Sam Harris - Stem Cells and Morality
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 дек 2006
- A section from Sam Harris' talk at the Beyond Belief 2 conference. Harris argues that religion obscures moral intuitions, using the case of stem cells.
Check out The Science Network at thesciencenetwork.org/ 
Хобби
![Sam Harris (2) - La Ciudad de las Ideas 2009 [09]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/WsqTysSMQpk/mqdefault.jpg)
this is from 2006. why didn't i discover it earlier?!
Harris loves to beg the question.
His assertion is that an early embryo has a couple of hundred cells, and then compares that to the number of cells within a fly's brain, and deduces that the embryo must have lesser worth. This is a logical fallacy. His argument is fundamentally; magnitude of cells is a factor that defines one's value.
This line of reasoning can be used in the following manner:
Premise 1: Magnitude of cells is a factor that defines one's value.
Premise 2: A newborn human weighs ~7lbs
Premise 3: A Bigeye Tuna Fish weighs 120kg and contains vastly more cells
Premise 4: A Bigeye Tuna Fish holds more moral weight than a newborn human
His second example is a strawman. He assumes that the pro-life position is "well, it is a potential* human being..it will eventually* become a human being" and then proceeds to argue from this false premise. The pro-life position is that the gestating human being is exactly that - a human being. There is no "potential" argument with regards to what it is as an organism. In order for Harris to reject this assertion, he needs to objectively define the criteria that determines the abstract and unidentifiable concept of "personhood" and what a human being is.
Furthermore, he simply doesn't understand the objective biological differences between various somatic cells (blood cells, hair cells, skin cells etc.) and embryonic stem cells. The latter are pluripotent, possess the gene expression for cell differentiation into specific cells and ultimately maturation from conception to eventual adult death. An embryo is a unique human organism - a human being*. They are on an internally/self-driven trajectory of development, the same way a fetus is and the same way a teenager is. The only thing differing from an adult, teenager, toddler, newborn, fetus, embryo and zygote is the stage of development. The *objective* and unequivocal uniting factor is that they are all human beings.
Lastly, Harris - as many pro-choice advocates do - focuses on the early embryo - the conceptus prior to full blastocyst formation - in his moral justification for abortion. The fact of the matter is that an embryo (from implantation to the end of the 9th week, before they enter the fetal stage) has clearly defined and observable organs albeit underdeveloped at this stage. There is no ambiguity here that they are human beings, they are not simply undifferentiated cells.
shapiro is that you?
Hey man, hope you'll see this and you can answer. How do we answer the embryo division capability intro twins, as he mentioned, where you could argue that 1 person = 2 persons, something quite weird to affirm imo. And also, the latter argument he made, which is a rather a purely emotional one, about the girl with the spinal cord injury (i think his logic followed like this : those cells aren't humans so we basically refuse to use these to help an actual human being for the sake of the dogma). I'm curious of your opinion. Thanks!
@@andrewdrewdrew1637 i don't really understand the angle on the first thing but for the second
There are a lot of situations where we can help and save people by killing other people, we can save people byvtaking organs from criminals, yet we don't do any of that, crossing that line for fetuses specifically is hypocritical because their value is the same as normal people and definitely higher than criminals.
Thanks for posting this!
@certifiedchillin420
When does it become human, and what species is it before it becomes human?
Actual HUMAN maturation is a continuum that begins as a zygote and does not cease until adulthood.
It is indeed a living human individual throughout.
That's why our progress is stoping, what else religion tried to stop? Oh that's right, idea that earth is round
I agree with most of the stuff said, but:
"literally every time you scratch your nose, you have committed a holocaust of potential human beings." I'm not sure I follow this statement - is he saying there is a potential for another human life in the cells of your nose? There's a difference between nose cells and embryonic stem cells.
yea he owned himself there
He said every nucleus is a potential human being ‘given the right cellular manipulation’
You’ve only committed a “Holocaust” of human beings who would look exactly like you. Your clone. Which needs further ethical considerations as well
@@Christian-mn8dh wont your own stem cells, with your own DNA, be clones of yourself as well in this case
@MsRObaid .......as a surgeon I'm at the hospital virtually every day. You were developed in your mother's uterus as a whole. Cell corporations, with the help of tax dollars, are developing mature cells/body parts separately by artificially dividing the human embryo at an early stage, keeping the embryo alive in pieces, and forcing it to develop with artificial nutrients. The 'cell line' at 9 months is infant cells. It's the same stuff.
Veritas,dig it.
Cadavers ( dead people ) are used to learn anatomy, 1st year med school. Embryology also taught 1st or second year. No harm, no foul, (at least not intentionally) to any live human.
Wow I wish I found this earlier because logic is off the roof
Ok, Sam, I'll take your argument about the fission process into twins, but is there a line? Where would you draw it? 300 cells? 600 cells? 1200 cells? What I'm typing here sounds combative, but I don't mean it as such. I present this with all sincerely with regard to those who are suffering and our responsibility to the unborn. Who will make the rules?
Some of the difficulty here is the implication that religious scientists are approaching this with indifference to suffering. I don't think it's right to make that your starting point without asking some other questions, and possibly considering some other reasons why these religious scientists are concerned with where this could progress. Maybe their position doesn't' come from an indifference to people's suffering, but a higher question of our role under the authority of God to consider what it is he would want us to do. A role that would say to those who are suffering, is the flourishing of humanity and a high regard for the life of the unborn more important than your life? Not that we would answer that question for those suffering, but present that to them for their choice. There are times when considering one's own suffering as second to what is right and moral is honorable and courageous. Have you ever talked to a religious person who is suffering with a disease that could be helped by steam research, but determine that their suffering is not above the authority and wisdom of God, who we believe is the creator, and thus knows what is best for human flourishing? Every choice we make is a trade off for something else. We cannot have both. Find those religious people who are suffering, and ask those questions of them, and see what they say. Their reasoning is not being considered here. And don't just call these people kooks. They're real people who are suffering deeply, but believe in something far greater than themselves, and consider the lives of the unborn more valuable than their own. This is not a foolish thing to believe, it is a courageous thing to believe, to deny oneself for something wiser, greater, and moral. Progress at all cost is not progress, it is utility, and it won't take long for the "progress" to turn on itself so we more and more cease to be human and behave like cattle.
+Forex Hitman great point. where is the line, and who decides?
I would also like to add, why do public speakers take so much confidence in the unknown? Science is constantly being updated and revised. For a philosopher, Harris seems to think its perfectly rational to judge huge groups of people based on knowledge in an area that doesn't exist while using a tool (science) that is incompatible. Thats like trying to use a box cutter to judge a square inch of the Mona Lisa painting with the goal being determine if its really art or not. And then imagine publicly chastising people for standing in the way of 'science' when try to cut it.
For the people in the audience. Youre not creating life when you grow things in a Petri dish. You are simple doing just that, growing. Any fool can start the process of life whether naturally or artificially. But it took a Creator to design it. We are talking about a design that can literally replicate free will. Who can say they know this code to all life? How about the mysterious rules of the universe that this life seem to follow? Can we at least explain where those come from? How arrogant. What gives these mere men the right to harvest from a design that they didnt create, more, that they themselves came from. How can people remain callus to this humbling fact.
Sorry Mr Harris, I dont need your philosophy to understand the irony here. And, certainly dont need your opinion as a neurosurgeon to understand every action has its consequence... whether the consequence can be observed by our senses, immediately or otherwise.
+Forex Hitman Draw the line at consciousness.
So if a person is unconscientious we kill them. Great idea. In fact, animals don't really have self conscientiousness let's just do whatever we want to them as well. Hey, retarded kids are barely conscience, should we treat them as lesser humans?
Your reply clearly illustrates your unwillingnes to have a conversation. Never mind.
+Michael McMillan I'm being facetious to drive home a point. If you cant accept a different opinion outside your worldview thats your loss.
Among the few advantages of this debate is the fact that we can leave aside questions of religious validity. We do not need to ask if christianity or judaism is right or justifiable, all we need is to consider that the suffering of many people who could be helped by advances in medical science is on-going, and any human (whether atheist or not) who would make claims of humanitarianism must come to acknowledge what harm they might be allowing by opposing this research. People must come first.
watching this is such a relief after just reading about the Personhood movement.
As Americans (I am not) you can stop funding research if you so decide as a nation. However, to think that you have stopped research from continuing elsewhere, or that only the USA could perform such research is absolutely imbecilic. You may have used your book of bronze age mythology to slow the pace of research a few decades but what you have not stopped is the progress of beneficial science. Ultimately what you have done is to hand the torch of scientific progress to some other country. I am looking forward to seeing what scientists around the world do next with stem cell research. Go ahead USA, save your little blops of blood you refer to as 'soul bags' and feel great for appeasing a non-existent sky entity. The rest of the world is not going to listen to your dictates on this matter.
I can assure all of the readers out there that when stem cell therapies are developed in other parts of the world the quickest and largest consumers of this medical technology will be the Americans and the Western world in general (of which I am a member).
What so many people fail to recognize is a term coined "simultaneousness of invention". This basically states that great ideas in science are being developed simultaneously in other parts of the world and the person who gets there first is recognized as the creator or inventor of that science. Do you think that we would know nothing of general relativity if Einstein had been killed by the war? BS! The idea was being developed through several approaches. Calculus was simultaneously invented by two different people in two different parts of the world. On and on. If you don't develop an idea you can be certain someone else will.
It should have nothing to do with religion or soul bags you silly twit...Sam Harris's argument his illogical. The potential depends on the environment of the cell and nose cells or adult stem cells are dependent on their environment meaning their potential is not a new human. For cloned stem cells or adult stem cells...have at it. For stem cells purposefully taken from a human embryo...that is morally problematic...as their potential is a human left to their environment. You cant simplify the situation as calling it a blob of cells less than a fly only in that instant.
Rob Scha Nay Nay The stem cell lines in use were removed from a dying mass of tissue. Regardless of whether or not the cells were collected the rest of the embryo was non-viable. I believe you are arguing against the original abortion or in vitro creation rather than the use a small portion of the cells are put to.
Correct but the original abortion, in the case of embryonic stem cells, is part of the process, yeah? I suppose you are saying they just take advantage of the current ethics on abortion and you want to treat that separately.
Rob Scha Nay Nay I would have to say that a moral value which is both inflexible and open to personal interpretation is problematic.
Sean Nanoman Ok. But you understand where some of these stem cells are coming from. There is correspondence. So the problematic moral value is associated with a particular group of stem cells.
Pro-lifers be like " H3 doe$nt know what HeS tOoolking aboot"
Browntown I like how they went from adolescent keyboard warriors to Canadian lol.
Not ready to "leave it," Moodan. We have no "vested interest in HELPING that woman.". It is none of our business what she decides to do with HER body. From my perspective I've no more right to get involve with HER choice for/against than I have to tell whether or not she should have HER tubes tied. Not my place. Also, I certainly don't feel continuing to allow women to have a choice ENCOURAGES abortion. It simply retains HER RIGHT to choose. Yes, she will live with HER decision about HER body.
@mrfrankincense I'm not talking about relationships only with other people. When I talk about interests and relationships, I'm talking about the aggregate of experiences that makes someone who he/she is.
My mind thinks exactly along the same lines as Sam Harris .. but sadly I do not have the same eloquence that he does ..
he truely knows humanity from the darkest sides to the brightest sides.. truely admirable man ..
nice presentation
It's not about souls. It's about respect for all humans. It's about owning and using humans, in whole or in part, and use someone else's human parts as fodder.
The interests of one group of humans should not supersede those of another group, just because they can.
Correct me if I am wrong, but obtaining stem cells from embryos isn't the only way to do so, wasn't it found that stem cells could be obtained through the blood of a menstrual cycle?
@dakotadenverdexter valid point if you're killing the embryo, but you're not. You've simply divided it and developed its parts separately. You're growing infant parts in separate dishes. After 9 months of cultivation, it's the same stuff.
@ThieleM Another pointer for you to consider is the areas the research is aimed for. Do you know what percentage of medical research is aimed at helping the impoverished and malnourished and starving children of the world ? Have a guess and then tell me what percentage is used for the beauty industry.
@ThieleM I'm in UK, as well as working for international aid agency now part of my re-mit is as lay person on bio ethics board; we deal with the funders who we act for to ensure the correct ethics applied, and to discuss along with the professional bodies involved and their personnel about the results and problems and issues involved; they are very extensive ... but ... on this singular point about embryonic v adult; the info so far is that the results from ESCR has not delivered
@ThieleM and that is why bodies such as I am involved in and the whole approach to medical research has to be conducted in an open manner with the "safety of the patient" as the overriding issue.
Elaine Pagels, professor of religion at Princeton University, analyzes similarities between some Early Christian texts and Buddhism.Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, "Some of it looks like Buddhism, and may have in fact been influenced by a well-established Buddhist tradition at the time that these texts were first written."Gospel of John to contain Buddhist concepts and others have compared the infancy account of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke to that of the Buddha in the Lalitavistara Sutra
@ninjajesus81 Just clarify for me: At what point does the chunk of cells as you call it become a human being in your view, and why? When does it stop being just a group of different organisms and become one organism?
@Keysteeze, yes, but at that point it is no longer a symbiotic relationship in a physical sense.
Robert Ingersoll:
If abuses are destroyed, we must destroy them. If slaves are freed, we must free them. If new truths are discovered, we must discover them. If the naked are clothed; if the hungry are fed; if justice is done; if labor is rewarded; if superstition is driven from the mind; if the defenseless are protected and if the right finally triumphs, all must be the work of people. The grand victories of the future must be won by humanity, and by humanity alone.
"Embryos can split [...] is this a case of one soul splitting into two souls?" This statement is absolutely mind-blowing if you stop to think about it. It utterly destroys not only religion, but also everything our intuition tells us about what a human being actually is.
Greco-Buddhism, sometimes spelt Graeco-Buddhism, refers to the cultural syncretism between Hellenistic culture and Buddhism, which developed between the 4th century BCE and the 5th century CE
@instereovideos Personality may not 'show up', but the experiences (and reactions to them) that make up the personality begin primarily at birth. While the personality may be simpler and less expressive than it will be later in life, that doesn't negate personhood. I realize that there's some gray area regarding what goes on in the womb in the few months prior to birth, but I don't think there's much room for experience and personality development in the sensory-deprivation tank of the womb.
This video deserves more views.. Like a lot more.
I 100% agree with Sam on this point. It's a shame that issues like this get in the way of what really matters.
@oran6es
Firstly, thanks for the nice response.
Perhaps the character count got to you, but I did not get a definition of "unnatural" - can you define please? That would help clear some things up, such as why manually manipulating chromosomes to start developing is any different than manually manipulating embryos to continue developing. Thanks.
also compare Exodus 21:22,23:
"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury (to life of the child), the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life."
this clearly shows that all live is sacred to god
@instereovideos I *have* spent time thinking about it. As I see it (though I know I could be wrong), the best dividing line for "personhood" is birth, because this is when the outside world truly begins to impress itself on a human. While these initial imprints and impressions may only create a relatively simple set of personality traits, the difference between that and an adult personality is only one of degree, and are not qualitatively dissimilar.
1 natural survival would be superior to any/many reduced to a commodity.
Live, love, touch, feel, laugh, cry, think. One blastocyst being able to do this within a year, amazing.
It is not the potential of 3 day embryos that is argued, but the inevitability given normal, healthy conditions. The potential for "every cell in your human body" is not relevant because it will not happen without outside interference. A embryo will develop unless it is eliminated from outside or dies due naturally which is rare.
Can someone else comment on this? Maybe no1hoopsman will start listening to a third voice:
Is the statement "Don't give up" the same as "Don't give up regardless of who you may have to hurt in the process"
I contend that they are 2 fundamentally different statements.
Be aware, however, though they're used before 2 weeks, they're NOT killed. They're artificially separated into many pieces, then allowed (forced) to develop well beyond 9 months, as separate marketable living portions of a human individual. The same stuff in an infant is that same stuff in multiple separate dishes.
Molleen Matsumura:
In my view, humanism relies on reason and compassion. Reason guides our attempt to understand the world about us. Both reason and compassion guide our efforts to apply that knowledge ethically, to understand other people, and have ethical relationships with other people.
@finishstrongdoc She died fifteen years after her initial collapse. She had been diagnosed PVT by numerous physicians involved in her care. Friends and her husband all testified she would not want to be kept alive in a situation like hers. As her legal guardian, Michael Schiavo had the authority to request her feeding tube be removed. Postmortem assessment revealed her brain had degenerated well beyond any hope of recovery. The Terri Schiavo her friends knew and husband married died in 1990.
@Jugglable You said the embryo is a human being. I explained that if an embryo must be considered a human being, then any group of cells put together must also be considered a human being. It doesn't matter if it can eventually become a human being or not, because you're arguing that it's a human being right now.
@Richdavt My understanding about the stem cell research is that there was a big push for embryonic stem cell research as a "cure all", but was pushed by the pharmaceutical companies who wanted a "life extending elixir" and this was what they thought as the best method. Embryonic cells are by their nature more susceptible to disease and modification in effect; hence not reliable enough whereas adult cells are more stable. Good results form adult cell, nil from embryonic ones, no religious input
My personal reasons, or my line of thought is this, whatever is growing within the woman is a portion of her own anatomy. Her vital organs are working to support the growing life within her womb. Of course, the womb is her own as well. What right do I have, or what right do you or any governing body have to decide for a woman how she should manage her vital organs?
"Both the blastocyst and the person in a coma will likely have consciousness."
Consciousness is an emergent property of the neurons in the brain. Blastocysts contain an inner cell mass: pluripotent stem cells, cells which haven't yet differentiated to any particular cell type.
And yet the faithful STILL insist their anti-choice, anti-woman's rights stance is "totally not religious"...
SMH!
Golgotha_Mythos69 I’m pro-life (I presume that’s what you meant by anti-choice) and I’m not religious. I just don’t agree with abortion because murder on any level is wrong. Sure that’s in the bible but I don’t live by it. Murder is wrong. That’s not a religious standpoint
@Mustev - There are exceptions to every rule. The VAST majority of "pro-lifers" (You know that's just a political shell game, right?) *are* religious. The religious standpoint on this issue has to do with when a gob0goo becomes a person with rights. The reason Christians say it's at conception (and it's not in the bible, btw..but Numbers 5:23 is interesting!) is because they believe "Everything happens for a reason" as well as in the soul concept. Many "spiritual but not religious" folks also believe this.
If "abortion is murder", then what is rejecting stem-cell research? We could be saving the lives of adults who already exist and have others who love them. So we're gonna prevent these advances because some people insist a blastocyst has the same rights?
Seriously?
Even without religion, your argument fails.
The scientific’ method in a broad sense is THE most reliable way of gaining knowledge about anything, whether it be stem cells,human behaviour, corporate behaviour, the fate of the planet, or the future of the universe. A ‘scientific concept’ may come from philosophy, jurisprudence, logic, economics, or any other analytic enterprises, as long as it is a rigorous tool that can be summed up succinctly but has broad application to understanding the world.
Does Sam Harris have an opinion on abortion, and when it should no longer be morally permissible? I would like to see what he says as both a neuroscience and an atheist. Links appreciated!
@amh18674 Just to clarify about my original critique of Sam, I took him to mean that the earliest cells of human life are no different from a simple manipulating of the cells on his own body. I disagreed, stating that the early cells in a human body are utterly unique, differentiating them from any cells prior to meiosis. In this sense, the newly formed hybrid cells are not congruent in form or trajectory of development with any of the cells found on Sam's body. Uniqueness is the pride of life.
@EpigeneticEngineer I might agree with you on that. It's something I'm torn on. Maybe we could use those. I'm not sure about that, though.
What I do believe is that creating an embryo expressly for the purpose of using its life for research is wrong.
I think stem cell research is the future of medicine, and we should support it as much as we can.
@jojoinhere Where do you get your power to know the difference between finite & infinite?
@ThieleM And these points are relative as we have issues like legal aspects of pharmaceutical companies and their research going on all the time; every institute at least here in the UK and in Europe I believe, come under strict guidelines in terms of operation, funding and application because of legal actions taken against these companies and the knock on effect on research; exactly why it is necessary and pre-requisite for ethical and morally correct research
@Phaze252 ...continued: If a mother gave up her two-year-old to allow its organs to be harvested, it would be wrong whether the mother wanted the child or not. The embryo is by definition part of "humanity" so it would be a foolish choice to kill it for humanity's benefit.
Sam Harris defeats religious arguments in an incredibly professional yet easily understandable way!
@triniguy999 Yes, thank you. I think we should use the definition of organism you'll find in any biology textbook, and the definition of embryo we find in any book on embryology. It's not controversial to call it an organism. When people debate about this the real issue is whether the organism has rights. And thanks for following the conversation.
@MRfullon "they are grown for the soul purpose to be used in stem cell research"
I think you mean the sole purpose, but given the conversation we're having that's a very interesting misspelling.
basically it sucks big time that we have people who know absolutely nothing about stem cells deciding whether or not the research can be conducted. Anyone who knows enough about it will see that it should clearly be heavily funded and pursued in research.
Nicely put Quake203
he makes good points here, but the emotional obstacles are undeniable...
@Jugglable How is it an organism? The criteria you're talking about is kind of important and should have been included.
@Eagle0600
By that criteria it's okay to harvest organs from someone in a coma.
Consciousness as a criteria? Is that had a conscious, or will have a conscious? Both the blastocyst and the person in a coma will likely have consciousness.
@ThieleM But on the embryonic issue; which is what was initially being discussed, the matter at hand is cells at the moment of conception and near to it; the area where development takes place. We now know that within seconds of conception; the natural reaction of the body is to surround the fertilised sperm and egg with a protective membrane or cover; this is even before the woman would know or medical science can test.
Harris makes excellent points, but I'm reluctant to make a decision based on them. You can be non-religious and still have a concern for the blastocyst. The argument isn't necessarily "does it have a soul?" but rather, "is it a person and does it have rights?" Now, there are plenty of commonsense ways to deny that a blastocyst is a person; but the problem is defining WHEN "personhood" can be granted. There are no easy ways to decide, and if you can't define it, you must err on the side of life.
I agree with the gist of the video. Embryos don't need rights because they cannot have a desire to be free. No individual autonomy to be protected. Embryos also don't need our compassion because they have no capacity for suffering. Unlike ailing persons.
Although science can't choose our ethical values for us, it has a lot to say about how these values connect with specific political and personal decisions.
@Jugglable I left out that it's genetically complete with human DNA. I explained that in my first post, I just happened to leave it out of that post by accident, but I guess you forgot what I've been arguing.
The first line of the wikipedia article on organisms rules out embryos. It says an organism is a contiguous living system. It's not a living system. It's individual living systems close together.
If I stand next to somebody, are we suddenly one living system?
Martin Luther King, Jr.:
Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness.
Wow I didn't know Ben Stiller was so smart. I'm joking of course. Harris in a genius and people really need to start listening to him more.
@dideoxynucleotide You are incorrect. The cells harvested are from the inner mass of the blastocyst. These cells, within a week or 2 differentiate into ectodermal, mesodermal, and endodermal cells, that continue to differentiate into mature cells/body parts. The stuff in the dishes is the same. It doesn't resemble a whole infant because you've pulled it apart and grown it in dishes. After 9 months of culturing, pancretic islet cells are de facto newborn islet cells.
@Phaze252 "no nerves, no pain you can conclude it's moral"
The question is whether it's the wrongful taking of an innocent life. It's perfectly possible to wrongfully take an innocent life without causing the person pain. Plenty of people are killed wrongfully and instantaneously and don't suffer. So it doesn't advance the conversation much to say the embryo doesn't suffer.
@shantih433 One could argue that some adult humans lack interests and relationships etc., does that make it OK to kill them?
@Keysteeze, but it has a symbiotic relationship with the mother. It depends on the mother for life.
What was so amazing about turning water into wine...
When compared to repairing organs and giving life...
If people are so into "miracles", this one is much more practical...
@chuck4545 he is saying that any cell with a nucleus in the body, given the appropriate mechanisms (meaning given the appropriate manipulation to get the genetic information contained in the nucleus and cause it to replicate appropriately) has the potential to be a human being. While being aware of the difference b/t nose cells and embryonic cells, he is saying, that the difference should be morally negligible if science could produce humans from the common DNA in nose cells.
"If it's natural, it can be quantified and tested". Well that is completely wrong. Consciousness is completely natural, yet we still don't have a clue as to what it exactly is and are even further away from quantifying it.
@qqquigley Incorrect. The stratified epithelial cells on the skin's surface(the ones removed when you scratch your nose) are dead and enucleated. You couldn't clone them if you wanted to.
@dideoxynucleotide The POINT IS that the development of infant body parts should remain under the control of the women of the US, not the corporations of the US.
Develop living infant cells in a dish? No.
Develop living infant cells in a uterus, for the benefit of said infant.
@Jugglable
Just as a note, we're talking about something that isn't noticeable as a human, and bringing coma patients, and two year olds who have lives (or had) isn't a good argument against something that isn't even close to devoloping yet and as another note, if someone did experiment with me during that stage...I wouldn't have known and I wouldn't be here so the case of being grateful for the unimpossibly known is stupid.
@ThieleM There is a great continual debate within the medical and research world about ethics and morality; we get papers on it all the time, and how to apply these values; but one thing is for certain; NO research should go on at the expense of a living person AND the research should be for the beneficial welfare of the recipient; and this means morally as well as physically BUT also these tests must be verifiable and accountable to the general public.
@Jugglable Google embryonic stem cell research vs adult stem sell research. Basically, both are useful. Adult is less likely to be rejected but is very hard to acquire. Embryonic can be used for anything, it's easy to produce is mass quantities, but morality is in question. This is now followed by my third point.
Now is it more moral to deny an existing human help than it is to create and use(for the sole intention to use for research) embyro's to save and/or improve lives.
@shantih433 Maybe we'll have to just disagree about whether the line you're drawing is arbitrary. If personality and sentience are your requirements, then that's very problematic, because "personality" as you're describing it often doesn't show up until long after birth (as late as 2 or 3 years of age), while "sentience" is clearly present months before birth. A child has a myriad of conscious experiences in the womb, and this is clearly demonstrable. (above)
@Zeuts85 "Human" is not a subjective classification. I am a human. My dog is not. That is *not* subjective. We define species according to certain criteria which we discover as science advances. "We call something "human" if it has certain apparent properties--such as having a mind." Who is this "we" ? What is your source? This is a serious moral issue and we should approach it objectively, using scientific criteria.
@permypoo The arguments against embryonic research is that it is unethical, too costly and nil production. While the ethics may be debated, the other two points are not in contention. The promise of things to come doesn't impress investors when initial promises haven't been met, whereas with adult stem cell research there is a positive verifiable outcome. That's the point of the stem cell research issue.
It's so sad that basic reason like this is such a rare commodity.
@dideoxynucleotide Isn't part of the research attempting to develop living functional mature pancreatic islet cells for potential implantation in the treatment of diabetics?
@oran6es Ah, sorry, the comments didn't line up the way I thought they would.
I was referring to your quote of Gandhi.
"Think not 'God is truth,' rather think 'truth is God."
Just wondering what that meant. To me, if anything, this idea seems to be rejecting worship of a specific God and trying to fit one's understanding of the world around worship of that God. Instead, one should seek only truth as it is found, i.e. through observation, education, etc.
@ThieleM You made a number of incorrect assertions early on in this exchange; you now have the clear answers to all of them; so just remember to read what is stated as opposed to what you think in your head
@Keysteeze i dont remember him saying anything against stem him cell research i do remember saying holding back stem cell research is a terrible thing
@finishstrongdoc You are either lacking in reading comprehension or willfully ignoring the point I keep stressing. Terri wanted to be allowed to die entirely if she were ever in a persistent vegetative state. That was her desire when she was still a person. The courts, incredibly, yes, they actually sometimes do work and allow people to have control over their own lives. Terri didn't want to exist in a PVS. Michael saw to it that, after over a decade of failed therapies, her wishes were followed
So when do they become important enough not to destroy, own or sell? It's okay to exist as an adult but not at a younger age? Even if it's the same individual ?
Respect ALL human beings. This includes those in the embryonic phase. They are potential adults, they are actual, not potential, human beings.
@phoenix14400 serially?
@Jugglable
and here's why (for both reasons)
You most likely will say "So it's not noticeable as a human, so killing someone that doesn't look like a human is right...right?"
No, it's not because someone that is living with actual brain activity is what we can truly define as a Human (Whether or not they can move, in the case of vegetables) But killing something that has no brain, (Yes it's DEVOLOPING) But it doesn't have one therefore no nerves, no pain you can conclude it's moral.
@ninjajesus81 "explained that if an embryo must be considered a human being, then any group of cells put together must also be considered a human being. "
No. My dog is a group of cells put together, but is not a human being. A corpse is a group of cells put together, but is not a human being.
African American civil rights activist Bayard Rustin, who had studied Gandhi's teachings,counseled King to dedicate himself to the principles of non-violence,served as King's main advisor and mentor throughout his early activism,and was the main organizer of the 1963 March on Washington.Rustin's open homosexuality, support of democratic socialism, and his former ties to the Communist Party USA caused many white and African-American leaders to demand King distance himself from Rustin
@ThieleM The point about cures is valid, the additional points about finance, legality, insurance, ethics and clarity of research are equally so to give you an idea of what is involved. You made the claim you aren't interested in what goes on at another level, but were acting in an ethical manner. Ethics involves carrying out research in a professional way inside a recognised system
So a stem cell line greater than 2 weeks old should not exist, (should not be used), correct?
Those cells (>2 weeks later), are the same alive developing cells as in the intact 2 week embryo, except they're in different dishes, because you've artificially separated them from each other.
@shantih433 The reason I asked was because you seemed to imply that there is an absolute moral truth, that truth being, 'It is immoral to murder.' I personally see no moral dilemma in the killing of a foetus because a my moral argument against murder is, 'If I were to murder, the same thought in someone else could lead to my own death. Therefore I prohibit murder by the one person I can control, so that all doing this can not murder, and therefore be murdered. Because of self-preservation.' ...
I like Harris, and I think he's right on everything but one point. The face-scratch mutilation thing is a massive stretch. An embryo has a very high probability in our day to become a human being, skin cells absolutely do not. I understand what he meant, but it's really more of a dodge than a valid argument.
@Jugglable Human development does begin at fertilization, but how does that define an embryo as an organism?
I agree with that other guy that this is a semantics discussion.