House approves stem-cell research bill

エッリー said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

エッリー said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

エッリー said:

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.

Click to expand...

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 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Elly said:

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.

Click to expand...

Boltzmann said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Boltzmann said:

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…).

Click to expand...

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.

Boltzmann said:

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).

Click to expand...

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

Boltzmann said:

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.)

Click to expand...

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

Yours,
-Elly

エッリー said:

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

Click to expand...

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

エッリー said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

エッリー said:

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.

Click to expand...

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).

エッリー said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

エッリー said:

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

Click to expand...

You’re welcome.

Boltzmann said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Boltzmann said:

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?

Click to expand...

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 ).

You stated that what I said before was a straw arguement ( leaving aside the fact that I was just merely commenting...) when your's was a straw arguement itself.

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

b) You described the embryo as a "blob of cells". Well, aren't we all a bigger "blob of cells" atm ? 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. 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 prior to the 10th week of pregnancy ( 1'st Trimester ) as unalive. If you regarded anything prior to the moment when the heart begins beating , then that means you regard anything prior to the 6'th Week of preganancy as inhuman.

Boltzmann said:

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).

Click to expand...

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

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.

Boltzmann said:

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.

Click to expand...

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. )

Boltzmann said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Boltzmann said:

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

Click to expand...

Wouldn't that be great?

Yours,
-Elly

エッリー said:

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.

Click to expand...

A biased comment, nonetheless

エッリー said:

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 ).

Click to expand...

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.

エッリー said:

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' ?

Click to expand...

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).

エッリー said:

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

Click to expand...

[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.

エッリー said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

エッリー said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

エッリー said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

エッリー said:

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.

Click to expand...

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).

エッリー said:

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. )

Click to expand...

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).

エッリー said:

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

Click to expand...

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?

エッリー said:

Wouldn't that be great?

Click to expand...

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

Boltzmann said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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

Boltzmann said:

[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.

Click to expand...

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.

Boltzmann said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Boltzmann said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Boltzmann said:

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.

Click to expand...

Ooh! Now we're switching sides! Wasn't that implied in my first posts :lol:
Oh and I am a baised, semi-arrogant, self-rightful, evil [email protected] :evil: But I do try to be understanding.

I am not going to argue on this, especially if it's going to cause emotional provoking. We see it from different prespectives and that's that.

Boltzmann said:

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).

Click to expand...

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"....)

Boltzmann said:

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).

Click to expand...

Proves my point? Heh, who said anything about proving my points? It was a drawn conclusion, but I didn't get it from nowhere (d'oh).

Boltzmann said:

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?

Click to expand...

If they change, then more bonus for me. If they don't then so be it. There is no point forcing someone to live because he will take the very first chance to end his life , it's a waste of time and resources.

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.

Boltzmann said:

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

Click to expand...

No it wouldn't. There are 1000 more issues that need self determination, heck life itself needs self determination.

And on this note, I ll take my leave ; I already said what I wanted to say.

Yours,
-Elly

エッリー said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

エッリー said:

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

Click to expand...

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

エッリー said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

エッリー said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

エッリー said:

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

Click to expand...

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

エッリー said:

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"....)

Click to expand...

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.

エッリー said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

KillerShots said:

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

Click to expand...

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 ).