• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Morality of Stem Cell Research

psychoblast

psychoblast

Bluelighter
Joined
Oct 11, 2000
Messages
3,695
Location
So. Cal.
This sort of skirts the line between politics and philosophy, so I'm posting it here for more philosophical comments.

Though I'm extremely liberal and hate Bush, I was listening to a report on stem cell research and how Bush is holding fast to his ban on it, and I started thinking that I might agree with him.

I mean, basically what this amounts to is cannibalizing human embryos so we can live longer. Isn't that kind of like drinking a baby's blood for immortality? I mean, I'm pro-choice so arguably I should not view an embryo as a baby. Yet the parallel is too obvious to resist.

And don't we get to a slippery slope? If embryonic research yields results, but then it is deemed that we can do more with fetal tissue...then that yields results but then it is deemed that we can do more with infantile tissue...where does it end? It seems to me it will not end, so long as people are so fucking paranoid of illness and death.

HELLO!!! Most of you claim to believe in some paradise of an afterlife!! You should not be running around like chickens with your heads cut off trying to cheat death!! It's the hypocricy of people who claim to believe in an afterlife but then are so desperate to lengthen their lives that really offends me. And I see that desperation as a root cause of the mad dash for new technologies which may eventually destroy us (a threat nicely illustrated in Michael Crichton's Prey, though he ties the threat more to the profit motive of capitalism and the free market than to fear of death).

Anyway, maybe it will take us centuries longer to cure certain diseases if we do not have legal embryonic research, but so what? And so what if it is 10 years of 10,000 years before we get hover cars or 100 channels of cable television in our cel phones? Does anyone really think the key too human happiness is going to be found in a laboratory?

~psychoblast~
 
psychoblast said:

I mean, basically what this amounts to is cannibalizing human embryos so we can live longer. Isn't that kind of like drinking a baby's blood for immortality? I mean, I'm pro-choice so arguably I should not view an embryo as a baby. Yet the parallel is too obvious to resist.
Click to expand...
If that's where you draw the line for the beginning of human life meaning it has the abilities of consciousness, and suffering. Some conservatives view destroying the potential of human life wrong regardless of whether it has those abilities or not.

Well what if we could turn normal cells into stem cells, what if we could then take those stem cells and turn them into embryos. Wouldn't that mean that every cell in our body has the potential for human life? Wouldn't that make the daily wear and tear of the body wrong?
This seems to be the reality of our cells, but we do not understand it enough to work with normal cells yet.

And don't we get to a slippery slope? If embryonic research yields results, but then it is deemed that we can do more with fetal tissue...then that yields results but then it is deemed that we can do more with infantile tissue...where does it end? It seems to me it will not end, so long as people are so fucking paranoid of illness and death.
Click to expand...
If anything we are going to learn how to do more with less, as what I wrote above implies. Infantile tissue is relatively useless as it is similar to ours. If you do however want fetal or infantile tissue then that's fine, it is potentially possible to grow these tissues from stem cells without actually growing a fetus or an infantile.

HELLO!!! Most of you claim to believe in some paradise of an afterlife!! You should not be running around like chickens with your heads cut off trying to cheat death!! It's the hypocricy of people who claim to believe in an afterlife but then are so desperate to lengthen their lives that really offends me. And I see that desperation as a root cause of the mad dash for new technologies which may eventually destroy us (a threat nicely illustrated in Michael Crichton's Prey, though he ties the threat more to the profit motive of capitalism and the free market than to fear of death).
Click to expand...
I see the dash as more of a competition. Pandora's Box has already been opened(if this does lead to our destruction as you believe). If one country bans its use then other countries will still continue and master the new technology. New technologies could potentially unbalance the power of the nations, making it a danger to any countries national security by not continuing research. I'm not saying stem cell research holds the power of great destruction, I'm saying you never know what the research will lead to and you don't fully know the implications of the research until later.

Anyway, maybe it will take us centuries longer to cure certain diseases if we do not have legal embryonic research, but so what? And so what if it is 10 years of 10,000 years before we get hover cars or 100 channels of cable television in our cel phones? Does anyone really think the key too human happiness is going to be found in a laboratory?

~psychoblast~
Click to expand...

It's possible a "key" to happiness will be found in a laboratory. It's possible new levels of enjoyment/happiness are found also. There are so many potentials to explore.
 
i believe in abortion rights and don't see anything wrong with donating the aborted fetus to science. notice i said donate, women getting pregnant so they can sell their aborted fetus (cartman style) would not be good.
furthermore, we shouldn't make policy based purely on the potential of such research.
as far as cheating death and an afterlife...that's like your opinon man...
peace
 
Psycho...

I think there's a significant contradiction here... We shouldn't "cannabalize" embrios... and we shouldn't avoid death.

If someone's got to die, why does it matter who it is?
 
because morality seems to be an important part of human existance.
 
^ ok... so which one is it? Should we allow living beings to die off when assistance is within our reach, or should we protect the life of an embrio...

you've stated that it should matter... but not how or why...

ANSWER THE QUESTION CLAIRE!!!

/hee hee ;)
 
I don't see anything morally wrong with using embryos for research in responsible ways. As I stated above there is nothing special about embryo cells except they are the easiest to turn into stem cells. In a way it is morally wrong to try and halt research that could potentially save millions if not billions of lives.

The thing with this kind of technology is it undermines "morals" that are based on religouos writing. The use and development of this technology puts those religions into questioning and that is seen as morally wrong by those religions also.

Overall though I think it's a good thing people are questioning their morals. Although it might not be a very comforting one for those attached to them.
 
ok... so you're on board with me that morality does not provide an absolute measuring stick for this assessment?
 
This is all a grey area to me. Really hard to say for sure how i feel about it to be honest. But what i do know is that my greatest fear in the world is the slippery slope. And it seems that the slope is getting more slippy at a rapid rate these last 100 years. Getting faster and faster. So, i try to stand in opposition to areas that i see could be a slippery slope, this one being a perfect example. I stand against it. We have prolonged life to an amazing length, how much longer do we all want to live? Personally, i look forward to death, who wants to be 80 yeras old and worthless? Not me.
 
^For me? I would rather just avoid it all and keep it 80 and worthless. I mean, how much longer do you want to live that 75-80 years? Me? Not many, even if i am in good shape.

I already look forward to the afterlife at age 26. Not that i dont enjoy my life, just that i believe that something MUCH greater awaits me, which is: Heaven and all its Glory and people, and most importantly- Father/Son/Holy Spirit = God.
 
^ hehe you tell em.
I don't know how I feel on this either. I would have to agree with psychoblast here. This is an extremely slippery slope. The line keeps getting pushed further and further and there is no telling where it might end up. I think we should just be cautious here.. besides, I bet science will come up with another alternative to using embryos for the stem cells.. they come up with lots of amazing stuff.
 
Perhaps we are already in heaven we just haven't made it a reality yet. Or maybe we are setting up our own destruction. Either way I think we as a society should make sure the technology is in proper hands. Unfortunately this is not realistic in the present state of the world. It's not an unrealistic goal especially considering we can put new technologies to make this goal a reality. Things are going to move forward and change regardless of whether we like it or not that is beyond our control. What is within our control is the path change takes. Ofcourse someone is going to come on here saying that is completely unrealistic and that it would be pointless in even trying(typical response). Well this is the kind of thinking that gives the governent power over the masses. The lack of will to organize and balance out the currently out of balance system. This will happen sooner or later anyway though. The governent will try to push its limits of power, the more they push the more people will be against it, the more unity among the people there will be. Unfortunately we haven't learned how to unite as a preventive measure, as a nation. Petty differences make it difficult to fight for the greater good.
 
Captain:

To answer your question, the extent to which you destroy life to feed your own life has an effect upon your own level of compassion for life in general.

For example, people who eat meat are going to inherently be less compassionate than vegetarians because, despite best efforts, the mere fact that you cause animals to suffer and die makes you less compassionate towards life. It's sort of a "guilt-avoidance" mechanism.

Anyway, while we are all immortal and should not fear death, simultaneously our own lives will be more filled with the blessing of a compassionate spirit if we do not cause others to suffer or hasten them to their death.

In a way, it is like you saying, "If life is just a game, why not cheat?" The point is, because life is just a game THERE IS NO NEED TO CHEAT. And if you don't cheat, you realize that the game is actually MORE ENJOYABLE.

Which sort of brings me back to a solution to Fermi's paradox. As I understand it, the paradox is that if life is a random event, statistically there are enough planets and stars around us that some of them should have life, too. In fact, since we are a relatively old part of the galaxy, there should be intelligent civilizations more advanced than us within range of having communicated with us by now. The fact that we are not beset with alien visitors is thus a dilemma for science.

Except, if the point of life is to evolve through the experience of mortality until we "solve" the riddle by recognizing our own immortality and that it is all a game, and if upon this realization a civilization sort of collectively decides "okay, done...let's see what's next" and suicides... Then you would have a situation where civilizations wind up suiciding (choosing to collectively move on to the next higher plane of existence rather than waste time squabbling over the ability to remain on this present plane as long as possible) around the same time they get the ability to go out and visit us. And, perhaps, Fermi's paradox is really a logical argument in favor of the idea that our own civilization will suicide shortly after enlightenment hits us, which may not be too far off.

Now, this may seem repugnant or scary. But if we really are immortal, it is like we are clutching a diving board afraid to fall because we are not sure the pool beneath us has water in it or, if it does, we are not sure we can swim. But we know we cannot hold on forever, so we try to hold on as long as possible... But other life forms are waiting behind us and will eventually push us off, assuming our own strength does not give out and send us falling due to our own weakness. The diving board is life. When you realize the pool beneath you is filled with water, and that you do know how to swim, then you stop fearfully clutching at the diving board and swinging angrily at the other life forms who are threatening to push you off the end of the board. Instead, you can stand up, smile and go for a running leap, to make the most exciting, acrobatic dive you can muster for the fun of it. Give those other life forms, who are soon going to find themselves clutching that diving board fearfully, something to remember, something to think about.

Well, we are not there yet, so I'm not preaching suicide to everyone. Just a thought that occurred to me because of the thread last week that mentioned Fermi's paradox.

~psychoblast~
 
Re: Re: Morality of Stem Cell Research

yougene said:
I'm saying you never know what the research will lead to and you don't fully know the implications of the research until later.
Click to expand...

Thats how i look at it.....

And the research may not just benefit old people to get older.....It may enable terminally ill children to live to at least see their 20's....It may give people a life to live....

Im all for it
 
People who get organs from organ doners of people who die are also "cannibals" if you want to think that way. Someone is dead, their body can be used for someone who is alive. Why not? Its not like they are killing fetuses FOR stem cell research...
 
I think stem cell research should be absolutely legal, and nothing should be restricted with it. I thas the potential to eliminate many diseases, and cure those that are already terminally ill. Imagine those with liver failure, being able to get a new one, and so on.
 
I think a bigger question should be whether or not we NEED to be extending the life expectancy of humans beyond what it already is. The planet is overpopulated enough as it is, and old people don't do much for society other than sit on prime real estate whilst sucking away Medicare funds and social security. So why make us all live longer? What is the point?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top