Here's a question for the debate:
Why is it immoral to sacrifice a few lives to save the lives of many, (stem cells), when we are doing just that in Iraq? Our elected officials have determined that some lives are worth sacrificing, (or maybe not worth enough), and refuse to accept the possibility that forward-progress with embryonic stem cell research could save/extend or change the quality of life for millions?
Assuming policy reflects morality, the US does not consider it moral to force minors into suicide missions to save lives.Quote by: Zee-Axis
- solo
(my site)
I guess "expendability" begins when you reach voting age.
Life, an interesting term. If life begins at. I think before you can say if life begins at a certain point you have to decide what life is. Many people think that flowers and trees are alive, but they're not. They have no central nervous system, no brain, no sensory inputs, no thoughts, or emotions. They grow, but they are not alive. Much like crystals in a cave. They grow but are not alive.
A stem cell grows, but is it alive. Since its lacking a lot of the primary requirements for life I would say its not.
Not that this helps this kids argument for school. Tough side to get kid.
Sorry, but 'life' is already defined. Deliberately misusing a common term is a form of deception.
- solo
(my site)
Im a freshman in highschool not college lolThinking for your self is taboo at collages, don't'cha know.
I know. Thats why I'm not on Wiki and thats also why I told everyone at the beginning of the thread to include their sources if possible.Some universities have outlawed the on-line Wikipedia for example because the teachers do not feel it is alway factural.
"It's not easy banging your head against some mad bugger's wall."
-- Roger Waters (Pink Floyd, "Outside the Wall")
Why not? Because they're not human? You don't have to have a brain to be alive. They need energy just like we do. They respond to the environment like we do. Do crystals need to eat? Do they need anything to exist? No. There are requirements that plants have to survive. Sunlight for example. They die without it. You can take a crystal out of a cave and it will still look the exact same.Many people think that flowers and plants are alive, but they're not.
"It's not easy banging your head against some mad bugger's wall."
-- Roger Waters (Pink Floyd, "Outside the Wall")
One of the key arguments of people who want to prevent stem cell research is that its killing life. So to evaluate if that is correct we need an accurate definition of life.
Flowers, like stem cells are not life, because they do not have a brain. Flowers do not respond to the environment like we do. Since they have no brains its impossible for them to perceive the environment. They use energy because they are in fact machines. Beautiful machines that we all love, but machines nonetheless. Even if they could, they have no memories so could not remember that they perceived the environment.
The prime requirements for life should be:
1. Must have sensory inputs. Be able to extract information from the environment.
2. Must have brains. It must be able to understand that information and make decisions based on that information.
3. Life must have memory. Without memory each moment experienced is lost in the next moment. Theres no continuation of conciousness.
Theres more, but these will do for now.
Anything else must be a machine. We always think of machines as metal things we create but the truth is nature produces machines in the trillions each moment. Flowers are machines, as are stem cells. They do not think, and they do not live.
A machine is 'an apparatus consisting of interrelated parts with separate functions, used in the performance of some kind of work'
The brain is a thought machine. Sensors are detection machines. Memory is a recording machine. Life is a metabolizing machine. We are debate machines.
- solo
(my site)
5010, do you agree with p1drobert?
"It's not easy banging your head against some mad bugger's wall."
-- Roger Waters (Pink Floyd, "Outside the Wall")
Yes 5010, you are quite correct. All those individual parts are in fact machines. Thats why we can replace a heart with a mechanical pump, why we can shed cells and not care, etc. But when all those parts are put together an interesting thing happens. A gestalt of all those parts creates an entity. The entity that is life. We are not our bodies, we are an "effect" of our bodies. Our brain cells are just biological switches. They switch an output based on an input. If one were to die, or be replaced with another, we as entities would still be the same. If it were technologically possible we could even replace a nueron with a silicon, man made, switch and we'd never know the difference. We'd still be us.
This is why stem cells are just another piece of the machine. Not life.
Yes, and nobody would care if the matter were merely the harvesting of some stems cells from an embryo without harming it. Consider amniotic and cord stems. They are harvested and nobody cares.
- solo
(my site)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks