The House passes the Senate's healthcare reform bill 219-212.
Click to Print
Include Comments
The war on terror—and embryos
Slate’s William Saletan has a thoughtful column today comparing the rhetoric on stem cells to the rhetoric on torture.
You don’t have to equate embryos with full-grown human beings—I don’t—to appreciate the danger of exploiting them. Embryos are the beginnings of people. They’re not parts of people. They’re the whole thing, in very early form. Harvesting them, whether for research or medicine, is different from harvesting other kinds of cells. It’s the difference between using an object and using a subject. How long can we grow this subject before dismembering it to get useful cells? How far should we strip-mine humanity in order to save it?
If you have trouble taking this question seriously—if you think it’s just the hypersensitivity of fetus-lovers—try shifting the context from stem cells to torture. There, the question is: How much ruthless violence should we use to defeat ruthless violence? The paradox and the dilemma are easy to recognize. Creating and destroying embryos to save lives presents a similar, though not equal, dilemma.
This is a difficult moral dilemma, he emphasizes — not a case of science vs. ideology. If we don’t recognize the dilemma and wrestle with it, our ethical lines will slide. His closing line:
The stem-cell fight wasn’t a fight between ideology and science. It was a fight between 5-day-olds and 50-year-olds. The 50-year-olds won. The question now is what to do with our 5-day-olds, our 5-week-olds, and our increasingly useful parts.
back to top133 Comments to “The war on terror—and embryos”
Chilling! Absolutely chilling.
One frequently hears MSM refer to Pete Singer the alleged “bioethicist”. What all is required to be credentialed as a bioethicist anyway. With Singer, MSM never says he represents one particular strand or stream of bioethics. Instead the implication seems to be that he speaks for all of them. Can’t imagine any other vocation where one person is deemed to speak for all his cohorts on such inherently controversial issues.
Report comment to moderator
Obama is a moral midget on this issue. He piously declaimed that the decision on when life begins was above his pay grade. His decision yesterday proves he has no moral qualms about the destruction of embryos left over from fertilization treatments or specifically created by cloning. There are presently scientific alternatives to human embryo destruction – such as the re-programing of adult (pluripotent) stem cells. Obama chose to ignore that science, opting for a further divisive approach (so much for his claim to unite folks) and caved in to the abortion lobby which demands no protection for unborn human life.
Report comment to moderator
This is a difficult moral dilemma…
No it’s not.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah,
I agrree it is not a difficult moral dillema.
The challenge which continues to be ducked in these conversations is that an embryo is a single cell. In aruging that it has the potential to become fully human I reply that based on the SCNT technology any cell has the potential to become fully human.
This is a more elegantly posed argument than most, but at root fails for the same reason: if one approachs the argument this way then one is forced into providing a crisp and operational definition of when something is indeed worthy of full human protections.
And the question as posed is basicaly unanswerable. Heck, we don’t even always accord adults full human protections, which is a useful discussion in and of itself.
And as such, as posed this is a false dillema.
Report comment to moderator
Hi Musing.
Bye, Musing.
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
So you throw caution to the wind? If you don’t when life begins then perhaps you should exercise a bit more cation rather than risk murder.
Mike
Report comment to moderator
NOPM,
I am most happy to say that the embryo is alive.
It is not obvious to me that the embryo sould be afforded full human protections: we don’t accord such protection to skin cells.
What objectively makes the embryo different?
Report comment to moderator
It saddens me that Alisa can refer to this article as being “thoughtful”. It is an exercise in contradictions hidden behind rhetoric. He claims not to equate an embryo with a fully grown human and proceeds to do exactly that, repeatedly.
Similarly those anti-choice activists who have relied for years upon phototgraphs of vaguely human looking embryos (to me, most look more like pupies) to generate repulsion against abortion, are now seeking to extend that emotional response to the use, for honorable purposes, of tiny blobs of protoplasm smaller than the head of a pin.
Report comment to moderator
puppies. sorry about that.
Report comment to moderator
MUSING – the only difference between the embryo you were and who you are today is growth and maturation. The embryo is not potential life but human life which begins at conception. Obama in claiming to be scientific ignored the last 18 months of science so he could pay his debt to the abortion lobby. If we draw the line at full human protection at one end of the life continuum we are on the slippery slope of arbitrary lines anywhere along that continuum.
Report comment to moderator
Invan the terrible,
and the only difference between a skin cell and who I am today is growth and maturation in the right environment.
Sorry, I sugest your argument is insufficient.
As a minimum, the embryo is missing the structures to allow development. These must be created in a cooperative effort between the mother and embryo for the embryo to be able to develop.
For this reason, I suggest that the implantation argument which has been raised several times is potentially compelling, although incomplete. The embryo argument is, however, given that a skin cell can also in principle develop into a full human being, unconvincing.
It is, however, a better argument than the unique DNA argument which Dad Dog raised.
P.S. I will not debate with you whether the embryo is alive: it is certainly alive. The question is whether it should be accorded full human protections. As the argument stands now, if you insist that the embryo is deserving of such protections, then I suggest skin cells are also.
P.P.S. there is a deep question of what goes into who I am today.
Report comment to moderator
ivan the terrible,
lets try the question this way:
I have a fertilized egg and a totipotent stem cell each sitting in a petri dish.
Which if any are worthy of full protections as a human being?
Report comment to moderator
Musing is willing to state, repeatedly, his/her opinion that an embryo is not worthy of “the right to full protection.” Unfortunately, however, Musing is not willing (see yesterday’s posts, as well) to state his/her opinion as to when, in his/her opinion, that such a right to full protection begins for that growing embryo/fetus/baby.
For this reason, I suspect that Musing has a personal stake in this issue, and that, as a result, either (1) his/her thinking may be clouded on the issue, or (2) he/she is unwilling to admit that he/she simply doesn’t know when that right begins (which is an acceptable alternative).
For that reason, I suggest that you good folks not waste your time discussing the issue with Musing. He/she will dance, hop, jump and dodge, but will not allow him/herself to get tied down to a position (as to when that right to full protection begins).
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia,
Life begins at conception. It does not matter to us whether we are talking about an embryo or a fetus. It is unborn life, and we hold it dear. We believe that it is abhorrent to harvest stem cells from an embryonic human to perhaps someday improve quality of life. I myself would rather die than accept treatment that came at the cost of unborn life.
Report comment to moderator
Dad dog,
I am willing to state unequivocaly that an unimplanted embryo does not appear to be deserving of full protections.
And indeed that is apparently the legal status at this time: embryos are property to be used or disposed of as the owner sees fit.
But of course we can explore this issue more fully if you answer the question I posed in post 12.
P.S. I have no personal stake whatsoever in the issue. I do not do stem cell research, and as I noted earlier, I am not even a biologist. But it is interesting that you would try to spread such rumors. Does this mean you admit your arguments are weak?
Report comment to moderator
Musing: when does that right to full protection begin?
Report comment to moderator
FUGUFISH,
and when you say:
“Life begins at conception.”
what is the basis for this statement? Can you justify it logically?
We need to be careful here, because of course a fertilized egg is alive, but more correctly is it worthy of full human protections?
And your justification for why it is?
Report comment to moderator
Dad Dog,
as I discussed earlier, if implanted in a woman, its rights begin to match the rights of the mother to control her own metabolism when the fetus is viable.
And that is effectively what the supreme court stated.
And it does indeed answer the abortion queston completely and totally. It can even be used to address the question of after fetal viability but before birth challenges if one wants to pursue it.
Report comment to moderator
Dad Dog,
but do note that to answer the abortion question we do not have to explicitly address when the fetus achieves full rights. We must merely be able to establish when its rights are subordinate to the mother, which would appear to be a simpler question.
Report comment to moderator
So, as I stated yesterday, you appear to be deferring to the courts on this. OK, let’s examine that position.
So, if the Supreme Court ruled tomorrow that life begins at conception, would you accept that? Why/why not?
Or, conversely, if the Supreme Court, following the logic of Dr. Singer, ruled tomorrow that humans don’t have the “full protections” you describe until they are at least two years old (i.e., outside the womb), would you accept that? Why/why not?
Report comment to moderator
Dad Dog,
no I am not deferring to the courts.
I reached this positon on my own, but noted that the courts agree with me.
It is a reasoned development based on first principles and does not require the number of assumptions which your model appears to require.
Report comment to moderator
It is very clear that anything associated with individuality or “personhood” is directly related to functions of the brain. Any notion of a soul or identity before the development of the central nervous system is nothing more than superstitious conjecture. The fact that we are discussing unimplanted embryos makes the issue all the clearer. Blastocysts are people in the same way that a recipe book can be eaten for dinner.
Report comment to moderator
gwf81,
I agree with you in pinciple (hence my comments about what make me me) and this is indeed the material in “the Accidental Mind”.
However, to sustain this argument requires some care particularly in addressing the concept of soul (unmeasureable as best as I can determine).
I would prefer to let those who argue against embryonic stem cell research start treading down this path first: it makes thier argument much harder!
Thanks for the post!
Report comment to moderator
#21 Musing
“no I am not deferring to the courts.
I reached this positon on my own, but noted that the courts agree with me.”
So why has it taken you so long to tell us? What is wrong with you that you will post and post but won’t answer simple question with a simple answer?
I think you just like to argue. It is not be worth the time it takes to talk with you.
Dad Dog, don’t get sucked into this Black Hole. As soon as Musing starts his/her posting games, walk off. Don’t feed the stupidity. Walk off.
Musing don’t bother answering this post. You won’t get a rise from me. If you are willing to change, we will all know; we will see it in your posts.
Report comment to moderator
Missing from almost all of these discussions (which generally center on the status of embryos and their relative moral claim for our regard) is consideration of the notion that our status, who we are, may have something to do with how we regard them. This concept may not have much purchase in the the current politicized debate, and is completely foreign to folks who like Musing would rather hop around rabbit trail mazes that don’t lead anywhere, gloating about how they’d gotten there first. But I suspect it’s one of the central issues, for Christians anyway.
I’d recommend reading books on the subject and talking to friends (Paul Ramsey, Gilbert Meilaender on personhood and place; Wolterstorff on love as the substrate of rights, for instance). Because before long, bioethics that has any whiff of theological- or principle-based formulation will become an issue of personal piety alone, having been purposefully excluded from the public square. It’s likely that that in the near future, this area will become one of the key distinctives of an obedient people who are set apart. It’s very unlikely there will be any enduring civic reflection left.
Report comment to moderator
Bob Buckles,
perhaps because you were not listening?
I have described the position and developed it form first principles many times in this blog.
You appear to claim my arguments are hard to understand.
Perhaps it is that you choose not to understand them. At some point, with at most minor changes in the arugment, you seem to reach ah ha moments.
Report comment to moderator
serious georgem
indeed your comment here:
” consideration of the notion that our status, who we are, may have something to do with how we regard them.”
is critical.
Moral decisions, as we are talking about them now, are made by humans. And without humans, we would not be talking about them
You open up a potentially promising approach to the debate: where wuill you take it?
I would be delighted in your argument which say suggests that for us to be human we must respect the embryo.
If you want to pursue this path, then I would be delighted to see you enter the material here so we can discuss it.
Passing it off as some experts we should read and then our minds will change is I suggest, in the context of this blog, passing the buck.
If we can not ourselves sustain the arugment, then we have not mastered it and we are poorly positioned to then claim that the argument is in fact valid.
Report comment to moderator
Bob Buckles,
I have also from first principles and the available data demonstrated that there seem to be at some deep level an apparent acceptance that as the fetus develops over time, there is a feeling that it is worthy of increasing priotections. Look at the aborton rates by time in the pregancy.
Report comment to moderator
“You open up a potentially promising approach to the debate: where wuill you take it?”
Just as I said: to friends, off the blog. And I encouraged others to do likewise with some reading to get started. I’m not that interested in debate, but very interested in how I will be a Christian. I’m finding that this forum is a poor venue for that pursuit, for me anyway. Too much time spent among too many temptations for too little learning.
Regards,
SG
Report comment to moderator
Serious George
You are too often correct.
Report comment to moderator
Serous George,
fair enough.
I wish you luck in your voyage of discovery. They are almost always fun!
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
#11 “As a minimum, the embryo is missing the structures to allow development. These must be created in a cooperative effort between the mother and embryo for the embryo to be able to develop.”
Even now Mother Earth provides the structures for your development inside of her womb. Yet the cooperative effort between the two of you is not a satisfactory argument for considering you to be viable.
Mike
Report comment to moderator
I’m with those who suggest ignoring Musing.
Report comment to moderator
Like I said the other day, the only difference between this and what Dr. Mengele did is that the science is far more advanced. Some just can’t face up to which side they’re on.
Report comment to moderator
So what if Obama lied about this. Add it to the list. It is easier to list what he hasn’t lied about – yet. Yep, he is pretty pathological about lying but he is not alone. You see what his minions say on this blog every day too. Lying must be genetic like being gay, or poor, or stupid, or lazy or or being atheist. It certainly can’t be their fault
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
When your voyage of self-discovery ceases to be fun, there may be hope for you.
Report comment to moderator
SERIOUS GEORGE: Missing from almost all of these discussions (which generally center on the status of embryos and their relative moral claim for our regard) is consideration of the notion that our status, who we are, may have something to do with how we regard them.
This argument seems to be that failure to accept and respect the personhood of the human blastocyst as a given undermines our moral value.
I think there’s a fallacy there. The indispensable role of development and nurture in the emergence of personhood actually increases, rather than diminishes, our ethical duty to persons.
If our treatment of embryos and fetuses compromised our capacity to nurture persons, there might be a practical reason to forbid research and abortion. But the fact is, humans by and large don’t think these things are murder and we are not about to confuse the issue.
Saletan presets a false analogy. Torture affects persons, the stem cell research doesn’t. Saletan counts on the fact that the readers to whom he panders won’t care.
Report comment to moderator
All pro-life arguments eventually boil down to the insult: “You refuse to forbid these things because you are bad (cruel, a butcher, inhumane, etc.) SERIOUS GEORGE’s argument is an insult, intended or not.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop:This argument seems to be that failure to accept and respect the personhood of the human blastocyst as a given undermines our moral value.
As others have noted the argument becomes progressively weaker as the embryo/blastocyst gets smaller. But in this particular case–stem cell research—there is always the ultimate competing value, the life and health of thousands of humans suffering from some pretty horrifying diseases.
When asked to choose between those people and a bunch of pinhead sized organisms destined to be stored in liquid nitrogen and then thrown away, nobody except the real Christian kool-aid crowd has much of a problem.
Heck, some of the same research might very well result in the SAVING of the lives of many older fetuses which the Christians purport to revere. Indeed, I would submit that ultimately it will reduce the number of real abortions.
Given the total absence of biblical support for the anti-abortion movement, and its extreme vociferousness, I have always thought that it was much more about sex than life. And the sillier they get about the issue, the more I think so.
Report comment to moderator
I feel the love.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia,
While I do not pretend to know everything about stem-cell research, I would like to give you some “biblical support for the anti-abortion movement”. I appreciate the fact that you recognize that biblical support is extremely important in this debate concerning the sanctity of human life.
First, humans do not determine the value of themselves or the value of the people around them. If that were the case, then Hitler was justified in bringing about the Holocaust. Second, God determines how much a human is worth, simply because He made us in His image. Therefore, what God has to say on the matter is ultimately important.
Jeremiah 1:4-5 “Now the word of the LORD came to me, saying, ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I have consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.’”
Notice that God considers Jeremiah as a human being with purpose before he was born. Therefore, it is only reasonable to say that embryos are humans, and endowed by their Creator with the unalienable right to life.
That is hopefully not what you would consider being silly about an issue.
Report comment to moderator
GWF81
#22 “It is very clear that anything associated with individuality or ‘personhood’ is directly related to functions of the brain.”
Can you give a precise definition here? My assumption is that you are saying people are not really people until…
Mike
Report comment to moderator
FUGUFISH:
I expect we’re going to disagree a lot, but I’d like to start off on a good note by applauding your username.
Now all we need is the banana king.
Report comment to moderator
Musing
#21 “It is a reasoned development based on first principles and does not require the number of assumptions which your model appears to require.”
Could you state your first principles for me?
Mike
Report comment to moderator
I’m going to twitter out on a limb here, like a sparrow, or perhaps like an ostrich. This is a recent thought and I’m not sure how well it holds up.
Suppose scientists indefinitely froze a couple hundred people in some sort of stasis. Wouldn’t that make these ‘frozen chosen’ all potential like an embryo? Yet finding advocates that they be messily dissected would probably be a hard task.
Report comment to moderator
Suppose scientists indefinitely froze a couple hundred people in some sort of stasis. Wouldn’t that make these ‘frozen chosen’ all potential like an embryo? Yet finding advocates that they be messily dissected would probably be a hard task.
When I discussed with StuBob on an earlier thread the fact that IVF clinics routinely destroy about 20 embryos for every successful pregnancy — even without bringing research into the equation — he suggested that returning them to storage would avoid that. (StuBob, correct me if I’m misremembering.)
Your envisioning of them as adults, which sounds like something out of Coma, makes that idea sound kind of creepy.
Of course, I think your premise is mistaken on the ‘potential’ question. If they’re adults, they’re persons, frozen or not. Embryos are potential because they have not yet become persons.
Report comment to moderator
NOPM: “Can you give a precise definition here? My assumption is that you are saying people are not really people until…”
I am saying that a blastocyst lacks the capacity to be a person. Everything that makes a person a person requires a (somewhat if not fully) functional brain.
Report comment to moderator
11(Musing): and the only difference between a skin cell and who I am today is growth and maturation in the right environment.
FALSE! And you know it, Musing. Frankly, I expect better reasoning from you. There is no way a normal skin cell can grow and mature into an adult human without significant reprogramming. See
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/11/071120-stem-cells.html
Note that the article states that the skin cells are “reprogrammed” with some of the properties of “stem cells.”
As a minimum, the embryo is missing the structures to allow development.
This is a totally ambiguous statement and, therefore, it is a meaningless statement. What structures are you referring to? The DNA of a single cell created by uniting an ovum and sperm cell contains all the information to create an adult human being. There is nothing missing. The information to create all the organs and their systematic and supporting interactions is all there. Don’t be silly.
These must be created in a cooperative effort between the mother and embryo for the embryo to be able to develop.
What do you mean by a “cooperative effort”? Surely, you do not mean that the mother supplies information that assists the embryo in differentiating into the different cells that later become the organ systems of a baby or adult human. If you mean that the embryo requires a supporting environment in which to develop, in what way is this a cooperative effort?
The embryo argument is, however, given that a skin cell can also in principle develop into a full human being, unconvincing.
It is not a given that a skin cell can also, in principle, develop into a full human being. Such a statement is, in fact, false. See the above article.
Report comment to moderator
12(Musing): I have a fertilized egg and a totipotent stem cell each sitting in a petri dish. Which if any are worthy of full protections as a human being?
Ummm, Musing. A fertilized egg is a totipotent stem cell and vice-versa. Are you suggesting it is possible to distinguish the two?
Report comment to moderator
22(GWF81): It is very clear that anything associated with individuality or “personhood” is directly related to functions of the brain.
What a silly notion! According to your definition, we would have to identify the brain functions that give rise to “personhood,” would we not. After all, Traumatic Brain Injury often seriously impairs brain function. Are these different personhoods that the personhoods before the brain injury? What about comatose patients that regain full functionality? Are they non-persons while comatose? What about adults with only half their brain functions? Are they half-persons?
Any notion of a soul or identity before the development of the central nervous system is nothing more than superstitious conjecture.
More silliness! A significant portion of what you are is fully determined by your genetic makeup. The rest is determined by the environment (nature plus nurture). So, by definition, a “soul” or “identity” is determined mostly by DNA and somewhat by environment. The CNS is just the substrate that supports allowing you to express your soul or personhood.
Blastocysts are people in the same way that a recipe book can be eaten for dinner.
False analogical reasoning. The correct analogy is either one of the following:
1. DNA is a person in the same way that a recipe is a dinner meal.
2. A blastocyst is a person in the same way that a frozen dinner meal is a edible dinner meal.
Report comment to moderator
Here’s a nice little thought dilemma for Musing, Scroop Moth, SteveG, and GWF81: Suppose a mother gives birth to identical Sextuplets. Which one came from the fertilized egg and which came from totipotent stem cells?
Report comment to moderator
“2. A blastocyst is a person in the same way that a frozen dinner meal is a edible dinner meal.”
That is a big stretch. Are your blastocysts in a petri dish, or attached to a uterus?
Report comment to moderator
52(RPN): That is a big stretch. Are your blastocysts in a petri dish, or attached to a uterus?
How is it a big stretch? The analogy is, of course, not perfect or it would not be an analogy. However, the two are analogous in the following important respects:
1. All the ingredients are there in the proper proportions and areas.
2. Both need to be placed in the “oven” so to speak (using a popular folk colloquialism, of course). The “cooking” period is longer in the case of the blastocyst, of course.
Remember, it was not my analogy. I just cleaned it up significantly so that it made some sense. In the original form, it was nonsense.
Report comment to moderator
Musing 14/53 = only 26 %
Report comment to moderator
Musing @4: The challenge which continues to be ducked in these conversations is that an embryo is a single cell.
Not sure if this affects the rest of what you’re saying at all, but an embryo is most definitely not a single cell.
I’ve seen you ask repeatedly in various threads what the difference is between a skin cell cluster and a blastocyst. What it comes down to is whether there is such a thing as an “organism” or not. What I mean is, is a creature separate from the sum of its parts? Is a human: a) a group of living cells functioning cooperatively, b) an entity utilizing a group of living cells, or c) an entity partially or completely composed of living cells?
I must opt for either b or c. If forced to choose, I would probably believe the weak version of c: a human is an entity partially composed of living cells.
gwf81 @22 wrote, It is very clear that anything associated with individuality or “personhood” is directly related to functions of the brain. Any notion of a soul or identity before the development of the central nervous system is nothing more than superstitious conjecture.
From this assertion I must presume that gwf81 most definitely does not believe option b, apparently accepting a strong version of c, that humans are entities completely composed of living cells.
What about you, Musing? Which option would you choose? If I missed a possibility, please elaborate on it. The reason I ask is because it appears that you want us to prove that an embryo should have full rights while skin cells should not using only empirical evidence or a logical argument from mutually acknowledged facts. However, this may very well be impossible if you do not believe in the concept of an organism. We would be without a mutual starting point, and I know of no way to prove whether or not there are organisms or not via empirical evidence.
I suspect we are at a stalemate. If not, please clarify what exactly you are asking us embryo rights advocates to prove.
Report comment to moderator
“1. All the ingredients are there in the proper proportions and areas.”
Are you equating cells grown in a petri dish with a blastocyst implanted in a woman’s uterus?
Report comment to moderator
Cuthalion’s right. Single cell zygotes become embryos upon the first division, when they become multi-cellular. If implanted in a human uterus, it remains an embryo until the eighth week, whereupon it becomes a fetus.
Report comment to moderator
GWF81
#47
Dr. Dave touched on some of where I was going with this in #50, but you haven’t provided enough definition to my question. Animals have brains as well so you need to fill out your definition some more. How much brain function and/or what kind of brain function does a human make? (Thank you Yoda)
Mike
Report comment to moderator
NOPM,
so based on yor comment, I must assume you agree with my positon: the embryo itslef does not have the structurs necessary for development.
I believe that is the base of my case and it would then seem resolved between us.
Report comment to moderator
Ree,
voyages of discovery should always be fun. When it stops being fun, then it probably says a great deal about you.
Report comment to moderator
Truth Triumphs,
statements as given perhaps are valid, but they do not say whether Biblically the fetus is considered a full human bieng. The only biblical reference on this point that I am aware of whihc addresses this issue is Exodus 21:22. Traditionally this has been understood to mean that Biblically the fetus is not consider a full person, but one may alos note that there are multiple interpretations here and there is no way to unequivocaly assert that any of the interpretations are correct.
As such, a Biblically derived model for evaluating abortion and stem cell research is at best controversial.
Report comment to moderator
NOPM post 42,
as you note, there is a potential challenge to gwf81,s post as written.
However, we can reverse the discussion and note:
1) when a person can no longer sustain themselves without extreme medical measures, then they lose some of their rights of personhood: it is legal to turn off the ventilator
2) brain dead is a legal criterion for detemrining death: hence the death of the brain also removes the rights of personhood
And this justifies the essence of gwf81’s argument while perhaps leaving open the more subjectvie and spirtual issues he raises.
Report comment to moderator
NOPM post 44,
certainly.
My starting point is the observation that legally and morally no one can force another to undergo risk to them to save oneself.
This is a legal and many would agree a moral position. The question I usually pose is can you make me donate a kidney to you?
If we accept this, then we have, even if you assume full human rights for the fetus, a set of competing rights between the fetus and the mother, and unless the fetus is viable independently so it can provide no further risk to the mother, the mother has the unqualified right to terminate the pregnancy. All pregnancies have risk, abortion is less risky than prgenancy, and therefore the fetus has no right to compell the mother to carry the pregnancy to term.
As soon as the fetus become independently viable, it would suggest that the calculus changes and if the mother chooses to end the pregnancy, every effort must be made to try to preserve the life of the fetus. Again this is if the fetus is indepenedently viable.
NOw I walked down this logical path on my own, and then stepped back and observed:
- step one is consistent with the evidence intent of the supreme court in Roe v Wade
- step two is consistent with the Federal “Born Alive Portection Act” granting full rights to a fetus which is born viable
And despite my having raised this in this blog many times in this and similar forms, no one has apparenlty challenged my observations on one person making another undergo risk.
Report comment to moderator
provost,
actually what you are proposig has already been argued by:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryonics
the moral question here of course is: is there any moral reqirement that we thaw out such people?
The general answer appears to be no, and if one accepts that then we would seem to have a very close match to the unimplanted embryo question.
Report comment to moderator
Dr. Dave,
aactually this is not false. NO reprogramming is required (see SCNT) What is required is that it be put in a proper environment so it can mature.
I have provided materials on SCNT multiple times in this blog and you can review this for yourself. It would appear based on the nature of your statement that you have not read the SCNT materisl (this is different then the IPSC approach).
I am sure we will disagree on the proper envirnonment statement, but that we are disagreeing about a naked embryo already demonstrates this point, and there is no new iformation here.
Please read about SCNT and then lets reconvene.
Report comment to moderator
Dr Dave,
when you say:
“As a minimum, the embryo is missing the structures to allow development.
This is a totally ambiguous statement and, therefore, it is a meaningless statement.”
I havenoted repeatedly that the key missing structure is the placenta which must be developed in concert between the mother and the embryo.
Are you trying to tell me that a single fertilized egg already has a placenta? Are you saying that it can develop a placenta in the absence of the mother?
If you are then you are clearly incorrect.
If you are not saying this, the your challenge to my statement is unfounded.
Report comment to moderator
Dr. Dave
very good!
But does a totipotent stem cell need to be created by conception?
I asked the question for a reason because it directly undermines Dad Dog’s and to a lesser extent Bob Buckles arguments.
And in your comments you have, I suggest, demolished Dad Dog’s comments with a high degree of finality.
I thank you for your efforts.
Report comment to moderator
Saletan says he doesn’t consider embryos to be full-grown persons, and then compares embryo destruction to torture of full-grown persons.
The real casualty in this piece is LOGIC!
Report comment to moderator
Dr Dave,
again my point exaclty.
In fact the argument about conception as the distinguishing point for establishing any aspect of humanity has ben in error at least as far back as the intiial in vitro fertizliations and perhaps muxch further.
As such, any arguments based on conception are to say the least of major misinformation.
I trust that with your comments, we can finally dispose of the false arguments based on conception.
Report comment to moderator
Bob Buckles said that he feels the love. I do too, as well as tolerance, acceptance, unity, and reaching across the aisle. That’s what liberals practice, right?
Report comment to moderator
Dr. Dave has I suggest finally and conlcusively undrminded the arguments based on cnception:
- there is no difference between totipotent stem cells and fertilized embryos
- totipotent stem cells can be created without conception
Therefore either the criticality of conception is in error OR it would seem that the debater needs to demonstrate how totipotent stem cells are different from fertilized eggs.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle A,
why I have been feeling the love to.
I can’t imagine more loving comments than Dr. Mengele, Nazis, and you are immoral.
There is clearly a fundamental disagreement here, and I have been happy to accept this.
Having noted that there is a fundamental disagreement it would seem we have several choices:
1) we can throw tanturms and call each other names
2) we can agree to disagree and stop talking
3) we can try to reformulate our aguments and keep talking to see what potential areas of agreement there are
Observationally, most of the discussion in this blog has been of form 1.
Serious George has chose form 2.
If we are to make progress, I suggest we need discussion of form 3. We can not have discussions of form 3 if the typical response is “life begins at conception and there is no further room for discussion”.
If we do not have deep discussion in this society of form 3, then the outcome based onthe present poltiical and legal environment is clear: we will have embryonic stem cell research and we will continue to have nearly unfettered access to aborion.
If those opposing abortion and embryonic stem cell research want to make progress, I suggest that they need to work hard at achieving discussions of form 3. Anything else would seem to guarentee that their opinions will become moot.
Report comment to moderator
So lets reformulate the preceding discussion.
It is observable that the approximate positon espoused by myself, gwf81, spinoza, steveg, arcadia, etc is the de facto position in our country moving forward. NO discussion on our part is necessary for our perpsectvies to be the dominate form of these activites in our society.
That this group would be willing to engage those opposed to the present policies is not necessary for us, and is, I suggest, prima facia evidence that we are interested in sincere and honest discussion.
To fail to come to grips with the issues we raise and to belittle our position on these issues I suggest is rather a demonstraton that those who disagree with us are not coming to this discussion with a sense of sincerety and honesty.
And indeed, I suggest, a quick review of the mateiral makes the insincerety and dishonesty of many of the objections being raised very clear.
I well understand that for many of you this is an emotional issue which affects what for you are deeply felt moral issues.
You must also understand that society apparently disagrees with you.
And if you sincerely want to change society, then you must be able to present your argument in a form which is compelling to society.
Obsrvationally raisng comments of Dr. Mengel, Nazis, and tautns of immorality does not do that.
And if this is the best those opposing these polices can raise, then I suggest that in fact your approach is shown to be intellectually bankrupt and it will fail.
Report comment to moderator
Let’s remember folks, regardless of all the scientific rhetoric and philosophical argument, the end NEVER justifies the means. It is never right to do wrong to do right.
Report comment to moderator
DEET,
there is no one here who is arguing that the end justifies the means.
That ou pose it as such further provides evidence of your lack of sincerety in the discussion.
What is under discussiion is a deep understanding of the means and why each of us feels as we do about the means. And if we are to change each othere opinions, then such changes will have to9 occur driven by compelling arguments, and I suggest that the primary form of compelling argument is a logically driven and data driven argument.
Remember, social conservatives with this strength of conviction are on a good day 20% or so of American society.
Report comment to moderator
Musing #59
You missed my point. All people at all stages are dependent creatures. Your argument based on dependance strikes me as a weak one.
Mike
Report comment to moderator
Musing # 62
The difference here is that we have done what is possible to sustain life. Death is inevitable, but that doesn’t mean we facilitate it. Turning off a machine that someone got put on because of circumstance beyond our control is different than producing embryos for scientific fun. Certainly you must be able to see the difference.
Mike
Report comment to moderator
NOPM,
which then of course means that my argument about skin cells holds.
I think you are missing mine.
If we allow dependencies which are not presently addressed to be part of the consideration then we open all dependencies which are not presenlty addressed and every cell beomces a potential human being.
It is a reductio ad absurdem argument: if I follow your argument to it logical conclusion, then every cell must be preserved and brought to birth. It is a variation of the question of what happens when we no longer ned a human uterus for gestation: then it will be clear that there is no right for an embryo to be born. Rather it is a choice.
By contrast if you argue for implantation, or more correctly but less clearly defined, placental development, then we do indeed now have alls tructures required for development in place reuired for development, and in the main time alone is necessary.
This also has some second order confoundments, but they are more subtle and some may argue less consequential.
A placenta is not subtle.
Report comment to moderator
NOPM,
it is worth looking at Dr. Dave’s comments about totipotent cells and then consider than any cell can become totipotent (and it does not require additional treatments, just provision of the right developmental environment).
Report comment to moderator
Musing 30/79 = 38 % Got those numbers back up there, dincha?
Report comment to moderator
I wonder what objective data Musing has to objectively prove that “voyages of discovery should always be fun.”
Report comment to moderator
ree,
if it is not fun, why do it?
when it stops being fun, then the positive emotional and intellectual feedback will stop, and by the nature of humans, generally the voyage of discovery will stop.
Report comment to moderator
Is this what you offer as “objective data?”
Report comment to moderator
NOPM: “Dr. Dave touched on some of where I was going with this in #50, but you haven’t provided enough definition to my question. Animals have brains as well so you need to fill out your definition some more. How much brain function and/or what kind of brain function does a human make? (Thank you Yoda)”
“Human” is different than “person.” Disembodied limbs are undeniably human, but I don’t think any rational person would consider them people. With that out of the way, I was speaking specifically of “personhood” in the context of the human brain. To extend this to other animals, we are going to wind up with a fair amount of uncertainty due to the diversity of brains within the animal kingdom and our lack of knowledge about how they all work.
That said, it is certain that the non-human great apes have a certain level of self-awareness and the bonobo in particular exhibits a very human-like level of individuality and personality. I think it is fair to consider most, if not all of the great apes to be “people” in the sense that I am speaking of.
Dogs, cats, and many other household pets also exhibit a certain amount of personality, but they generally do not have the capacity for the same level of consciousness that the great apes do. Whether they can be considered “people” or not may be debatable, but I am leaning towards probably not unless I can be shown otherwise.
Insects also have brains, however their brains are very simple and it is extremely unlikely that they have any capacity for anything we would associate with personality or individuality.
Whether or not we can pinpoint exactly where someone would be considered a person or not is irrelevant (and probably impossible due to the gradual accumulation of person-like traits as brain complexity increases). The important thing for this conversation is that we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that every “person” exists in a brain. All of our memories, emotions, relationships, etc can be affected by stimulating the brain in various ways. Consciousness itself can be manipulated by manipulating the brain.
Report comment to moderator
56(RPN): “1. All the ingredients are there in the proper proportions and areas.” Are you equating cells grown in a petri dish with a blastocyst implanted in a woman’s uterus?
Nice try, RPN. So now a blastocyst in a petri dish is just “cells grown in a petri dish.” I love it when you try to extricate yourself from a dilemma by obfuscation though phrase replacement hoping people will not notice. The revised analogy I gave was,
“A blastocyst is a person in the same way that a frozen dinner meal is a edible dinner meal.”
Note the word is blastocyst, not “Cells grown in a petri dish.” If a blastocyst is successfully implanted in a uterus, then, after the proper length of time, it becomes a baby. If you put a frozen dinner in the oven, then, after the proper length of time, it becomes an edible dinner.
Now, do try to address the issue at hand.
Report comment to moderator
Dr. Dave,
What kind of doctor are you (if any)? Not one that depends on knowledge of biology, I hope.
Dr. Dave: “What a silly notion! According to your definition, we would have to identify the brain functions that give rise to “personhood,” would we not. After all, Traumatic Brain Injury often seriously impairs brain function. Are these different personhoods that the personhoods before the brain injury? What about comatose patients that regain full functionality? Are they non-persons while comatose? What about adults with only half their brain functions? Are they half-persons?”
Brain injury frequently irreversibly alters the personality, emotions, memories, etc of the person in question, but that’s neither here nor there. The important part is that we know the brain is necessary for everything we associate with personality or individuality. No brain means no person.
Dr. Dave: “More silliness! A significant portion of what you are is fully determined by your genetic makeup. The rest is determined by the environment (nature plus nurture). So, by definition, a “soul” or “identity” is determined mostly by DNA and somewhat by environment.”
Be careful. By equating DNA with identity, you are potentially denying a child the right to live every time you pass on the opportunity to have unprotected sex.
Dr. Dave: “The CNS is just the substrate that supports allowing you to express your soul or personhood.”
If this is true, why do mind altering drugs and other forms of brain stimulation and/or damage affect personality or mood? Why do people lose their ability to recognize loved ones or language when certain parts of the brain are damaged?
Dr. Dave: “False analogical reasoning. The correct analogy is either one of the following:
1. DNA is a person in the same way that a recipe is a dinner meal.
2. A blastocyst is a person in the same way that a frozen dinner meal is a edible dinner meal.”
Now who’s being silly? Not a single part of the blastocyst becomes any of the organs in the body. The blastocyst requires (comparatively) massive amounts of protein to build the structures that eventually become a fetus. I might give you the empty frozen dinner tray along with the instructions
Dr. Dave: “Suppose a mother gives birth to identical Sextuplets. Which one came from the fertilized egg and which came from totipotent stem cells?”
I think this question is more problematic for you than it is for me. Identical twins/triplets/etc all come from the fertilized egg. My question to you is, where do they get their souls? They share the same DNA, so do they all share a soul as well? Does the soul gets divided six ways, just like the zygote? Does one wind up with the original soul and the other five receive copies? Inquiring minds want to know.
Report comment to moderator
Dr. Dave still does not understand the difference between potentiality and actuality – his reasoning leads directly to “every sperm is sacred.”
A frozen dinner meal is edible in frozen form, however unappetizing, but an embryo is NOT YET a “person.”
Report comment to moderator
Dave-
I shouldn’t have to explain this to a doctor.
Blastocyst: A thin-walled hollow structure in early embryonic development that contains a cluster of cells called the inner cell mass from which the embryo arises. The outer layer of cells gives rise to the placenta and other supporting tissues needed for fetal development within the uterus while the inner cell mass cells gives rise to the tissues of the body.
Report comment to moderator
GWF81 – “My question to you is, where do they get their souls? They share the same DNA, so do they all share a soul as well? Does the soul gets divided six ways, just like the zygote? Does one wind up with the original soul and the other five receive copies? Inquiring minds want to know.”
Dr Dave is Busted!!
Report comment to moderator
Dave? What kind of “DR.” are you?
Report comment to moderator
65(Musing): Actually this is not false. NO reprogramming is required (see SCNT) What is required is that it be put in a proper environment so it can mature.
I presume you mean “Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer” when you use the acronym, SCNT. If so, then you again make a false statement. Reprogramming is absolutely necessary!!! Apparently, you do not understand the technology yourself. Please see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutic_cloning
Note: I chose the wikipedia article to keep things as simple as possible so you can scan it quickly and understand the process.
I have provided materials on SCNT multiple times in this blog and you can review this for yourself. It would appear based on the nature of your statement that you have not read the SCNT materisl (this is different then the IPSC approach).
Well, isn’t this interesting. I did a search for SCNT on this blog and received “no results.” I, of course, believe you wrote something about it somewhere, so please point me to a specific post. I truly want to see what you wrote because your comment above clearly shows you don’t understand the process in SCNT. But, in a sense, that is not at all surprising since no one has fully described it. At
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/tech/cloning/whatiscloning/
reprogramming is called “chemically tweaked” which is science-speak for “I don’t know how it works.” Note: the reprogramming is clearly not understood because it took 277 eggs to get one sheep surviving to adulthood. I presume this is because “chemical tweaking” or reprogramming is has somewhere around one chance in a thousand or more of being complete using current SCNT techniques.
I am sure we will disagree on the proper environment statement, but that we are disagreeing about a naked embryo already demonstrates this point, and there is no new information here.
I am clueless as to what you are saying in the above, so you will have to clarify.
Please read about SCNT and then lets reconvene.
No, it is you that needs to read about SCNT.
Report comment to moderator
86(GWF81): What kind of doctor are you (if any)? Not one that depends on knowledge of biology, I hope.
I am a research scientist with a PhD in Cognitive Social Psychology. Part of my research is in the area of predicting protein folding from the sequence of amino acids specified in messenger RNA. If you want to know more, read the bio sketch I have provided. It would appear that your hope is dashed.
Brain injury frequently irreversibly alters the personality, emotions, memories, etc of the person in question, but that’s neither here nor there.
Only if we reject your definition of personhood. Which was my point. You cannot define personhood based on the presence or absence of brain function.
The important part is that we know the brain is necessary for everything we associate with personality or individuality. No brain means no person.
A person without a brain is a dead person, but still a person.
Be careful. By equating DNA with identity, you are potentially denying a child the right to live every time you pass on the opportunity to have unprotected sex.
I did not equate DNA with identity. Where did you get that? I expressly stated that the adult human is a product of DNA and environment.
Dr. Dave: “The CNS is just the substrate that supports allowing you to express your soul or personhood.” If this is true, why do mind altering drugs and other forms of brain stimulation and/or damage affect personality or mood? Why do people lose their ability to recognize loved ones or language when certain parts of the brain are damaged?
It is your definition of personhood that requires you to answer these questions. Are the persons affected by various methods of brain stimulation different persons that they were before the brain stimulation. Are loved ones with brain damage not the same person? Since I reject your definition of personhood in toto, I do not have to deal in such absurdities.
Dr. Dave: “False analogical reasoning. The correct analogy is either one of the following: 1. DNA is a person in the same way that a recipe is a dinner meal. 2. A blastocyst is a person in the same way that a frozen dinner meal is a edible dinner meal.” Now who’s being silly? Not a single part of the blastocyst becomes any of the organs in the body.
What!!! I cannot believe you would make such a statement. And you were worried about my credentials in Biology? A blastocyst is a hollow ball with an inner and outer layer of cells. The outer layer becomes the placenta, the inner layer becomes the person (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blastocyst).
The blastocyst requires (comparatively) massive amounts of protein to build the structures that eventually become a fetus.
Apparently, you are not reading what you write as the above statement is a direct contradiction of what you said in the previous statement. Or else you are suggesting that cell respiration is different for the different organs and organ systems and somehow the protein absorbed by a cell determines its function. Surely, you can’t mean that.
Dr. Dave: “Suppose a mother gives birth to identical Sextuplets. Which one came from the fertilized egg and which came from totipotent stem cells?” I think this question is more problematic for you than it is for me. Identical twins/triplets/etc all come from the fertilized egg. My question to you is, where do they get their souls? They share the same DNA, so do they all share a soul as well? Does the soul gets divided six ways, just like the zygote? Does one wind up with the original soul and the other five receive copies?
Actually, it is not problematic for me at all. My thought experiment comes from the fact that you and Musing, in particular, were arguing that a “totipotent stem cell” in a petri dish is somehow distinct from a fertilized egg and is therefore not a person. I was just demonstrating the absurdity of your position.
More importantly, are you familiar with the vast “twin” research literature?
Report comment to moderator
ree,
I was wondering if you would go down that path.
Actually it is the beginning point for gathering objective data should one so choose.
There is the issue of defining voyages of discovery of course, but for some people this is modestly easily self-identified: serious george appears to be one of these people.
NOw watch level of activity in the self-identified voyage over time.
I suggest that the long term trend then gives you for that person a first order measure of the amount of “fun” that perons has during the voyage.
Crude numbers to be sure, but interestingly quantitative and not far removed from how we traditionally measure interest in activities.
Report comment to moderator
Dr Dave,
your point here is vaid:
“A person without a brain is a dead person, but still a person.”
but a person without the full protections of a normal human being: they can be declared brain dead.
Report comment to moderator
Dr. Dave,
actually in your argument here:
“ally, it is not problematic for me at all. My thought experiment comes from the fact that you and Musing, in particular, were arguing that a “totipotent stem cell” in a petri dish is somehow distinct from a fertilized egg and is therefore not a person. I was just demonstrating the absurdity of your position.
More importantly, are you familiar with the vast “twin” research literature? ”
you are actually arguing my point, and doing it quite eloquently.
The twin problem of course requires that souls not be limited to conception or unique DNA. there is the question of objective measurement of what is meant by the soul: but I wil let that one be for the moment.
The point of the question reagridng a fertilized egg and a totipotent cell was that there was no difference (a point I have been aruging in this blog for a while). I am still waiting for the “typical” poster in WMB to come to grips with the implication.
I am sensing what appears to be a possibly fascinating set of miscommunications going on here. I suspect more posting in response to postings may clarify.
Report comment to moderator
To Musing and GWF81: By the way, just so we are on the same page, “Totipotent Stem Cell” is just science-speak for a single-celled zygote. By calling single-celled zygotes, “totipotent stem cells” they are attempting to somehow distinguish what they create in the lab from what occurs naturally, hoping by such obfuscation they can avoid moral controversy.
Report comment to moderator
Dr Dave post 92,
so I think I am sensing a cross conversation between what is a person in the general case and what is a specific person.
Excellent conversaitions and fascinating material.
However, the real question is not is it a person or not, but is it to be accorded full human protections.
So perhaps better questions might be:
1) is a frozen fertilized egg (lets keep it simple for the moment) worthy of full human protections? If so, then for example if it was accidentally killed or destroyed this would presumably be murder.
2) does a frozen fertilized egg have an abolute right to be implanted so it can develop? If it does not, then it can not ever develop into a fully developed human
We can perhaps extend and consider more complex cases, but these perhaps are exemplary of the issues which I see the present technology allowing us to explore.
And your thoughts?
Report comment to moderator
Dr Dave,
when you say:
“”Totipotent Stem Cell” is just science-speak for a single-celled zygote”
I agree. Only noting that a cell may become totipotent through means other than conception.
Report comment to moderator
Dr. Dave,
if we are going to have an argument over totipotent cells, my sense it will be over the requirements for a somatic cell to beomce totipotent.
It can be an excellent discussion in and of itself.
However, so long as we all agree that a somatic cell can become totipotent, then most probably we need follow that argument no further with respect to this conversation.
Report comment to moderator
94(Musing): Dr Dave, your point here is vaid: “A person without a brain is a dead person, but still a person.” but a person without the full protections of a normal human being…
The “bold” part above either does not make any sense to me or you are in error. You are in error if you assert that a dead person does not have the full protection of a person. I just went through the process of burying my youngest brother. He was an indigent who came under the laws of the State of Minnesota and Ramsey county. Because he was a person with the full protection of the law, I and my other siblings were required to go through a significant set of requirements in order to complete his burial. These requirements were established by law to protect his rights as a person and an individual. I could not wrap his remains in a garbage bag and throw him into the nearest dumpster. Instead, a plot of ground had to be selected and his remains had to be properly buried there. As an individual and a person, he was entitled, by law, to those considerations.
…full protections of a normal human being: they can be declared brain dead.
This part of your response is unclear to me. Are you referring to cases like Terry Schaivo? If so, try to bear in mind that there is a distinction between justice on the one hand and the law and courts on the other. All of us desire justice. Terry Schaivo should have received justice as a person. She did not.
Report comment to moderator
Dr Dave,
so lets see if we can be clearer.
A person who is alive and fully functioning has the protectios of the law which among other things say I can’t treat them as if they were dead.
A person who is brain dead is indeed braind dead and can ot recevie the full rights of a person who is alive.
The classic recent case is Terri Shaivo.
Based on your response to Terri Shaivo, I must assume therefore that you perceive that there is an aspect of a person who even though tehnically brain dead justifies their continuing to have the full rights of a person who is not brain dead.
If so, why?
Report comment to moderator
Dr Dave,
I am rereading your posts. I am sesning what may be an interesting syllogism developing in your material
I think I still need some additonal clarity on your part.
Can you comment on the questions I asked in post 97:
1) is a frozen fertilized egg (lets keep it simple for the moment) worthy of full human protections? If so, then for example if it was accidentally killed or destroyed this would presumably be murder.
2) does a frozen fertilized egg have an abolute right to be implanted so it can develop? If it does not, then it can not ever develop into a fully developed human”
and my questions in post 100:
“Based on your response to Terri Shaivo, I must assume therefore that you perceive that there is an aspect of a person who even though tehnically brain dead justifies their continuing to have the full rights of a person who is not brain dead.
If so, why? ”
Thanks!
Report comment to moderator
Dr Dave,
and as an aside.
The argument is usually made in these blogs that embryonic stem research is morally inappropriate because it involves destroying an embryo.
The justification is usually given that at conception, the egg should be considered human life worthy of full protections.
And in concert, the usual argument is that adult stem cell efforts are more productive.
Now as I read the literature there are two methods for producing true pluripotent stem cells from adult cells: IPSC and SCNT.
IPSC at this point requires steps which apparently are oncogenic which it would seem raise serious safety concerns.
SCNT by contrast requires no such oncogenic treatments.
Therefore presumably by this logic SCNT stem cells would be morally acceptable and apparenlty safe.
As I read the SCNT literature, it appears that SCNT cells actually are totipotent as originaly formed and pluripotent cells ae harvested from the developing structure. Based on the conception argument, this would still appear to be morally acceptable.
But these are totipotent cells which as you note are indistinguishable from a zygote.
And your comments on SCNT derived cells?
Report comment to moderator
95(Musing): “Dr. Dave, actually in your argument here: ‘it is not problematic for me at all. My thought experiment comes from the fact that you and Musing, in particular, were arguing that a “totipotent stem cell” in a petri dish is somehow distinct from a fertilized egg and is therefore not a person. I was just demonstrating the absurdity of your position. More importantly, are you familiar with the vast “twin” research literature?’ The twin problem of course requires that souls not be limited to conception or unique DNA.”
Let’s make one thing absolutely clear. To me, a soul is the unique creation of God when he knits the human being at conception (see Psalm 139:13-16; also Jeremiah 1:4-5). A soul is to be distinguished from the mind and body. People often conflate “soul” and “mind” which is not appropriate philosophically or scientifically. To keep things simple, a “mind” is a construct of the CNS and is what is meant by the pronoun, “me.” The “soul” corresponds to the pronoun, “I.” When I say, “I am feeling pain. My leg hurts,” it is my soul that is expressing itself using my mind to analyze my situation. I make this separation because I have interviewed elderly individuals suffering from dementia (loss of brain function). They are well aware that something is wrong with their mind (me). Their soul (I) recognizes this and with careful probing, they can articulate at minimum that they have a problem. The same is true of TBI patients.
Keeping that in mind, when identical twins happen because the zygote divides into two identical, but separate zygotes, those zygotes are endowed by God with unique souls. I infer this because when identical twins are separated at birth and raised in distinct environments, they are remarkably similar in temperament, IQ, etc. So much so that some argue the influence of genetics (DNA) is as high as 85% for some traits. When they are interviewed as adults they show remarkable similarity in mental processing (me), yet there is no doubt that their souls (I) are unique.
The point of the question reagridng a fertilized egg and a totipotent cell was that there was no difference (a point I have been aruging in this blog for a while). I am still waiting for the “typical” poster in WMB to come to grips with the implication.
My apologies. I will address this in another post. My computer is about to reboot after an update and I don’t want to lose what I’ve typed so far.
Report comment to moderator
Musing:
I looked up the link and Cryonics are not what I’m talking about. That involves preserved corpses. I was thinking more of an indefinite sleep.
In a materialist’s view the brain has to be doing something to count as a person. Thus they’d have no problem with consistency if they wished to dissect our frozen friends. If you take the materialist’s view to the farthest end you might even be able to justify killing people who are sleeping as they too are only potential.
It seems more reasonable to suppose that there’s something non-physical which makes flesh and bone a person.
Report comment to moderator
101(Musing): A person who is alive and fully functioning has the protections of the law which among other things say I can’t treat them as if they were dead. A person who is brain dead is indeed brain dead and can not receive the full rights of a person who is alive.
A person who is truly “Brain Dead” is dead. Moral and ethical problems arise because the definition of “Brain Dead” and the physiological symptoms of brain death have been conflated by many with the symptoms and etiology of “Persistent Vegetative State” (PVS). PVS patients are not brain dead in any sense of the definition of brain dead or the physiological symptoms of brain death. Moreover, as opposed to brain death and comatose, PVS is not recognized as death in any legal system (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_vegetative_state).
The classic recent case is Terri Shaivo. Based on your response to Terri Shaivo, I must assume therefore that you perceive that there is an aspect of a person who even though tehnically brain dead justifies their continuing to have the full rights of a person who is not brain dead.
And based on your response, I must assume that you conflate “Brain dead” with PVS. Terry met all the criteria for PVS and therefore she had the right to life. The court first gave her husband guardianship and then allowed him to kill her by having her feeding tube withdrawn and denying her water. She was not on a ventilator at all. It took her 14+ days to die–longer than many healthy people take to die of dehydration. They even posted guards so her loved ones could not give her water by mouth. Did Terry receive justice? NO! Was she killed by her husband and a complicit court of law. YES!
Your use of the phrase, “full rights of a person” suggests also that you subscribe to the socially constructed moral category of “Personhood.” I reject that conceptualizationin toto, so you need to bear that in mind. For me, if a person is alive, they have a set of rights, one of which is the right to life. If they are dead, they have another set of rights, typically smaller that the set accorded to them when alive. But both are the rights of a human being–just in two different states.
Report comment to moderator
97(Musing): However, the real question is not is it a person or not, but is it to be accorded full human protections.
See my post #106 on the phrase, “full rights of a person.” It is good to see that you used “full human protections” above although I could get discouraged again if you are just conflating “human being” and “personhood.”
The moral precept I use is always, “if it is a human being and it is alive, then it has the right to life.” This rule is pretty good as a universal moral value.
So perhaps better questions might be: 1) is a frozen fertilized egg (lets keep it simple for the moment) worthy of full human protections? If so, then for example if it was accidentally killed or destroyed this would presumably be murder.
See my comment above. If it is alive and if it is a human being, then it is murder. It would not be Capital Murder, but it would be negligent or reckless homicide depending on how it was killed.
2) does a frozen fertilized egg have an absolute right to be implanted so it can develop? If it does not, then it can not ever develop into a fully developed human.
If it is alive and if it is a human being, then it has a right to life.
Report comment to moderator
103(Musing): The argument is usually made in these blogs that embryonic stem research is morally inappropriate because it involves destroying an embryo. The justification is usually given that at conception, the egg should be considered human life worthy of full protections.
If the embryo is both alive and a human being, then it has the right to life.
And in concert, the usual argument is that adult stem cell efforts are more productive.
They certainly have real therapeutic applications. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult_stem_cell#Clinical_Applications
Now as I read the literature there are two methods for producing true pluripotent stem cells from adult cells: IPSC and SCNT. IPSC at this point requires steps which apparently are oncogenic which it would seem raise serious safety concerns.
Your reading of the literature is out of date. The use of retroviruses has been superseded by procedures that are oncogenically risk free. Please see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_pluripotent_stem_cell#Human_induced_pluripotent_stem_cells
SCNT by contrast requires no such oncogenic treatments. Therefore presumably by this logic SCNT stem cells would be morally acceptable and apparenlty safe. As I read the SCNT literature, it appears that SCNT cells actually are totipotent as originaly formed and pluripotent cells ae harvested from the developing structure. Based on the conception argument, this would still appear to be morally acceptable. But these are totipotent cells which as you note are indistinguishable from a zygote. And your comments on SCNT derived cells?
If a zygote created by SCNT is a human being and if it is alive, then it has a right to life. We both agree that a zygote created by SCNT that has no genetic flaws is indistinguishable from a zygote created by uniting a sperm and egg. Different technique, same result. Unfortunately, zygotes created by SCNT have an extremely high probability of being flawed and, for this reason alone, it is morally reprehensible to attempt to create a human zygote by SCNT until the process is so well understood that any attempt to create a zygote using SCNT would succeed with probability 1.0. If and when it is possible to create a human zygote using SCNT techniques with probability 1.0, then it is a human being and alive, so it has a right to life.
Report comment to moderator
provost,
actually cryonics at least in some incarnations has posited fast freezing a person while they are alive and then resusitating them at a latter time.
As such, they are not corpses but are still alive.
The question of course becomes, what right do such entities have to justfy being unfrozen an returned to normal life.
Report comment to moderator
Dr. Dave,
an excellent set of posts. I will be rereading these for a while to fully extract hat I believe you have been conveying. I can say that you have nicely caputred many of the second order issues which this topic brings forth as well as, I believe, laying out clearly your fundamental concern.
I believ that it is perhaps best to respond in a series of posts on specfic topics leading up to the final step where it appears you and I disagree.
Interestingly, I sense that in the main you and I agree on most (but not all) points of fact.
Report comment to moderator
Dr. Dave,
so lets start with your very interesting comment:
“If so, try to bear in mind that there is a distinction between justice on the one hand and the law and courts on the other.”
I agree with you here, but inherent in your comment is the obsrvation that justice is a concept as you appear to be using it is a concept created by the individual while the law is a collective agreement.
We usually try to get our own individual sense of justice embedded in the laws, but in the end, since indiividuals vary in their sense of justice (we can explore further if you like), laws are a compromise among the population.
And the discussion I have been pursuing is how the laws regarding these issues have and will continue to be made. It turns out that my personal sense of justice matches the laws fairly closely, but this has not always been true, nor will it alwasy be true in the future.
And I suggst that the challenge is casting one’s individual sense of justice in a form which is acceptable to the majority as the model for the laws: in some sense this is the democratic process.
Report comment to moderator
Dr. Dave,
now I disagree with you in your model of PVS vs. brain dead. but I do not believe that this is actually central to the argument, and so will leave my objection as a place holder.
In fact, it is possible that mydirect development may resolve this issue as a side effect.
Report comment to moderator
Dr. Dave,
now we are in apparent agreement that the issue is rights and that we are in approximate agreement on the form of this issue when you say:
“See my post #106 on the phrase, “full rights of a person.” It is good to see that you used “full human protections” above although I could get discouraged again if you are just conflating “human being” and “personhood.””
I used the term ful human protections because as many have noted correctly, a zygote is human (a check of its DNA will show it to be fully human). I note a skin cell is also human. and the full human protections amkes it clear that we are discussing the legal issues.
NOw in the normal course of events, full human protections include the right to life (a point I believe you also raised), and this is embodied in our legal system under the construct of laws against murder and when murder laws fail, Federal civil rights law (applied in the case of a number of civil rights workers who were murdered).
But this right to life is not absolute. As our laws are structured today, if one is convicted of certain crimes, one can be executed (we can discuss whether one should be executed, but as we will see inherently we accept that under some conditions someone can be executed). Further, if you join the service, it is explicitly clear that the chain of command has the right to order you to take actions which will get you killed: many argue that you volunteered to take this risk, but I then muse about the draft and we have had drafts in the past and drafts will probably occur in the future.
In short, society reserves the right to explicitly claim your life under specific legal conditions.
We also have legal situations where society explicitly recognizes that although it might be able to save your life, it will choose not to. Exaples are when there are many people at risk and choices must be made: medical triage is potentially an example.
It continues, society has already established that if one is not able to independently sustain ones self without major medical intervention, it is accetpable to allow the individual to die.
And if the individual is incapable of making such a decision for themselves, others may be legally chartered to make this decision for the individual.
In short, there is no unfettered right to life and life may be withdrawn under many conditions. You may disagree with some of the conditions (I dislike the death penalty for example), but the collective system of laws has been established and if we want these changed, then in this country we must employ the democratic process to change them.
Report comment to moderator
Dr. Dave,
now we are in agrement that any totipotent cell can in priciple become a fully developed person, and by your arugment is:
“If a zygote created by SCNT is a human being and if it is alive, then it has a right to life. ”
However, you also seem to note that:
“Unfortunately, zygotes created by SCNT have an extremely high probability of being flawed and, for this reason alone, it is morally reprehensible to attempt to create a human zygote by SCNT until the process is so well understood that any attempt to create a zygote using SCNT would succeed with probability 1.0.”
However, I note that even natural conception does not result in a zygote with a probabiliyt of 1 of being geneticaly intact either. And when it is not genetically intact, you do not appear to be arguing that it should be brought to full huamn development any way (after all nature naturally aborts perhaps 40% of all fetuses).
Crying that it must always be 100% certain is a standard which neither nature nor humans achieve, therefor unless you argue we should bring genetically damaged zygotes to birth, we will have some zygotes which are not going to be allowed to live.
In fact, because as we are moving forward more zygotes are being developed than there are willing hosts to nurture them, not all zygotes will ever be allowed fully develop.
And society has established a set of legal guidelines around how the decision to allow a zygote to develop shall be determined.
It is obvious you disagree with the present model, but consistent with the previous development demonstrating that there is not a legal unfettered right to life, there is also no unfettered right to life for a zygote.
And again, from a legal perspective, if you wish to change tis legal status, you must make a case which is compelling to the majority to change the law.
We will next explore what appears to be the basis of your argument.
Report comment to moderator
Dr. Dave,
now your statement here:
“To me, a soul is the unique creation of God when he knits the human being at conception (see Psalm 139:13-16; also Jeremiah 1:4-5). A soul is to be distinguished from the mind and body. People often conflate “soul” and “mind” which is not appropriate philosophically or scientifically. ”
appears to be the core of your argument.
And following your argument, the soul begins when the cell becomes totipotent.
And you also indicate quite clealry that the soul is different from the mind and body.
And now we enter a bit of logical conundrum.
I can measure objectively the mind or the body.
But if the soul is not of the mind or the body, thne how do we measure it objectviely.
In fact, unless I misunderstand you very badly, we can not ever objectviely measure the soul.
Which is indeed indicated by your lead in “to me ..” which indicates that this is your personal belief.
However not all of society believes in the soul. So on what basis do you take your belief in the soul and extend it in a form of arugment such that it wil be compelling to the majority of Americans?
Your argument is indeed better than Dad Dog’s which is at root factually in error.
Your argument does not seem practical given the realities of research and human fetitlity, and as we have seen practiality is a component of human laws.
And of course, given that the soul can not be measured, using the soul as your foundational arugment is easily disputable.
Which of course brings us back to the beginning of the discussion: I agree with much if not all of your factual arguments. I even agree that to be human in any form is to some extent special. I do not, howeve, find your argument for protecting every zygote compelling.
And if your arugment is not compelling to me who accept many of your foundational steps, how are you going to make it compelling to thos who either do not understand or do not agree with many of your foundational steps?
Report comment to moderator
Dr. Dave,
I will say that our posts on this toppic are the best gronded in fact andmost coherently strcutred material I have seenon this topic in WMB.
Posts of your form are why I come here.
And indeed if the poltics were in your favor and not mine, your would be giving me the lecture which I am giving you.
If you will, I reserve the right to revisit some of the detail whci, whiel not affecting the main dicusion seem valuable in their own right.
Report comment to moderator
Dr. Dave: “I did not equate DNA with identity. Where did you get that? I expressly stated that the adult human is a product of DNA and environment.”
Hmm…
Dr. Dave: “So, by definition, a “soul” or “identity” is determined mostly by DNA and somewhat by environment.”
So we still have “most” of a person/identity/soul with only DNA, which is why blastocysts should have a full compliment of human rights, but the people/identities/souls that you condemn to non-existence every time you pass on an opportunity for unprotected sex are determined by environment? What are you trying to say? I don’t think we are going to make much progress here. Until you can demonstrate that a person’s “soul”(desires, emotions, personality, memories, etc) exists independently of brain activity, all you have is inconsistent misinformation.
Report comment to moderator
Provost: “In a materialist’s view the brain has to be doing something to count as a person. Thus they’d have no problem with consistency if they wished to dissect our frozen friends. If you take the materialist’s view to the farthest end you might even be able to justify killing people who are sleeping as they too are only potential.”
First of all, sleeping and comatose individuals have brain activity. Second, even if they didn’t, they would have brain activity before they slept and they would have brain activity after they woke up. It’s incredible that these sorts of things have to be explained. Are you being deliberately obtuse or is this concept really beyond you?
Provost: “It seems more reasonable to suppose that there’s something non-physical which makes flesh and bone a person.”
This only holds if you can demonstrate a facet of personality that cannot be affected by stimulating the brain. Do you care to offer any evidence to support your claim?
Report comment to moderator
GWF81:
It’s true that I am just the smallest bit obtuse. I typically anticipate people’s reactions but for some reason I don’t like to answer them until them are voiced. So bear with me.
Not being a neuroscientist or a sleep expert, I am under the impression that there are two sorts of sleep: a state with dreams and one without. I wouldn’t think that one (or both) of these truly qualify as matching an awake person’s state of conscious. Doesn’t the materialist view hold that consciousness is what makes a person a person?
“even if they didn’t, they would have brain activity before they slept”
Does that mean that we have an obligation to wake them up. If we could, would we have an obligation to ressurect people? Musing doesn’t think so. Do you agree with him?
“they would have brain activity after they woke up”
This I believe is potential, an argument you’ve been contending against.
Please understand I am not trying to be difficult. I miss the intricicies of arguements all the time and assume that the same thing occaisonaly occurs to you, so don’t take what seems counter intuitive as an insult or evidence of ignorance.
Report comment to moderator
GWF81:
I think of the brain as an interface for the soul, not as a twin entity. An animal does not have a soul and is thus purely mechanistic. Humans have willpower which is not a physical characteristic. In materialist thought it is an illusion.
I offer the placebo effect: independent thought generating physical change in the body.
Report comment to moderator
I think of the brain as an interface for the soul, not as a twin entity. An animal does not have a soul and is thus purely mechanistic. Humans have willpower which is not a physical characteristic. In materialist thought it is an illusion.
It’s not an illusion, with what we now know about the brain, there’s no “apparent” reason to think any such thing.
To maintain beliefs like “the brain as an interface for the soul” is a sheer FABRICATION!
What is the soul apart from the brain???????
It is an undefined illogical piece of theo-goo manufactured to make you think you’re immortal.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza,
the simplere question is to request objectvie evidence of a soul.
There is none, and by the nature of soul as generally understood there can be none.
And if one can not establish an objectvie soul, then one can not make objective statements about the brain soul interface etc.
Report comment to moderator
Provost: I think of the brain as an interface for the soul, not as a twin entity. An animal does not have a soul and is thus purely mechanistic.
Spend a day with a dog and you know that’s not true.
Higher animals, including most mammals, demonstrate clear intelligence and emotion. They have them to a lesser degree and with less refinement than humans, but they very obviously do have them. They solve problems, form bonds of affection, exhibit trust or distrust based on experiences, and in many other ways show that they are NOT “purely mechanistic.”
I also believe humans have souls. But if you want to prove that someone who doesn’t believe it, you need an argument that’s not based on a such a demonstrably false premise.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza:
I’ve sent you my love on the Is religion declining post and simultaneously answered every post you’ll ever make. Enjoy.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG:
Unfortunately, I share more of the middle eastern view on the dog.
Regardless, I’m not sure what demonstrably false premise undermines my argument. That animals don’t have souls? That was a contrast not a mutually exclusive statement.
I wasn’t thinking of souls in terms of intelligence and emotion. I was considering it more as an (objective perhaps) ablity to understand non-material qualities such as beauty and goodness.
By the way Musing, I don’t consider scientific the same as objective. To be sure science is objective, but objective needn’t be scientific at least for our purposes. We could look at the Coranation of Napoleon and agree that it is a beautiful painting. In my view, anyone who disagrees is going against an objective value. Of course, if you believe with Hume that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, the argument won’t appeal to you.
Report comment to moderator
Then again some people in this world believe matter is an illusion. Are you going to persuade them otherwise by showing how well the scientific method works?
Report comment to moderator
Provost: Regardless, I’m not sure what demonstrably false premise undermines my argument. That animals don’t have souls? That was a contrast not a mutually exclusive statement.
That animals are “purely mechanistic.” Some are. Insects are. Reptiles and amphibians generally are. Mammals, and maybe birds, are not.
Report comment to moderator
115(Musing): Dr. Dave, now your statement here: “To me, a soul is the unique creation of God when he knits the human being at conception (see Psalm 139:13-16; also Jeremiah 1:4-5). A soul is to be distinguished from the mind and body. People often conflate “soul” and “mind” which is not appropriate philosophically or scientifically.” Appears to be the core of your argument.
And following your argument, the soul begins when the cell becomes totipotent. And you also indicate quite clearly that the soul is different from the mind and body. And now we enter a bit of logical conundrum. I can measure objectively the mind or the body. But if the soul is not of the mind or the body, then how do we measure it objectively.
Your response is thoughtful here and I can give you some real help. It is quite possible to experience your own soul to the point where you will be unable to deny that it exists. And if you can experience your own soul, then you must logically grant that others can experience their own soul as well. We shall start with that level of proof.
As you are reading this post, I want you to observe yourself doing so. Make note of and examine your thoughts as you read these words. At the same time, multitask by observing your physical state as you read–feel and ruminate on the pressure of the chair on your buttocks and back, feel and ruminate on the pressures against your feet. Now, while reading, monitoring your kinesthetic sensors, and thinking about both sets of input, note the layout of the room where you are at using your peripheral vision and think about that as well. This is hard work, but you can do it if you focus. Are you doing the exercise? If so, now answer the following question: Who is it that is making the observations and contemplating the meaning of the observations? Your mind is performing all the tasks I’ve asked you to do, but who is actually processing the informations your mind creates for you? In short, who is the “you” referenced in the sentences in this paragraph. Our language recognizes the “who” and gives it the pronoun, I and relegates the ongoing mental processes (brain functions) to the pronouns me and my. It is mind that forms the images and thoughts that are created from the sensory inputs, but who and where is the I that is conscious of those images and thoughts. Do you sense the difference between your I and your me/my? If you do, you are objectively experiencing the distinction between the mind (which is performing the tasks assigned) and the soul (which is consciously aware of the mind’s processing and can contemplate it).
As you are no doubt aware, philosophers and scientists have debated this very real phenomenon of the distinction between I and me/my for centuries. In the last 150 years, philosophers and scientists have sorted themselves into three main groups in their attempts to understand and explain what they know to be absolutely true–that there is a unified entity within us all that is phenomenologically distinct from our images, thoughts, and the other mental events going on in our mind. The three groups are as follows:
1. Materialistic Behaviorists. These folks conflate the I and the me/my and call it all epiphenomenal mental events. Epiphenominal because whatever is going on, mental events are not real and have no real impact on behavior. Therefore, the mind/soul are outside the purvey of science.
2. Materialistic Cognitive Psychologists. Also conflate the mind/soul, but acknowledge that something is going on in the brain and the brain is a physical object worthy of study. They are open to verbal report as a behavioral measure of brain activity and use PET and CAT scans to map brain function and correlate it with verbal reports. The problem they face is that when their subjects report I-type things, there is no corresponding area of the brain that consistently lights up on the scans. Most of this group is extremely uncomfortable talking about I phenomena. Many talk about it as awareness or consciousness (never the soul) and either fall back on the “awareness as epiphenomenal” explanation or claim that it is an emergent property of brain activity. Never mind that they have the same I experience as their subjects.
3. The final, much smaller group study consciousness or awareness as a real entity or phenomenon. Some of this smaller group seek a physical substrate or correlate for the soul (consciousness or awareness) while others simply study its properties without needing to establish its physical correlate(s).
When groups 2 and 3 collide, you get the fascinating “Zombie” debates. A “Zombie”, in this context, is a normal human adult with intact brain function, but no soul (consciousness or awareness) who is fully capable of interacting with you or me (who have consciousness or awareness) in such a fashion that we are unable to detect that the “Zombie” has no consciousness or awareness. The questions debated are: Can “Zombies” logically exist? If they can exist, can non-Zombies detect that they are interacting with a “Zombie”? And so on. The point in terms of our discussion is that both groups understand the concept of the soul and can theorize about it. This is evidence that both groups recognize the soul’s existence. It’s just that one group is in denial. Which group are you in, Musing.
The members of group 3 who seek a physical substrate for the soul have failed to find it using PET and CAT Scan technology. Right now, the most promising notion for identifying a physical substrate for the soul (consciousness or awareness) is in the Quantum Theory of Awareness (see Roger Penrose among others).
In fact, unless I misunderstand you very badly, we can not ever objectively measure the soul.
Wrong. It is done all the time (see above). The data is interpreted differently depending on the scientist’s philosophical presuppositions (their world view, if you will).
However not all of society believes in the soul. So on what basis do you take your belief in the soul and extend it in a form of argument such that it will be compelling to the majority of Americans?
Do you find the above presentation non-compelling. More importantly, what do you mean by compelling. Are you referring to Obama’s decision to allow embryonic stem cell research that kills embryos? If so, what is the argument for allowing such research? My understanding is that a false dilemma has be set up. One one horn is the right to life of all living human beings. On the other horn is the legitimate value of seeking ways to alleviate human suffering and provide cures for devastating health conditions. The dilemma is false because it is not necessary that embryos die to provide cures. As this thread has already noted, there are two other choices (adult stem cells or Human induced pluripotent stem cells). It is like the two people in the boat on the ocean where (supposedly) one must die to save the other or both must perish (another false dilemma). There are actually several alternative solutions to this dilemma as well.
Your argument does not seem practical given the realities of research and human fertility, and as we have seen practicality is a component of human laws.
Ah! You are a pragmatist! I wonder if you are really aware of how bankrupt pragmatism is as a moral philosophy.
It’s time for you to face reality here. The desire to do research on pluripotent stem cells created from living human embryos has nothing whatever to do with the desire to provide cures for people suffering from chronic and dreadful health conditions. As we have seen, there are ways to do that without destroying living human life. No, the desire to do the research comes from three, highly-related motivations: fame, greed, and original sin (the desire to be as gods–Genesis 3:5).
Report comment to moderator
113(Musing): Now in the normal course of events, full human protections include the right to life (a point I believe you also raised), and this is embodied in our legal system under the construct of laws against murder…But this right to life is not absolute. As our laws are structured today, if one is convicted of certain crimes, one can be executed…
The right to life of a living human being is absolute. However, the law recognizes and justice demands that there are circumstances under which a living human being forfeits that right, such as when that living human being intentionally, and with malice aforethought, deprives another living human being of their right to life.
We also have legal situations where society explicitly recognizes that although it might be able to save your life, it will choose not to. Examples are when there are many people at risk and choices must be made: medical triage is potentially an example.
This is not true and it is especially not true for medical triage. If you claim this, then you do not understand medical triage. Medical triage protocols are used when medical professionals are faced with a moral dilemma. A moral dilemma exists when two or more absolute values are in conflict and one must choose which to invoke. In medical triage, the horns of the dilemma are (1) every living human being has a right to life and (2) there are insufficient medial resources to provide medical treatment to all who are entitled to it. The absolute values behind the dilemma do not change and are not abrogated in any sense by society or anyone else. One chooses and accepts the consequences of violating the other moral absolutes.
But you are wrong about medical triage in a much deeper sense when you say, “…might be able to save your life, it will choose not to…” The decision in medical triage is a assessment of potential to survive if you are given medical treatment. If the assessment is that you will not survive even with medical treatment and if resources are limited, then the resources are given to a patient that will survive with medical treatment. Moreover, in a triage situation with limited resources, medical treatment is given first to those in the greatest danger of dying without the treatment and later to those who are in less danger. Every effort is made to minimize violation of the absolute values in conflict. No one in that situation is making a judgment to relax the moral imperative in the absolute value.
It continues, society has already established that if one is not able to independently sustain oneself without major medical intervention, it is acceptable to allow the individual to die.
This is pure garbage. I suspect you are writing so fast that you are making semantic errors without realizing it. Are you talking about “Futile Care” statutes in some states? What can you possibly mean by “one is not able to independently sustain oneself without major medical intervention.” Surely your not referring to transplants, heart bypass surgery, etc. (all major medical interventions).
And if the individual is incapable of making such a decision for themselves, others may be legally chartered to make this decision for the individual. In short, there is no unfettered right to life and life may be withdrawn under many conditions. You may disagree with some of the conditions (I dislike the death penalty for example), but the collective system of laws has been established and if we want these changed, then in this country we must employ the democratic process to change them.
This implies that you are now talking about futile care statutes. However, your statement that “there is no unfettered right to life and life may be withdrawn under many conditions…” in no way changes the right of every human being to life. What it does convey is that there are institutions (in the case of futile care) who are willing to violate that right with impunity. That makes those institutions immoral and evil in the same sense that Mengele was immoral and evil.
Report comment to moderator
117(GWF81): Dr. Dave: “So, by definition, a “soul” or “identity” is determined mostly by DNA and somewhat by environment.” So we still have “most” of a person/identity/soul with only DNA, which is why blastocysts should have a full compliment of human rights…
My apologies. You were equating soul, person, and identity. And I allowed you to do so. I ordinarily do not conflate soul with the other two and it is my fault for misleading you as to what I believe about the soul.
but the people/identities/souls that you condemn to non-existence every time you pass on an opportunity for unprotected sex are determined by environment?
I am totally confused here. Is this some sort of weak attempt at irony or sarcasm? If so, you totally missed the mark.
What are you trying to say? I don’t think we are going to make much progress here. Until you can demonstrate that a person’s “soul”(desires, emotions, personality, memories, etc) exists independently of brain activity, all you have is inconsistent misinformation.
Please note the apology in this post and refer to the exchange I am having with Musing. It applies our exchange as well.
Report comment to moderator
114(Musing): However, you also seem to note that: “Unfortunately, zygotes created by SCNT have an extremely high probability of being flawed and, for this reason alone, it is morally reprehensible to attempt to create a human zygote by SCNT until the process is so well understood that any attempt to create a zygote using SCNT would succeed with probability 1.0.” However, I note that even natural conception does not result in a zygote with a probabiliyt of 1 of being geneticaly intact either. And when it is not genetically intact, you do not appear to be arguing that it should be brought to full huamn development any way (after all nature naturally aborts perhaps 40% of all fetuses).
You seem to have totally missed why it is morally reprehensible to create a human zygote by SCNT until the process is so well understood that any attempt to create a zygote using SCNT would succeed with probability 1.0. Suppose we use the statistics from the Dolly cloning; 29 viable zygotes out of 227 with only one having few enough flaws to reach adult maturity. Now, you produce a human zygote under those odds, kill the zygote to “harvest” the pluripotent stem cells, you multiply them, and you insert them into a patient to mitigate Parkinson’s. The patient after suffering unbelievable agony dies because the pluripotent stem cells you used were flawed genetically. You did irreparable harm to your patient because you could not guarantee that the cells were not genetically flawed. You violated your Hippocratic oath. That is why it is morally reprehensible not to wait until the process guarantees a flawless zygote with probability 1.0.
Of course, if you do achieve the necessary standard to avoid violating this absolute value, then you are confronted with violation of another absolute moral value: denying a living human being of the right to life.
It would seem that there is no moral case that can be made for creating zygotes using SCNT techniques. Why not take the morally acceptable routes to get pluripotent stem cells.
Report comment to moderator
Dr. Dave: The right to life of a living human being is absolute. However, the law recognizes and justice demands that there are circumstances under which a living human being forfeits that right, such as when that living human being intentionally, and with malice aforethought, deprives another living human being of their right to life.
Then it’s not absolute.
What about civilian casualties in war? They’re not under conviction of any crime, yet their deaths are caused as an unintentional but inevitable side effect of combat. If their right to life is absolute, then we shouldn’t go to war knowing we will unavoidably kill some of them.
There are a very few people who truly believe the right to life is absolute. They oppose not just abortion and ESCR, but also IVF, capital punishment and war. I can respect them, even though I disagree with them.
But I don’t have as much respect for the position that the right to life is absolute EXCEPT for … and then you list your exceptions, while telling those with whom you disagree that their exceptions are morally wrong.
Either the right to life is absolute or it’s not. If you support any exceptions at all, then it’s not absolute to you.
Report comment to moderator
132(SteveG): Dr. Dave: “The right to life of a living human being is absolute. However, the law recognizes and justice demands that there are circumstances under which a living human being forfeits that right, such as when that living human being intentionally, and with malice aforethought, deprives another living human being of their right to life.”
Then it’s not absolute.
Yes it is. But there are other moral absolutes that, in a given set of circumstances, can conflict with this particular one. When that happens, you have a moral dilemma. If there were no absolute moral values, then there would be no moral dilemmas and we would not have to wrestle with our conscience when faced with one. Moral judgments would be easy because there would be no dilemmas to resolve. There must be absolutes or it is not possible to reason logically.
What about civilian casualties in war? They’re not under conviction of any crime, yet their deaths are caused as an unintentional but inevitable side effect of combat. If their right to life is absolute, then we shouldn’t go to war knowing we will unavoidably kill some of them.
No! You are posing a moral dilemma. On the one hand, you have the moral imperative to not kill living human beings. On the other hand, you have the moral imperative to protect and defend the nation and defeat the enemy–this latter imperative stems from another absolute which is to preserve and protect the human lives you are responsible for. Other moral absolutes may be involved as well such as preserving everyone’s right to liberty. How you resolve the dilemma determines the actions you will take. But the actions you take do not, in any way, change the universal nature of the moral absolutes that led to the dilemma in the first place. If they did, then the next time the dilemma would no longer exist. And that is something that, morally, cannot be allowed to stand.
There are a very few people who truly believe the right to life is absolute. They oppose not just abortion and ESCR, but also IVF, capital punishment and war. I can respect them, even though I disagree with them.
Actually, I think these people hold to many other moral absolutes than just the right of every human being to life. It is just that when faced with a moral dilemma that involves the right to life as one of the horns, they always choose that horn. That is, all other absolute moral imperatives are subordinated when coupled with the right to life. This in no way changes the moral absolutes nor does it make them hypocrites.
But I don’t have as much respect for the position that the right to life is absolute EXCEPT for … and then you list your exceptions, while telling those with whom you disagree that their exceptions are morally wrong.
Who does that? In the absence of a dilemma, the right to life is always true. That has been my point throughout this thread. And I think you and Musing hold to the same standard. I refuse to believe that you don’t wrestle with moral dilemmas. If you do, then you hold to moral absolutes just as I do. And the decisions are hard and they prick your conscience even after you have made the decision. Otherwise, your conscience is seared and I refuse to believe that as well (unless you actually assert the contrary).
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!