Is Embryonic Stem Cell Research Immoral?

[Firegirl]

Is Embryonic Stem Cell Research immoral? With the recent discovery of alternative sources of stem cells in the Placenta and the Ammiotic fluid (which is from Harvard University and the Wake Forest Institute), would such research violate any morals or religious standards?

links
http://www.wfirm.org/news5.htm

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/01/07/stem ... index.html

[eriador]

Would destroying a ball of cells smaller than the brain of a fly be immoral to you? That fly is a lot more aware than the embryo, yet we have no problems as a culture killing flies.

To me, this whole debate is a no-brainer.

[fawkes]

I know this probably sounds gross, but if it were possible for new mothers to donate their baby's placentas to scientific research, there probably wouldn't be a problem.

[luminousnerd]

Would destroying a ball of cells smaller than the brain of a fly be immoral to you? That fly is a lot more aware than the embryo, yet we have no problems as a culture killing flies.

To me, this whole debate is a no-brainer.

Umm, a fly doesn't have any awareness at all. Their "brain" is just a censor, it doesn't even hold any notable amount of memory. It's just something that tells their body what to do when, it isn't an awareness at all.

No, that argument is bogus, even though I am open to decent arguments for the cause.

[eriador]

And you're saying that a zygote is aware?

Even if the fly's brain is just a "censor" (try an S next time), the fly is much more alive in my book than the zygote. At least a fly can live by itself. And the whole argument that an embryo is a "potential human life" is easily refuted in this manner: Humans are made up of Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, and various trace elements. So, a pile of dirt is just as much a "potential human life" as an embryo is. Yes, the embryo is made up of living cells, but I don't see it as truly "alive". It's like a virus, it shows some signs of life, but it's not really alive, it's in a gray area.

[luminousnerd]

And you're saying that a zygote is aware?

I didn't say that. I don't know what I believe on that. I'm only saying that a Fly isn't aware so your argument means nothing.

Even if the fly's brain is just a "censor" (try an S next time), the fly is much more alive in my book than the zygote. At least a fly can live by itself. And the whole argument that an embryo is a "potential human life" is easily refuted in this manner: Humans are made up of Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, and various trace elements. So, a pile of dirt is just as much a "potential human life" as an embryo is. Yes, the embryo is made up of living cells, but I don't see it as truly "alive". It's like a virus, it shows some signs of life, but it's not really alive, it's in a gray area.

Sorry about that, a sensor. But I don't think flies are alive. And they most certainly can't live by themselves. Neither can we or anyone. We always have to have an environment with nourishment to survive. Anything and everything is dependent on something.

[eriador]

I don't think flies are alive.

Uhh. Are your joking?

And they most certainly can't live by themselves. Neither can we or anyone. We always have to have an environment with nourishment to survive. Anything and everything is dependent on something.

Okay, so that proves just about nothing. Sure, everything is going to be dependent on SOMETHING, but that doesn't mean that one thing can't be more dependent than another.

[luminousnerd]

Uhh. Are your joking?

No, why the hell would I be joking about that? It wouldn't be funny...why are you so surprised by it anyway? Ask most any Christian and the consensus is generally that animals are not actually alive. Or at least it is a debatable topic. You act here like it's a stupid claim. What gives?

Okay, so that proves just about nothing. Sure, everything is going to be dependent on SOMETHING, but that doesn't mean that one thing can't be more dependent than another.

It only proves that your statement proves nothing. And levels of dependency are a highly debatable, separate topic, and I find it very closed-minded and borderline stupid of you to make the claim as if it were absolute undisputed fact that everything you say is right.

[eriador]

life (līf) pronunciation
n., pl. lives (līvz).

1.
1. The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.
2. The characteristic state or condition of a living organism.

I only quote to you the first sense, as the others have no bearing on this debate.

As I learned in biology class (last semester), anything that has all of the properties in 1.1 is alive. Living organisms can not show some of them, but have to show at least one. Nonliving things can also have some of those properties, but if something has all of them, then it is alive. I would say that a fly is alive. Sure, it's not sentient, probably not aware, but it is still alive. I would even go so far as to say that it is much more alive than some humans, who the church insist are alive (such as Terry Schiavo). And I promise you that every Christian I know would agree with me that a fly is alive.

It only proves that your statement proves nothing. And levels of dependency are a highly debatable, separate topic, and I find it very closed-minded and borderline stupid of you to make the claim as if it were absolute undisputed fact that everything you say is right.

Have you ever heard of the principle of universality? It's where you apply the same standards to yourself that you apply to others. It could do you some good.

All I was saying is that in some ways, a fly is more "alive" than a zygote.

[Jebus]

Ask most any Christian and the consensus is generally that animals are not actually alive.

I think the Christians on this board would like you to stop making them sound like complete retards.

[fawkes]

... why the hell would I be joking about that? It wouldn't be funny...why are you so surprised by it anyway? Ask most any Christian and the consensus is generally that animals are not actually alive.

... Right... You do know that most people consider animals (nay, even plants) living things? Some cultures believe anything can house a soul. So you see why he would be suprised when you said animals aren't alive. Don't call people stupid just because their veiws are different.

[luminousnerd]

I only quote to you the first sense, as the others have no bearing on this debate.

So what you mean is, "I found out that your definition does really exist, but I'm going to hide it from you and only quote the one that supports my claim, and hope you don't look it up yourself". Am I right?

As I learned in biology class (last semester), anything that has all of the properties in 1.1 is alive.

By your definition, which, opposite your claim, has absolutely no bearing here. We're talking about a different kind of alive.

And I promise you that every Christian I know would agree with me that a fly is alive.

So you would fool them by asking them about the wrong definition of alive? That doesn't really count. Sorry.

Have you ever heard of the principle of universality? It's where you apply the same standards to yourself that you apply to others. It could do you some good.

I've never been closed minded on this board. I challenge you to prove me wrong.

All I was saying is that in some ways, a fly is more "alive" than a zygote.

And all I was saying is that I believe you are wrong.

[luminousnerd]

... Right... You do know that most people consider animals (nay, even plants) living things? Some cultures believe anything can house a soul. So you see why he would be suprised when you said animals aren't alive. Don't call people stupid just because their veiws are different.

What are you talking about? You're completely reversing the situation. eriador is the one who originally singled me out for my beliefs! I never did so! I was only defending against eriador's claims!!! Are you f****** blind?

I think the Christians on this board would like you to stop making them sound like complete retards.

Isn't this against the rules of the board? Or don't they apply when the person being attacked is generally disliked?

When I say something like that I get a thousand people all over me for breaking the rules. What gives?

And Jebus, it's not retarded to have different views. You are the epitome of closed-mindedness.

[anonshadow]

Ask most any Christian and the consensus is generally that animals are not actually alive.

Hell, I'm not Christian, and I agree with you.

Animals are absolutely not alive. In fact, they don't exist at all. They're hallucinations of humans. Who are the only things in the world that are alive. In fact, they're hallucinations brought on by starvation, because, well, since animals and plants don't exist, none of us have anything to eat.

Duh. I thought everyone knew that.

[wigginboy]

I believe the consensus is that animals are not as developed as humans, and are thus inferior. By no means are animals, plants and insects abiotic. They have just as much life as humans and contribute actively to the biogeochemical cycles that drive our natural world, through carbon fixation, cellular respiration and death, which proves that they live.

[luminousnerd]

Hell, I'm not Christian, and I agree with you.

Animals are absolutely not alive. In fact, they don't exist at all. They're hallucinations of humans. Who are the only things in the world that are alive. In fact, they're hallucinations brought on by starvation, because, well, since animals and plants don't exist, none of us have anything to eat.

Duh. I thought everyone knew that.

What the f*** is everyone's problem tonight? Attacking me with s*** like this for no reason other than disagreeing with my personal beliefs? Seriously what the f***?

[luminousnerd]

I believe the consensus is that animals are not as developed as humans, and are thus inferior. By no means are animals, plants and insects abiotic. They have just as much life as humans and contribute actively to the biogeochemical cycles that drive our natural world, through carbon fixation, cellular respiration and death, which proves that they live.

Well aren't you a genious. Now that you're done citing scientific s*** about a word that has more than one meaning, understand that there is indeed more than one meaning.

[mr_thebrain]

dude... you just said that a fly isn't alive... it's frickin' animated and well... living. you say things like that you have to expect to catch some s*** for it.

[luminousnerd]

dude... you just said that a fly isn't alive... it's frickin' animated and well... living. you say things like that you have to expect to catch some s*** for it.

I see what's going on here. None of you seem to understand which definition of 'living' we are talking about here. Even though I have said it outright many many times, not to mention that the topic plainly suggests that we are talking about the definition that I was talking about. But I suppose you're all just idiots. Oh well, here, I'll spell it out for you imbeciles.

Alive:

2. living (used for emphasis): the proudest man alive.
3. in a state of action; in force or operation; active: to keep hope alive.
4. full of energy and spirit; lively: Grandmother's more alive than most of her contemporaries.
5. having the quality of life; vivid; vibrant: The room was alive with color.

Not one of these definitions refers explicitly to the 1st definition:

1. having life; living; existing; not dead or lifeless.

I'm not talking about biologically alive, which seems evident to me. The topic is a question of whether certain things HAVE SOULS. That is the definition of alive that I have assumed we were discussing.

[wigginboy]

Well aren't you a genious. Now that you're done citing scientific s*** about a word that has more than one meaning, understand that there is indeed more than one meaning.

Actually I am a genius, with an IQ of 180. I didnt cite the scientific **** from anywhere, it is what I know from my studies in Biology. I know that even if there are other meanings of the word life, none of them points to the fact that a fly is not living. Now, if you are referring to the meaning of the word life, popularized by religion, that life is eternal, and that we live forever in Jesus Christ, or whatever figurehead a religion endorsing 'eternal life' has, that is fine. However, for this assertion to hold water, the existence of God, Jesus, Allah, or what have you, must be proven first. Since there is no possbile way to actually physically prove the existence of God, this argument is bunk. To assert that animals have no life on the religious basis of eternal life is preposterous as we cannot confirm that we as humans will have eternal life. Please read this page for more insight into the word 'life.' http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/life

edit: luminous, please do not take what I say as an attack. I do not attack people, I present my opinion. I do not shoot down your opinion, but when you claim information to be fact, i must protest as credibility means quite a lot in this day and age, even on the internet.

[wigginboy]

I'm not talking about biologically alive, which seems evident to me. The topic is a question of whether certain things HAVE SOULS. That is the definition of alive that I have assumed we were discussing.

I do not believe that it has ever been proven that the human body carries a 'soul.' Furthermore, I do not think it proper to assert the existence of something that does not exist within the embryo of a human being. No, it cannot feel what is happening to it if is aborted. No, it is not aware of anything, even after birth, but this indicates nothing related to a soul. Even if we do have a soul, why would animals not have a soul? They are alive are they not? They live and breathe and move, and even though you say this is not a condition for having a soul, it seems that to be alive, and with a soul intact, one must be alive in the way a human, a skunk or a geranium are alive.

[luminousnerd]

Actually I am a genius, with an IQ of 180. I didnt cite the scientific **** from anywhere, it is what I know from my studies in Biology.

I never disputed that.

I was wrong to make attack you. I apologize for the miscommunication. However, you are wrong, as I proved in my last post. A fly does not have hope. A fly is not full of energy and spirit. A fly does not have quality of life. A fly is not vivid. A fly is not vibrant. It could be debated that a fly does not have a soul or a spirit.

I am absolutely not referring to any religious definition here. It is a part of the english language, as is proved by my last post, yet again. There are many definitions for the term alive, and it seems everyone here only cares for one of them.

To assert that animals have no life on the religious basis of eternal life is preposterous as we cannot confirm that we as humans will have eternal life.

It is absolutely not preposterous. It is quite a common desire, to state one's opinion. It is not preposterous to state something that cannot be proven.

edit: luminous, please do not take what I say as an attack. I do not attack people, I present my opinion. I do not shoot down your opinion, but when you claim information to be fact, i must protest as credibility means quite a lot in this day and age, even on the internet.

It is an attack, when you say that my beliefs are preposterous, regardless of any apology or dismissals you make after the fact (or before, for that matter).

[luminousnerd]

No, it cannot feel what is happening to it if is aborted.

Funny thing to say after claiming that it is preposterous to state something that can't be proved.

It might be proven that it cannot feel the physical pain, but it is not proven that it does not feel emotional pain.

However, all of this is beside the point. If you have a look at the posts I have made, you will see that I am not actually arguing for or against abortion. I am only arguing that the fly comparison was bogus.

Even if we do have a soul, why would animals not have a soul? They are alive are they not? They live and breathe and move, and even though you say this is not a condition for having a soul, it seems that to be alive, and with a soul intact, one must be alive in the way a human, a skunk or a geranium are alive.

It's beside the point. I wasn't even arguing whether animals do or do not have a soul. But many believe that they do not. Because some believe that they do not, the fly comparison was erroneous. I can't believe how much hostility I am being shown for such a simple comment.

If you must know, I personally believe that flies do not have a soul. I believe that I don't have enough information as far as dogs, cats, and other animals which exhibit a personality.

[wigginboy]

No, it cannot feel what is happening to it if is aborted.

Funny thing to say after claiming that it is preposterous to state something that can't be proved.

It might be proven that it cannot feel the physical pain, but it is not proven that it does not feel emotional pain.

However, all of this is beside the point. If you have a look at the posts I have made, you will see that I am not actually arguing for or against abortion. I am only arguing that the fly comparison was bogus.

Even if we do have a soul, why would animals not have a soul? They are alive are they not? They live and breathe and move, and even though you say this is not a condition for having a soul, it seems that to be alive, and with a soul intact, one must be alive in the way a human, a skunk or a geranium are alive.

It's beside the point. I wasn't even arguing whether animals do or do not have a soul. But many believe that they do not. Because some believe that they do not, the fly comparison was erroneous. I can't believe how much hostility I am being shown for such a simple comment.

If you must know, I personally believe that flies do not have a soul. I believe that I don't have enough information as far as dogs, cats, and other animals which exhibit a personality.

At the time that a developing human child is called an embryo, the development of the brain is rudimentary, only the anterior being developed. As you may know, from high school Biology, the brain, at that stage of development, is not capable of registering anything. Even at later stages of fetal development, the brain is still to small for any actual emotion. The movements that a mother feels during gestation are reflexive. Even after a child is born, the crying they display is not real emotion, it is a signal to the mother that something is up, it needs to be changed, fed, held, etc.

As for your opinion, I respect that you have an opinion, and i respect it's value to you. However, I will argue my side of the point regardless of whether you think it attacks you. This is a message board, and the point of it is for people to thjrow ideas at others, and to learn from them as well. I thank you for the knowledge you have shared here today, it is duly noted. While it may not be part of my core belief system, it has opened my eyes to the perspectives of others.
Thank you, this is the last time I will post in this topic.

[Eaquae Legit]

Ask most any Christian and the consensus is generally that animals are not actually alive.

I think the Christians on this board would like you to stop making them sound like complete retards.

Points to Jebus. If I hadn't already started your church, I would do so now.

There's a lot of amused, sad head-shaking going on over here right now. Geez. Where do you GET this stuff?

Yes, I think it is immoral.

[luminousnerd]

At the time that a developing human child is called an embryo, the development of the brain is rudimentary, only the anterior being developed. As you may know, from high school Biology, the brain, at that stage of development, is not capable of registering anything. Even at later stages of fetal development, the brain is still to small for any actual emotion. The movements that a mother feels during gestation are reflexive. Even after a child is born, the crying they display is not real emotion, it is a signal to the mother that something is up, it needs to be changed, fed, held, etc.

Dude...re-read what I just said. Everyone, not just wigginboy. None of you seem to get it.

I am not actually arguing for or against abortion. I am only arguing that the fly comparison was bogus.

Re-read it again.

I am not actually arguing for or against abortion. I am only arguing that the fly comparison was bogus.

And again.

I am not actually arguing for or against abortion. I am only arguing that the fly comparison was bogus.

Got it yet? No? One more time.

I am not actually arguing for or against abortion. I am only arguing that the fly comparison was bogus.

And for good measure...

I am not actually arguing for or against abortion. I am only arguing that the fly comparison was bogus.

Thank god you're done.

So am I.

[Eaquae Legit]

No, we understand that. We just don't understand why it's "bogus." You still haven't explained that part to anyone's satisfaction.

[anonshadow]

luminousnerd, if nobody but you can understand what you're saying, maybe the problem isn't with us, it's with you.

[fawkes]

What are you talking about? You're completely reversing the situation. eriador is the one who originally singled me out for my beliefs! I never did so! I was only defending against eriador's claims!!! Are you f****** blind?

Then I guess I was wrong when I read this right after eriador's post:

No, that argument is bogus, even though I am open to decent arguments for the cause.

Right there, see it? You're practically calling him out for a showdown! You can't just dismiss someone's argument because you disagree with it. You're the one singling him out for his beliefs!

[Seiryu]

Guess I've been lugging around a non-existent cat for three years. I have proof my cat is alive and I'm a Christian. I put food down for her and it vanishes and she's SOMEHOW growing fatter. Had I not shelled out $120, she might get out and have kittens, therefore REPRODUCING. Also...there is a mighty stink from her litter box. Guess that's all fake.

Wait a minute! I know...we're all in The Matrix and my cat is a product of the program "cat."

At any rate, back to the topic at hand: it really depends on whether or not you believe abortion is moral or not.

[anonshadow]

I don't think it depends on that at all. I know plenty of people who are pro-life, but also pro-stem cell research. A rationale I've heard cited is that the embroyo is not growing, and has no potential for growth--some people have even compared it to a miscarriage, or to organ donors.

[Seiryu]

Oh...in that case, I'm for Stem Cell research.

[LilBee91]

They reported they were able to extract the stem cells without harm to mother or fetus and turn their discovery into several different tissue cell types, including brain, liver and bone.

This is precisely why I think taking stem cells from amniotic fluid is perfectly moral. I'm a little more unsure about stem cells taken from actual embryos. If the embryos they use are going to be discarded anyway, I'm all for it. If those embryos are alive, then at least they'll be dying to help others and not just tossed away.
If something in it's present state can become life, I don't think it should be destroyed. But, I don't think frozen embryos should be done away with lightly--it's like destroying potentially potential life (if that makes sense).

[eriador]

luminous: I'm sorry that we weren't on the same page as to the meaning of "alive". I just think that you should keep in mind that most people use the word in it's biological sense.

I'm not talking about biologically alive, which seems evident to me. The topic is a question of whether certain things HAVE SOULS. That is the definition of alive that I have assumed we were discussing.

However, you have to look at this:

life (līf) pronunciation
n., pl. lives (līvz).

1.
1. The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.
2. The characteristic state or condition of a living organism.
2. Living organisms considered as a group: plant life; marine life.
3. A living being, especially a person: an earthquake that claimed hundreds of lives.
4. The physical, mental, and spiritual experiences that constitute existence: the artistic life of a writer.
5.
1. The interval of time between birth and death: She led a good, long life.
2. The interval of time between one's birth and the present: has had hay fever all his life.
3. A particular segment of one's life: my adolescent life.
4. The period from an occurrence until death: elected for life; paralyzed for life.
5. Slang. A sentence of imprisonment lasting till death.
6. The time for which something exists or functions: the useful life of a car.
7. A spiritual state regarded as a transcending of corporeal death.
8. An account of a person's life; a biography.
9. Human existence, relationships, or activity in general: real life; everyday life.
10.
1. A manner of living: led a hard life.
2. A specific, characteristic manner of existence. Used of inanimate objects: “Great institutions seem to have a life of their own, independent of those who run them” (New Republic).
3. The activities and interests of a particular area or realm: musical life in New York.
11.
1. A source of vitality; an animating force: She's the life of the show.
2. Liveliness or vitality; animation: a face that is full of life.
12.
1. Something that actually exists regarded as a subject for an artist: painted from life.
2. Actual environment or reality; nature.

adj.

1. Of or relating to animate existence; involved in or necessary for living: life processes.
2. Continuing for a lifetime; lifelong: life partner; life imprisonment.
3. Using a living model as a subject for an artist: a life sculpture.

There's everything that I omitted. You said it was because it backed you up that I omitted it. Unfortunately for you, none of them back you up. The closest that one comes is #7: "A spiritual state regarded as a transcending of corporeal death." But it says NOTHING about needing a soul to be alive. So I would submit that you were not using a commonly understood definition of the word "life". Hence, I believe that it was YOUR responsibility, not mine, to make that clear.

------------

Have you ever heard of the principle of universality? It's where you apply the same standards to yourself that you apply to others. It could do you some good.

I've never been closed minded on this board. I challenge you to prove me wrong.

Well, your insistence that the word "life" means something aside from any of the accepted definitions I can find (and as you can see, it's a long list) is somewhat close-minded. And calling people stupid for not agreeing with you.

And I also think that you misinterpreted the principle of universality. I was trying to say that you should apply the same standards to your words that you apply to mine. So when you said:

I find it very closed-minded and borderline stupid of you to make the claim as if it were absolute undisputed fact that everything you say is right.

I was surprised that you could commit such double-think. At the same time that you are acting like "everything you say is right" (for example: "ask any Christian...") you are condemning me for doing the same thing.

I do my best to keep the principle of universality in mind whenever I'm doing just about anything, and I think that we all should.

-------------

EDIT:
@LilBee91 (and everybody else): on your driver's license, do you have the organ donor endorsement? Because if you do, I'd like to set out this idea: you are willing to give up your organs when you no longer have any use for them (i.e. you're dead). I think that harvesting stem cells from embryos is similar, at least in the case of embryos that are the product of fertility treatments and will never be used (as declared by the "parents"). I see no problem in harvesting cells from these embryos that will never use them and using those cells to help others.
If you aren't an organ donor, you should be.
If you don't believe in donating organs for spiritual reasons, that's a different conversation.

[Seiryu]

Life is not solely (no pun intdended) on having a soul. Afterlife, yes. But to say something is not alive because of lack of soul just being lazy with your words.