Religulous


Movies

351 to 360 of 360 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

Umm that would be called "Social Darwinism". Meaning that any individual of the species that isn't healthy enough to survive on itself should be allowed to die to keep the gene pool clean. This a far left position that I refuse to go anywhere near. There's lieral then there's crazy scary liberal. I'm only liberal.


pres man wrote:
Uzzy wrote:
Had I known you were going into this silly embryonic debate,
So people who have moral objections to the use of embryoes for scientific research are silly? People who don't use the same definition of "human" that you use?

I'm not Uzzy, but here goes.

Short answer: Yes.
Slightly longer answer: Those moral objections are based on religious dogma, thus they have no verifiable, scientific effect. As several people have said already around here (and I even think you agreed on it), "don't get religion in my science and don't get science in my religion."
As has already been pointed out, embryos are not fully developed human beings. If you just leave them be, they will not spontaneously grow into living, breathing human beings (Homo Sapiens, persons etc.).
Keep any unverifiable talk about "souls/spirits/etc." out of science.

pres man wrote:
Uzzy wrote:
I would have clarified my previous position (which is a fine one for general work). A human being is a member of the species homo sapien that can or has survived on his/her own.
Would this include or not include members of the species homo sapien who need artifical means of survival (i.e. can not survive on their own)?

IMO, it depends. One example: If someone is diagnosed completely brain dead/in a vegetative state, with no signs of improvements over e.g. a week, turn off the respirator. Anything else is just an emotional and economical waste. The odds of anything improving are just too astronomical.


GentleGiant wrote:

I'm not Uzzy, but here goes.

Short answer: Yes.
Slightly longer answer: Those moral objections are based on religious dogma, thus they have no verifiable, scientific effect. As several people have said already around here (and I even think you agreed on it), "don't get religion in my science and don't get science in my religion."
As has already been pointed out, embryos are not fully developed human beings. If you just leave them be, they will not spontaneously grow into living, breathing human beings (Homo Sapiens, persons etc.).
Keep any unverifiable talk about "souls/spirits/etc." out of science.

Huh? So the only things that morals can be based on is things that can be proven scientificly? That seems like a ridiculously limiting idea. In fact, it might even be used in reverse. It probably can be proven scientificly that racism (and other types of prejudices) are not only "natural" but also are possibly conducive to success within a species/gene group. Thus it be shown using your claim here (morals only count when science can prove them), that the immoral racisim is actually moral. I find that a bit strange.

GentleGiant wrote:
IMO, it depends. One example: If someone is diagnosed completely brain dead/in a vegetative state, with no signs of improvements over e.g. a week, turn off the respirator. Anything else is just an emotional and economical waste. The odds of anything improving are just too astronomical.

Would it surprise you to know that many religions feel the same way? But what if they are not brain dead, but can't say, breath on their own, or need a new kidney and must be kept alive using dialysis?

Also I wonder if you would agree with Penn Jillette (from Penn and Teller), that a "person" should be considered to be when brain function occurs, on both ends of the spectrum (that is once a fetus has brain function it is a "person" and once brain function stops they are not a "person")? I only ask because you use the brain dead example in your comment.


pres man wrote:
Huh? So the only things that morals can be based on is things that can be proven scientificly? That seems like a ridiculously limiting idea. In fact, it might even be used in reverse. It probably can be proven scientificly that racism (and other types of prejudices) are not only "natural" but also are possibly conducive to success within a species/gene group. Thus it be shown using your claim here (morals only count when science can prove them), that the immoral racisim is actually moral. I find that a bit strange.

That's not what I meant, allow me to rephrase it. The "moral objection" stems from something that cannot be scientifically proven (i.e. religion, souls, spirits etc.), thus it should have no impact on whether whether it's a moral decision or not. If it should, then any kind of unverifiable "moral objection" should be taken into consideration, whether from the Catholic church, Scientology or the followers of Bigfoot.

Actually, we're also moving into the grey area between morality and ethics.

pres man wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:
IMO, it depends. One example: If someone is diagnosed completely brain dead/in a vegetative state, with no signs of improvements over e.g. a week, turn off the respirator. Anything else is just an emotional and economical waste. The odds of anything improving are just too astronomical.
Would it surprise you to know that many religions feel the same way?

Surprise me? No, because I consider it the rational thing to do and, occasionally, even religions can act rationally. ;-) :-D

pres man wrote:
But what if they are not brain dead, but can't say, breath on their own, or need a new kidney and must be kept alive using dialysis?

Then you keep them alive, because there is a rather good chance that they can get back to a "normal" state again, a state which they have already entered previously (unlike, say, embryos).

pres man wrote:
Also I wonder if you would agree with Penn Jillette (from Penn and Teller), that a "person" should be considered to be when brain function occurs, on both ends of the spectrum (that is once a fetus has brain function it is a "person" and once brain function stops they are not a "person")? I only ask because you use the brain dead example in your comment.

No, I wouldn't agree with him 100% - the "end" spectrum is where we might disagree. I wouldn't want any experiments done to someone who's brain dead, but bodily kept alive, unless that person explicitly gave his permission to do so while alive and of "sound mind" (or what the legal term would be).

As I said before, if you're in a vegetative state, time to switch the button and in that case you'd go from "human" to "dead body."
At that point, again, you can donate the body to research (those necroman... erm, med students have to have something to carve up).

Dark Archive

GentleGiant wrote:

[I wouldn't want any experiments done to someone who's brain dead, but bodily kept alive, unless that person explicitly gave his permission to do so while alive and of "sound mind" (or what the legal term would be).

As I said before, if you're in a vegetative state, time to switch the button and in that case you'd go from "human" to "dead body."
At that point, again, you can donate the body to research (those necroman... erm, med students have to have something to carve up).

Just so that I can understand where you are coming from, I would like to ask a question at this juncture. Why is it unethical to experiment on an unviable tissue mass when it is at the end of it's human existance, but it is okay to do so at the beginning of it's human existance? I'm not asking to be offensive, but because I would like to know what the difference is. If this issue has already been addressed, I apologize for bring it back up again.


David Fryer wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:

[I wouldn't want any experiments done to someone who's brain dead, but bodily kept alive, unless that person explicitly gave his permission to do so while alive and of "sound mind" (or what the legal term would be).

As I said before, if you're in a vegetative state, time to switch the button and in that case you'd go from "human" to "dead body."
At that point, again, you can donate the body to research (those necroman... erm, med students have to have something to carve up).
Just so that I can understand where you are coming from, I would like to ask a question at this juncture. Why is it unethical to experiment on an unviable tissue mass when it is at the end of it's human existance, but it is okay to do so at the beginning of it's human existance? I'm not asking to be offensive, but because I would like to know what the difference is. If this issue has already been addressed, I apologize for bring it back up again.

The key difference here, IMO, is that an embryo is not, and will not be, a "living, breathing human being" on its own. Also, I didn't say that it was unethical to do experiments on a "living body" (for lack of a better word), as long as consent has been given, then I'm all for it. In fact, I wish everyone would give consent to it, it could help out the medical profession immensely. But I also feel that we are free to decide what happens to our bodies once we're (brain) dead. Thus, it actually provides a median where those who are opposed to any kind of experiments opt out by default, if such a situation should arise.

People donate their dead bodies to hospitals already, that's the only real way med students have a chance to do some "real life" exercises without harming anyone.

I know you're not trying to be offensive David and no offense is taken. I know some of my replies further up might seem abrasive to some, but I'm just being honest and hopefully I can explain my reasoning well enough. I'm not trying to be offensive either, but I also fully believe that no one should be exempt from valid, constructive criticism just because "it's their religion." So, feel free to criticise, validly, back too. :-)


GentleGiant wrote:

That's not what I meant, allow me to rephrase it. The "moral objection" stems from something that cannot be scientifically proven (i.e. religion, souls, spirits etc.), thus it should have no impact on whether whether it's a moral decision or not. If it should, then any kind of unverifiable "moral objection" should be taken into consideration, whether from the Catholic church, Scientology or the followers of Bigfoot.

Actually, we're also moving into the grey area between morality and ethics.

Can there be moral objections that are not based on religious/spiritual views that coincide with moral objections that are based on religious/spiritual views? If there can be then there may be some objections that are not based on fantasy. Heck let's take PETA's view to an extreme. An embryo is an animal. To grow animals merely to kill them for scientific research, when a viable alternative can be gotten from harvesting from the bodies of adult humans (with minimal invasion), could be seen by them as morally objectionable. And that is not necessarily based on a religious viewpoint.

GentleGiant wrote:
Then you keep them alive, because there is a rather good chance that they can get back to a "normal" state again, a state which they have already entered previously (unlike, say, embryos).

But an embryo implanted into a willing woman probably has a fair chance of surviving at least compared to a person who is waiting for a kidney transplant. And without a transplant that person will not return to a normal state.

GentleGiant wrote:

No, I wouldn't agree with him 100% - the "end" spectrum is where we might disagree. I wouldn't want any experiments done to someone who's brain dead, but bodily kept alive, unless that person explicitly gave his permission to do so while alive and of "sound mind" (or what the legal term would be).

As I said before, if you're in a vegetative state, time to switch the button and in that case you'd go from "human" to "dead body."
At that point, again, you can donate the body to research (those necroman... erm, med students have to have something to carve up).

I agree with David Fryer here, why should it matter? Meat is meat. If brain dead is "dead", then experimenting on this bag of meat cells shouldn't be any more morally grey then experimenting on a smaller collection of cells.

Sovereign Court

GentleGiant answered the points well, and I pretty much stand with him on them. I would also say that I have no moral objections to experiments being conducted on humans who can no longer be considered to be 'persons', i.e. in permanent vegatitive states, though I do think that permission should be obtained by doctors from the families involved. (I will also point out that in recent experimental face and hand transplants, they got the donor parts from people in permanent vegatitive states)


pres man wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:

That's not what I meant, allow me to rephrase it. The "moral objection" stems from something that cannot be scientifically proven (i.e. religion, souls, spirits etc.), thus it should have no impact on whether whether it's a moral decision or not. If it should, then any kind of unverifiable "moral objection" should be taken into consideration, whether from the Catholic church, Scientology or the followers of Bigfoot.

Actually, we're also moving into the grey area between morality and ethics.
Can there be moral objections that are not based on religious/spiritual views that coincide with moral objections that are based on religious/spiritual views? If there can be then there may be some objections that are not based on fantasy. Heck let's take PETA's view to an extreme. An embryo is an animal. To grow animals merely to kill them for scientific research, when a viable alternative can be gotten from harvesting from the bodies of adult humans (with minimal invasion), could be seen by them as morally objectionable. And that is not necessarily based on a religious viewpoint.

First of all, I would like it known that I have absolutely no respect, whatsoever, for PETA. I find their stance and practices hypocritical to the extreme and some of their actions are the stuff of rabial fanatics, who we normally only associate with religious fanatics or terrorist groups.

That said, I have not to this day heard any moral objection to embryonic stem cell research, which doesn't have, in some way or form, its roots in religion/spirituality (i.e. involving a soul, spirit, sacred life etc. in some way). I'm all open ears to any that might be out there, it'd even be a breath of fresh air in a way, I just haven't come across it yet.

pres man wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:
Then you keep them alive, because there is a rather good chance that they can get back to a "normal" state again, a state which they have already entered previously (unlike, say, embryos).
But an embryo implanted into a willing woman probably has a fair chance of surviving at least compared to a person who is waiting for a kidney transplant. And without a transplant that person will not return to a normal state.

Quite right, however, embryonic stem cell research isn't carried out on embryos already implanted in a woman as part of a fertility treatment.

351 to 360 of 360 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Entertainment / Movies / Religulous All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Movies
MCU Phases 5 & 6