Stem Cell Research

[lawtonfogle]

I wouldn't call it pain. Pain is a sensation. I very much doubt that there is any sort of consciousness in a bundle of cells, and consciousness is required to experience pain.

So, as I said, it is based on how you define pain. The only problem here is consciousness and sensation. Can a dog feel the sensation of pain, is a dog conscious? Then you have the question about those who are not conscious (comatose or whatnot).

But in any case, if you did decide this could be regarded as a pain response, would you then conclude that it's necessary to protect the rights of single-cell organisms?

Depends if one is a sepecieist or not. Also, I could be an <insert the highest classification of cells in which all animals belong>ist, in which case I would, but only for those of the <insert again>.

But, I think the average non-PETA person is a specieist, and thus will only support the rights of our own species.

 

[cantata]

So, as I said, it is based on how you define pain. The only problem here is consciousness and sensation. Can a dog feel the sensation of pain, is a dog conscious? Then you have the question about those who are not conscious (comatose or whatnot).

Well of course. Everything's based on how you define things. If I say that you look terrible in black, whether or not you will agree with me depends how you define "terrible" and "black". If I remark that the sky is blue, you will agree or disagree depending on your definitions of "sky" and "blue". That's hardly a point worth making.

In any case, my argument was that embryos are not subjected to any more pain, if any, when used in stem cell research than they would be if simply discarded. So whether or to what degree they are in fact capable of experiencing pain is not important.

Look at your initial example. You were saying that experimenting on embryos because they are going to die anyway is the same as experimenting on Jews because you're going to kill them anyway. My primary response was that the distinction between your example and the problem at hand is that the difference between the degree of pain, if any, that an embryo will experience when being experimented on, and that which it will experience when only discarded, is negligible.

Experimenting painfully on adult humans, and then gassing them, is clearly worse than just gassing them. In the former case you are inflicting more pain and suffering. That is why it is an unpleasant thing to do. It has nothing to do with some vague notion of human rights.

I think the average non-PETA person is a specieist, and thus will only support the rights of our own species.

But that is a matter of rights and not pain per se.

Do you believe that a human baby has a right not to be tortured, but an adult chimpanzee does not? (Let's suppose for the purpose of argument that the baby and the chimpanzee have a roughly equal capacity to experience pain.) If so, why?

 

[Braunwyn]

So, as I said, it is based on how you define pain.

This doesn't make sense unless I'm missing something. Pain is a response to sensation. To experience sensation a brain and nervous system is required. An embryo may experience something (I wouldn't know) but it's not pain or sensation or anything that requires a nervous system and brain.

The only problem here is consciousness and sensation. Can a dog feel the sensation of pain, is a dog conscious? Then you have the question about those who are not conscious (comatose or whatnot).

A dog has a brain and a nervous system so the comparison isn't reasonable.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Well of course. Everything's based on how you define things. If I say that you look terrible in black, whether or not you will agree with me depends how you define "terrible" and "black". If I remark that the sky is blue, you will agree or disagree depending on your definitions of "sky" and "blue". That's hardly a point worth making.

Some words we assume to have the same meaning, such as sky, blue, black, ect. Other words though we do not, such as person, male/female even death. Every debate of Plato's which I have ever read had a great portion of it depending upon definition.

See, if I think pain is X, and you think pain is Y, and you say Y, but I am thinking X, then we can have a major conflict. So would say that it is a point worth making.

In any case, my argument was that embryos are not subjected to any more pain, if any, when used in stem cell research than they would be if simply discarded. So whether or to what degree they are in fact capable of experiencing pain is not important.

Look at your initial example. You were saying that experimenting on embryos because they are going to die anyway is the same as experimenting on Jews because you're going to kill them anyway. My primary response was that the distinction between your example and the problem at hand is that the difference between the degree of pain, if any, that an embryo will experience when being experimented on, and that which it will experience when only discarded, is negligible.

Experimenting painfully on adult humans, and then gassing them, is clearly worse than just gassing them. In the former case you are inflicting more pain and suffering. That is why it is an unpleasant thing to do. It has nothing to do with some vague notion of human rights.

I am not trying to put words in your mouth, but would you say it is worse to experiment on a human if they were thus killed in a different way. Here is a example to better explain.
Person A will be killed by a gruesome method which is 'worth' 1000 'units of pain'.
Person B will be experimented upon by a somewhat gruesome method, 'worth' 700 'units of pain', but will then be killed by a much easier method (let us just state that this is a byproduct on the research) 'worth' 150 'units of pain'.

Also, what happens if others' pains are considered. Experiment on person A and cause 10000 units of pain, but use the results to remove 10 units of pain from 10000 people?

But that is a matter of rights and not pain per se.

Do you believe that a human baby has a right not to be tortured, but an adult chimpanzee does not? (Let's suppose for the purpose of argument that the baby and the chimpanzee have a roughly equal capacity to experience pain.) If so, why?

I'm not following here.

But the only explanation I can offer is that someone may think that the human species is 'less than' other species. I don't think that, so I can't explain why.

 

[lawtonfogle]

This doesn't make sense unless I'm missing something. Pain is a response to sensation. To experience sensation a brain and nervous system is required. An embryo may experience something (I wouldn't know) but it's not pain or sensation or anything that requires a nervous system and brain.

There are two types of organisms. Type 1 are the type which bunker down and take everything thrown at them (think plants here). Type 2 is the one which actively moves around the environment. Type 2, independent if we are referring to a human, cat, bacteria, or what ever has a single question which it must constantly answer, "What do I do next?" Negative reaction is one way to answer the question. If the environment your in causes a negative reaction, move to one that doesn't. Pain seems to be just a multicellular negative reaction.

A dog has a brain and a nervous system so the comparison isn't reasonable.

It was a question...

 

[Braunwyn]

There are two types of organisms. Type 1 are the type which bunker down and take everything thrown at them (think plants here). Type 2 is the one which actively moves around the environment. Type 2, independent if we are referring to a human, cat, bacteria, or what ever has a single question which it must constantly answer, "What do I do next?" Negative reaction is one way to answer the question. If the environment your in causes a negative reaction, move to one that doesn't. Pain seems to be just a multicellular negative reaction.

Negative reaction. I think it's reaching to correlate negative reaction with pain. I see no reason to do so.

It was a question...

You really don't know that dogs feel pain? I just assumed it was a comparison. As far as a comatose person goes, it's quite possible given s/he has a nervous system and a brain.

 

[Vene]

Negative reaction. I think it's reaching to correlate negative reaction with pain. I see no reason to do so.


You really don't know that dogs feel pain? I just assumed it was a comparison. As far as a comatose person goes, it's quite possible given s/he has a nervous system and a brain.

Maybe by comatose he means brain-dead.

 

[cantata]

Some words we assume to have the same meaning, such as sky, blue, black, ect. Other words though we do not, such as person, male/female even death. Every debate of Plato's which I have ever read had a great portion of it depending upon definition.

See, if I think pain is X, and you think pain is Y, and you say Y, but I am thinking X, then we can have a major conflict. So would say that it is a point worth making.

Sure, but making up silly definitions of pain isn't going to get us anywhere. I don't think anyone with any sense is going to agree with you that something with no nervous system and no brain can experience pain.

I am not trying to put words in your mouth, but would you say it is worse to experiment on a human if they were thus killed in a different way. Here is a example to better explain.
Person A will be killed by a gruesome method which is 'worth' 1000 'units of pain'.
Person B will be experimented upon by a somewhat gruesome method, 'worth' 700 'units of pain', but will then be killed by a much easier method (let us just state that this is a byproduct on the research) 'worth' 150 'units of pain'.

If your "units of pain" include emotional anguish, other painful experiences other than physical pain, the duration of suffering as well as its intensity, &c., then yes, I think it's "better" to experiment on someone and have them suffer less pain than to kill them outright in a more painful way. If I could choose between being tortured and killed for 1000 pain units or being experimented on and killed for 850 pain units, I would prefer to be experimented on. I don't think there's much to be argued about there.

Also, what happens if others' pains are considered. Experiment on person A and cause 10000 units of pain, but use the results to remove 10 units of pain from 10000 people?

The benefits to others are irrelevant. Of course, it might be that the thought that others will benefit will cause the person to experience less pain or emotional anguish during their ordeal, and that would be a good thing, but only insofar as it would reduce the pain quota of the person who is suffering.

However, since I don't think embryos suffer, I regard this as irrelevant.

I'm not following here.

But the only explanation I can offer is that someone may think that the human species is 'less than' other species. I don't think that, so I can't explain why.

Right, okay - so it seems to me, then, that you absolutely must take a primary interest in suffering, and not some vague notion of human rights. And if that's the case, I don't see how you can object to stem cell research, when the degree of suffering involved is either non-existent or so small as to be negligible.

 

[lawtonfogle]

The benefits to others are irrelevant. Of course, it might be that the thought that others will benefit will cause the person to experience less pain or emotional anguish during their ordeal, and that would be a good thing, but only insofar as it would reduce the pain quota of the person who is suffering.

However, since I don't think embryos suffer, I regard this as irrelevant.

Do you take the stance that no action is an action? I was wondering, because in the end, if you care about any one person (aka, have everyone else's pain irrelevant) you must have some criteria by which you pick who to care for, else you will eventually pick everyone and thus defeat the stance that each person must be cared about without concern of others.

As for my own views, I don't think I have actually stated them yet. I have been trying to maintain a reactive stance, so reaction to pro-research may make me look anti, but it doesn't mean that I am anti. In fact, I am training to be a scientist (aka, I am in college), and I have planned out some research I hope to one day do, but I know no government who wants to keep their place in the U.N will allow the research I want to do.