Stem Cells

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
In the context of this thread, human is not just a label but is saying an embryo is equivalent to those other things we call human.

Not something I believe but if I did then would not advocate killing them for some supposed greater good.

chez

[maurile]

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

[/ QUOTE ]
Assume that humans, instead of being conscious, were just mindless zombies. Would their "lives" be as valuable as those of normal (conscious) humans?

The fact that humans can think, feel, experience pain and joy -- that's what gives our lives value (and it's why we can break up rocks and boil water without feeling guilty about it).

And that's why cognizance matters.

[ZeeJustin]

[ 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 ]

Most people believe that their god would frown upon this.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
Who is your first line intended for anyway? The left or right?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's intended for the left since they are the ones who tend to favor the research.

As to why the lefties don't like to admit it's killing, the only reason I can come up with is that it's probably advantageous politically to concede as few points as possible. Why admit it's killing if you don't have to? There is some fuzzy ground there after all.

[BigSoonerFan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who is your first line intended for anyway? The left or right?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's intended for the left since they are the ones who tend to favor the research.

As to why the lefties don't like to admit it's killing, the only reason I can come up with is that it's probably advantageous politically to concede as few points as possible. Why admit it's killing if you don't have to? There is some fuzzy ground there after all.

[/ QUOTE ]

It looked like it was meant for the left and you gave the somewhat easy answer, so I thought maybe I had missed something. Both sides are always afraid of that slippery slope...

[David Sklansky]

"Why can't people just say it's killing, but its worth it?"

OK I should have said,

Why can't people just say EVEN IF it's killing, its worth it?

I guess I have to be careful about every word. As to the idea that the deaths in a war are random but the embryos killings are not, that would have some validity only if the numbers were comparable.

Ditto for the slippery slope argument. In fact as a general rule the whole slippery slope argument about anything is ridiculous. You draw lines where they should be drawn. Not far above that because of sliding worries. But again in this case the numbers are so different that even slippery slope advocates have no leg to stand on.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
In fact as a general rule the whole slippery slope argument about anything is ridiculous. You draw lines where they should be drawn.

[/ QUOTE ]
In theory maybe but in practise the lines do not get drawn where they should.

[ QUOTE ]
But again in this case the numbers are so different that even slippery slope advocates have no leg to stand on.

[/ QUOTE ]
but if we let you reject the slippery slope argument here ... [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

chez

Mr. Sklansky, I apologize but I do not understand your post. In a war a country is protecting itself from a danger either real, hopefully, or imagined. Other than protection of a state there is no greater good. In looking for cures for human suffering, stem cell is killing one living cell group in the hope of helping a more complex cell group. This means the more "complex" cell group wins,at the expense of the less complex, because they can, and this is ok. Is this what you are saying? thank you for your time.

Sklansky,

Ron Reagan Jr., who is one of the biggest and most high profile advocates for stem cell research, has made your exact point before on TV and used a just war anology to do so. I agree with it.

In answer to your question about why people don't make this argument more, I think it's for two simple reasons. One is that most people in favor of stem cell research don't think of embryos, especially at such an early stage of development, as humans. And certainly not the embryos that are collecting dust at fertility clinics. So your comparison never occurs to them. The second reason is simply because they believe it won't go over well with the public. Even though a sound logical argument can be made to compare it to a just war, that doesn't mean that the general public will perceive it that way.

The most intelligent and logically sound arguments that might be most persuasive to an intelligent person like yourself are not necessarily the ones that will most persuade the general public. So stem cell advocates don't touch it. For the sake of their cause, this may be a wise choice. Take a look at the reaction to your premise on this forum so far. Most people don't see your logic for a whole slew of reasons that I would contend with.

[KenProspero]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that humans can think, feel, experience pain and joy -- that's what gives our lives value (and it's why we can break up rocks and boil water without feeling guilty about it)

[/ QUOTE ]

Accepting your argument completely. I don't think that this means that those we accept as human, whether pre-cognizent or post-conginzent lose their are without rights.

I think the argument comes down to whether the stem-cells meet the definition of humanity or not.