Reality includes human beings, which includes artificial mechanisms.
>> I'm saying that those cells which are produced by artificial means do have the right to life. I'm saying it's unethical to do so, especially when we fool with evolution according to our own whims on such silly subjects as hair colour.
That's a perfectly fine argument since it is a moral argument and not a scientific definition. My whole point all along is that our decisions on what is right or wrong here are all arbitrary and are internally consistant based on our presuppositions (i.e they are logical in some sense). Science cannot definitevely say which potential human is more deserving of rights. We just have to make a judgement call and we cannot be overly dogmatic.
I'm not saying that you are being dogmatic - this is a discussion forum and we are discussing opinions - but some people are overly dogmatic and feel that they should dictate their morality on the rest of society. That's what's frustrating about this topic.
rem
Posts by rem
-
112Stem Cell Research article
by DevonMcBride inin today's wall street journal there was an excellent article about stem cell research.
the united states used to be number 1 in science research.
we are now number 2 and continually on the decline even more.
-
-
rem
-
112
Stem Cell Research article
by DevonMcBride inin today's wall street journal there was an excellent article about stem cell research.
the united states used to be number 1 in science research.
we are now number 2 and continually on the decline even more.
-
-
rem
Why do you care whether a ovum or a toe-nail cell is used? You already defined an ovum as a non-human since it does not have all 46 chromosomes. Again, you are getting bogged down on the mechanics and not the potential. The fact that a toe-nail cell needs an egg cell to be successfully cloned doesn't affect the argument at all.
rem -
112
Stem Cell Research article
by DevonMcBride inin today's wall street journal there was an excellent article about stem cell research.
the united states used to be number 1 in science research.
we are now number 2 and continually on the decline even more.
-
-
rem
I'm talking about potential. The potential for a human being exists in the DNA. We can manipulate the DNA in any cell to create a new human being - ergo every cell has the potential to become a human. It's artificial, but the potential is still there.
If you say that only cells that have the potential for becoming human without artificial means count, then I will simply label your argument as arbitrary. Also, there are many artificial means of helping the process along during development. To exclude all artificial help would define away many potential humans as not deserving human rights until some other arbitrary point has been crossed.
rem -
112
Stem Cell Research article
by DevonMcBride inin today's wall street journal there was an excellent article about stem cell research.
the united states used to be number 1 in science research.
we are now number 2 and continually on the decline even more.
-
-
rem
>> fine, replace unfalsifiable with specualtion and scientifically unproven.
Had cloning never been demonstrated you would be correct. However cloning has been accomplished, therefore what I said is not merely speculation, but actually happens in practice and is scientifically proven. The mechanics of it are not important. The fact that the DNA (which you claim is the definition of a human being) is being expressed. At this point you will need to further tighten your definition of a human being.
rem -
112
Stem Cell Research article
by DevonMcBride inin today's wall street journal there was an excellent article about stem cell research.
the united states used to be number 1 in science research.
we are now number 2 and continually on the decline even more.
-
-
rem
>> You said that a clump of cells has a probability of becoming another human being, yet you cannot prove this. It is unfalsifiable. In cloning you take and ovum and zap some complete DNA into, at that time it becomes a zygote and it's an artificial conception completed without a sperm.
You just proved it was possible, thus it is not unfalsifiable. Just because it is artificial does not mean that the potential for another human being does not exist in the cell. It just needs to be expressed.
It just so happens that there is already a pre-built scaffolding and framework that expresses the same DNA automatically when egg and sperm meet. We are down to mechanics here.
The probabilities can be calculated for either case.
rem -
112
Stem Cell Research article
by DevonMcBride inin today's wall street journal there was an excellent article about stem cell research.
the united states used to be number 1 in science research.
we are now number 2 and continually on the decline even more.
-
-
rem
>> Thank you for another unfalsifiable, unscientifically proven statement. What a hypocrite you are when you demand such things of others.
Methinks you don't fully understand what the word "unfalsifiable" means.
Einstein's theory of relativity was not unfalsifiable when it was published because the experiments to falsify it did not exist. It was falsifiable *in theory*. Please don't bore us with your naive blurtings of "logical fallacy". We are not your typical apologists. We know what logical fallacies are.
rem -
112
Stem Cell Research article
by DevonMcBride inin today's wall street journal there was an excellent article about stem cell research.
the united states used to be number 1 in science research.
we are now number 2 and continually on the decline even more.
-
-
rem
>> Funny, I've never heard of a clump of regular cells becoming another person, ever. Can you scientifically prove that this can happen or do you enjoy using unfalsifiable statements?
Unfalsifiable? One word - cloning. Just because it doesn't happen spontaneously in nature (as far as I know) doesn't mean the *potential for human life* is not there. That is what we are discussing here, not mechanics of reproduction.
rem -
112
Stem Cell Research article
by DevonMcBride inin today's wall street journal there was an excellent article about stem cell research.
the united states used to be number 1 in science research.
we are now number 2 and continually on the decline even more.
-
-
rem
>> Tetra, they use ova and a regular cell to make a clone, then shock them in order to mix their nuclear material. If that is successful, then conception takes place. I would doubt that they would be able to make a clone without any sort of ovum.
There is no theoretical reason why this could not be accomplished. This is merely done for technical reasons which may not apply in the future.
rem -
112
Stem Cell Research article
by DevonMcBride inin today's wall street journal there was an excellent article about stem cell research.
the united states used to be number 1 in science research.
we are now number 2 and continually on the decline even more.
-
-
rem
>> An embryo is the simplest form of life that will grow into a complete human being, I make the conclusion that it is a human life because of that: both potential and existing.
It is a clump of cells that has a probability of becoming a human being - just as egg and sperm cells are. Sperm has a lower probability of becoming human - it must meet with an egg. A clump of cells from a fertilized egg has a higher probability of becoming human, but it still has many obstacles ahead of it. Neither are sentient, neither have a 100% probability of becoming a full human in even the best case scenario. Setting the bar at the number of chromosomes within the cell is arbitrary.
Anyone can arbitrarily draw the line of what is human at any point. Yours is no more "correct" than any other. I do believe that some lines are overly conservative and some are overly liberal for my taste - and this comes down to a moral judgement. As for public policy, I don't believe we should cater to traditional religious morals, but must meet a medium. If !00% of the human race believed the way you do, then that would be one thing, but there is a continuum of belief here that must be taken into account. Being overly restrictive or liberal can have bad effects on society, whereas there is a compelling argument for being "reasonable" as it has the potential for greater good.
Notice I never said your position was illogical (insofar as your presuppositions are concerned) - just naive. There is no logicaly true boundary of what a human is in my estimation - it is arbitrary based on all of our presuppositions.
I find it interesting that you believe a clump of cells will be going to heaven. Wishful thinking, I must say. There will be a lot of miscarried cells up there. I'm not sure how interesting their conversation will be. I sincerely doubt most religious people feel the same way you do. I used to be religious and did not feel that way.
Toenail cells have just as much potential to become a human being as any other cell. Cells can be cloned, so there is potential for a future human being in every one. Also, in that clump of cells of a zygote - what cells are those? What do they eventually become? Nose hair cells? From my understanding, those cells may die off during the development, which means there is nothing magical about those cells - they are not part of the end product. They are merely a potential for becoming a human - one which has a calculable probability, just like my toenail cell.
Also, it is natural for humans (and other animals) to kill their young - the Greeks did it and it happens today in some cases. You should be arguing that it is not moral (or perhaps not common) - not against nature. It is special pleading to say that miscarriage doesn't apply as abortion just because it is not performed by an intelligent act. It is natural for humans and other animals to abort - even congnizantly. We can talk about how often this happens or the morality involved, but there is no argument against nature here.
rem -
112
Stem Cell Research article
by DevonMcBride inin today's wall street journal there was an excellent article about stem cell research.
the united states used to be number 1 in science research.
we are now number 2 and continually on the decline even more.
-
-
rem
>> Human life begins at conception, when the lifeform has 48 chromosomes. My knowlege of biology is more limited than yours, but I assume that if it doesn't attach to the uterine wall, it will not survive, right? That's nature, but it is not natural to procure abortion or purposely kill your own kind out of selfish reasons.
I think you may be on shaky ground on this "argument from nature". Abortion (miscarriage) is quite natural. It is also quite natural for animals to kill those of their own kind - even for food. There may be a moral argument against this practice, but certainly you cannot argue that this is not natural. Anything that happens in nature is natural.
I also think you are a bit disingenuous in how you categorize a clump of cells with a certain probability of becoming a human vs. a living person. If you are religious, do you believe these clumps of cells are going to heaven? Do you hold funeral services for them? The problem is that many people have black and white thinking on the matter, when really it is a complex issue and there are gray areas.
I think we can only agree to disagree on our individual interpretations of what makes a person a person. For instance, I do not see a clump of cells with a probability of becoming a living, breathing human a full human with full human rights. I do see a fetus that is fairly far along in the process as being a human. Where is the line? It's hard to say, but just having 48 chromosomes doesn't cut it for me. It that were true, then the cells on my toenail would be fully human and I would hesitate to clip them.
Perhaps there is some objective way of solving it... maybe determining when the probability of life hits a certain threshold, or when sentience begins, or a combination... I don't know, but that's a real discussion. Ending the thought process at the number of chromosomes in a cell is, in my mind, naive.
rem