| Pete Dashwood 2008-03-25, 3:55 am |
|
"Robert" <no@e.mail> wrote in message
news:aavgu3lbm0r5rik3gnusb5r90td8s1bjtv@
4ax.com...
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:58:27 +1300, "Pete Dashwood"
> <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
>
> The distinction is over sentience, defined as the ability to suffer.
Says who? All living animals exhibit irritability. If you prod an amoeba
with a pin, it will move away. Who says it suffers?
> It is a mistake to
> think the distinction is over life, consciousness, self-awareness or
> logical reasoning.
> It's also not about potential to become sentient.
Nor is it about suffering. In fact, it isn't about the fetus at all; it is
about how WE, as grown people PERCEIVE the fetus. There is no more evidence
for what a fetus feels than there is for my suffering amoeba, above.
>
>
> That demonstrates the fallacy in using 'alive' as the test. Plants are
> alive, but cannot
> suffer.
Excuse me... experiments have been done and documented, that plants DO
suffer. Carrots scream as they are pulled out of the ground, plants tremble
and show differentiated responses to people who treat them well and people
who don't... The only difference is that WE PERCEIVE plants differently than
we do animals.
At the end of the day, we're all made of the same stuff... vibrating packets
of energy and matter, existing in space through time.
>Neither can sperm and ova.
Nor rocks nor water, as far as we know. It isn't relevant to stem cell
research.
>
>
> The intention of the creator doesn't matter, nor the millieu in which the
> creation occurs.
The intention here is to gain knowledge that can help humans. I think that
DOES matter.
>
>
> Now you're creating a moral algebra. If X amount of suffering imposed on
> one creature
> relieves 10X suffering on another, is it morally justified? That's
> debatable. The danger
> is a slippery slope that absolves all killing, such as killing animals to
> relieve the
> 'suffering' of meat deprivation.
Only if you think it is all about suffering. I don't think it is, so I don't
have the dilemma you outlined.
>
>
> Less than 2% of abortions are done for medical reasons. The vast majority
> are done for
> convenience.
OK, I coulsd include those as well without it affecting my argument. Let's
say "fetuses removed from their mother for any reason..." The reason has no
bearing on stem cell research.
>
>
>
> You seem to be saying that finding a productive use for the fetus relieves
> prospective
> parents' suffering.
No, I'm saying it COULD HELP. Certainly, it would help me to know there was
SOME useful purpose that could be realised out of a tragedy, if I were ever
in that situation. I understand that many people won't feel that way, and
that'sOK, too.
> If Vlad the Impaler had turned his corpses into works of art, would he
> be less guilty?
>
Of course not, and that isn't what I'm saying.
But if their organs had been harvested so that others might live, what then?
He'd still be no less guilty and would deserve whatever punishment was meted
out, BUT, there would have been some positive outcome from a terrible
situation.
(That doesn't mean we should create terrible situations so there can be some
mitigating circumstances... :-))
>
> Removing organs from a corpse doesn't cause suffering.
Suffering has nothing to do with it. You have no evidence that a fetus
involved in stem cell research feels suffering. It is your PERCEPTION that
it might be suffering. Your belief COULD be based solely on antropomorphism;
you just can't know.
On the other hand, the suffering endured by families and victims of
Parkinson's, is very real and easily observable.
>
>
> Humans are not the only sentient species in the world.
Well, we should be happy to pass on the findings from opur research to the
other species when they evolve enough to ask for it... :-)
> Removing humans would better the
> bovine condition in the long term.
Opinion amongst cows is divided on that...
>What conclusion should the cow philosopher draw? Oh,
> there are none. Does that mean the only species that count are the ones
> having
> philosophers? What luck, that's us!
>
>
> You're right about that. It's based on a belief system that developed over
> a million years
> of human spiritual experience. You can't turn it off by flipping a switch.
There isn't a single belief system on this planet that is more than 10,000
years old; before that we can only surmise.
There certainly hasn't been a million years of human "spiritual" experience.
The need for humans to create Gods to explain events over which they have no
control, is not a "spiritual" need, it is a pyschological one. That's why
the Gods they invent mirror themselves.
As for turning it off by flipping a switch, a couple of hundred years
against the background of human evolution, could well be considered a switch
flip...
I like to think I can change my mind about things. I don't believe I'm the
only one.
>
>
> Forget living, think sentient. Plants and bacteria are living. So what?
Sentience, as noted above, is no more valid in this argument than anything
else.
Why is suffering so important? Pain is a natural result from many natural
processes. It is the avoidance of it that helps us survive, and pain is
therefore an essential part of our survival. It is only our thinking about
it that makes it bad. Would we stop women giving birth because the process
is painful?
A natural progression from your argument would be that if the fetus was
anaesthetized, there would be no objection from you. I'm betting that isn't
the case, but correct me if I'm wrong...
>
>
> <cue violins, soften lighting and focus>
I meant it literally and was not writing for effect. I know people in these
conditions, and their best hope may well be stem cell research. It pisses me
off that, in the one nation on earth that has the wherewithal, resources,
and in-depth knowledge, to actually do something about this, religious
considerations are more important than living people.
Fortunately, I draw hope from the fact that the USA is not the only country
where this research is going on. Other, more pragmatic, nations are NOT
being stopped by the God Squad. All this is doing is ensuring that the USA
will fall behind in the knowledge derived from this technology and THEIR
citizens will be last to benefit from it.
Here's an article from the Washington Post which makes the same point. I
can't find a single point of disagreement with this article and their
position is very much my own.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2004Aug22.html
>
>
> It's not about their potential; it's about their condition when killed.
You can't "kill" something that was never born. That's just emotional use of
language.
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
|