Is it OK to turn human being body parts into commodities?

[5010]

Ethics are relative.

Excellent point.

Which means pursuit of science that follows the researcher's ethics can violate the subjects' ethics as well as the ethics of the general and/or scientific societies they are members of.

In the case of animal or undeveloped human subjects, their ethics are unknown, and pursuit is then related to the boundaries of the researcher vs their societies.

Something I sent recently to pun of the day:
Due to a hedge against a Bush, the stem cell plant had to trim its sages.

:)

[Fonceai]

@5010

But animals and stem cells are considered property.

Animals are property of the owners.
Adult stem cells are property of the adult. If the adult is dead, then their LW&T would specify otherwise.
Embryonic stem cells are property of the donors.

There are many circumstances for why the donors would give up the stem cells, but just like abortion, it's their choice and theirs alone.

[Kuroko]

And thus comes the point in mind that embryo's weren't given the ability to say yes. So for those who believe life begins at conception the embryo's weren't given the option of wether to donate or not.

[Fonceai]

@Kuroko

What about to say isn't directed at you, it's directed at the sentence itself, and nothing more.

And thus comes the point in mind that embryo's weren't given the ability to say yes.

That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

I'm a big fan of soul or life or whatever beginning at an early age, but what the fuck?

If someone is going to preach to me about the rights of an embryo, I'm going to masturbate and tell them to arrest me for the murder of millions of unborn children.

---

My comment is juvenile and immature, but is it irrational?

Or what about the murder of billions of unborn children if I get a vasectomy?

When a woman gets her tubes tied, should they harvest the remaining eggs so that those remaining hundreds have a chance at life. So that she isn't convicted of murder?

Principle needs to take a back seat to reality.

People can stand on a soap box and preach about the rights of embryos. In the meantime, I'll respect the fact that a couple is willing to donate their embryos to the chance that someone will walk again, or that certain mental illnesses will be cured.

[5010]

But animals and stem cells are considered property.

Societies can define ethical boundaries on anything they choose, even duty or treatment of property. For example, society considers it unethical to torture fido even if you own him.

If someone is going to preach to me about the rights of an embryo, I'm going to masturbate and tell them to arrest me for the murder of millions of unborn children.

Uh oh, looks like W has incited another threat! Cellular terrorism via IED (intermittent ejactulation device)!

While it is true that a human gamete is human (adj), it is not a child by any medical or legal definition nor is it clinically considered an individual organism, unlike the embryo. Other than that, your evil plan of world cellular domination was flawless.

I'll respect the fact that a couple is willing to donate their embryos to the chance that someone will walk again, or that certain mental illnesses will be cured.

Would you respect a couple willing to donate their healthy living fetus, or newborn, or toddler to be killed and harvested to the chance of someone walking or curing certain illnesses? What I'm getting at, is your discrimination based on size, age, location, or what?

[Fonceai]

@5010

To answer your last question, no, I wouldn't.

Healthy living fetus, newborn, and toddlers are alive.

The embryos in question are already dead, or destined for destruction.

There is a significant difference.

Societies can define ethical boundaries on anything they choose, even duty or treatment of property.

Ahhh, but if I euthanize Fido because he has cancer, it's okay.
Just the same as if a girl gets an abortion because childbirth would kill her, it's okay.

We're not talking about abuse.

We're talking about medical science using something that is dead or about to die.

[CoffeeSaint]

I want to interject on a point of clarification...



Ethics are relative.

What CoffeeSaint probably should have said is:
Science is pursuit of knowledge, and those pursuing knowledge believe the pursuit is beyond ethics.

Because then your link about Nazi research would only show that those specific researchers had their own ethical standards and they believe their research was within those standards.

It's because those who revere Science feel that the ends justify the means.

The Nazi's had their own special ethics and morality, so using it as an example only illustrates their uniqueness.

No, that is not what I should have said; what I said is what I should have said. The pursuit of knowledge is beyond ethics. (And Fonceai, considering how you came down on me for putting words into your mouth, I'll thank you not to completely change my intended message for me).
The individual ethics and morality of the Nazis are in no way relevant to people in this society, and are even less relevant to a discussion of ethics in science. The goal of the Nazi scientists was not knowledge, it was death; all they sought in their experiments on concentration camp victims was better and more efficient ways to kill someone. That isn't science. To compare stem cell researchers to madmen is absolutely absurd.
If scientific knowledge is pursued in the name of achieving some political or pragmatic end, then ethics can be an issue. But scientific investigation in pursuit of knowledge is beyond ethics, as I said.
Now: are you all implying that stem cells would be used to slaughter millions of "unworthy" people, as happened during the Holocaust? Then perhaps science has crossed an ethical line here. If it were in any way true that abortions might be used as a way to produce stem cells for research, that might -- might -- cross an ethical line. But these cells are garbage. Whether you think they should be garbage or not, the researchers might as well be dumpster diving to get them. I cannot for the life of me see how using garbage to better understand the human body, and possibly to achieve practical, useful medical knowledge, can be seen as unethical, or even as ethical. It's just knowledge, knowledge gained from garbage. What we do with the knowledge might be a question of ethics, but don't put the cart before the horse.

[5010]

Right. I don't see how ethics relates to how garbage is used for knowledge, but rather how the garbage is obtained and how the knowledge is applied.

[Fonceai]

(And Fonceai, considering how you came down on me for putting words into your mouth, I'll thank you not to completely change my intended message for me).

Wasn't doing you a favor. I was correcting you.
That's why I said "should have said" and not "meant to say". Big difference.
I changed your message to something I perceive as being better, because I don't think knowledge, on the whole, is beyond ethics.

The individual ethics and morality of the Nazis are in no way relevant to people in this society, and are even less relevant to a discussion of ethics in science.

How are they less relevant? The fact that they performed experiments on people that I consider cruel but they considered necessary is exactly what you're talking about.

The goal of the Nazi scientists was not knowledge, it was death; all they sought in their experiments on concentration camp victims was better and more efficient ways to kill someone. That isn't science.

science
n.
1.a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

1.c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

How is that not science?

To compare stem cell researchers to madmen is absolutely absurd.

I agree.
5010 first mentioned ethics and Nazis in Post #23 and that ethical boundaries were breached.
You seem to agree because you call them madmen and apply ethics to what they did.
What they did was pursue a specific field of knowledge.
You said that is beyond ethics.

So which is it?

If scientific knowledge is pursued in the name of achieving some political or pragmatic end, then ethics can be an issue. But scientific investigation in pursuit of knowledge is beyond ethics, as I said.

I'm confused on where you stand.

Either the pursuit of knowledge is beyond ethics or it isn't.

You make a blanket statement about knowledge, but then put a condition based on what the knowledge is being used for, or how it is being applied.

Now: are you all implying that stem cells would be used to slaughter millions of "unworthy" people, as happened during the Holocaust?

Not at all. Never alluded to that at all.

But these cells are garbage. Whether you think they should be garbage or not, the researchers might as well be dumpster diving to get them. I cannot for the life of me see how using garbage to better understand the human body, and possibly to achieve practical, useful medical knowledge, can be seen as unethical, or even as ethical. It's just knowledge, knowledge gained from garbage.

I have no ethical opinion on this. The use of those cells is the right of whomever owns them. But see the problem here... they are going to be thrown away, thus perceived as garbage. The Nazis thought their experimentation subjects were garbage. And with both modern and Nazis, there are ethical disagreements.

What we do with the knowledge might be a question of ethics, but don't put the cart before the horse.

Again I'm confused. You apply ethical judgement on how the Nazi's experimented. You apply ethical judgement to how they used that knowledge.

But you said knowledge was beyond ethics?

The reason I'm pointing all of this out is because the belief that ethics has no place in science has to be unconditional. The Nazi's experiments eventually led to amazing advances in medicine. Some of which we probably would never have discovered because of the cruelty required to discover them.

I have my own ethics and morals in regards to what science does.

But I see the point you were trying to make... people shouldn't apply moral judgement to what is happening with stem cells.

The reason I altered your statement is because I personally think it's important to clarify that those doing the pursuing justify being beyond ethics (the Nazi's, for example) while others might have real problems with it.

[CoffeeSaint]

Wasn't doing you a favor. I was correcting you.
That's why I said "should have said" and not "meant to say". Big difference.
I changed your message to something I perceive as being better, because I don't think knowledge, on the whole, is beyond ethics.

And I wasn't really thanking you, I was asking you not to do this. If you have an opinion on anything I say, please state it, but please state it as your own opinion, and not a correction of mine. Thank you.

How are they less relevant? The fact that they performed experiments on people that I consider cruel but they considered necessary is exactly what you're talking about.

5010 first mentioned ethics and Nazis in Post #23 and that ethical boundaries were breached.
You seem to agree because you call them madmen and apply ethics to what they did.
What they did was pursue a specific field of knowledge.
You said that is beyond ethics.
Either the pursuit of knowledge is beyond ethics or it isn't.

You make a blanket statement about knowledge, but then put a condition based on what the knowledge is being used for, or how it is being applied.
I have no ethical opinion on this. The use of those cells is the right of whomever owns them. But see the problem here... they are going to be thrown away, thus perceived as garbage. The Nazis thought their experimentation subjects were garbage. And with both modern and Nazis, there are ethical disagreements.



Again I'm confused. You apply ethical judgement on how the Nazi's experimented. You apply ethical judgement to how they used that knowledge.

But you said knowledge was beyond ethics?

The reason I'm pointing all of this out is because the belief that ethics has no place in science has to be unconditional. The Nazi's experiments eventually led to amazing advances in medicine. Some of which we probably would never have discovered because of the cruelty required to discover them.

I have my own ethics and morals in regards to what science does.

But I see the point you were trying to make... people shouldn't apply moral judgement to what is happening with stem cells.

The reason I altered your statement is because I personally think it's important to clarify that those doing the pursuing justify being beyond ethics (the Nazi's, for example) while others might have real problems with it.

I'm wrong, and I apologize for not thinking out my statements more carefully. Ethics does apply to science. I have a serious problem with a comparison between Nazis and modern science, actually between Nazis and anyone else; the Nazis were, in my opinion, in a category all their own, and there is no reasonable analogy that can be drawn using them as one side. Perhaps in a hundred years we will be able to look at them objectively (though I doubt it) and then we can use them as a comparison, but at this time, there are simply too many connotations attached to the Nazis to make these comparisons anything but negative. If you want to use an example of "icky" science, try the graverobbing of early anatomists.

[5010]

I have a serious problem with a comparison between Nazis and modern science

OK, let's look at another example. We have (*insert scary organ music here*) the evil scientist Galileo, whose astronomical studies (especially the phases of venus) led him to defend heliocentrism against the moral boundary observed by the Church (a society of which he was a member). The authority of his inquisition treated scripture literally, especially Ps 93:1, Ps 104:5, and Ecc 1:5 which speak of the motion of celestial bodies and the suspended position of the Earth.

It wasn't the knowledge or the pursuit of it that the Church forbade (defined by the cardinal in charge of his inquisition), but the publishing of the resulting conclusions by Galileo.

Later, he published anyway after learning that a friend and admirer of him was elected pope.

In conclusion, we have a scientist doing what he personally considers ethical, a society that he belongs to that considers publishing it unethical, then later a new authority that is dope with it.

[CoffeeSaint]

OK, let's look at another example. We have (*insert scary organ music here*) the evil scientist Galileo, whose astronomical studies (especially the phases of venus) led him to defend heliocentrism against the moral boundary observed by the Church (a society of which he was a member). The authority of his inquisition treated scripture literally, especially Ps 93:1, Ps 104:5, and Ecc 1:5 which speak of the motion of celestial bodies and the suspended position of the Earth.

It wasn't the knowledge or the pursuit of it that the Church forbade (defined by the cardinal in charge of his inquisition), but the publishing of the resulting conclusions by Galileo.

Later, he published anyway after learning that a friend and admirer of him was elected pope.

In conclusion, we have a scientist doing what he personally considers ethical, a society that he belongs to that considers publishing it unethical, then later a new authority that is dope with it.

Aight, so how does that translate to stem cell research? As you said, here and above (in your response to my "garbage" comment) the violation of ethics is not so much in the pursuit of knowledge in the abstract, but in the means by which the knowledge is obtained (how the garbage is collected), and how the knowledge is used after it is obtained. For Galileo, the use, or publication, of the knowledge was evil in the eyes of his society, because it undermined the Church and defied the word of God -- right?
What is objectionable about the uses of stem cells, and/or the way they are gathered for research? Do you see the frozen embryos as living human beings, or are you worrying about what the future source of embryonic stem cells will be? Or is it in fact the way they will be used?