Stem Cell Research, Human Policy

<Pr3tEnDeR> bushes speach on stem cells last night
<Pr3tEnDeR> anyone got a comment
<eode> earlier someone commented thatit took them [15] minutes just to say that you can do stem cell research but you can't grow embreyos just for that purpose.
<Pr3tEnDeR> who thinks he's an idiot please type "i do"
<Viridium> pretender, he's an idiot .. but i think he made a sensible decision
<Viridium> doesnt what?
<Pr3tEnDeR> the part where he said the damage is already done let's go ahead and use the stem cells
<Pr3tEnDeR> i don't agree with that
<eode> pretender wouldn't it seem like a waste not to use what's already there?
<Pr3tEnDeR> would you sacrifice 10 people to save 100
<eode> what if the sacrifice had already been made?
<Spock_|MVP|> hmm...Pr3tEnDeR...I wouldnt
<Pr3tEnDeR> yes but still without permission i don't think so
<eode> if someone sacrificed 10 people to save 100 and it was a poor choice, it was done either way, if you don't then use that to save the 100, are you then sacrificing another 100 just out of principle?
<Pr3tEnDeR> it is the principle
<eode> ..
<Pr3tEnDeR> but aren't we doing the same thing when were using a condom
<Pr3tEnDeR> we are stoping life from being created
<eode> pretender if using a condom is bad in some way then so is not having sex
<eode> omg, we all have a moral duty to have sex without condoms!
<eode> not having sex is stopping life from being created, isn't it?
<Pr3tEnDeR> the only difference between me and a embryo is that i'm conscious they aren't
<eode> and how important is that difference..
<UrOcKmYwOrLd> Not much importence...
<Pr3tEnDeR> exactly
<Pr3tEnDeR> there isn't
<eode> if consciousness isn't the significant part of being a person, what is?
<eode> consciousness seems like a very big difference to me. how else do we distinguish life from non-life?
<p00r0ne> then we would have to attribute conciousness to all forms of life
<Pr3tEnDeR> p00r0ne no you can't
<p00r0ne> why not
<Pr3tEnDeR> that's what seprate us from animals
<p00r0ne> Pr3tEnDeR: well, how can you explain the conscious connection that we have with our pets?
<Pr3tEnDeR> love
<p00r0ne> Pr3tEnDeR: well, then is it love both ways?
<p00r0ne> because if it is, love is just a exemplification of consciuosness
<Pr3tEnDeR> i donno are animals capable of love or is it just loyality
<p00r0ne> even loyalty, since loyalty is not just [instinct]
<eode> so there can be life without consciousness. but still, how do we determine when an egg becomes a person?
<p00r0ne> eode: an egg becomes a person when it takes on human shape and begins to form thoughts
<p00r0ne> IMHO
<eode> well, can't form thoughts til it has consciousness
<p00r0ne> oui
* eode curls up in a fetal position and declares himself non-human
<p00r0ne> hey
*** UrOcKmYwOrLd has quit IRC (Ping timeout)
<p00r0ne> eode, fetal position is common to all animals
<Pr3tEnDeR> we are born unconscious
<p00r0ne> Pr3tEnDeR: perhaps you were, but I was very conscious
<eode> ok, but so is the possibility of killing or inflicting cruelty.. so when does the egg become an 'animal'
<p00r0ne> eode: well, I think more than anything, we should consider, when does the egg become a viable independent life form
<p00r0ne> eode: by independent, I mean broken the bond of the egg, or able to live outside the womb
<eode> i disagree, i think raising a fetus just to kill it and do research isn't any better than killing a just-born baby
<eode> i mean, whether the fetus/baby happened to pop out of the womb or not.. is rather incidental to its essence.
<Pr3tEnDeR> eode what if the damage is already done should they continue the research
<eode> pretender - well, like i said before, doesn't it seem like a waste to not use the resource that is already available?
<Pr3tEnDeR> but without permission
<eode> what do you mean
<Pr3tEnDeR> who gave us the right
<eode> who has the authority?
<eode> to say whether we have the right or not?
<eode> other than george w bush, who gave it
<Pr3tEnDeR> eode i don't really beleave in god but all i know is that no human conscious has the right
<eode> hmm.
<Pr3tEnDeR> not even bush
<eode> what is the reason that you believe that?
<eode> that no human has the right to make the decision
<eode> one way to look at it would seem to be : the stuff is there, it's not alive, so tehre's no reason to question whether we should take advantage of it. it's just stuff
<Pr3tEnDeR> if we start making dicisions like that we shoudn't be called humans
<Pr3tEnDeR> we will destroy everything that describe humanity
<Pr3tEnDeR> morality will be lost
<eode> but i can see how deciding to use the stuff, even if the damage has already been done, would be bad for overall morale
<Pr3tEnDeR> once again would you sacrifice 10 lives for a 100
<Pr3tEnDeR> would you sacrifice you mom to save your dad
<eode> well first that's a separate question because we're talking about a sacrifice that's already been made, just whether or not to use the sacrifice to save the 100
<eode> anyway it seems logical to sacrifice 10 to save 100. but at the same time i have a glimpse of a higher dimension in which the best course is never to sacrifice anyone no matter what or whom it saves.
<Pr3tEnDeR> eode but who speaks for the unborn baby
<Pr3tEnDeR> should logic rule of emotions
<ddd> should logic rule of emotions ? in a wa yes, everything needs to be governed by rules
<Pr3tEnDeR> should logic rule over emotions
<eode> there are some cases where it should, are there not?
<ddd> yes
<eode> if we consider what our goal or priority is, and the emotional decision would be against that, should we make the logical decision instead?
<eode> but then, if the emotion goes against it then maybe our REAL priority isn't exactly what our intellectual priority is?
<ddd> u know
<ddd> there should be balance between emotion and intellct
<eode> specifically... the intellectual priority might be the greatest benefit for the greatest number of lives. so 100 deaths that are preventable is worse than 10 deaths that would have to be inflicted in order to prevent the 100.. intellectually... but emotion seems to have other ideas
<eode> emotion says, killing intentionally is just wrong.
<eode> so which one is the better decision? the intellect or the emotion? which knows best?
<bodingo> whose emotion
<ddd> logic and common sense
<LazyEdna> it's not either/or.. it's a balance between the two
<eode> emotion says, "who speaks for the foetus"
<bodingo> if you dont kill 10, you kill 90
<LazyEdna> again.. it's a balance... why is it, that the thought processes in #philosophy never recognize the wisdom of balance
<Pr3tEnDeR> but still the unborn baby is just like a chicked they both have no conscious
<eode> bodingo : but are not preventing a death, and causing a death, REALLY the same thing?
<Pr3tEnDeR> but we eat chicken all the time
<bodingo> depends on your perspective, really; to me yeah
<eode> is it right to eat chicken? we don't HAVE to kill animals to survive.
<Pr3tEnDeR> but we have been doing it since we were single cell organisms
<Pr3tEnDeR> eat the other to survive
<LazyEdna> killing in order to live is perfectly acceptable, in fact, desirable, behavior
<eode> bodingo, somehow it seems to me that the society that would "allow" 100 to die of incidental causes, before calculatingly killing one person... has more love in it.
<bodingo> waita second, is this about stem cell research
<eode> pretender : we've grown up, we have understanding, we have compassion, we have 'free will', sophistication, and the ability to live without killing. doesn't that carry with it a little bit of responsibility?
<LazyEdna> eode.. your example was not about "incidental" causes... what do you mean by "incidental"?
<Pr3tEnDeR> death, old age
<eode> lazyedna : incidental meaning that the death was not by the hand of a person
<LazyEdna> this includes industrial accidents, then?
<eode> i guess it does
<Pr3tEnDeR> this is how i think about it
<Pr3tEnDeR> we are all on a island
<Pr3tEnDeR> we are all starving
<LazyEdna> If incidental is not by the hand of a person.. then, how does a society "let" incidental deaths happen? Society has no hand in it.. and therefore, cannot "let"
<LazyEdna> or allow
<Pr3tEnDeR> the only way to servive is to kill LazyEdna
<eode> lazyedna : ok, i'll go with that.
<Pr3tEnDeR> would you kill her
<Lawnboy> We are all driven by the mathmatics and proportions of our environment to do whatever is best for our selfish genes
<LazyEdna> Pr3tEnDeR.. go ahead.. give it a try.. :D
<eode> lol
<Pr3tEnDeR> lol
<^Eeyore^> the selfish gene is a good model but not a perfect or deterministic one.
<Lawnboy> it's not logic, it's not emotion
<eode> lawnboy, you act like you don't make choices.
<Lawnboy> no one does
<Lawnboy> none that matter anyway
<Pr3tEnDeR> but the point is would you have killed her
<^Eeyore^> i tend to think we arent allowed to make choices that matter.
<^Eeyore^> they all seem to get made by people who get themselves into positions of power.
<Pr3tEnDeR> Eeyore what if the stakes are bigger
<eode> pretender : what if we were all of humanity, and humanity had to make a decision of whether or not to kill a person for its own survival? what exactly does it say about humanity for each possible decision?
<Lawnboy> eode, do yo mean each subsequent decision that humanity makes
<eode> lawnboy : let's say that that decision defines human policy, yes.
<Lawnboy> ok
<eode> of course all such decisions in aggregate do define human policy.
<Pr3tEnDeR> eode to tell you the truth they probably say we are all idiots
<Pr3tEnDeR> idiots or... something greater
<LazyEdna> humans DO isolate and kill other humans who endanger social constructs
<Lawnboy> greater than idots?
<eode> lol
<eode> pretender : look deeper.
<eode> something greater, yeah
<Pr3tEnDeR> yah....
<Pr3tEnDeR> beyond what defines humanity
<LazyEdna> beyond what defines humanity.. now what could THAT be?
<Pr3tEnDeR> that's something you have to figure out yourself
<Lawnboy> the collective consiousness?
<Pr3tEnDeR> lol
<LazyEdna> Lawnboy.. superstition!
<Pr3tEnDeR> Lawnboy too [much] star trek
<eode> beyond what defines humanity would be, in what direction is humanity headed
<Lawnboy> too much anime!
<LazyEdna> when ya can't think... superstition is always there to give you "the REAL answer"... throw salt over your LEFT, no your LEFT shoulder!
<LazyEdna> brother
<Lawnboy> self destruction
<LazyEdna> eode... we are headed in no direction... we are just existing
<Pr3tEnDeR> eode i think if we start making dicisions like what bush is making we are all screwed
<Diogenes^> lazyedna -- no direction? What about the ravages of overpopulation?
<eode> we all know silly superstition when we see it. but to put anything we want to decry in the same category is a choice.
<eode> pretender : maybe, but not out of malice, just we don't know any better.