Every Stem Cell's Sacred?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Winston
It would go against my instincts. Which doesn't really cut the matter of why?

I guess the problem is the term you are using. Ethics and principles are thought out positions. Ethics, by and large, have to do with the consequnces of your actions upon other human beings, and so the question of harm is not moot.

To go back to your example: you cannot committ fraud without harming someone. In the case of organ harvesting, you cannot harm the person who is, for all intents and purposes, dead.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Terra Nullius



So you mean I don't really agree with Winston??

Unless Winston becomes a bit clearer, I have to say yes

[Winston]

Originally posted by BlackCat
I really can't follow your thoughts - are you saying that victims of fraud are volounteering in getting swindled and actually knowing that they are ?

A fraud is the one who commits fraud, not the victim of it.

[Elok]

...

Okay, I read this story in the WaPo a few days back. IIRC, it said that IVF clinics have been removing one cell from an eight-cell lump for years now, just to conduct genetic screening for defects. This testing was supposedly conducted on all embryos, quite routinely.

The "recent discovery" is only that they can encourage that one cell to bud into stems. The idea now is to continue removing that one cell as they have been doing all this time, then encouraging it to bud before taking the genetic samples.

Now, I do not have the WaPo article handy right now. But I do remember reading that, and Bush's continued objections, and thinking: WTF? I mean, yes, I despise IVF and would rather they stopped making and trashing human lives factory-style, but this procedure is a splendid first step towards stopping the most egregious part of it; given time to work with these harmless donors, scientists could probably figure out a way to make SCs from other cells, allowing people to quietly pass restrictions similar to the ones they've got in Italy so that IVF clinics no longer make dozens of embryos and implant two or three. Few people would notice or care amidst all the resumed talk about curing diabetes and Alzheimer's, though I still suspect this exciting new technology will go the exact same direction as gene therapy due to the absurd media hype.

So stem-cell research could have actually been used to further a pro-life agenda while simultaneously ending a tricky situation. But no, that would have been a bit too logical for this administration.

[Elok]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I guess the problem is the term you are using. Ethics and principles are thought out positions. Ethics, by and large, have to do with the consequnces of your actions upon other human beings, and so the question of harm is not moot.

It depends on what school of ethics one follows. I don't agree with his argument, but I think it was a guy named Moore who wrote "The indefinability of good" about seventy years back. He came to the conclusion you're fighting against, which is that right and wrong can't be boiled down cleanly and our whole notion of it is based on a hazy moral sense. Which strikes me as fairly obvious, though his argument for that conclusion was a lot of semantic bait-and-switch and other idiocy. IIRC, Virtue Ethics in general have been making a comeback in recent years. Though it's been a while since I took Ethics class. Also see Kant, or better yet Wikipedia's summary of Kant. The man himself is all but unreadable, sadly.

[Winston]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

I guess the problem is the term you are using. Ethics and principles are thought out positions. Ethics, by and large, have to do with the consequnces of your actions upon other human beings, and so the question of harm is not moot.

I think you're mistaken here, twice no less. Ethics are not thought out positions. The way some people try to rationalise them might be, but your set of personal ethics is not something of which you make up your mind after careful deliberation.

I also disagree with your view that ethics primarily concern the way in which your actions affect others. That to me is just an arbitrary subset of a person's ethics.

To go back to your example: you cannot committ fraud without harming someone. In the case of organ harvesting, you cannot harm the person who is, for all intents and purposes, dead.

I specifically made it a point that fraud was not unethical to me because of the harm inflicted by it. Make it .1 Cent per victim instead of 10 then. And further, make it so that the people didn't even know that they would be receiving the last .1 of a Cent.

You managed to miss the entire point, which was that I really can't explain it rationally why I consider "victimless" fraud to be unethical, just like I find it hard to rationalise why I'm against organ harvesting.

About the potential cannibals in the boat, can i have the gun?

Because that would make it a more useful analogy to the issue of organ transplants. If I get the gun, I can have an alternative way of ending my existence in that most dire situation - other than dying from starvation. And I won't have to face the horrible dilemma of whether to resort cannibalism, which is unethical to me.

Analogous to the way in which I have put my opposition to organ transplantation on public record beforehand. More than a decade ago, actually. I have done so for the sake of my own peace of mind, should I find myself in the unenvious position of being mentally incapacitated and in "need" of transplant, whether as a donor or recipient.

You could say that by going on the record in advance with my position, I metaphorically packed the gun for any boat trip I would ever undertake.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Winston


A fraud is the one who commits fraud, not the victim of it.

That doesn't make anything clearer. Are you comparing people reciving organs to people that commits fraud ?If that is the case you really have to elaborate your pov, because that really doesn't make sense.

[Winston]

Originally posted by BlackCat


That doesn't make anything clearer. Are you comparing people reciving organs to people that commits fraud ?If that is the case you really have to elaborate your pov, because that really doesn't make sense.

Go back and read what I posted once more. I specifically said I was not comparing people favouring organ transplants to frauds.

I can't believe you persist in being so dense on this, BlackCat.

It was a parallel example of how ethical perceptions cannot easily be rationalised, nothing more.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Ming


Gee... too bad he doesn't feel the same way about those that oppose the war in Iraq

As you loudly did?

[Chemical Ollie]

On the topic, it's a blob in a jar!

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Winston


Go back and read what I posted once more. I specifically said I was not comparing people favouring organ transplants to frauds.

I can't believe you persist in being so dense on this, BlackCat.

It was a parallel example of how ethical perceptions cannot easily be rationalised, nothing more.

If I read you right, then what you are saying about fraud is that you really don't know why you wouldn't do such, and simililary, you don't like organ transplantation.

You wonder why I'm persistant - well, maybe because I take your point seriously and try to figure out what you mean despite the fact that you hide it.

I can actually not find no similiarity between committing fraud and be the reciver of an organ. The first is per definition wrong, and the second a gift from a stranger.

[Winston]

I don't hide anything, thank you very much.

And it's clear to me you still haven't grasped why I gave that example with fraud. It's not about something being wrong or right "by definition". That's the whole point!

[Elok]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
On the topic, it's a blob in a jar!

These arguments always annoy me. In fact, I shouldn't call them arguments. They boil down to an emotional appeal, based on denigrating the subject of argument with a quick label. A rose is a plant penis! Love is a bunch of hormones and neurotransmitters!

The main distinctions between human beings and embryos are the number and differentiation of cells, both of which are not really concrete and easy to pin down. You too are a blob, or rather many, many, many different blobs all stuck together. Sort of the difference between a bag of dog crap and a dump truck full of all sorts of feces mixed together, unless you can point to a scientific study establishing the existential purpose of human existence and proving that a more complex batch of biochemical reactions has worth while a simple one doesn't. Oh, wait, plus you have bones, which are not made of cells. That's what makes a person, I guess. Bones.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Winston
I don't hide anything, thank you very much.

And it's clear to me you still haven't grasped why I gave that example with fraud. It's not about something being wrong or right "by definition". That's the whole point!

You are quite right, I can't figure out what you mean

You make comparisons between obviously criminal acts (that is commonly accepted criminally acts, aka "by definition") and organ transplantation.

[Chemical Ollie]

While I would never approve an abortion within my own family, never, ever, no chance, I have no real opinion on the topic of abortions later on. It's a matter of the opinion within that family.

But stem cells are not embryos, they are just a blob in a jar. Really, honestly, they are!