Embryonic Stem-Cell Research

[apothanein kerdos]

The problem with this analogy is that embryos don't feel pain nor are they self-aware in the least.

So?

Embryos are human but it is dishonest to equate them with children. Children are self-aware and have feelings and desires. Embryos have none of those things.

So? Some children don't. Some are vegetables. Can I kill them for research too?

[Tubal-Cain]

The problem with this analogy is that embryos don't feel pain nor are they self-aware in the least.

So?

Embryos are human but it is dishonest to equate them with children. Children are self-aware and have feelings and desires. Embryos have none of those things.

So?

So I contend that in order for a being (human or otherwise) to be deserving of moral consideration it needs to be (a) self-aware and (b) have desires, i.e., it can have a mental attitude to make or keep a proposition true (e.g., a desire to not be in pain). This explains why humans and many ("higher") animals are deserving of moral consideration but why plants and many ("lower") animals are not. In line with this it also means a human life (e.g., an embryo) does not deserve moral consideration when it has neither self-awareness or desires.

When do you think an entity (human or otherwise) deserves moral consideration?

[apothanein kerdos]

The problem with this analogy is that embryos don't feel pain nor are they self-aware in the least.

So?

Embryos are human but it is dishonest to equate them with children. Children are self-aware and have feelings and desires. Embryos have none of those things.

So?

So I contend that in order for a being (human or otherwise) to be deserving of moral consideration it needs to be (a) self-aware and (b) have desires, i.e., it can have a mental attitude to make or keep a proposition true (e.g., a desire to not be in pain). This explains why humans and many ("higher") animals are deserving of moral consideration but why plants and many ("lower") animals are not. In line with this it also means a human life (e.g., an embryo) does not deserve moral consideration when it has neither self-awareness or desires.

When do you think an entity (human or otherwise) deserves moral consideration?

Ah, so humans that are vegetables or suffer from mental deficiencies aren't worthy of being considered for moral considerations. I believe the Nazis used a similar argument prior to 1939.

A human deserves moral consideration at the point it has the ability to be a human. Thus, when an egg and sperm are fertilized. Man is in the image of God, thus cannot be set on the same moral plain as animals.

[Giaour]

The problem with this analogy is that embryos don't feel pain nor are they self-aware in the least.

So?

Embryos are human but it is dishonest to equate them with children. Children are self-aware and have feelings and desires. Embryos have none of those things.

So?

So I contend that in order for a being (human or otherwise) to be deserving of moral consideration it needs to be (a) self-aware and (b) have desires, i.e., it can have a mental attitude to make or keep a proposition true (e.g., a desire to not be in pain). This explains why humans and many ("higher") animals are deserving of moral consideration but why plants and many ("lower") animals are not. In line with this it also means a human life (e.g., an embryo) does not deserve moral consideration when it has neither self-awareness or desires.

When do you think an entity (human or otherwise) deserves moral consideration?

What is the cut off date?

Is it still undeserving of moral consideration at 9 months if it is still in the womb?

What about 5 months?

[Tubal-Cain]

Ah, so humans that are vegetables or suffer from mental deficiencies aren't worthy of being considered for moral considerations.

Mental deficiencies rarely, if ever, take away desires. If one were in such a vegetablized state where they were without desires then, yes, by themselves they would no longer be worthy of moral consideration. However, the desires of others (e.g., loved ones or friends) would still factor into moral questions.

A human deserves moral consideration at the point it has the ability to be a human. Thus, when an egg and sperm are fertilized. Man is in the image of God, thus cannot be set on the same moral plain as animals.

I'm not placing man and animal on identical moral planes, but both deserve moral consideration. Unless you believe animals can be abused indiscriminately your moral theory needs to be able to account for both human rights and animal rights.

[apothanein kerdos]

Mental deficiencies rarely, if ever, take away desires. If one were in such a vegetablized state where they were without desires then, yes, by themselves they would no longer be worthy of moral consideration. However, the desires of others (e.g., loved ones or friends) would still factor into moral questions.

Study up on mental deficiencies then...it happens more than we'd like to admit. You're essentially saying that, so long as the relatives don't care, the state can kill such people and put them them to good scientific use.

How is this not akin to Nazi doctrine?

I'm not placing man and animal on identical moral planes, but both deserve moral consideration. Unless you believe animals can be abused indiscriminately your moral theory needs to be able to account for both human rights and animal rights.

I do support certain animal rights because they are creatures of God. However, man is in God's image...thus, even if a vegetable he is worthy of life. Even if an embryo, he is worthy of life and should not be used for other purposes.

[Tubal-Cain]

What is the cut off date?

That is a question for scientists to answer: when does a fetus gain desires?

Is it still undeserving of moral consideration at 9 months if it is still in the womb?

I'm sure the brain and central nervous system are developed before birth.

What about 5 months?

I've heard numbers around 20-25 weeks so that is probably in the ball park.

[RustyAngeL]

By the way, there are more than 70 illnesses/diseases which are currently being treated by stem-cells harvested from non-embryonic sources. There is ZERO need for embryonic stem cells. We need to focus our attention on funding research to develop other ways (such as through umbilical chords, bone marrow and adult stem cells) so that we can improve life without having to destroy life in the process.

There is no proof that stem cell can cure anything.

[Tubal-Cain]

Study up on mental deficiencies then...it happens more than we'd like to admit.

I'm no expert on mental illness. Perhaps you'd like to provide a specific example and/or statistics on how often the disease occurs.

You're essentially saying that, so long as the relatives don't care, the state can kill such people and put them them to good scientific use.

The state would have no such right unless we the people gave them such a right. Essentially, I'm saying that people without desires could be taken off life support without government interference as long as their family assents to the decision (or the person's will says what to do).

I do support certain animal rights because they are creatures of God. However, man is in God's image...thus, even if a vegetable he is worthy of life. Even if an embryo, he is worthy of life and should not be used for other purposes.

Plants are creatures of God too. Do you support rights for them?

[apothanein kerdos]

I'm no expert on mental illness. Perhaps you'd like to provide a specific example and/or statistics on how often the disease occurs.

Why should it matter how often it occurs? The fact is, it does occur. I dealt with students that were essentially warm bodies in a wheelchair. They had to be fed, have their diapers changed, etc. If they fell out of the wheelchair, they would never show any signs of pain. Likewise, they never showed emotion.

You're saying they aren't human or worthy of life? Again, how does this make you any better than a Nazi?

Plants are creatures of God too. Do you support rights for them?

That's a pathetic argument. Of course we can use plants - we can use any animals for our purposes so long as it is not abusive. This is why I'm against cruelty to animals, but also against excessive pollution.

Nice try at constructing it within a straw-man though.