Support NeoGAF

[luxsol]

Similarly, I think braindead patients should be disconnected from life support. Yes. I believe a braindead human has lost its essence as a human. Without the sentience given by a brain... it merely becomes an organic machina that has the appearance of a human. I would definetly wish to be declared deceased (and be put to rest) at such a point, even if my body might still live on.

Yeah, it would suck to be brain dead. Though, the point of killing someone who is braindead is because they have no chance of ever being sentient again. What of the zygote? It has that chance.

 

[MIMIC]

Even though I voted for Kerry, I identified with Bush on this particular topic.

But my roommate was telling me about "umbilical chord" stem cell research...which I have no problem with.

 

[cvxfreak]

Stem cell research needs to progress. Tiny cells are NOT human life.

 

[Iceman]

I find it interesting that someone like Zaptruder can so comfortably suggest that he is in such command of his intellect that the statistical error associated with his knowledge of all things allows him to define where life begins.

I think most of us are more comfortable thinking that we have NO IDEA when life begins. That's why some of us believe that we can't afford to make that call.

 

[Zaptruder]

I find it interesting that someone like Zaptruder can so comfortably suggest that he is in such command of his intellect that the statistical error associated with his knowledge of all things allows him to define where life begins.

I think most of us are more comfortable thinking that we have NO IDEA when life begins. That's why some of us believe that we can't afford to make that call.

More comfortable is nice. But is it more right? Statistical error on knowledge is one thing. But it doesn't debunk or provide a solid argument against the idea that sentience can't occur before neural cells. Which I believe is what is important in terms of the life we want to protect.

I don't deny the potential for life that the embroys possess. But I'm saying the potential for research that can definetly help life that we can all agree upon, outweighs the mincing of the words on potentiality of life... or the comfort zone people have in not having to deal with the issue in such a nitty gritty manner. The potential of life for the embryo is there... but in a similar manner, so is the potential for life in semen and ovum.

 

[Dilbert]

I find it interesting that someone like Zaptruder can so comfortably suggest that he is in such command of his intellect that the statistical error associated with his knowledge of all things allows him to define where life begins.

I think most of us are more comfortable thinking that we have NO IDEA when life begins. That's why some of us believe that we can't afford to make that call.

You didn't finish your argument.

"I think most of us are more comfortable thinking that we have NO IDEA when life begins, and THEREFORE..."

What's the punchline? You wouldn't bring up an epistemological argument unless it was headed somewhere.

 

[Raven.]

I don't know. Who Does? As long as no one can prove when life begins, I'll assume it exists.

If the vast majority knew what the basis of biological life truly is... I'm surprised some can even go through a gen-bio class and come out so ignorant... guess faith is more blinding then I thought. It's been so long since it was proven that there is no "mystical/spiritual/vital/gooey life energy", the reactions that take place in biological systems obey all the laws... the basis of biological life is just very complex molecular machinery. Machina... That's what a cell is, and that is what a human is, only consciousness, only the mind entitles the rights of an individual.

It will not develop into anything else, the DNA which guides it is human in every way. Just because it does not resemble a human does not mean that the cells aren't human. Also, it is living.

Does it matter that it's human or not? If it were from another species modified so as to have the brain akin to that of a man, would it not be entitled to the same rights once it'd acquired that brain? Some of those embryos lack vital genes that might very well impede the development of a full brain, is an embryo that will develop into a brain-less or born-dead/non-viable baby worthy of special value in your opinion? Even if it can develop, even if it can construct other components and one day assemble a full human body, does it have such rights? I'll tell you this, the embryo is but a machine, the instructions this machine has in its genetic code will aid it in building a human body provided it has an adequate environment. A hand, a kidney, a liver, are only valued for their ability to sustain the brain, the seat of reason... only its presence or of something akin to it gives it moral value. An instruction to build a brain does not give a machine such value, IMHO, even though if removed or once carrying it out were compromised by the environment such a machine would no longer be viable... even though the mere presence of such an instruction may tempt us to do so, we must not forget that in the end it's but a machine, a complex tool.

PS

Here's my argument for those who oppose e-stem cell research. I've yet to see it brought down...

I have said it before and I'll say it again, millions of embryos are to be destroyed in clinics. 10s of millions if not 100s of millions of embryos are lost each year naturally through attempts at natural reproduction taking place all over the globe(failure to implant, either environmental problems arising and/or presence of genetic defects resulting in spontaneous abortion, sometimes too early to even notice, and the like.). Those who oppose e-stem cell research must, due to need for consistency in their views, see this as wrong and must seek means to stop this.

Sterilizing themselves or remaining in abstinence for the rest of their lives(this is the only option for catholics, whose belief system I've heard opposes sex without probability of reproduction), would be a first step. If they do not do this, there'll be the probability of personally destroying embryos, which goes against their morals.

Given that they don't seem to make much of an issue of this, nor do many seem willing to relinquish their sex lives, their views are thus cast as inconsistent. Internally inconsistent arguments, are illogical, they hold no weight. This is the sad truth that lies behind all those e-stem cell debates. I just hope someone decides to finally show that their emperor really has no clothes.

 

[teh_pwn]

"If the vast majority knew what the basis of biological life truly is... I'm surprised some can even go through a gen-bio class and come out so ignorant... guess faith is more blinding then I thought. It's been so long since it was proven that there is no "mystical/spiritual/vital/gooey life energy", the reactions that take place in biological systems obey all the laws... the basis of biological life is just very complex molecular machinery. Machina... That's what a cell is, and that is what a human is, only consciousness, only the mind entitles the rights of an individual."

Um, what? I'm not overly religious.

It's about when a group of cells can be considered a human being. Some people have made arguements and criteria for which individuals must pass to be considered human. These sorts of people believe as people develop, they earn rights.

I don't believe this. I believe children have less rights not because they're subordinate. But because it helps protect them to become healthy adults. And so I believe this holds true with fetuses, embryos to an extent.

I don't believe that you can use a person as a resource simply because they are underdeveloped and cannot protect themself.


Oh, but continue with your generalizations if it makes you feel better about yourself.

 

[Raven.]

I don't believe that you can use a person as a resource simply because they are underdeveloped and cannot protect themself.


Oh, but continue with your generalizations if it makes you feel better about yourself.

Generalizations? Is it not true that if there's not a suitable environment or if there are defects in the genetic code the machinery might never construct a brain or be non-viable for some other reason? Actually, it is so, there are countless miscarriages anually, besides that is not my main argument, my main argument is quoted at the end. All I've spoken is the truth. This is a machine that if part of the code it uses in its construction is compromised will be unable to build a brain. When it fails to do this it's not considered an individual. It's only after it succeeds(at least constructing some rudimentary neural network) that it attains the status of the individual. Or do you actually beg to differ, do you suggest that a brainless or a non-viable fetus is an individual?

As I've said, you may speak of clinics, but there's ALSO NATURE. There's pretty much no way your getting around that argument. You cannot say it's ok for embryos to be destroyed do to a VOLUNTARY act in a natural manner, but not ok for them to be destroyed in an artifical manner. It's simple you oppose their destruction do to a voluntary act, so you must, if you seek to have any sort of consistent argument, oppose the destruction of embryos in any manner that is do to a voluntary action. Attempts at sexual reproduction entail the destruction of countless embryos anually by natural means...

 

[teh_pwn]

"Generalizations?"

You implied that I was religious, and that was the basis behind my belief about giving life a benefit of a doubt.


"Or do you actually beg to differ, do you suggest that a brainless or a non-viable fetus is an individual? "

I said to an extent. There's a blurry line for when life starts. Someone could argue what you're saying, but how does a fetus with an underdeveloped brain that has no conscience be more of an individual than an embryo? By the same argument, you could ask how a sperm and egg lack individualism over an embyro.


"It's simple you oppose their destruction do to a voluntary act, so you must, if you seek to have any sort of consistent argument, oppose the destruction of embryos in any manner that is do to a voluntary action. Attempts at sexual reproduction entail the destruction of countless embryos anually by natural means..."

Yes, I oppose unnaturally destroying. Just because there's a chance of prebirth death in nature does not warrant researchers to destroy embryos.