On the Protection of Embryonic Life

[Coloradomtnman]

And if millions of 50 year olds died "naturally," it seems that there would be a mass expenditure of funds to research and prevent this death. I'm merely asking why Bush, or why his supporters, have not devoted the same attention to the death of embryos.

When I look at human beings as acting and thinking in both rational and irrational ways, things become clearer for me. What I mean is, when a human being chooses to believe in a specific creator or God despite there being no evidence for his/her/its existence other than a book or that many other believe etc. etc. i.e. no rational or logical evidence of the existence of this thing - I think that human is thinking irrationally.

Now what makes that person think irrationally? Emotions. Example: For some reason human beings want to believe the first thing they've learned. So for people indoctrinated in religion, this could be one of the reasons behind their refusal to allow that their beliefs might be wrong. Born again Christians believe usually because they went through some very tough times and they chose to take Christ into their hearts to help them deal with their crisis emotionally. If they allow a glimmer of doubt to enter their faith, all of what they've gone through to emerge from that crisis is meaningless. And these are just two of many many reasons why people irrationally believe in something they can't prove. Others being fear of death, fear of a meaningless universe, etc. etc.

A human being when thinking or operating under an irrational system of thoughts will, when it comes to substantiating those thoughts, act illogically.

So to answer the question: You're asking why irrationally thinking people didn't act logically... The question answers itself.

Let's just say "self-aware human life" or "sentient human life" because that is one thing that makes being alive and human so special. Embryos or fertilized egg or conceived are all physical characteristics. There's more to being a human being than being a human being physically. Without the mind a human being is a "vegetable".

 

[roomy]

And if millions of 50 year olds died "naturally," it seems that there would be a mass expenditure of funds to research and prevent this death. I'm merely asking why Bush, or why his supporters, have not devoted the same attention to the death of embryos.

I wish I could neg you 10 times in a row.You boil my fucking piss and I think it is because you are a liar.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

And if millions of 50 year olds died "naturally," it seems that there would be a mass expenditure of funds to research and prevent this death. I'm merely asking why Bush, or why his supporters, have not devoted the same attention to the death of embryos.

I wish I could neg you 10 times in a row.You boil my fucking piss and I think it is because you are a liar.

See?

 

[roomy]

And if millions of 50 year olds died "naturally," it seems that there would be a mass expenditure of funds to research and prevent this death. I'm merely asking why Bush, or why his supporters, have not devoted the same attention to the death of embryos.

I wish I could neg you 10 times in a row.You boil my fucking piss and I think it is because you are a liar.

See?

You can try spelling four lettered words now that you have mastered three.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I wish I could neg you 10 times in a row.You boil my fucking piss and I think it is because you are a liar.

See?

You can try spelling four lettered words now that you have mastered three.

Okay.

 

[Agnapostate]

When I look at human beings as acting and thinking in both rational and irrational ways, things become clearer for me. What I mean is, when a human being chooses to believe in a specific creator or God despite there being no evidence for his/her/its existence other than a book or that many other believe etc. etc. i.e. no rational or logical evidence of the existence of this thing - I think that human is thinking irrationally.

Now what makes that person think irrationally? Emotions. Example: For some reason human beings want to believe the first thing they've learned. So for people indoctrinated in religion, this could be one of the reasons behind their refusal to allow that their beliefs might be wrong. Born again Christians believe usually because they went through some very tough times and they chose to take Christ into their hearts to help them deal with their crisis emotionally. If they allow a glimmer of doubt to enter their faith, all of what they've gone through to emerge from that crisis is meaningless. And these are just two of many many reasons why people irrationally believe in something they can't prove. Others being fear of death, fear of a meaningless universe, etc. etc.

A human being when thinking or operating under an irrational system of thoughts will, when it comes to substantiating those thoughts, act illogically.

So to answer the question: You're asking why irrationally thinking people didn't act logically... The question answers itself.

Let's just say "self-aware human life" or "sentient human life" because that is one thing that makes being alive and human so special. Embryos or fertilized egg or conceived are all physical characteristics. There's more to being a human being than being a human being physically. Without the mind a human being is a "vegetable".

Believe me, I'm fully aware of all that. If anything, I'm simply trying to expose the fact that they aren't, for those that claim to hold to some pretense of rationality.

I wish I could neg you 10 times in a row.You boil my fucking piss and I think it is because you are a liar.

Then go huddle in the corner, tuck your head into your snatch and cry, you little bitch.

 

[frazzledgear]

If you remove religion from the embryonic research issue I think the ethical dilemmas disappear. But I'd be happy to acknowledge any that actually do exist of course.

The woman having the babies - I haven't kept up I'm afraid. If she is mentally ill and allowed to participate in a programme then something's badly wrong there.

You really think that if religion is removed from the equation, that no one at all would have a problem with creating a new human life for the specific purpose of killing it and harvesting its parts so another but older human life will benefit? As embryonic stem researchers and supporters are demanding that government not just allow -but FINANCE? If so, then perhaps religion really does serve some purpose in creating a firmer moral foundation and respect for human life than you seem to have. I really don't think our species is best served by treating human life as no more special than any commodity traded and sold on the stock market -do you? Really?

But religion doesn't explain why the majority of bioethicists oppose embryonic stem cell research -most of whom do NOT use religion in any part of their reasoning. Maybe it has something to do with it being undeniably a form of cannibalism, huh? I oppose and will ALWAYS oppose creating new human life for the specific purpose of turning around and killing it and harvesting its cells in order that some other but older human life might benefit. I also oppose a government that will force me to pay for it too. No moral dilemma for me here. If that makes me some kind of religious whacko in your eyes so be it -even though I have not once used any religious justification for my opposition in any post. Is the fact that a whole lot of people think this is on a par with the dehumanizing atrocities of the Nazis make it better and somehow more acceptable for you? Human life was just a commodity to them too. Easily destroyed and easily replaced. Perhaps the Nazis existed just a few decades too soon, huh?

As for the Octo mother -I think the doctor who decided the mother of 6 kids under the age of 8, all of whom were also a result of his own previous in vitro fertilization, a woman with a documented history of mental illness, no income, living off the disability checks received from three of her kids and parked herself and six kids in her elderly parents' 3 bedroom home -would be a fine candidate to have 8 more babies who are all at high risk of being disabled due to their extreme prematurity -should be forced to pay child support for those babies.

But in today's world of "do whatever you feel like for whatever selfish motives you have and never once consider the consequences your actions have for other human beings" -it will never happen.

 

[frazzledgear]

But if embryonic life is morally equivalent to older human life, then why not expend equivalent amounts of aid on researching preventing the spontaneous death that I referred to?

Why? Natural death of embryos are nearly always due to the fact that particular embryo has a lethal condition of some kind and cannot survive at all. But we aren't talking about embryos that have inherited a lethal condition and WILL die. Just like we aren't talking about 50 year old men with heart disease who WILL die either.

What does that have to do with deliberately creating a human embryo for the specific purpose of killing it and harvesting its cells? Just what kind of mental gymnastics do you have to go through to get there? Why do you keep pretending that because some embryos die a natural death, it is somehow the moral equivalent of deliberately creating a human embryo for the purpose of killing it -and therefore just no big deal? People die a natural death at every single age and stage of life -without exception. Does that justify deliberately killing someone of that age too?

The fact that ANY human life dies naturally at every single age and stage of life without exception - cannot ever justify deliberately killing another human life. This is truly the lamest and most morally unsound argument I have ever heard.

 

[frazzledgear]

And if millions of 50 year olds died "naturally," it seems that there would be a mass expenditure of funds to research and prevent this death. I'm merely asking why Bush, or why his supporters, have not devoted the same attention to the death of embryos.

They only use the unborn as a tool to control people.

Yeah -its just an attempt to "control" everyone else if we live in a society that actually says it is not acceptable to kill a human life just because the existence of that life is "inconvenient" for someone else. And that it isn't acceptable to create a human life for the specific purpose of killing it so you can harvest its cells so a different, but older human life might benefit. How did our species ever manage to get here by being so stupid as to believe such a thing in the past?

Mankind has gone through many periods of considering human life as disposable and of little value before and clearly we are entering another. The problem is -those periods aren't the ones that contributed to the advancement of the species.

 

[Diuretic]

I think to be able to judge the ethical nature of act it has to be seen in context.

In many societies infanticide was accepted because not to do so would lead to over-population and the death by starvation of members of society. Infanticide is a horrible concept to someone in an advanced industrial society but in a subsistence society it makes sense.

Cannibalism in an advanced industrial society is intuitively abhorrent (as well as being a crime) but in a subsistence society where there is a lack of protein it makes sense to eat those you defeat in battle.

Stem cell research has to be seen in context. If it means that much human suffering will be relieved then that justifies it. Embyronic stem cells aren't sentient humans, they're not even a foetus, so they're fair game for research and clinical use.

 

[roomy]

See?

You can try spelling four lettered words now that you have mastered three.

Okay.

Yay for you

 

[roomy]

When I look at human beings as acting and thinking in both rational and irrational ways, things become clearer for me. What I mean is, when a human being chooses to believe in a specific creator or God despite there being no evidence for his/her/its existence other than a book or that many other believe etc. etc. i.e. no rational or logical evidence of the existence of this thing - I think that human is thinking irrationally.

Now what makes that person think irrationally? Emotions. Example: For some reason human beings want to believe the first thing they've learned. So for people indoctrinated in religion, this could be one of the reasons behind their refusal to allow that their beliefs might be wrong. Born again Christians believe usually because they went through some very tough times and they chose to take Christ into their hearts to help them deal with their crisis emotionally. If they allow a glimmer of doubt to enter their faith, all of what they've gone through to emerge from that crisis is meaningless. And these are just two of many many reasons why people irrationally believe in something they can't prove. Others being fear of death, fear of a meaningless universe, etc. etc.

A human being when thinking or operating under an irrational system of thoughts will, when it comes to substantiating those thoughts, act illogically.

So to answer the question: You're asking why irrationally thinking people didn't act logically... The question answers itself.

Let's just say "self-aware human life" or "sentient human life" because that is one thing that makes being alive and human so special. Embryos or fertilized egg or conceived are all physical characteristics. There's more to being a human being than being a human being physically. Without the mind a human being is a "vegetable".

Believe me, I'm fully aware of all that. If anything, I'm simply trying to expose the fact that they aren't, for those that claim to hold to some pretense of rationality.

I wish I could neg you 10 times in a row.You boil my fucking piss and I think it is because you are a liar.

Then go huddle in the corner, tuck your head into your snatch and cry, you little bitch.

Liar.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

You can try spelling four lettered words now that you have mastered three.

Okay.

Yay for you

Yep, Yay for me!

 

[strollingbones]

But if embryonic life is morally equivalent to older human life, then why not expend equivalent amounts of aid on researching preventing the spontaneous death that I referred to?

are you being a dumbass..we do research the preventing of miscarriages...which i think you are referring to...i think 1 out 10 preggies end in miscarriages...and yes i know they are called abortion...in the medical field etc...but we are discussing miscarriages which for some reason ..mostly unknown to the woman or the doctor the body rejects the fertilized egg...


simply look at medical and research journals to see the levels of research...


High Levels of Intrauterine Corticotropin-Releasing Hormone, Urocortin, Tryptase, and Interleukin-8 in Spontaneous Abortions -- Madhappan et al. 144 (6): 2285 -- Endocrinology

 

[Agnapostate]

Liar.

Listen, you bullshitting idiot, tell me one lie that I have told.

 

[N4mddissent]

Good thread topic that has sort of dissolved. The problem with this issue is that people don't seem to get to the heart of the matter and talk past each other. Every rational person agrees that taking human life is bad. What is not agreed upon is what constitutes human life at the very early stages.

This is where the influence of religious belief gets tied into the problem. Most religious believers who object to embryonic stem cell research consider the fertilized embryo to constitute life. This is almost always tied to the concept of a "soul" and that is what makes human life sacred. It is much more difficult to make a rational argument that microscopic clump of cells constitutes human life in the absence of any supernatural belief. After all, from a materialist perspective "you" are the sum of your brain activity. The self-awareness and consciousness that we identify within our self and others as a person does not exist outside the brain from a secular perspective. If someone approached you who had the same memories, personality, etc... but looked differently physically, then you would probably accept it was that person but their appearance was changed. If someone looked like someone you knew but they had a different personality and different memories than the person you knew, then you might suspect a doppleganger.

So if the identity of an individual is not related to physical appearance, then we must decide on mind-brain duality questions which often are interpreted in religion as the "soul". Does the mind exist independently of the brain? If yes, then one may be more inclined to consider an embryo a living being. If no, then one may be more inclined to dismiss an embryo, since a cluster of a few hundred cells has less neurological development than a common house fly.

Since there is no evidence for the existence of the mind in the absence of the brain, it must be taken on faith that this reflects reality. But do we base social policy, especially one with potential to ease suffering and cure disease, on an article of faith- one not shared by all religions? Whether acknowledged or not, we all make a distinction between embryonic life and post-birth life. Otherwise we would have conception days instead of birthdays and every miscarriage would be accompanied by a funeral. I think that distinction should guide us in this realm of uncertainty since the disagreements are ones based in individuals' core beliefs and can never be satisfied without one side accepting the other side as fact and thus dimissing their own belief.

There will always be those who see the destruction of embryos as a destruction of life. There will always be those who firmly dismiss the idea of an embryo being equivalent to a born or even fetal human being. Ascribing life to an embryo is a fairly recent development, and I think the general attitude taken toward miscarriages can guide us when making these decisions to consider the embryo as not being equivalent to a human baby despite the fact that some people will not share that sentiment.