In regards to stem cell research.

[Ryokan]

I am very conflicted on this issue. So, I would like to have some people on both sides of this issue talk to me about it. Or, better yet, answer some questions for me. Does personhood begin with conception? If so, how do we know it? The Bible? The Church Fathers? How do we view that perspective in light of modern scientific knowledge? Assuming stem cell research is wrong, how can we oppose it without even more vigorously opposing invitro fetilization, or other processes that create embryo's with little or no hope of implantation, ever?

[Teallaura]

... Does personhood begin with conception?In my opinion, yes. At the very least, defining personhood is not something we want to leave to the courts or the legislature. It is a wiser course of action to assume personhood and act accordingly.

If so, how do we know it?We know, in terms of fact, that the zygote has human DNA and is by definition human. (This fact is recognized legally in Roe v Wade). We know that all persons are humans. As yet, there are no legal nor scientific examples of persons who are not human. What is not decided is whether or not all humans are persons.

If we accept that some humans are not persons, then we must have criteria for that. Brain development? Why - on the basis of awareness? If so, amoebas demonstrate awareness (go to food; go away from danger) without a brain, while there are humans who have been born with brains who demonstrate no awareness - are they therefore not persons?

Using awareness, brain development, age from conception, or willingness to use the NY times as a bird cage liner all share a foundational problem - they are arbitrary. We have arbitrarily decided that only aware (conscious? Even more murky - science has no idea what the thing is and philosophy is still wrestling with the question.) creatures with human DNA (because we aren't recognizing all aware creatures as persons - PETA notwithstanding) are persons and that only persons under that definition are worthy of life. Anything else may be discarded - or killed. You can argue all you like, the the criteria are still arbitrary at the end of the day, no matter how 'logical'* they may be, or seem to be.


The Bible? Perfectly valid for Christians - why wouldn't it be?

The Church Fathers? Perfectly valid for Catholics and some other Christians (depends on the acceptance of their authority otherwise when using them as an authority only). Nothing invalidates their reasoning merely because they were early Christians (careful here, sounds like you're going down the Genetic Fallacy path again - who they are doesn't matter; what they said matters, especially following the line of reasoning in this case.)

If it's their rationale you mean, then nothing invalidates that merely because of who they were - need to address the argument proper there.

How do we view that perspective in light of modern scientific knowledge?Science cannot answer the philosophic questions - period. If you argue otherwise, then you must logically accept creationism (worst connotation) into the aspect of science because the contention is that science can't answer religious or supernatural questions dues to its pecular nature. That nature would also fail to lend itself to questions of philosophy. Can't have your cake and eat it, too.

The question - is it (the zygote) a person - is purely philosophic. Science can answer one relevant question - is it human. In scientific terms, yes, it is. Any other application of science tells us only what developmental stages/factors exist - they tell us nothing about personhood. Those criteria we must seek from philosophy, even if we use developmental notation to designate them.


Assuming stem cell research is wrong, how can we oppose it without even more vigorously opposing invitro fetilization, or other processes that create embryo's with little or no hope of implantation, ever?Philosophically? Can't 'not oppose' without being hypocritical.

The vigor of opposition in A versus B is not, however, inherently hypocritical. If I oppose two separate things but can dedicate time to fighting only one it is false to assume I am hypocritical in my opposition to either.

Pragmatically - one fight at a time. The reason there being that as awful as allowing such hopeless (or near hopeless - don't forget the snowflake babies) cases to exist at present, fighting one battle at a time makes it far more likely to win the war and thereby save the most lives ultimately. Pragmatism isn't particularly satisfying if you are looking for consistency - but it is essential to having any real hope of making significant change.






------------------------------------------
*The funniest - and saddest - argument presented on what criteria should be is "greatest good for the greatest number". Pure ulitarianism - and usually presented by those who, were it adopted fully, would be the first folks taken out back and shot. Ulitarianism is a nasty piece of philosophic work - and makes no allowance for morals or mercy. Every decision is pure C/B. A minority of chronically sick people - like those with spinal injuries or Parkinson's - would not be worth saving or maintaining. They would be seen as a drain on society - and very humanely shot. The funny part? Embryonic Stem Cell Research would not be pursued under a ulitarian system - it hasn't delivered well enough to survive a serious C/B anaylsis, unlike ASCR.

[Ryokan]

In my opinion, yes. At the very least, defining personhood is not something we want to leave to the courts or the legislature. It is a wiser course of action to assume personhood and act accordingly. Its a troubling question, though. If we are to a assume personhood at conception, 2/3s of all people die within days of the creation. From a moral standpoint, it compels us in fact to drop alot of medical research in favor of trying to find ways to make implantation easier, or to replace natural child growth all together, among other things. Not only that, but we don't memorialize the massive death toll, nor is their any movement too. In truth, if unemplanted embryos are people, no one, Christians, the government, anybody behaves like it.

We know, in terms of fact, that the zygote has human DNA and is by definition human. (This fact is recognized legally in Roe v Wade). We know that all persons are humans. As yet, there are no legal nor scientific examples of persons who are not human. What is not decided is whether or not all humans are persons. Yeah, I recognize that, though I was looking at this from a more philosphical point of view. Even abortion supporters think the ruling of Roe V. Wade left something to be desired for.

If we accept that some humans are not persons, then we must have criteria for that. Brain development? Why - on the basis of awareness? If so, amoebas demonstrate awareness (go to food; go away from danger) without a brain, while there are humans who have been born with brains who demonstrate no awareness - are they therefore not persons? I am not entirely comfortable extending personhood status to everyone that is human. A brain dead person is "dead", and would be dead if it was not for the power of modern medicine. The corpse is human but not a person. At least in my mind. This could apply to embryoes too, concievably. But its complicated, as a brain dead person is, well, very unlikely to recover while a embryo that successfully implants will survive.

Using awareness, brain development, age from conception, or willingness to use the NY times as a bird cage liner all share a foundational problem - they are arbitrary. We have arbitrarily decided that only aware (conscious? Even more murky - science has no idea what the thing is and philosophy is still wrestling with the question.) creatures with human DNA (because we aren't recognizing all aware creatures as persons - PETA notwithstanding) are persons and that only persons under that definition are worthy of life. Anything else may be discarded - or killed. You can argue all you like, the the criteria are still arbitrary at the end of the day, no matter how 'logical'* they may be, or seem to be. Even person from coception requires an arbitray decision of all that is human is a person teal. I don't have the answers, only questions.


Perfectly valid for Christians - why wouldn't it be?
I don't question its validity, but rather wonder what its conclusions mean. It goes so far as to say God new us before he made us, but that implies he knew 2/3's of humanity would die before it even grew differentiated cells. What was their too know, honestly?
Perfectly valid for Catholics and some other Christians (depends on the acceptance of their authority otherwise when using them as an authority only). Nothing invalidates their reasoning merely because they were early Christians (careful here, sounds like you're going down the Genetic Fallacy path again - who they are doesn't matter; what they said matters, especially following the line of reasoning in this case.) I agree they are valid, I just can't think of many who specifically address the issue. They oppose abortion the much more popular contemporary practice of exposure (obviously) but also have alot of confused ideas about how "conception" happens.

Science cannot answer the philosophic questions - period. If you argue otherwise, then you must logically accept creationism (worst connotation) into the aspect of science because the contention is that science can't answer religious or supernatural questions dues to its pecular nature. That nature would also fail to lend itself to questions of philosophy. Can't have your cake and eat it, too. It can INFORM ethical questions, though. Church fathers who had ethical concerns about, ah, ejaculation thanks to the ancient view sperm were tiny babies need not be concerned in light of modern knowledge.
The question - is it (the zygote) a person - is purely philosophic. Science can answer one relevant question - is it human. In scientific terms, yes, it is. Any other application of science tells us only what developmental stages/factors exist - they tell us nothing about personhood. Those criteria we must seek from philosophy, even if we use developmental notation to designate them.
Our definition of personhood depends on us, of course, teal. But we'll know when a human meets that criteria using science.

Philosophically? Can't 'not oppose' without being hypocritical.

The vigor of opposition in A versus B is not, however, inherently hypocritical. If I oppose two separate things but can dedicate time to fighting only one it is false to assume I am hypocritical in my opposition to either.

Pragmatically - one fight at a time. The reason there being that as awful as allowing such hopeless (or near hopeless - don't forget the snowflake babies) cases to exist at present, fighting one battle at a time makes it far more likely to win the war and thereby save the most lives ultimately. Pragmatism isn't particularly satisfying if you are looking for consistency - but it is essential to having any real hope of making significant change.

The thing is, though, Teal, this is a very empty victory in the case of embryo=person. Used for research or not, they are all dead. The only meaningful victory would be to prevent their creation.




------------------------------------------
*The funniest - and saddest - argument presented on what criteria should be is "greatest good for the greatest number". Pure ulitarianism - and usually presented by those who, were it adopted fully, would be the first folks taken out back and shot. Ulitarianism is a nasty piece of philosophic work - and makes no allowance for morals or mercy. Every decision is pure C/B. A minority of chronically sick people - like those with spinal injuries or Parkinson's - would not be worth saving or maintaining. They would be seen as a drain on society - and very humanely shot. The funny part? Embryonic Stem Cell Research would not be pursued under a ulitarian system - it hasn't delivered well enough to survive a serious C/B anaylsis, unlike ASCR.
Assuming you define embryoes as people. Utilitarian logic generally does not factor in non-persons. I agree utilitarianism, on a micro-level is not very useful, but I think c/b is probably the most important factor in public policy, even though I allow mitigating ones. Even factoring in other consideraations, though, teal, as I pointed out up top we do not behave, nor have we ever, like unemplanted embryoes are people.

[Teallaura]

Its a troubling question, though. If we are to a assume personhood at conception, 2/3s of all people die within days of the creation. From a moral standpoint, it compels us in fact to drop alot of medical research in favor of trying to find ways to make implantation easier, or to replace natural child growth all together, among other things. Not only that, but we don't memorialize the massive death toll, nor is their any movement too. In truth, if unemplanted embryos are people, no one, Christians, the government, anybody behaves like it.Um, Ry, millions of people die everyday who have already been born - should we outlaw cars because thousands of those die in car accidents? The world is not a guaranteed safe place - and we are not discussing whether or not natural causes should take lives, but whether or not human beings should.

Incidently there is literally no way to know that '2/3 rds' thing you quote - it's purely a guess and based on unproven assumptions about fertility. There's no way to know how many sponatenous abortions occur prior to the detection of the pregnancy - and it sure ain't 2/3 rds at that stage! Bad guesses do not make good philosophy, religion, science or public policy.



Yeah, I recognize that, though I was looking at this from a more philosphical point of view. Even abortion supporters think the ruling of Roe V. Wade left something to be desired for.I'm not following you.


I am not entirely comfortable extending personhood status to everyone that is human. A brain dead person is "dead", and would be dead if it was not for the power of modern medicine. The corpse is human but not a person. At least in my mind. This could apply to embryoes too, concievably. But its complicated, as a brain dead person is, well, very unlikely to recover while a embryo that successfully implants will survive.

Even person from coception requires an arbitray decision of all that is human is a person teal. I don't have the answers, only questions.

You answered your own question - 'very unlikely to recover' is not truly dead, Ry. The problem of 'brain death' is that the brain is not that fully understood - and occasionally doctors get it wrong.

Further, your answer is purely emotional - it's your 'feelings' on the subject, not the reasons/rationale that you are allowing to dictate at ths point.

Leaving aside societal issues (which I would not consider valid once the determination is made that a human is a person, even if extremely incapacitated), is it right to kill a human being (we aren't questionaling personhood at this stage - it's a given) because you think they are dead. The truly dead don't require killing. The bodily dead (where life support can no longer sustain them) are definitively 'truly dead' - they don't breathe, no heartbeat, go into rigor, begin to smell reallly bad... So we are limited to the consideration of 'brain death'.

Trouble is, all we know is what we can detect - and that's not as extensive as people tend to think. Consideration for this purpose of responses is unconscionable in my opinion - the inability to respond does not ensure the inability to comprehend/feel. Ask anyone who failed to go under during surgery - but the paralytic agents worked.... (rare, but it does happen).

So, what can we detect? Surface activity is about it. We know so little about the interior workings of the brain because we have an extremely hard time detecting them. Not a great way to decide someone is dead, if you ask me.

You aren't comfortable 'extending' personhood to the supposedly brain dead - I'm appalled at the removal of personhood from anyone still breathing. Brain death is rather nebulous - bodily death isn't.

Back to society - instead of spending a huge amount of time and money worrying about when someone is 'brain dead', why not spend that effort on keeping them from gettng that bad in the first place? Better ER/trauma center tx at admission could quite possibly eliminate the majority of such cases (which aren't that many in the first place). We can't get them all, but minumizing the number overall would minumize the overall cost. Morally and spiritually, it costs this country a great deal more to kill our weakest than to keep them alive ever will financially.

(Does nasty things to doctors and hospitals, too - there is an erosion of trust there - a growing one. Many people, myself included, do not trust a doctor who kills his patients, regardless of his rationale. My doctor has the Oath on his wall - and subscribes to it. He gets my business as a direct result.)




I don't question its validity, but rather wonder what its conclusions mean. It goes so far as to say God new us before he made us, but that implies he knew 2/3's of humanity would die before it even grew differentiated cells. What was their too know, honestly? I agree they are valid, I just can't think of many who specifically address the issue. They oppose abortion the much more popular contemporary practice of exposure (obviously) but also have alot of confused ideas about how "conception" happens.I wouldn't talk too much about their confusion - that 2/3 rds thing is pure horse hockey. Ya kinda need a measure - and ya ain't got one. it's a guess.

Um, but Ry, you're not thinking your own logic through here - God knew you before you were born. He knows you now. And He knows you're gonna be wormfood (unless Jesus gets back in your lifetime) - so what does this objection have to do with the price of tea in China? Everybody is gonna die - stage of development has squat to do with that.

2/3 rds of humanity (using your really bad guess) die in the womb, huh? Well, 100 percent of born humans die outside the womb. So what? What exactly does that tell us about how the Bible or church fathers or Fred the mailman view human beings taking the lives of other human beings?

It can INFORM ethical questions, though. Church fathers who had ethical concerns about, ah, ejaculation thanks to the ancient view sperm were tiny babies need not be concerned in light of modern knowledge. Granted - BUT the operative term is can. Careful here - you're inserting a value as a given. You value science in this regard - not everyone does and it is perfectly valid not to. Science tells us squat about morality and as such may be discarded as a tool with perfect validity.

Our definition of personhood depends on us, of course, teal. But we'll know when a human meets that criteria using science.Whoa! Wrong son - the only way that proves true is if as a society (or religion) we decide that science should play that role. This is an insertion of value. You think science should establish the criteria. I'm saying it flat out cannot do any such of a thing because science cannot answer the central question of what personhood is, let alone when it begins.

All science can do is provide a framework - but it is perfectly valid to discard that framework given science's incompetence in the actual fields in question - philosophy/religion/morality


The thing is, though, Teal, this is a very empty victory in the case of embryo=person. Used for research or not, they are all dead. The only meaningful victory would be to prevent their creation.Or insure their implantation.

Didn't say is was satisfying - it's not. No lost battle is - but losing the war because you insist on fighting losing battles instead of more strategic ones you can win is far less satisfying, morally, philosophically or spiritually (okay, might be okay for the Pyhrrics amongst us... :teeth:).




Assuming you define embryoes as people. Utilitarian logic generally does not factor in non-persons. I agree utilitarianism, on a micro-level is not very useful, but I think c/b is probably the most important factor in public policy, even though I allow mitigating ones. Even factoring in other consideraations, though, teal, as I pointed out up top we do not behave, nor have we ever, like unemplanted embryoes are people.Nope, assume embryoes are non-persons (as I assume ulitarianism would) it still wouldn't pass C/B muster. Look at the private sector Ry - you see a lot of companies lining up to fund ESCR? Wonder why not.... :whistle:

C/B is not the most important factor in public policy - it's only a tool to achieve the best possible public policy. Never confuse the tools with the objectives - and the objectives are almost always the most important factor in public policy. No objective, no public policy - period.



*running late - forgive the lack of spell checking, please... Bye! :eek: