Stem Cells, Science or Ethics?
September 9th 2006 01:15
It seems like there is confusion between whether stem cell research is an ethical question or a scientific one. What people seem to fail to realize is that ethics is tied to science not in just the superficial way in which it defines what science can and can’t be a part of but also as part of the decision making process of the science, whether or not something is right to do is both a scientific and ethical debate. However when it comes down to it all they are one and the same. You can’t have ethics without scientific thinking and you can’t have legitimate science without ethics.
Going down to the core of the issue what we have is a question of destroying life. Are we destroying life by destroying the embryonic stem cells? It’s convenient to say that, but what is life? Has ethics yet defined a detailed description of it? Well it really isn’t about life now is it? Otherwise it would be considered killing if you were to uproot a plant for instance (note that doesn’t mean it’s a crime, it’s just like slaughtering a sheep).
It’s about people who exist, live and breathe on the planet. Ok, so what constitutes a living breathing human being? A functional heart I think is about all that defines a human. Yes, it’s scientific, but science has a right to guide ethics as ethics has a right to guide science. Science says that a human MUST have a heart to live, and ethics says that it’s wrong to kill humans, so we therefore should not kill anything with a beating heart.
The human embryo goes through stages. At the beginning I doubt its human anymore than its a clump of cells. It simply has no conscience, no heart, no eyes or a brain or anything. Its just cells, random cells clumped together ready to form a human. But if we are going to get upset over that it would be literally the same to accuse a person of cutting down the Amazon rainforest should the person throw a plant seed away.
While it is understandable to have concern for scientists killing off these embryonic stem cells after doing their research on them it should be noted that they are not human, they are simply clumps of cells.
Bear in mind that now we have alternatives, apparently adult stem cells are now a feasible alternative. If it is and it will put to rest the hearts of those who still find it wrong to kill extremely early stage human embryos then they should be used. However if there was no alternative then embryonic stem cells would suffice.’
This idea, that a human is a being that has a beating heart can also be applied to abortion. I have nothing against abortion up to the point were the fetus develops a beating heart of its own and granted this happens a few weeks after pregnancy. Usually the mum to be finds out before then so most likely abortion usually happens before you can judge the fetus to be human and not simply a clump of cells.
We should remember though this research is really early stage stuff, right now we have scientists still trying to work out these cells let alone giving them any meaningful application. I doubt there will be any real development in stem cell research anytime soon.
-References
*Stem Cell image taken from Biology Reference
**Human embryo picture taken from Science Clarified
Going down to the core of the issue what we have is a question of destroying life. Are we destroying life by destroying the embryonic stem cells? It’s convenient to say that, but what is life? Has ethics yet defined a detailed description of it? Well it really isn’t about life now is it? Otherwise it would be considered killing if you were to uproot a plant for instance (note that doesn’t mean it’s a crime, it’s just like slaughtering a sheep).
Does it matter what happens to this?
The human embryo goes through stages. At the beginning I doubt its human anymore than its a clump of cells. It simply has no conscience, no heart, no eyes or a brain or anything. Its just cells, random cells clumped together ready to form a human. But if we are going to get upset over that it would be literally the same to accuse a person of cutting down the Amazon rainforest should the person throw a plant seed away.
While it is understandable to have concern for scientists killing off these embryonic stem cells after doing their research on them it should be noted that they are not human, they are simply clumps of cells.
Bear in mind that now we have alternatives, apparently adult stem cells are now a feasible alternative. If it is and it will put to rest the hearts of those who still find it wrong to kill extremely early stage human embryos then they should be used. However if there was no alternative then embryonic stem cells would suffice.’
Now killing this can be considered wrong
We should remember though this research is really early stage stuff, right now we have scientists still trying to work out these cells let alone giving them any meaningful application. I doubt there will be any real development in stem cell research anytime soon.
-References
*Stem Cell image taken from Biology Reference
**Human embryo picture taken from Science Clarified
| 102 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Personally, the way I tend to go on this is to say that even the two cells put together counts as life and as a human, BUT that it's okay to kill it. Either on Peter Singer grounds (it hasn't yet developed sentience and self-consciousness) or on JJ Thompson grounds (the mother's right overrules the baby's rights).
Will have to think more, though, over how I can answer your argument more directly. I think I'd go with some sort of argument from vagueness or gradualness. Something along the lines of: there's no clear line between sperm and ovum and human adult, therefore any line that one draws to demarcate life from non-life is arbitrary.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
I personally think what defines living to non-living is what keeps us alive, like our biological makeup. A human who doesn't have blood throwing through his/her veins is not human but a corpse. Hence its the heart that keeps people alive and because of that I think its the heart that should define if something should be treated as living or not.
Because of that I don't think that cluster of cells has a soul, or can be considered to have a soul until it develops its own beating heart at which point it ceases to be the womans body and is now a living creature in its own right of which the woman should not have a right to destroy.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Thompson would argue that even if you're saving another's life by staying connected, your own rights take precedence. It might be very kind of you to stay connected for 9 months, but there's no reason you should be forced to. And if this is not persuasive, she increases the time limit: what if it took 9 years. Would you then have to stay connected? Where would you draw the line?
Regarding blood and hearts and life... Well, one problem might be that, if you look at life generally, there's plenty of lifeforms that don't have blood, right? Plants, amoebas... These have some sort of nutrients, as does the embryo, but no blood.
Another way to put this is that the presence or absence of blood seems to be a contingent matter and not part of the essential definition even of human life. I mean, it seems to be non-nonsense to say "It's possible for humans to live without hearts and without blood"; at least semantically, there doesn't seem to be a contradiction. The concept of "life" doesn't require the concept of blood. It's just that human life as we currently know it usually does.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
If you are pregnant wiht anothe rhuman being then it is your duty to keep that being alive and you have no right over it. IT has a right over you.\
YOur right there are plenty of different lifeforms, each keeping alive in its own right, but we are taling about humans. Yes, no blood, but a beating heart which defines its life capacity.
We are talking about human life now and here. To self sustain we need blood and beating heart, however its unfair to force that on an embryo, what we are relying on is its beating heart to seperate it as a living being. Its part ethics part science.
Comment by Damo
If someone states that a human must have a beating heart to be human. Then they can use scientific methods to find when the heart starts. The problem in my mind is why choose the beating heart as the measuring stick? Who chose this to be the measuring stick?
Peter Singer is whole story to himself as his definition of the value of human life is very different than most of society. He has argued in serveral occasions that infanticide should be permissable under some circumstances. How he defines what is human is based upon the authority he follows.
The question of when a human is given a soul is a metaphysical one and cannot be measured by scientific means. Does the soul exist only in the heart, the head or the liver? Does the soul exist? By what authority did you reach this conclusion? Taking a simple vote may feel good but it isn't science.
Soul or no soul there are two questions that often appear as one. What is a human and What rights should it have? Answering one question does not automatically answer the other.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Your heart is what keeps you alive throughout your life, so why shouldn't it be the measuring stick in deciding if something like a human is living or not?
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
In her weird sci-fi example, you're forced to keep a violinist alive. In real life, you're forced to keep a baby alive. On what basis are they different?
I'd agree with Damo that having a heart is an arbitrary quality to define line with. At least in theory, isn't it possible to live without a heart? In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if there are people who do live without hearts.
Put it this way. The heart pumps blood. Blood carries oxygen and nutrients that cells will died without. But can't you just dispense with the heart and supply those nutrients directly? And wouldn't that still be life?
If so, then couldn't you keep "alive" an embryo without a heart in the same way?
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
She's taking things out of context.
Yes its true that a beating heart is simply a physical aspect, I admit I dont have much running on it but it physically is recquired to live, or atleast an alternative to it is recquired, and when there is none you will die. Its just a benchmark, no one said it had to be the be all end all, but we have to define a certain level, we are defining the ethics while working on it as such there will be some assumptions being made.
Perhaps if a general unbiased scientific community got together they could come up with a better defining factor of something that can be considered not only living but also human, till then I think that an independantly beating heart is the first real step into life a human being takes.
As I said, we are making the ethical rules up as we go.
Comment by Cinico
Small Business Scope
In my (uneducated and humble view) a fetus, whilst having a heart, has no conscience. It is, in essence an organism similar to a plant - should the parent choose to 'water and feed' it, then it shall be given life.
There's a difference to being alive and having life - in my view anyway.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
While you can compare that to an unborn fetus for instance its really not fair because you miss the point that a fetus is in fact going to become a living breathing human. You can cut down a tree and not be held as a murderar because its not a crime on the same level (if a crime at all). To kill another human then you are committing a very heinous crime (pending reasons).
Comparing a violin player to a fetus is a joke because the thought process she had seems to have been forced so it comes to what she's trying to push, to her own personal idea.
I mean, on the one hand we are talking about an unborn, living none the less, being inside a person who recquires that person to live. That little clump of cells at one point ceases to be just a part of this persons body and at that point (with a beating heart, but thats just my personal benchmark) is running dependant on the body thats covering it, and even if the mother doesn't want it, she has no right over it. That being is something else all together and while it may be staying alive through the body its inside of it doesn't give the so-called 'owner' of that body a right over the fetus. The fetus is another being and wether or not this body likes it its connected to it and when that fetus is a being in its own right it gains the right over that persons body.
If the owner of that body takes illicit drugs, drinks or smokes then she (as it usually is) will be held directly responsible for any disease the fetus gains after birth (this is going a bit off but I'm doing it to ram home my opinion).
If you try and compare that to anything else all your doing is beating around the bush.
Comment by Cinico
Small Business Scope
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
I mean a right over it as in it must be taken care of by the mother. Part of that right it has is that the mother has to raise the (to be born) baby in a manner to which she thinks is appropriate. The baby by right over the mother will have to be raised accordingly in all aspects. She cant just, I dunno, dump the baby some place even after birth.
Its a two way thing I suppose, the baby has a right to be properly raised by his/her parents but to that end the parents have a right to raise the baby as they see fit. Naturally there are certain universally understood rules in how one must raise a baby but thats another topic.
Well, to summarize all that for your question, Yes.
Comment by Damo
We could leave this decision to the 'unbiased scientific community' but I have serious doubts that does exist or ever will exist. Science is unbiased but that does mean that scientists are. Supposition has been the curse of all sciences.
I can refer you to a web address:
www.sathembryoart.com
for hundreds of images many of which I have edited before puting on the web.
After staring at thousands of images I still cannot see the dividing line between human and not human.
We humble mortals know so little about ourselves. Yet we are willing to make life and death decisions based on supposition
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Its better we define our own ethics at one point rather than run through it unguided. People are against abortion because they say your killing the child, people are for it becuase 'its their body', so there has to be some sort of proper consensus made.
You are right that finding said unbiased scientific community is like finding a needle in a haystack.
Its just that we don't have a choice, if we could communicate with some sort of higher power to define these ethics then maybe we'd know what to do, but we can't, so we don't.
Basically all I'm saying is that its better we just create our own threshholds for what might be human and what might not be and put that down as the final rules. They can be amended and all...
Comment by Damo
Setting out to redefine what a human is, based upon your own thresholds is not new. Suggesting that the rules can be amended in the future is cold comfort for anyone who was a non-human before the amendment.
Strange how the debate can shift from one of science fact to one of rationalist ideology. Choosing that as the basis of your ethics is still one of several choices.
The questions that ES research raises will be played out on both sides by like minded individuals. My opinions is that future history tells us our stuff up pretty fast. Avoiding the stuff-ups depends on which group of like minded people can influence the critical decisions.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Though I think it has its place, actually I did do a bit of reserach (very little indeed) and found that after 40 - 42 days the fetus starts developing human like features. This could be a good place to start in this thought experiment...