Re: Stem Cells
 

[ QUOTE ]
I understand and agree with your point, but not particularly a good example. DS's point was in dealing with human lives. We have shown as a country that we have no regard for animal lives (60 million cats and dogs are euthanized yearly for non-medical reasons), so we can't draw a good comparison between our behavior with human lives and animal lives.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point was not regarding the animals we euthanize for non-medical reasons. I was speaking to our practice of putting a cherished pet to sleep rather than have it suffer for no reason.

I was arguing that we treat our animals with GREATER mercy than we treat our fellow humans when we don't have the intestinal fortitude to euthanize our fellow humans but would rather "pull the plug" and prolong their suffering.

Re: Stem Cells
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why can't people just say it's killing, but it’s worth it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Finally, an easy one. - Because the question is totally dependant on a false premise, and suffers from assuming an arbitrary distinction being treated as factual. Being alive and being adult and being dead and being animal exist on a continuum not in distinct leaps. There is no magic moment when some boundary is crossed and ‘poof’ the next state is reached. Like the transition from child to adult, we set an arbitrary line to bring order to this slow change even though we know that if we defined ‘adult’ from the attributes it has we would see one person be an adult at 15 and another at 24.

If we define ‘oak tree’ by it’s properties, we wouldn’t make the mistake of calling an acorn an oak tree and it would also be totally arbitrary when we choose the ‘moment of oakhood’. If we define ‘human’ so we can tell them from chimpanzees and crash-test dummies, by the attributes a human has , then we arrive at the oak tree situation and realize that we ‘become human’ slowly and cross no line of demarcation.

Say we watch a 24 frame for second film of the progression from a sperm nearing an egg until we witness somebody voting for the 1st time. We see the fertilized egg become two cells, then the two cells break apart, then they drift together and rejoin. To ask, “did a human die?, and which one?” suffers from the same flaw as the OP question .. we haven’t defined human and we’re denying the continuum we are witnessing before our eyes.

Back the film up a bit and watch the frame from when the sperm touches the egg until the egg splits divides and answer .. which frame is the ‘moment of conception’ and why isn’t it the frame before or the frame after? It’s not the When part that’s important, that just illustrates the arbitrary nature of the claim, it’s the Why part that is key. It’s the Why that is left in clouded, vague, undefined terms that we wouldn’t tolerate in any other rational discussion.

‘Being human’ is easier to see from the just as contentious ‘time of death’. If we remove one brain cell at a time from Hortense, ‘when did he die’ and ‘why do we say that’ depends on him reaching a state which no longer fits our definition of human. He won’t cross a ‘moment of death’ in this case either and our views of when he arbitrarily did have changed over the years.

So, “ using embryos is homicide” first needs a useful definition of human that we can apply to Hortense both when he is dies and when he is being formed. “Why can’t people just say it’s killing..” because it’s intellectually and morally dishonest to lie.

I’m not for or against abortion, I’d just like to hear the topic put in a logically sound frame before I agree to anything about it. ( it’s like the silly, “do you believe in god” questions when no definition of ‘god’ is given.).

luckyme,
if I thought I was wrong, I’d change my mind ( doesn't an “I” need one?)

Re: Stem Cells
 

[ QUOTE ]
So, “ using embryos is homicide” first needs a useful definition of human

[/ QUOTE ]

DS defined this by stating that his question was directed to those who believe embryos are human.

Re: Stem Cells
 

I think a lot of people are missing David's point.

The post is directed specifically towards those people who believe that abortion is murder. These are (often) the same people who oppose stem cell research. Yet these same people are (often) in favor of foreign wars (like Iraq), where they feel that the inevitable taking of innocent human life is justified by a greater good. David's question for these people is why can't they just say, yes abortion is murder, but emryonic stem cell research leads to a much greater good, so it's justified?

Re: Stem Cells
 

[ QUOTE ]
The post is directed specifically towards those people who believe that abortion is murder. These are (often) the same people who oppose stem cell research. Yet these same people are (often) in favor of foreign wars (like Iraq), where they feel that the inevitable taking of innocent human life is justified by a greater good. David's question for these people is why can't they just say, yes abortion is murder, but emryonic stem cell research leads to a much greater good, so it's justified?

[/ QUOTE ]

Embryonic stem cell research does not require aborted fetuses. Many people oppose abortion yet support embryonic stem cell research on surplus embryos produced by in vitro fertilization.

Re: Stem Cells
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think a lot of people are missing David's point.The post is directed specifically towards those people who believe that abortion is murder.

[/ QUOTE ]

I replied to the original before seeing the clarifying memo. On rereading the original, I'd still answer it the same. I should have twigged to the fact that DS wouldn't have asked such a dorky question. jeez on me, apologies DS.
To answer the new question which I'm taking as ..
' Stem cell research has a greater good, which some may say involves killing not yet cognizent humans, and in much smaller numbers. Why can't those people just say it's killing, but it’s worth it? '

Because that would mean coming up with clear definition of terms which would then go counter to what they'd like to be true in other issues in contention. If you keep things murky and undefined you can argue several conflicting viewpoints and have it very tough to be shown to be using doublethink. Whether it's justifiable homicide, or birth or death issues, just pull up the spin you need unfettered by the hobgoblin of consistency.

luckyme,
if I thought it was wrong, I'd change my mind

Re: Stem Cells
 

I think the difference is that one is reactive (war) and one is proactive (research). Your question is “why the difference?”

To more directly answer your question I’d have to do some research to when our Church “allows” for the justification for war. I am sure there are very few instances. Perhaps Bluff and for sure Bigdaddy would be able to better address this particular case.

For the non-believer: If this ever is an issue, I would assume a good argument against it is opening to the door and setting precedent for moving the line further towards Hitler type experiments (or even odder things given the advancement of science since his day). This argument could even be used for the believer.

Personally, I don’t see that the embryo (as used here) is human yet. I am not sure that this can (will) ever be determined theologically, though. This just might be one of those examples of the conflict (dilemma) between reason and faith.

Now, it would seem to the “layman”, the atheist, that the point of view is obvious to choose science. This is where the believer relies on the Holy Spirit for guidance. In the short-run this might seem a bad thing. In the long-run (moving the line) are you confident that it out weights future “bad” science - things that might be considered cruel now? Or does that matter? That is, if things are cruel now (not stem cell research, but somethings that now might seem "goofy") and wouldn’t be in the future is that at all relevant. What does that say about man? The question comes down to whether emotion getting in the way is always a bad thing or not. Although, I am not a Trekky, I have in mind Spock here as we view this issue. Spock would say one must choose the research, right?

Dawkins it seems would choose science, too. But, his line to not cross is whether it is “painful” I believe is the word he uses. I am suggesting that his arbitrary line of “painful” is not always apparent if one looks at the long-run. Should decisions be made soley for one point in time - the present?

Re: Stem Cells
 

I started a thread with pretty much the exact same argument here

Re: Stem Cells
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe an embryo is human but if I did I would be against stem cell reseach for the same reason I would be against torturing babies even if it was for some common good.

[/ QUOTE ]
If I believed that spiders were human, I would still be in favor of squashing the one that keeps making a web in my shower.

"Human" is just a label. What matters isn't the label. What matters is that, human or not, spiders lack cognizance. So do stem cells.

Killing stem cells would be bad if we only had a few of them and they were essential to creating additional cognizant humans. But that isn't the case. They are a dime a dozen.

Re: Stem Cells
 

[ QUOTE ]
Stem cell research has a greater good, involves killing not yet cognizent humans, and in much smaller numbers. Why can't people just say it's killing, but its worth it?

[/ QUOTE ]

To start with, I don't believe the stem cell is human, and therefore don't go down the path that David is taking us.

That being said, if you believe the stem cell is human, why does it make a difference whether the human is cognizent or not?

Once you take the position that it's ok to sacrifice one human being to save others, you're heading down a slippery slope. The hyperbolic example (which I hope that no moral person would ever suggest) would be to randomly select a healthy person and tell him that by harvesting his organs we can save half a dozen lives, so we're going to sacrifice him for the greater good.