Originally posted by dadudemonEverytime embryos are produced in vitro for artifical implantation in someone's womb, extra embryos that won't be implanted are produced, it's just the way the process is. These are usually stored for a while and then incinerated or something. If they'll be discarded anyway, why not use them for research?
Nope.But I'm against using the failures for anything other than those.
Nice try, right?
Nice try what?
Originally posted by 753
Everytime embryos are produced in vitro for artifical implantation in someone's womb, extra embryos that won't be implanted are produced, it's just the way the process is. These are usually stored for a while and then incinerated or something. If they'll be discarded anyway, why not use them for research?Nice try what?
They should be destroyed and not experimented with: have some respect for the dead.
They did not consent to medical experiments.
Nice try and in trying to present an exception because there wasn't one, in my book.
Originally posted by dadudemon
They should be destroyed and not experimented with: have some respect for the dead.They did not consent to medical experiments.
Nice try and in trying to present an exception because there wasn't one, in my book.
What? Respect the dead? They're zygotes not people. They die when they're destroyed and if they are cultivated, they are living on (as experimental cell cultures, not as the people they could become in a womb, of course)
Well, they are not people to begin with. Consent is not just impossible, as would be the case for an actual child, it's innaplicable.
I wasnt digging at an exception I was trying to grasp what you were getting at.
Originally posted by dadudemon
They should be destroyed and not experimented with: have some respect for the dead.They did not consent to medical experiments.
They didn't consent to implantation either. But really the point is that we have what are piles of dead bodies that can be either destroyed, stored forever or used to save and improve millions of live.
Originally posted by inimalist
every sperm is sacred!
We might be able to get guys to stop masturbating through draconian laws. The real problem is menstruation, women kill a baby every month they spend not being pregnant.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
We might be able to get guys to stop masturbating through draconian laws. The real problem is menstruation, women kill a baby every month they spend not being pregnant.
No they don't: that's an egg which does not contain the relevant DNA to be a human.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
They didn't consent to implantation either. But really the point is that we have what are piles of dead bodies that can be either destroyed, stored forever or used to save and improve millions of live.
They don't have a choice on whether or not they want to live when two people want to have a baby. However, there is a choice for us, as fully thinking adults, to show respect for the dead.
Originally posted by 753
What? Respect the dead? They're zygotes not people. They die when they're destroyed and if they are cultivated, they are living on (as experimental cell cultures, not as the people they could become in a womb, of course)Well, they are not people to begin with. Consent is not just impossible, as would be the case for an actual child, it's innaplicable.
I wasnt digging at an exception I was trying to grasp what you were getting at.
Complete nucleotide sequence = human, to me.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Nope.It's not disrespectful to the dead to discover the reason they died or possibly find a killer. Capisce?
You can specify if you do not want an autopsy, btw. A failed baby cannot.
No, it can't, which is a good reason why treating it like a thinking human is pointless.
Originally posted by King Kandy
So it is not disrespectful to do an action that has a low potential of yielding useful life-saving information... it IS disrespectful to do an action that advances medical research that would likely save many more lives.No, it can't, which is a good reason why treating it like a thinking human is pointless.
I'm confused.
Why generalize when this is not a generalized discussion? You can't do that. Leave it at it's specifics and leave the negative generalizations up to those that try to paint the other side as negatively as possible.
It's is disrespectful and unethical to experiment with humans that do not consent, even if they are dead. It is not unethical to experiment with/on humans the fully consent, but it can be illegal. This is independent and regardless of what ever good or bad can come from it.
Originally posted by inimalist
really? explain...
It's in it's simplest form possible. I cannot make it any simpler.
What is it that is not kosher to you?
Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm confused.Why generalize when this is not a generalized discussion? You can't do that. Leave it at it's specifics and leave the negative generalizations up to those that try to paint the other side as negatively as possible.
It's is disrespectful and unethical to experiment with humans that do not consent, even if they are dead. It is not unethical to experiment with/on humans the fully consent, but it can be illegal. This is independent and regardless of what ever good or bad can come from it.
If there is a form of life that cannot give any consent no matter the circumstance, then asking for consent is senseless. Its like asking if a pea plant "consented" to be picked by Mendel. If it could never get consent, then there's no point in asking.
Originally posted by dadudemon
It's in it's simplest form possible. I cannot make it any simpler.What is it that is not kosher to you?
Originally posted by dadudemon
No they don't: that's an egg which does not contain the relevant DNA to be a human.
If DNA is the standard then all your cells are individual humans.
Originally posted by dadudemon
They don't have a choice on whether or not they want to live when two people want to have a baby. However, there is a choice for us, as fully thinking adults, to show respect for the dead.
Then why aren't you respecting all the people who have died of horrible degenerative diseases and doing everything possible to cure those problems for future generations?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If DNA is the standard then all your cells are individual humans.
No, it would be an embryo, which is what we are talking about.
But, hey, if you think you skin cells are the same thing as your embryonic self, that's cool. It's just scientifically ignorant.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Then why aren't you respecting all the people who have died of horrible degenerative diseases and doing everything possible to cure those problems for future generations?
How very illogical of you.
You skipped many many steps to conclude Q.
But, once upon a time, I did aspire to be a doctor and wanted to save as many lives as possible. 😐
Originally posted by King Kandy
I'm trying to understand the general principle upon which your argument is based, so that this can be a logical rather than emotional discussion. Any "generalization" i'm doing is an attempt to see why you treat other situations different from this one.
K. It's simple.
Complete DNA of a human is a human.
Not a complete nucleotide of a human is not human.
There is a difference between blood stem cells and embryonic stem cells. That should be a "duh", right?
There is a difference between a dead person that has been murdered and a failed AI embryo, right? That should also be a "duh".
This is all from an "ethical" and "moral" measure, not some sort of warped sense of "religion", of which, none has been injected into this conversation but I believe all of you are assuming that.
I believe the Mormons believe stem cell research through embryos is neutral. So dash out the idea that this is somehow "religious" based.
Originally posted by King Kandy
If there is a form of life that cannot give any consent no matter the circumstance, then asking for consent is senseless.
I agree. This is why you won't see me standing over a test tube, screaming "HEY! Is it okay if squish you to pieces?"
Originally posted by King Kandy
Its like asking if a pea plant "consented" to be picked by Mendel. If it could never get consent, then there's no point in asking.
K.
But, no, point me to where I ever stated that they should be asked.
Now, what I did say was that it should not be done because they cannot give consent.
Originally posted by King Kandy
What makes humans special, empirically speaking?
We can do calculus.
😐