View Full Version : Life saving research or Dr. Moreau?
InsaneApache
05-19-2008, 12:53
MPs are voting later on whether to allow scientists to continue to carry out controversial stem cell research using hybrid human-animal embryos.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7407589.stm
The Roman Catholic Church has branded the use of hybrid embryos as "monstrous" and says tinkering with life in this way is immoral.
I say that we take no notice of the religiously inclined types and allow research that could potentially improve, if not cure, life threatening/debilitating diseases.
My father-in-law died last year, nowt remarkable in that, he was after all 79 but it was the manner of his death which was so heart rending. This man was a professor of arts and had the skill to build a full sized aeroplane from scratch which actually flew. He ended up wearing a big nappy, shaking like a jackhammer with Parkinsons and Alzheimer's disease. A sad and undignified end to a remarkable life. Anything that could be found to help others avoid such a fate is to be applauded in my book.
EDIT: At request
HoreTore
05-19-2008, 14:41
I say that we take no notice of the religiously inclined and allow research that could potentially improve, if not cure, life threatening/debilitating diseases.
Seconded.
LittleGrizzly
05-19-2008, 15:36
Scientists have already made a concession by using hybrid animal-human cells instead of only human cells.
Anyone who will be insulted by new methods of saving lives can refuse the treatment for themself, but should not be allowed to refuse the treatment on behalf of others.
Ja'chyra
05-19-2008, 15:44
I can see both sides in this one.
I can appreciate the church not wanting man to play God but on the other hand I don't believe mankind is anything special, and we've been experimenting on animals for years.
My main concern is what happens when we cure everything and everyone lives for 300 years? We can barely manage our resources now if the worlds population doubled we either need to look for new worlds or see civilisation descend into open warfare over space, water and food.
HoreTore
05-19-2008, 15:55
Pay attention to the news, Ja'chyra, Mother Earth is already solving that problem for us...
macsen rufus
05-19-2008, 17:57
Stem cells can be wonderful life-savers, true. But these animal-human embryos are not the only way to create stem cells - there's some reports, I think from a US team, who are creating them from skin cells. To my mind this is a far preferable route to take, not only does it sidestep the ethical questions (which DO have to be answered) but also avoids that "inconsequential" fraction of a percent chance of alien (ie non-human) mDNA unforeseeably doing goodness knows what somewhere along the line.
This whole debate is over-heated, seems like you're either a "baby-killing monster" or a "cure-denying religious fascist". What bugs me most is the hybrid-embryo people speak as though they are the only hope for mankind, which clearly is overstating their case.
Mikeus Caesar
05-19-2008, 18:26
I can see both sides in this one.
I can appreciate the church not wanting man to play God but on the other hand I don't believe mankind is anything special, and we've been experimenting on animals for years.
My main concern is what happens when we cure everything and everyone lives for 300 years? We can barely manage our resources now if the worlds population doubled we either need to look for new worlds or see civilisation descend into open warfare over space, water and food.
As HoreTore said, the Earth is already having such problems, so ultimately this could be super eugenics, the ultimate cleansing and purging of all that is weak in the human race, leaving behind only the strong and genetically advanced.
And when i say strong and genetically advanced, i mean the next few generations who will be born before everything goes down the pan, and will be born with the advantages of such genetic research as mentioned in the OP.
Either that, or we'll suffer horrific nuclear warfare before we even get to that stage and will be put back 10,000 years.
I for one welcome our new uddered over lords.
As HoreTore said, the Earth is already having such problems, so ultimately this could be super eugenics, the ultimate cleansing and purging of all that is weak in the human race, leaving behind only the strong and genetically advanced.
And when i say strong and genetically advanced, i mean the next few generations who will be born before everything goes down the pan, and will be born with the advantages of such genetic research as mentioned in the OP.
Either that, or we'll suffer horrific nuclear warfare before we even get to that stage and will be put back 10,000 years.
And God knows what sort of side effects theses Isengard orcs will be riddled with.
Gaius Scribonius Curio
05-20-2008, 02:13
Congratulations to the British Parliament, for refusing to ban this research. If it has potentially life-saving propeties then it should be allowed to continue.
While I agree on most levels with Christian morality, (and I'm an atheist to put this into some sort of context), the restriction of critical research should not be allowed due to religious beliefs. On a purely secular level, ths research makes sense as it could save many lives. Stopping it due to the "playing God" argument would be preposterous.
Alexander the Pretty Good
05-20-2008, 03:51
I thought scientists had managed to get the good stem cells out of non-embryonic cells, avoiding this whole issue. :inquisitive:
Devastatin Dave
05-20-2008, 04:11
I'm gonna get me a donkey dong!!!:yes:
Anyone who will be insulted by new methods of saving lives can refuse the treatment for themself, but should not be allowed to refuse the treatment on behalf of others.
Agreed.
Papewaio
05-20-2008, 05:26
I'm gonna get me a donkey dong!!!:yes:
Downsizing Dev Dave?
Ironside
05-20-2008, 08:10
I thought scientists had managed to get the good stem cells out of non-embryonic cells, avoiding this whole issue. :inquisitive:
Unless there's been some new research I've missed (I might've done that, not entirely updated on the field), they still aren't as potent as embryoninc ones. They seem to remember their former status too much.
Adrian II
05-20-2008, 08:54
I believe the so-called moral arguments against the research were purely emotional appeals. But they reflect a genuine concern and as such they should be respected, listened to and taken into consideration.
1. The attempt by Edward Leigh, a Conservative Catholic MP, to outlaw all hybrid embryos was based on the line of "In embryos, we do have the genetic make up of a complete human being and we could not and should not be spliced together with the animal kingdom". Well, why not? He did not answer that question. Ex-Labour minister Sir Gerald Kaufman gave the classic slippery slope argument when he said: "How far do you go? Where do you stop? What are the limits and what are the boundaries? If you permit the creation of hybrid embryos now, what will you seek to permit next time, even if you have no idea where it will lead?"
2. The other attempt by David Burrowes, Conservative MP for Enfield Southgate, to throw out "saviour siblings" (babies conceived to provide genetic material for seriously ill relatives) was based on the line that "children should not be bred for the sole reason of providing cells". Much as I sympathise with that view, it would be impossible to impose a ban based on this criterium. Saviour siblings could be prevented only by banning the use of all sibling material from minors in health cures, which would result in a violation of personal freedom, as well as a huge strain on families where one member is dying and another, minor member in possession of life-saving tissue is forbidden to provide same, if only in the shape of a simple swap.
3. The slippery-slope argument is not the fallacy it is made out to be. Politics, much like the judiciary, is often based on precedents. This bill creates a precedent for a way of thinking that, in extremis, could create either Frankensteinian monsters or a genetically engineered 'slave race' bred solely to provide tissue and other material for human benefit. Instead of appealing to emoitons, the opponents should have thought this out and based their argument on clear moral and legal principles. Sadly most of them are religious; unaccustomed to rational argument on certain issues, they revert to the fire and brimstone level.
Still, their lack of credibility does not absolve us from thinking it through.
HoreTore
05-20-2008, 09:16
I don't understand why people object to "saviour siblings".
What do they think? That the parents will throw the baby in the garbage after they've got what they needed? Why on earth wouldn't they love the child as much as any other? People get kids for all kinds of reasons, why is this a bad reason for getting another kid? It's made to treat a relative, ok. But how is that worse than the standard reason of making a baby to ensure that the parents will have someone to take care of them when they get old?
Everyone should really be happy. A baby is born, and a living human doesn't have to die. Win-win.
Adrian II
05-20-2008, 09:23
I don't understand why people object to "saviour siblings".
What do they think? That the parents will throw the baby in the garbage after they've got what they needed? Why on earth wouldn't they love the child as much as any other? People get kids for all kinds of reasons, why is this a bad reason for getting another kid? It's made to treat a relative, ok. But how is that worse than the standard reason of making a baby to ensure that the parents will have someone to take care of them when they get old?
Everyone should really be happy. A baby is born, and a living human doesn't have to die. Win-win.You are right that voluntary pregnancies result from the parents' wishes, which are inherently egoistic. You can't decide to have a child for the child's sake. But apart from that, a ban on saviour siblings would be unthinkable because it would oblige society to legally establish the motives why parents have children. That would be a slippery slope because it inevitably results in all sorts of abuse and injustice. That is why I believe the opponents didn't think this through and merely played to the (religiously orthodox) gallery. They must have known this proposed ban was going nowhere.
I don't understand why people object to "saviour siblings".
It's an emotional argument of course, but every inch of me screams against it. We are not biological robots, what lives must die.
HoreTore
05-20-2008, 10:05
It's an emotional argument of course, but every inch of me screams against it. We are not biological robots, what lives must die.
Care to expand a little? You're against transplants in general, or what?
Care to expand a little? You're against transplants in general, or what?
Nah, I just don't think a human should be created for such a purpose no matter how it's treated, it's a bit silly but I immediatly think of the movie the Island, where people are grown for transplantation purposes, that as a consequence isn't so unthinkable really, some things just shouldn't be.
HoreTore
05-20-2008, 10:16
Nah, I just don't think a human should be created for such a purpose no matter how it's treated, it's a bit silly but I immediatly think of the movie the Island, where people are grown for transplantation purposes, that as a consequence isn't so unthinkable really, some things just shouldn't be.
Well do you think that the parents wouldn't love it as any other child? Is it even possible to go through a pregnancy and all that without wanting the baby just for the baby itself?
I really can't see how it would be possible for a mentally stable human being to give birth and see the newborn just as an organ donor.
Well do you think that the parents wouldn't love it as any other child? Is it even possible to go through a pregnancy and all that without wanting the baby just for the baby itself?
I really can't see how it would be possible for a mentally stable human being to give birth and see the newborn just as an organ donor.
Of course they can, as I said it's not a rational argument, it's the slippery slope that scares me. Some will actually see it like that not everyone is mentally stable. Nothing wrong with how it is right now but so much wrong with what it could become, it just feels unethical to me.
HoreTore
05-20-2008, 10:28
Some will actually see it like that not everyone is mentally stable.
But we can't neuter mentally unstable people, can we? Mentally unstable people do weird stuff for weird reasons, that's a given. But how can we base our laws around a tiny minority of unstable people?
Nothing wrong with how it is right now but so much wrong with what it could become, it just feels unethical to me.
People who would otherwise live are dying, that feels quite wrong to me...
macsen rufus
05-20-2008, 10:37
I don't understand why people object to "saviour siblings".
It doies raise quite a few issues -- presumably any such transplanting, extraction of tissues, whatever will be performed during early childhood, long before said "saviour" is capable of giving any form of informed consent. Bearing in mind we have to consent (at least in the UK) for post-mortem tissue/organ donation, we have to ask where are this child's human rights and freedom of choice?
It's quite likely that all such children would be happy to donate such tissues if gven the choice and sufficient understanding. But they won't be given either. Will they have the right to know that their conception was due to this desire for a "saviour"? If not, why not? What happens to family dynamics when a younger child can taunt the older that "I saved your life"? Do you think this would really be healthy, psychologically or socially, for either of the two children involved? How much guilt-tripping would be involved, how much resentment? Children, especially siblings, can be absolutely horrible to each other, and we all know that parents can put intolerable pressures on their offspring.
It is not simply a medical ethical problem, there is a huge social dimension, too.
You are right, nothing to say against it, but I get visions of kidney-farms and clone factories. Sometimes you just have to take your losses can't beat death anyway, that is just the way of things what lives dies.
^-@Horetore
Adrian II
05-20-2008, 10:46
But we can't neuter mentally unstable people, can we? Mentally unstable people do weird stuff for weird reasons, that's a given. But how can we base our laws around a tiny minority of unstable people?
People who would otherwise live are dying, that feels quite wrong to me...I have the same hesitation as Fragony, but for a somewhat different reason. It is reasonable to expect that the progress of technology will one day enable us to grow in vitro (i.e. parentless) tissues and organisms that display advanced animal or even human characteristics, including for instance brain tissue.
Macsen Rufus and Fragony are also right to point out that we can't assume that all parents will naturally feel unconditional love for a child. That just isn't true. Sadly parents have been known to kill, sexually abuse, torture and sell their own children.
Once again, I would say that the opponents of stem cell research haven't thought through the ethics of this whole development, but that doesn't absolve us from the duty to do so. And it doesn't justify our discarding them as religious zealots and nutcases. Let's be fair to them; experience tells us that all advanced technology can and will be abused.
HoreTore
05-20-2008, 10:49
It doies raise quite a few issues -- presumably any such transplanting, extraction of tissues, whatever will be performed during early childhood, long before said "saviour" is capable of giving any form of informed consent. Bearing in mind we have to consent (at least in the UK) for post-mortem tissue/organ donation, we have to ask where are this child's human rights and freedom of choice?
It's quite likely that all such children would be happy to donate such tissues if gven the choice and sufficient understanding. But they won't be given either. Will they have the right to know that their conception was due to this desire for a "saviour"? If not, why not? What happens to family dynamics when a younger child can taunt the older that "I saved your life"? Do you think this would really be healthy, psychologically or socially, for either of the two children involved? How much guilt-tripping would be involved, how much resentment? Children, especially siblings, can be absolutely horrible to each other, and we all know that parents can put intolerable pressures on their offspring.
It is not simply a medical ethical problem, there is a huge social dimension, too.
Nope, not really. Unless, of course, you want to restrict small kids from donating at all. As it is today, their legal guardians make the decision for them(as they do on every other issue in the child's life) when they're not old enough to make it themselves. The same would be the case with a "saviour sibling".
As for the "guilt tripping", I doubt it would be any different from normal transplants.
Once again, I would say that the opponents of stem cell research haven't thought through the ethics of this whole development, but that doesn't absolve us from the duty to do so.
This sums it up perfectly. We must determine the ethical framework in which we can work but don't axe the technoligy itselve for the wrong reasons. There are many slippery slopes here and we better realise that.
CountArach
05-20-2008, 11:05
The Catholic Church opposes this social issue, so I am in complete support.
I believe the so-called moral arguments against the research were purely emotional appeals. But they reflect a genuine concern and as such they should be respected, listened to and taken into consideration.
In the case of hybrid embryos, the only ones suffering are those who oppose it. There are no rational arguments against it.
You are right, nothing to say against it, but I get visions of kidney-farms and clone factories.
That's what stem cell research is for; not needing a donor for transplantation.
That's what stem cell research is for; not needing a donor for transplantation.
I know, but at some point someone will want to cure someones brain, obesitas perhaps, maybe ADHD, should be perfectly possible. Now should we grow a brain. Would be perfect for military applications as well, the perfect artificial intelligence, or is it. We need to know how far we can go with this.
HoreTore
05-20-2008, 11:38
I know, but at some point someone will want to cure someones brain, obesitas perhaps, maybe ADHD, should be perfectly possible. Now should we grow a brain. Would be perfect for military applications as well, the perfect artificial intelligence, or is it. We need to know how far we can go with this.
Well, since we don't really know yet what makes a brain tick, that's pretty far into the future...
Well, since we don't really know yet what makes a brain tick, that's pretty far into the future...
Future has a habit of comming, doesn't hurt to think about it now.
LittleGrizzly
05-20-2008, 12:11
The main argument against is something along the lines of playing god, i think if you want to go deeply into it then almost any medication or surgery could be seen as playing god, god has designed my body as it is who am i to take a paracetamol and try to stop a headache, the headache is the natural reaction to today or the last few days, aren't i just playing god by changing this ?
obviously that paracetamol example is a bit weak but when you get to things like heart transplants the example holds quite strongly.
So another worry is the slippery slope, my worry is not that we'll take medical research to far, but that stopping this research could be a first step and before we know it any medical research is playing god, then how long would it be before we start rolling back the past few hundred years of medical research...
I am not convinced by the "slippery slope" argument being raised; it seems to me that for many of the undesirable developments to take place, e.g. "the Island" style raising of human beings purely to harvest their organs, there would need to be a major rolling back of the human rights legislation. Surely this would the issue to fight tooth and nail over, not seek an outright blind ban on the technology itself?
As for parents potentially abusing/neglecting saviour siblings, there are plenty of parents who abuse their children anyway; why would the chance of this happening increase for a saviour sibling?
LittleGrizzly
05-20-2008, 12:28
As for parents potentially abusing/neglecting saviour siblings, there are plenty of parents who abuse their children anyway; why would the chance of this happening increase for a saviour sibling?
I would think if anything the parents who go through the time, effort and money to create a saviour sibling would probably be very commited loving parents.
Rhyfelwyr
05-20-2008, 14:33
I do not like the idea of hybrid embryos one bit, that is a path that it is best we do not go down...
Although the idea of saviour siblings has issues, I think that any regulations against it would be impossible to enforce. Obviosly it is disturbing that parents would have a child to save another, but then if they were going to have another child anyway, there's not reason why it should not help the other to survive. I think it is safe to presume it would not object.
Devastatin Dave
05-20-2008, 15:20
Downsizing Dev Dave?
Thanks for the compliment, but I look like I've been crossbread with a nat.:laugh4:
Ironside
05-20-2008, 15:56
Future has a habit of comming, doesn't hurt to think about it now.
Well, either you ban all research on the grounds that it might develop into something dangerous in the future, or you take the stance when the ethical arguments actually are relevant.
Future ethical arguments are quite fun but very mind boggling though. :dizzy2:
For example, think of the funniest hobby you have and then imagine that I show up and tell you that I inplanted the joy you'll get out of this hobby before you were even born. Was I unethical? Was I cruel? Does the joy you experience change?
Does any of these questions change if your parents did it before you were born?
Does it change if you did yourself?
Or to make it more general, is it unethical and/or cruel to make a person happier against their will, even before they had a will to begin with?
I sincerly doubt you can give a good general answer on these questions and this one is still relativly easy.
I know, but at some point someone will want to cure someones brain, obesitas perhaps, maybe ADHD, should be perfectly possible. Now should we grow a brain. Would be perfect for military applications as well, the perfect artificial intelligence, or is it. We need to know how far we can go with this.
That's an interesting idea, and I do not think that is ever going to happen under approval. Maybe one could just grow that one part of the brain that one needs in particular such that no consciousness occurs.
I am not convinced by the "slippery slope" argument being raised; it seems to me that for many of the undesirable developments to take place, e.g. "the Island" style raising of human beings purely to harvest their organs, there would need to be a major rolling back of the human rights legislation.
Indeed.
There is absolutely no justification for murdering life in order to try to save other life in the manner that is being described in this thread.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-20-2008, 20:42
As I recall someone hit on the hybrid idea in oder to sidestep the ethical issues of fertalising human eggs just to harvest stem cells. I assume the ultimate goal is to inject your own DNA into a hybrid and use that to grow your own stem cells.
Seems just a little bit dodgy that, probably ok, but hands up who want to risk growing udders?
On the other hand there's that cartoon regarding Jenna's Smallpox vaccine.
If we can create stem cells from skin cells though, why is this even being debated?
atheotes
05-20-2008, 20:51
As for parents potentially abusing/neglecting saviour siblings, there are plenty of parents who abuse their children anyway; why would the chance of this happening increase for a saviour sibling?
I would think if anything the parents who go through the time, effort and money to create a saviour sibling would probably be very commited loving parents.
:yes: i think so too... Anyways dont see how you can prevent "saviour siblings" and have no problem with it...
There is absolutely no justification for murdering life in order to try to save other life in the manner that is being described in this thread.
murder? :inquisitive:
Papewaio
05-20-2008, 23:55
Well, since we don't really know yet what makes a brain tick, that's pretty far into the future...
Maybe, maybe not... not sure if this is fake like the dog brain playing quake but:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/11/02/brain.dish/
To say the "soul" of a few hundred cells that live inside a petri dish in a laboratory is more important then a organ that could save the life of a full grown human being is just ridiculous.
Stem cell research should be funded and developed without the nonsense of the religious trying to impede medical research. If you dont like it, dont get the benefits of it. Simple as that.
Ironside
05-21-2008, 09:48
If we can create stem cells from skin cells though, why is this even being debated?
Points to post 14.
There's stem cells that you can do a lot of things with and there's stem cells that you can do everything with. AFAIK human skin cells gone stem cells can only do the first.
InsaneApache
05-21-2008, 10:10
My understanding is that adult stem cells are capable of doing certain tasks, they cannot replicate what embryonic stem cells can achieve. In turn the hybrid stem cells have other properties valuble to medical research.
Put together, all three contribute diverse strands of understanding for the geneticists.
Gaius Scribonius Curio
05-22-2008, 02:14
If there was no medical value in these experiments, then I don't think those in charge of the research would bother with them. It follows then that there is a chance that an important medical breakthrough could be acheived through this research. I'm aware that (especially since I have no background in medicine or even biology) I could be overstating its importance here, but this research could potentially save or improve hundreds or even thousands of lives. Then again it may not, but the potential alone should make it permissible.
I'm sorry Navaros, but while I agree whole-heartedly with the sentiment that murder is a horrific crime, a few hundred cells are not aware of their existence, ergo it is not a life that can be destroyed.
There is an argument that uses similar logic to mine above that says that if this embryo has the potential to have a full and wholesome life then it should be allowed to do so. To this there is no easy answer, but the embryos used have been created for this purpose, and I stand by my prior assertion that an embryo is not aware, thus is not alive in this sense, and cannot know that this oppurtunity has been taken from it.
As with everything however, moderate and rational thought must be applied to the subject. I think everyone would object if a facility similar to 'The Island' which Fragony describes was formed. However its operation would be justified using similar reasoning to this. The key thing to remember is that while the end justifies the means thus far, caution must still be exercised before we proceed too far down this road.
I understand that there is some contraversy in this post and wish to apologise for any offence that may have been inadvertently caused and welcome any refutation from anyone who has an opinion on the subject.
Adrian II
05-22-2008, 02:55
I understand that there is some contraversy in this post and wish to apologise for any offence that may have been inadvertently caused and welcome any refutation from anyone who has an opinion on the subject.God I love this forum, and this sort of paragraph is the reason why. Polite, modest, sensible, and such a far, far cry from all teh Usenet suckzors and their useless one-liner exchanges.
Sorry Gaius Scribonius, just had to say it. Compliments. :bow:
Gaius Scribonius Curio
05-22-2008, 03:00
Thank you for the compliment :bow:
Its just that when I care about something I tend to write in an essay/polite format anyway and it just sort of follows on...
...plus I'm a genuinely fearful person.
Adrian II
05-22-2008, 11:54
...plus I'm a genuinely fearful person.Piffle, old fruit.
In recognition of one's intellectual nobility, my footman will be delivering a fat goose and a crate of the finest French wine at your doorstep every year before Christmas.
https://img167.imageshack.us/img167/8859/toffgifxi0.gif (https://imageshack.us)
As with everything however, moderate and rational thought must be applied to the subject. I think everyone would object if a facility similar to 'The Island' which Fragony describes was formed. However its operation would be justified using similar reasoning to this. The key thing to remember is that while the end justifies the means thus far, caution must still be exercised before we proceed too far down this road.
Indeed, but as I said, the ethical issue here would be the "harvesting" of organs from a person against their will, not the fact that the person was created using this technology. The "slippery slope" we must guard against is any rolling back of the human rights legislation which would make this possible, not the advance of the technology itself.
Myrddraal
05-22-2008, 17:46
So another worry is the slippery slope, my worry is not that we'll take medical research to far, but that stopping this research could be a first step and before we know it any medical research is playing god, then how long would it be before we start rolling back the past few hundred years of medical research...
Stem cell research should be funded and developed without the nonsense of the religious trying to impede medical research.
The religiously inclined have been much maligned in this thread; acused of being against medical progress in general. From the article in the original post (which I'm sure you've all read :wink:)
Catholic bishops in Britain and the Irish Republic have given £25,000 to scientists using adult stem cells, which is less controversial than using immature ones.
PS, using animal hybrids isn't a concession by "the scientists" for "the religiously inclined". There aren't enough human egg donors for extensive research. Injecting human dna into animal eggs is easier.
LittleGrizzly
05-23-2008, 02:13
Catholic bishops in Britain and the Irish Republic have given £25,000 to scientists using adult stem cells, which is less controversial than using immature ones.
Christians are usually charitable but im seeing a little bit of an alterior motive here...
Gaius Scribonius Curio
05-23-2008, 02:50
Piffle, old fruit.
In recognition of one's intellectual nobility, my footman will be delivering a fat goose and a crate of the finest French wine at your doorstep every year before Christmas.
https://img167.imageshack.us/img167/8859/toffgifxi0.gif (https://imageshack.us)
I'll hold you to that, good sir! No again, thank you for your good opinion. :bow:
Indeed, but as I said, the ethical issue here would be the "harvesting" of organs from a person against their will, not the fact that the person was created using this technology. The "slippery slope" we must guard against is any rolling back of the human rights legislation which would make this possible, not the advance of the technology itself.
Now I just spent a long time typing out a reply to this... and my laptop died so I lost it, this is a second (and not as good) attempt.
The harvesting of organs from a person against their will is, in any society unconsciencable, however if the society in question is democratic in nature, public opinion would obviously negate even the remotest possibility of such an act occuring,in this present climate. The above point is a good one, and more importantly one that I had quite honestly forgotten (my mind was on a now finished mafia game, Trapped in Taormina if your interested in reading about my tragic death, after leading the town to an abject defeat).
I magine if you will a situation where a global pandemic is in full spate, the best method of survival is to examine invasively, or to even harvest organs. Human nature is to want to survive. Of course not many people would be willing to volunteer for this. However there is now a growing number of people who were 'created' rather than 'born'. This is a reason that some, and I'd like to point out that I would not be one of them, may use to say that these people are inferior and can be exploited, and of course an "The Island" situation could arise. I take it that this is your argument.
Now the 21st century is one that many people have predicted will be beset by disasters, and to some extent already has been. I won't go into particular possibilities, as they would all be off-topic, but suffice for it to say that if there was a global-scale disaster, every aspect of society would be affected. It remains to be seen whether communities would even survive as entities. I am aware that the scenario above is based on a very specific series of events occuring, and, even then, that I've taken liberties in explaining my case, however it does remain a possibility a thus can be considered.
As you may have now ascertained from this post I am a vacillator, or procrastrinator if you prefer that word. In other words I'm confusing and boring, in that I take a middle road, and (almost) never commit fully to a cause.
In this case, while I'm for the research in principle, if there was a situation in the future, where the current human rights laws were repealed or changed, I'd be against it. To all those cynics out there, I'm aware that it would be way to late, but it would be a matter of principle.
And while I don't think that you were reprimanding me Myrdraal, I'd like to point out that I never said that religion was against the advance of medicine, merely that I disagreed over the 'life' of a embryo (ie: is it truly alive). I know it's off-topic and so won't go any further into the issue in this thread.
Thanks to all those who take the time to read my ramblings and feel free to disagree.
Samurai Waki
05-23-2008, 10:33
From my understanding, wouldn't it be a fair bit easier genetically altering pig DNA to accept human organs, rather than growing "harvest" humans? then you'd avoid the massive ethical dilemma that would arise, and pigs procreate faster and in greater numbers than humans do anyways.
I magine if you will a situation where a global pandemic is in full spate, the best method of survival is to examine invasively, or to even harvest organs. Human nature is to want to survive. Of course not many people would be willing to volunteer for this. However there is now a growing number of people who were 'created' rather than 'born'. This is a reason that some, and I'd like to point out that I would not be one of them, may use to say that these people are inferior and can be exploited, and of course an "The Island" situation could arise. I take it that this is your argument.
Now the 21st century is one that many people have predicted will be beset by disasters, and to some extent already has been. I won't go into particular possibilities, as they would all be off-topic, but suffice for it to say that if there was a global-scale disaster, every aspect of society would be affected. It remains to be seen whether communities would even survive as entities. I am aware that the scenario above is based on a very specific series of events occuring, and, even then, that I've taken liberties in explaining my case, however it does remain a possibility a thus can be considered.
Indeed, if such a global catastrophe and breakdown of society were to occur, it seems likely to me that this technology could and would be abused. However, in such a situation surely the most appalling crimes against humanity would be taking place on a large scale anyway; how would this particular one be any worse than all the others which would be taking place with or without this technology? (Murder, rape, torture, slavery etc)
My point is not about what might happen in some future catastrophe; in such an event any safeguards we might make now are likely to go out the window anyway. My issue is with the "slippery slope" argument which states that permitting technolgy such as saviour siblings and hybrid embryo research would create a precedent which would make it easier to bring about a situation in which one could "grow" a person specificallly in order to kill them and use their organs (if the technology to do this became possible, which of course at the moment it isn't).
My argument is simply that this is not the case, because at present such an abuse of the technology is already effectively forbidden by the existing human rights legislation, which the currently proposed technologies do nothing to undermine. One could theoretically raise a person with the correct genome, meaning you could then I suppose ask them nicely to give you a kidney. However you still would not be able to take it by force. The second point is the thing which would be immoral, taking by force, not the technology to raise the person in the first place.
In this case, while I'm for the research in principle, if there was a situation in the future, where the current human rights laws were repealed or changed, I'd be against it. To all those cynics out there, I'm aware that it would be way to late, but it would be a matter of principle.
Certainly we should oppose such a change. But the thing we should oppose is the removal of the human rights barriers, not the technology itself.
Any technology can be abused. It is all too easy to turn a car from a means of transportation into a deadly weapon, for example. Do we ban cars? No, but we make it a crime to use one as a weapon. The thing we must guard against is the mentality which would seek to permit such abuses, and that mentality is just as dangerous without this technology as with it. Prohibiting research is not the answer, prohibiting human rights abuses (high tech or low tech) is.
Incidentally, sorry if this post seems overly confrontational, that was not my intention. I realise that you are not advocating banning the research and in fact I suspect we are largely in agreement, I am simply trying to clarify my earlier points a little.
Incongruous
05-23-2008, 13:38
The Catholic Church opposes this social issue, so I am in complete support.
What the hell?
Are you taking the piss?
Every priest I have ever had has been against killing or harming others, you against that idea too?
What a rather low and pathetic thing to write.
You're shutting yourself off from a meaningful discussion on pre-concieved and irrational beliefs.
Hmm... Have you been to the Bible Belt recently?
Another moral dillemma, should CA wash his mouth if that means he has to pick up the soap?
LittleGrizzly
05-23-2008, 14:08
I think the important words in CA's post was social issue, murder probably not coming under the definition of a social issue...
CountArach
05-23-2008, 14:36
What the hell?
Are you taking the piss?
Every priest I have ever had has been against killing or harming others, you against that idea too?
What a rather low and pathetic thing to write.
You're shutting yourself off from a meaningful discussion on pre-concieved and irrational beliefs.
Hmm... Have you been to the Bible Belt recently?
I was absolutely taking the piss, though as LittleGrizzly said murder really doesn't come under that, except in the case of capital punishment, where I support the Catholic Church's view (That is about the only time I honestly agree with them though). Also, many priests support killing Muslims, and I still regard that as murder.
As for being in the Bible Belt, I live in the Bible Belt of Sydney, so yes I have been there...
Incongruous
05-24-2008, 00:01
Note the harming others part.
You can expand that to alot of social issues.
I would just like to know, why you hold the Roman Catholic Church in such disregard, I know its OT, but as a member of the Church I am interested.
I have been to many, many churches and have never heard a priest call for the spilling of Muslim blood. Where did you hear such things? I would have expected such anti-christian men to have been removed from their positions. Since the Catholic Church in no way condones such actions.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.