- Status
This is where it starts to get really tricky though isn't it? Everyone has their line they draw. You say, until it develops a brain it's not a person, others say, until it can survive on it's own (which means a lot of nerds who live in mom's basement are sol
), others say from the moment of conception it has the "rights" of a person since it's a "person in forming" or even just a plain old person, others when the brain stops working right, etc. Everyone draws their line, some out of safety (I won't take the risk of killing something that might be a human), others for scientific reasons, but in the end no one has the perfect answer and is relying on something outside of themselves, be it personal or religious morality or scientific reasoning to help them draw that line. I think that that in and of itself calls for a little more tolerance of other peoples views on these kinds of issues.What I meant is, I understand that someone may feel it's immoral to destroy that lump of cells because it's a potential person, a 'person in forming' as you say, but I cannot swallow calling that a person. Maybe it's a matter of semantincs, but I feel some people do believe that an embryo is a human being, which as I say is absurd to me.
Of course I respect everyone defining their own morals, but it's also good to discuss them. And if we can use scientific knowledge to arrive to a good definition or understanding all the better.
Of course I respect everyone defining their own morals, but it's also good to discuss them. And if we can use scientific knowledge to arrive to a good definition or understanding all the better.
C
Chazwozel
I believe that sperm and eggs individual are people because they have the potential to form a human being just like embryos. Therefore it is immoral to jack off or have your period. The end.
Bravo Chaz. I think we get that anyone who has differing moral standards than you deserves your derision.
@Tegid: The semantics issue is fine, I'm not really concerned with what anyone calls it I guess, and this: "Of course I respect everyone defining their own morals, but it's also good to discuss them. And if we can use scientific knowledge to arrive to a good definition or understanding all the better." is pretty much my personal feeling as well.
@Tegid: The semantics issue is fine, I'm not really concerned with what anyone calls it I guess, and this: "Of course I respect everyone defining their own morals, but it's also good to discuss them. And if we can use scientific knowledge to arrive to a good definition or understanding all the better." is pretty much my personal feeling as well.
C
Chazwozel
Would you expect any less? After all, according to Steinman, people with my viewpoint are pretty much Josef Mengele.
Yes, when your stupid voodoo-hoodoo beliefs hinder the progress of mankind, I do believe you deserve the ire of those that are more rational.
Necronic
Staff member
To the argument about where human life begins, give it up. This is an argument that can't be won in either direction, as it comes down to defining life, and in some ways defining the human soul, which then makes it a religious argument which then makes it completely inarguable. You simply will not win that argument.
What people should be focused on is understanding where the other party is coming from, and working from there. For the anti-stem cell group, what they are against is there being any positive that can be associated with abortion, there being a "silver lining" if you will. That's where the comparison to mengela comes from. Its a stretch, but in the general sense you have a concept of something good coming from something bad, does it taint the something good? Of course, the other place the comparison to mengela comes from is total ignorance of the reality of his work. There was almost nothing of any real value done by him. In general the Nazi human experimentations were all of very limited value.
For the side of science, there is us looking at this and seeing the first major advance in medical science since the discovery of penicillin. We could honestly use this as a jumping off point to push medical science forwards an incredible amount. There MAY be other routes, but we could spend 50 years looking into them and find nothing as promising as this. There is also a general resentment of the constant attempts by the religious to prevent research, which to this point has been almost entirely ridiculous. From the countless historical executions of the worlds greatest scientists to the more recent shenigans like refusing the HPV vaccine to prevent promiscuity in youth it is hard for scientists to look at the interference of religious people without rolling their eyes or baring their teeth.
This is a different kind of head butting though, and I don't think its as easily shaken off as the HPV stuff or the arguments against evolution or young earth theory. It comes down to such a fundamental question, one that can't be answered by science or religion alone. What is life? I don't know if we as a society are going to be able to avoid a constant tension with research along that route. Genetic engineering as a whole is never going to get a complete pass from the religious (or the hippies for that matter), as we have finally gotten to a place where we really are taking ourselves apart to see how we work, and trying to make us better.
Personally, I have the luxury of not having an opinion on the matter. I will not stand against stem cell research, but I will not support it either. For me it is an ethical dillemma I haven't been able to get past, as I can not approve of abortion, and I can't push towards finding a positive in abortion. However I also cannot support stopping research into something that could save untold millions if not billions of lives. In a way its that one argument of 'would you kill a child to save a thousand? How about 5?' I know, I know....its not a child to many. But to some of us it is.
Edit: Just to be clear though, I totally support pretty much all other genetic engineering though.
What people should be focused on is understanding where the other party is coming from, and working from there. For the anti-stem cell group, what they are against is there being any positive that can be associated with abortion, there being a "silver lining" if you will. That's where the comparison to mengela comes from. Its a stretch, but in the general sense you have a concept of something good coming from something bad, does it taint the something good? Of course, the other place the comparison to mengela comes from is total ignorance of the reality of his work. There was almost nothing of any real value done by him. In general the Nazi human experimentations were all of very limited value.
For the side of science, there is us looking at this and seeing the first major advance in medical science since the discovery of penicillin. We could honestly use this as a jumping off point to push medical science forwards an incredible amount. There MAY be other routes, but we could spend 50 years looking into them and find nothing as promising as this. There is also a general resentment of the constant attempts by the religious to prevent research, which to this point has been almost entirely ridiculous. From the countless historical executions of the worlds greatest scientists to the more recent shenigans like refusing the HPV vaccine to prevent promiscuity in youth it is hard for scientists to look at the interference of religious people without rolling their eyes or baring their teeth.
This is a different kind of head butting though, and I don't think its as easily shaken off as the HPV stuff or the arguments against evolution or young earth theory. It comes down to such a fundamental question, one that can't be answered by science or religion alone. What is life? I don't know if we as a society are going to be able to avoid a constant tension with research along that route. Genetic engineering as a whole is never going to get a complete pass from the religious (or the hippies for that matter), as we have finally gotten to a place where we really are taking ourselves apart to see how we work, and trying to make us better.
Personally, I have the luxury of not having an opinion on the matter. I will not stand against stem cell research, but I will not support it either. For me it is an ethical dillemma I haven't been able to get past, as I can not approve of abortion, and I can't push towards finding a positive in abortion. However I also cannot support stopping research into something that could save untold millions if not billions of lives. In a way its that one argument of 'would you kill a child to save a thousand? How about 5?' I know, I know....its not a child to many. But to some of us it is.
Edit: Just to be clear though, I totally support pretty much all other genetic engineering though.
- Status