Embryo Research

[Griffin NoName]

We are building up to a Commons debate on the Embryo Bill. It hasn't even begun and it's already a news item.

Someone was saying the stuff about "tampering" with human life.

Can someone tell me exactly what is so different  about "prolonging" human life by giving medical aid when someone would otherwise have died. Isn't that tampering? 

I probably need a "not meant to offend" icon here.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

The US already lost that debate, back when W short-changed us ALL and killed stem cell research.

Most of the really good brain-trust left for Other Parts of the world.

I'm with you-- an embryo or stem cell is no more human than a transplanted kidney is.

*sigh*

[Darlica]

I think this is very interesting.
I also think that in this question is firmly linked to the question about the rights to legal abortions.

My opinion is that humanity has too much to gain from stem cell research to refrain from it, however good ethical guidelines are desperately needed.
The scientific and political world together has to define when a embryo becomes a human life once and for all.

I think stem cell research, would be an excellent use for unwanted sperm and eggs that was meant for In Vitro Fertilisation but are now closing in on their expiring date, given that the donors have signed a release form of cause.

   

[Griffin NoName]

Yes it is linked to abortion debates of course. (It's also linked to voluntary euthanasia.)

But it's this specific "tampering" arguement that interests me.

It all just seems logically inconsistent.

If my body had been left to nature to take it's course untampered I'd be dead. Thirty years ago. Hence, I say, I am only here because my life was tampered with. I can't see that there's anything to discuss.

Except issues around what to do when we create monsters that devour us etc. But that's merely about controls. Not easy, but a different issue.

[Griffin NoName]

My opinion is that humanity has too much to gain from stem cell research to refrain from it, however good ethical guidelines are desperately needed.
The scientific and political world together has to define when a embryo becomes a human life once and for all.

Not what the Commons is debating, as I understand it. "Right to Life" etc is a different debate.

Ethics yes, but ethics of science.  In fact, my arguement holds in any case. A young baby cannot survive unaided. Therefore taking care of such a young baby is tampering.

[Griffin NoName]

This debate was supposed to be about tampering with human life.

The issue of tampering has nothing to do with quality, quantity, pro-life, or anything else.

I see tampering as a straight-forward "do we allow any alteration of what might otherwise be construed a totally natural process"?

I wanted to pare it down to it's simplest, and I wanted to debate that.

I am not averse to the other types of discussion but I wanted to focus on the absolutely fundamental principle at the root of the upcoming Commons debate, not preceding debates.

I am inclined to split this topic. Would anyone object?

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

Oops. Sorry. Go for it, if you want to split it.



To the proper topic. Pretty straight forward, I think.

Medicine in general is tampering with natural processes. Vaccines especially, since they prevent millions of deaths that would other wise occur.

Most people would agree that medicine is good, since is prevents death and/or pain.

Use of embryos (non-human-person life) in medicine is tampering, preventing death or crippling illnesses.

Therefore, using embryos should be ok.

Yes, I know, the wording and format is off. But I think it still stands.

[Griffin NoName]

I've split it.... whch leaves me triple posting above here



Given what you say in your last post here Scribble, can one conclude that those who are fussing about "tampering" are being less than honest about what they are actually arguing about?

Why is tampering to extend life per se good? 

No one is suggesting embryo research is about ending life, or preventing natural life developing. 


Is this a hidden agenda to re-discuss issues that have already been agreed by Parliament?

No wonder progress is always so slow. <sigh>

[Darlica]

This debate was supposed to be about tampering with human life.

The issue of tampering has nothing to do with quality, quantity, pro-life, or anything else.

I see tampering as a straight-forward "do we allow any alteration of what might otherwise be construed a totally natural process"?

I wanted to pare it down to it's simplest, and I wanted to debate that.

I am not averse to the other types of discussion but I wanted to focus on the absolutely fundamental principle at the root of the upcoming Commons debate, not preceding debates.

I am inclined to split this topic. Would anyone object?

I'm very sorry if I lead the the discussion of topic.
If you want to split it do so, or we just continue with your intended topic here. I can always start a different thread about Stem cell research or the right to legal abortions at a later date, I probably will since those topics are close to my heart.
Sorry again.

Of cause we should be tampering with human life, that is what medicine are all about!
Would those advocating a ban on stem cell research like to be with out Penicillin, blood transfusions, or transplantations? I guess some would but IMHO they should go and live with the Amish.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

Given what you say in your last post here Scribble, can one conclude that those who are fussing about "tampering" are being less than honest about what they are actually arguing about?

Why is tampering to extend life per se good? 

No one is suggesting embryo research is about ending life, or preventing natural life developing. 


Is this a hidden agenda to re-discuss issues that have already been agreed by Parliament?

Oh, I'd definitely say they're being less than honest.
This is really a modified abortion debate, if you ask me. Different view on the same old damn thing. And goodness knows the religious ones re itching to re-debate that. They don't like it when their Jesus looses. (I say "their Jesus" because I'm pretty sure they don't worship the sensible one Chatty does).

I'd say that extending life is good. Longer lived nations have fewer children, over all, since there's less pressure to make sure the genes go on. Your children are more likely to survive, so you don't >need< to have eighty bajillion of them. Two or three will do. And one of those kids probably won't bother to have children.

If you use an embryo, you end its potential to be another person. Functionally ending its life as more than a liver or whatever.

[Griffin NoName]

And goodness knows the religious ones re itching to re-debate that.

The Commons procedures are on top of that. The big three religios get to make their points before final reading. To no effect is expected. Like they get a built in "sounding off" slot. Tedious but like keeping kids happy. LOL. Then the bill proceeds to final reading.

If you use an embryo, you end its potential to be another person. Functionally ending its life as more than a liver or whatever.

Agreed. But the embryos to be played with wouldn't have the ability to grow into life even if no one played with them - as I understand it. And if I understand it wrongly then I can't see any objection to an ethical rule that they mustn't.

Time to reassess, when and if they would be viable.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

And goodness knows the religious ones re itching to re-debate that.

The Commons procedures are on top of that. The big three religios get to make their points before final reading. To no effect is expected. Like they get a built in "sounding off" slot. Tedious but like keeping kids happy. LOL. Then the bill proceeds to final reading.

Mmm, if one we had that.
I doubt that that takes care of all of it. Religious nuts of varying statuses can push the topic. And talk about their views to the paper.

But the embryos to be played with wouldn't have the ability to grow into life even if no one played with them - as I understand it.

Could you explain that, please?

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

If you use an embryo, you end its potential to be another person. Functionally ending its life as more than a liver or whatever.

This is always the conundrum.  But, by the same token, every time a woman has "a visit from aunt flo" or a man has a wet dream, potential human lives/persons are eliminated.

Where to draw the line, then?

Even if the embryo is viable-- it cannot do anything on it's own, it's totally and completely dependent on a healthy womb.  Which at this point in time, means a volunteer human female.

Let us not also forget, that roughly 50% of all naturally fertilized embryos are ejected as a matter of routine, it's a natural part of the process of life.

..........

As far as tampering with the "natural order" of things?

We do that not just with medicine-- what is surgery, but tampering with life?

From a simple appendectomy  to a stomach-stapeling to open heart surgery to organ transplants to eye-corrective surgery to silicone implants ... all of these are tampering.

Then, there is the non-surgical, non-chemical tampering:  leg braces to help straighten a crooked leg, support hosery to support poor blood circulation, back-braces to support a damaged or injured spine, braces on teeth to make straight what the NATURAL ORDER made crooked.

Heck, eye glasses are tampering with the NATURAL tendency to nearsightedness and myopia.

Now that I'm thinking of it-- what are clothes, but "artificial feathers/fur" permitting us to live comfortably in climates we'd otherwise freeze in.

Tamper away, I say.... if it's a Bad Thing, we'll figure out something or other.

If god didn't want us to tamper, I don't think that god would've given us hands with opposable thumbs.... look at dolphins-- they are smart, likely as smart as us, if not smarter (ever see a dolphin worrying about a mortgage payment or which color to choose for her bride's maids?)

How much is too much? 

I, personally, cannot think of anything that is currently possible, as being too much.

[Aggie]

Where to draw the line, then?

Even if the embryo is viable-- it cannot do anything on it's own, it's totally and completely dependent on a healthy womb.  Which at this point in time, means a volunteer human female.

Let us not also forget, that roughly 50% of all naturally fertilized embryos are ejected as a matter of routine, it's a natural part of the process of life.

Maybe we need an Embryo Shelter, where they can be put up for "adoption" (implantation) by devoted pro-lifers; if they don't get adopted in 3 weeks, then off to science!



_{I'm sure the male pro-lifers would be all for it.}

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

_{I'm sure the male pro-lifers would be all for it.}

I have no doubt.

This is always the conundrum.  But, by the same token, every time a woman has "a visit from aunt flo" or a man has a wet dream, potential human lives/persons are eliminated.

Every time you masturbate, God kills a kitten, remember?

Even if the embryo is viable-- it cannot do anything on it's own, it's totally and completely dependent on a healthy womb.  Which at this point in time, means a volunteer human female.

Let us not also forget, that roughly 50% of all naturally fertilized embryos are ejected as a matter of routine, it's a natural part of the process of life.

This is true, and I agree with you. I'm simply saying that while it is alive (in the fashion a bone is), it's still not a person yet. It COULD be, just the same as the spermazoa or the egg, but isn't yet.
I suppose when it can survive on its own is the best marker (I would have issues with having one myself after it has brain waves, but that's neither here nor there).