the director of a hospital in a 3rd World Country with very limited resources. You have 1 million dolars to allocate with which you have to pay personel, equipment and other liabilities.

What would you do with this money? Spend 500,000 dolars keeping a brainless comatose person hooked to life support or spend it paying doctors to operate children, make organ transplants and other kinds of important surgery? It's not a tough choice (much tougher choices are which kind of operations you'll provide and seeing functional people dying from lack of resources).

In a perfect world such choices wouldn't need to be done, but this is the real world and things don't work like this.

HOWEVER, that doesn't mean we have to give up from the beginning. There should be an effort given to delight/encourage/help that person. Should that not work then what one can do? The rest is between him and god IMO.

This is up to family, friends and (maybe) the doctors. Not the government or anyone else.

 

[Boltzmann]

all a human being is, is technically a blob of cells. When does a blob of cells cease being a blob of cells and becomes a human?

Once it develops a brain it becomes a person; you've to draw the line somewhere.

It's a slipery slope only if you want it to be.

 

[Boltzmann]

Ah, but we don't agree on where to draw the line. Hence the conflict.

It's not that hard to draw the line, unless you believe that embryos have souls and are entitled to their rights since birth.

See this article called Ethics and Personhood in Neurology, where the authors review the available evidence to make a concrete case. I'll quote only their conclusion, but you should read the whole thing:


Human beings can only sensibly said to be persons to the extent that they are capable of conscious experience. That capacity first emerges in the human fetus between 20 and 32 weeks gestation, and can be irreversibly lost if the cerebral cortex permanently stops working, even if the brainstem continues to function with respirator support. Thus, early abortions, experiments on human embryos and early fetuses, and withdrawal of feeding tubes from PVS individuals do not in themselves represent violations of the rights of persons.

Although rationality is usually seen to be the sine qua non of personhood, granting the highest degree of moral status only to rational beings would entail morally unacceptable implications for infants, the demented, and severely retarded people. Human beings with the capacity for consciousness ought to be regarded as persons—metaphysically and morally—even if they can’t reason or communicate.

But it is also important to uphold the values and preferences of formerly rational people after they become incompetent—even if their previously stated wishes conflict with what caregivers later to be in their best interests—as long as those wishes were made with an adequate appreciation of the quality of life that incompetent people are capable of enjoying. Rational agents should not simply assume that a demented life—whether their own or someone else’s—is no longer worth sustaining.


The references in this article are also quite good and worth checking out (Hi Elly ).

 

[Boltzmann]

@Player-X: I don't like the concept behind destroying a few lives to sava many others. It sounds too much like fascism. Embryos in the first weeks are not yet persons, that's why I approve using them in research.

BTW, who the hell brought the subject of the Iraq war to this thread? I foresee it being closed soon due to political flamming. The war has nothing to do with this thread (and even Bush-bashing has little do with this thread).

 

[Boltzmann]

Actuaily I am just seeing if they saw embryos used for stem cells as human beings would they see not researching it while causing a more suffering as something worth it

But then you'd also say that killing babies is a good thing if it's going to cure a lot of people. This is unnaceptable to me.

Harvesting cells from something that has no brain is one thing (and thus is not a person), killing for the greater good is quite another. I only support the former.

 

[Boltzmann]

Forced abortions are gross. Really.

We should instead keep working on new technologies and keep increasing per capita income (and lessening the gap between rich and poor). Higher per capita income and better income distribution leads to fewer babies. The 1st world is proof of this.

 

[Boltzmann]

So if another country used embryonic stem cells to discover a cure to a crippling disease would America say no to the application of the cure in their own country?

If history is any guide, they'll happy to use it.

Self-consistency is not their strong point