Stem Cell Research

[Ummon]

Highly debatable: it is not necessary anymore to use embryos for stem cell research.

Infact, it could be argued, that today's research is better because people refrained from bandwagoning with the easy solution.

Split from this thread.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Actually in the mean time several advances were made. Today paralytic people in certain circumstances can walk again thanks to stem cell research.

[Ummon]

The same results could have been achieved without destroying human beings in potency, which although necessarily dealing with potential and not reality, leaves many people uncomfortably dubious as to its justice.

Our society has the remarkable ability to make strides transforming many things into commodities, including often human beings, human embryos, human principles, etc.

[removeduser_487563287433]

The same results could have been achieved without destroying human beings in potency, which although necessarily dealing with potential and not reality, leaves many people uncomfortably dubious as to its justice.

Our society has the remarkable ability to make strides transforming many things into commodities, including often human beings, human embryos, human principles, etc.

Ha!

Tell me Ummon, how would banning stem cell research and causing the retardation of medical development and the suffering of thousands bring those aborted fetuses back to life?

[Ummon]

Ha!

Tell me Ummon, how would banning stem cell research and causing the retardation of medical development and the suffering of thousands bring those aborted fetuses back to life?

Exactly: an utilitarian outlook. You hereby assert that for a cost/benefit calculation, this policy is valid. Infact, this is the problem.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

Exactly: an utilitarian outlook. You hereby assert that for a cost/benefit calculation, this policy is valid. Infact, this is the problem.

Hardly utilitarian. These fetuses will be aborted anyway, so they might as well be used in research.

[Ummon]

They will be aborted anyway, and that is a fully utilitarian and pragmatic consideration.

What these things are used for against what these items represent.

[removeduser_487563287433]

They will be aborted anyway, and that is a fully utilitarian and pragmatic consideration.

What these things are used for against what these items represent.

They represent cures for millions of people. You want to cynically toss them away, that's your right to think that, but it doesn't make the slightest sense.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

Is it not utilitarian to go that extra step? Have people conceive fetuses specifically for stem cell research?

It is not utilitarian, it is logical to use fetuses that will be aborted for good use.

[Ummon]

I reiterate: the problem is not the accidents surrounding the event, but a policy bent on using human embryos to further research.

It is not a matter of calculating pluses and minuses (that is the utilitarian outlook already), for some a society is advanced when it disregards such consideration, for others, just the opposite.

[Tankbuster]

It is not a matter of calculating pluses and minuses (that is the utilitarian outlook already), for some a society is advanced when it disregards such consideration, for others, just the opposite.

Isn't that still a base principle of our ethics?
As in: "A train is storming down a track. You're the train technician and you can make the train go two tracks: on one of the tracks there are five men, on the other there is only one."

You'll start thinking: 5 > 1, so I'll pick the track with one man on it.

Calculating pluses and minuses is not always bad, on the contrary.

[Ummon]

Isn't that still a base principle of our ethics?
As in: "A train is storming down a track. You're the train technician and you can make the train go two tracks: on one of the tracks there are five men, on the other there is only one."

You'll start thinking: 5 > 1, so I'll pick the track with one man on it.

Calculating pluses and minuses is not always bad, on the contrary.

Actually, certain calculations by necessity, have infinite values in them. For example, when certain indirect effects come into play, the small addition you mentioned, might infact become impossible.

To comment what Shyam said: nobody should read Dawkins. Actually, reading Dawkins is probably the worst thing you can do to your understanding. There are more intelligent atheists, you see.

They represent cures for millions of people. You want to cynically toss them away, that's your right to think that, but it doesn't make the slightest sense.

Cures we already have, and we can also research more without destroying embryos. Sometimes, preserving one's integrity, is better than preserving one's health, besides.

Because integrity affects health in many complex, direct and indirect ways as well.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Cures we already have. Sometimes, preserving one's integrity, is better than preserving one's health, besides.

Because integrity affects health in many complex, direct and indirect ways as well.

No, cures we simply do not have. Would you die rather than accept a cure that was developed through stem cell research?

[Medicus]

nobody should read Dawkins. Actually, reading Dawkins is probably the worst thing you can do to your understanding. There are more intelligent atheists, you see.

I would argue that you should read Dawkins, or at least books and articles by atheists. Ummon, you would consider yourself well educated in philosophy and religion, correct? Then would you not say that in order to reach a consensus on your faith, you should be reading not only religious texts, but also atheist ones as well?

There is one fundamental issue with this reasoning: corpses have already been alive, and have died.

So have foetuses; should we therefore deal with them differently?

To put it simply, those foetuses have already been aborted; they are already dead. If the mother has consented for the foetus to be used for research, what's the problem?

Well, a lot of countries in Europa are stagnating.
However, due to immigration, the 0% growth rate (or sometimes small negative growth rates) are compensated by immigration.

That's the thing; industrialised nations experience a fall in their fertility rate. Australia's population is only on the rise because of immigration.

So maybe the problem will solve itself. Or, alternately, we introduce one- or two-child policies in Western nations.

[Ummon]

I would argue that you should read Dawkins, or at least books and articles by atheists. Ummon, you would consider yourself well educated in philosophy and religion, correct? Then would you not say that in order to reach a consensus on your faith, you should be reading not only religious texts, but also atheist ones as well?

But I have read Dawkins, and as far as atheism goes, I do prefer Dennet. I do prefer intelligent atheists.

So have foetuses; should we therefore deal with them differently?

Absolutely false. You cannot make any use of a dead foetus for research infact.

To put it simply, those foetuses have already been aborted; they are already dead. If the mother has consented for the foetus to be used for research, what's the problem?

1) suspended animation is not death
1) the mother should not be able to choose on these matters.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

I have a feeling my grasp of utilitarian values is a little basic, Ummon. I guess Bentham's utilitarianism - GHP and all that - works here. Then again, I don't see a reason why it should be a bad thing in this situation.

[Ummon]

There is nothing wrong with reading Dawkins. None at all.

Just as there is nothing wrong with suppressing your brain cells through abuse of alcohol: they're your brain cells after all. It is just damaging.

[Dayman]

Just as there is nothing wrong with suppressing your brain cells through abuse of alcohol: they're your brain cells after all. It is just damaging.

Completely invalid analogy. I understand your point, but it's equally invalid.

[Ummon]

Completely invalid analogy. I understand your point, but it's equally invalid.

You see, Dawkins does kill your brain cells when you read his philosophy/religion works, and even if he doesn't, you give him money to try again. :wink:

No, cures we simply do not have. Would you die rather than accept a cure that was developed through stem cell research?

1) We already have many cures based on stem cells
2) I wouldn't refuse something which already exists, but I wouldn't research with embryo stem cells now that we can do it without them

[removeduser_487563287433]

1) We already have many cures based on stem cells
2) I wouldn't refuse something which already exists, but I wouldn't research with embryo stem cells now that we can do it without them

And if we can't do it without them? (Which we often cannot, they are by far the best sources).