Fight to clone a human.

Damn Redneck, we're going to get in serious trouble with these triple posts

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Actually, there is evidence that adult stem cell differentiation can be as extensive as embryonic stem cells. This is cutting edge and still being worked on, but the evidence I have heard is promising. This is my main contention: we do not have to take the moral risks associated with embryonic stem cell research, certainly not to the extent of farming embryos for slaughter. See www.sciencemag.org...

Ahh the evidence is promising but not clear yet and until it is i will argue my case. As i said at the start, once we have gotten adult cels to the point we don't even need the embryonic kind them i'll argue your case all day long and most of the night. So lets not bother with that discussion again shall we

Originally posted by TheRedneck
There are no indications that rejection inherent in embryonic stem cell usage can be overcome.

More correctly there are no indications YET! Hence more research.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
I agree, this has been a pleasurable debate, and one I look forward to participating in. My compliments to you on your civility; it takes two to tango.

Well hugs all round

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

I must admit i have a decent amount of research in this area. I used to muck out horses on the local farms and walk recovering horses around the yards. I know horses very well and whilst i think they're beautiful animals i have to say they don't seem smart at all. I found it quite relaxing looking after them though.

My experience has not been as direct (I never could find the steering wheel or brake on one of the things; found the accelerator right off ), but no less intensive. Most of my neighbors either have or have had horses, and one in particular I remember was able to get out of his pen despite repeated attempts to dissuade him. he seemed to be able to come up with a new way to get through the fence every night, until his owner finally gave up and sold him off. I would say that was pretty intelligent.

That was my whole point so the comparison wasn't moot. I was trying to say that we view intelligence in seriously narrow and rather flawed terms. Genius is in my view only defined by achievment in a field. Whether that be science, music or philosophy.

The comparison is moot because you are comparing apples to oranges, so to speak. The point, of course, is not. In other words, I agree with your assessment.

I wouldn't scoff at you, for many years i've wondered about this one. A friend of mine keeps honey bees... However an individual honey bee seems quite stupid but the hive is very smart. If you've ever captured a swarm or been witness to it you'll notice how they react in a very group think way that ensures their survival. Would love to discuss that more, maybe on another thread, although i think we agree so it woudln't be a big debate

I'm glad you are aware of this phenomenon. Wouldn't you say that it indicates we as a society know far too little about the nature of sentience then to make decisions based on the existence of it?

Ahh but there is the old saying, the exception proves the rule. Oddly within science this one law seems to be accepted because there always seems to be an excemption to the rule. The noble gases i think are along that line, that they can't combine with any other element and then scientists find certain noble gases can combine with other elements when put under extreme conditions. I think only 3 noble gases are left that havn't been made into compounds, but i digress.

That one saying is new to me, and here I thought of myself as the king of cliches. Seriously, I can't agree that the exception proves the rule; iof anything, the exception disproves the rule, or at least means the rule is inadequate.

To address the noble gases, the exceptions that have been found prove only that the original judgment of their activity was incomplete; they do not normally combine with other elements, yet this is not due to their inability to do so (as originally thought) but the difficulty of them doing so (present theory).

Well if we go by your previous idea that the most useful things will occur first then sentience would be last as it's not needed for survival whilst inside a womb. The possibility exists however in my view it won't develop until a lot later, maybe around 4 months, (note i picked this out of many reasons including body development).

To this I must respond, how do we know when sentience is needed? As previously pointed out, sentience can take forms beyond our limited perception of it (like with the bees). Your argument against embryonic sentience appears to be based on the assumption that it can only develop inside a fully-formed brain. Mine is that sentience could be something beyond the physical brain.

You are right in thinking i would not experiment on a three year old child, or a two year old or any child after maybe 4 months of life (by 4 months i mean whilt still in the womb). Anyone who sugests this is ok i think needs to do some serious research and thinking.

I'm glad to hear you say that. But this brings up another problem with this experimentation: will it remain at the level being tried now, or will it be expanded? Humans as a group tend to see things in a very simple fashion, i.e., experimentation on an embryo could be extended to experimentation on a fetus, or eventually, on a fully-formed child (as in hours before birth). Sure, you are probably saying that you wouldn't support this, and I know you wouldn't. But abortion started out (in a legal sense) as early termination of an unwanted pregnancy; now partial-birth abortions are carried out mere seconds before birth is complete, all legally. What is different between abortion and stem cell research? The amount of money that can be made by the experimenters!

Ahh but hang on there. If your children had been raised in a poor african family, unable to eat most days, i am willing ot bet they'd be different. If they had been raised in an abusive family i am willing to bet they'd be different. The point being is that even though you think you havn't changed them, the very fact they have been loved, cared for and suffered no real hardship has effected them. It's effected them in a positive way i'm sure but it has shaped them into the people they are.

Ahh, you miss my point. Surely, they would have become different people if raised differently, but their raising compared to each other was consistent. Yet they each have totally different personalities.

Children of 3 show intelligence and levels of sentience but often not complete self awareness. It's theorised to be a learning mechanism.

I would need your definitions of 'sentience' and 'self-awareness' to answer this. I consider the two to be synonymous.

Not quite. It wouldn't matter if you took someone from an african tribe or a western human the results would be the same. Our brains seems to be set to define organic and non organic items, animals from plants, dangerous items from safe items etc. The basics of these ideas seem hard wired, some have to be learned in our modern society but the basics are there.

I'm not saying there would be a difference between two different groups of people. I am saying that there are definite patterns that can be associated with stimuli, as you are. But my point is that these patterns of brain activity indicate only the general areas that are active, not the exact nature of the activity. Does increased blood flow in one area indicate a memory, a reaction, an imagination, or simply a connection between two or more of the above? We simply do not know the answer to that question.

Well we dont' disagree that research should continue, and that's the beauty of science.

Absolutely research must continue, but it must continue in a way that is logical and morally acceptable to society. As case in point, we would both be horrified to learn that 2 year old children were being experimented on, leading to their death. That would be immoral in the eyes of society. I believe that if we understood more about the development of sentience in the early stages of life, we would be as horrified. Thusly, I believe we should research more from the position of needing to know more about the implications of our present research.

TheRedneck
(end of part 1)

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

Hey hang on, i never said i would discount the witnesses, again remember i'm agnostic. I'm saying i won't believe one way or the other until proof is provided but i will err on the side of caution until i have proof.

No offense, but in order to deny that something beyond our present scientific understanding is happening, one would have to discount the myriad of anecdotal evidence to the paranormal. Perhaps I misunderstood your position; if so, please elaborate on it.

Your electricity arguement proves my idea of erring on the side of caution. People didn't believe it until proof was provided and that's how i operate, it's how science operates and so until someone proves a soul, proves an embryos has one and proves it knows whats going on, then experimentation is fine. I would rather allow the research and any possible evidence to evolve then hold the research and wait until we are clear on a soul, which may takes thousands of years, or more probably never be proven or disproven.

Well, it would have been very easy to experiment on patients using this strange power we did not know about by electrifying individuals to see if it would cure them of some illness. the effect would have been to electrocute the patient, but the argument then could have been made that it might have worked, and could be a miracle cure for an incurable disease if only we did more research. This would have led to more electrocutions. It didn't, because societal morality prevented it.

Of course, with the knowledge we have today on the effects of electricity, it is hard to imagine a time when such 'obvious' mistakes could have been accepted. But if you look at human nature throughout the centuries, such mistakes are common. How long ago was it that disease was thought to be caused by 'bad blood'? That lack of knowledge of the nature of disease led to numerous deaths, each one explained away by the fact that those practicing the barbaric art were working to get it right and improve medicine.

Ahh forgiven. I understand you would rather keep the debate in terms most people are aware of but i must say i don't think propogating a myth is ever good.

Point taken, and agreed to.

Hang on a second, how about i state without proof that plants like wheat have intimate souls that feel horrible, physical pain and we are torturing them? Should we stop farming and killing wheat? I could say the same for rice and corn as well, thereby obliterating most of our food crops. Again, without proof i should not stand in the way of science. It's the same with embryo research.

You make an excellent point, and one I am finding hard to answer. I will say that concern over a plant, so far removed from our own species and necessary to life itself, pales a bit in comparison with experimentation on one of our own species, adn research that is not necessary for human life to continue.

Please forgive me for my 'specist' viewpoint here. I do place the survival of my own species over that of another species, as I believe is a normal reaction among most (of any species).

I have no conscience on the matter as i consider it clear, i feel that statement was an attempt at discreditating my views and the views of mainstream science.

Discredit? No. It was intended to elicit a closer examination, that I admit.

No matter what facts are presented, even those that are absolutely and incontrovertably true, there will always be those who state otherwise, therefore it's an opinon, based on facts but an opinion nonetheless

I believe we are getting away from the context here. I was speaking in response to:

...my opinion is that with current research we know there is a minimum brain size needed...

An opinion may be supported by facts, but is not necessarily so. Knowledge must be supported by facts, else it becomes opinion. I am stating that in the context of the quoted statement above, the two are oxymoronic. Knowledge is antithetic to opinion.

yes it would be a very acceptable arguement to say we didn't know. Just like we didn't know leaded petrol was dangerous and CFC's were destroying the ozone layer.[.quote]

And in both cases, we acted without proper research to verify our actions were safe. In the former, many people died or suffered brain damage from lead-based paint and fuel; in the latter, we nearly damaged our atmosphere. So why should we not proceed with caution in the case of embryonic research?

Yes it puts thema t risk if your'e correct, but my arguement states we are not correct and so there is no risk and no shaky arguement. I only acept being wrong as a possibility because i never think anything is 100% correct. However i go with my 99.9% and bet it's the right choice, if i'm ever proven wrong i'd repent and aruge your case.

The problem here is that your argument is based on present knowledge, which, I believe, we have established as being inadequate in the area of sentience.

How very dare you, me and my candyfloss people will invade you and destroy your heathen belief of dark chocolate worlds!

You will fail, as we will pray to the dark chocolate god Hershey to intervene and destroy your candyfloss worlds!

(Hey, did we just start a religious war?

)

Ahh but hang on, many things are proven to be barbaric later in existence. How do you think todays surgeons will be viewed? I'm not a fan of star trek but i am reminded of one of the flms where bones calls the earth doctors butchers

Ah, The City on the Edge of Forever!

I think you may be quite right that someday our doctors will be considered butchers (in fact I consider most of them butchers already). My feelings are consistent in this respect; I believe we are playing much too fast and loose with medication and rough surgery without realizing the implications of our actions. Medicine in general needs much more research into the life processes.

Well we disagree, we have proof that certain chemical responses cause certain actions, we have proof that the injection of certain chemicals causes certain responses, we have proof that directed magnetic fields at certain areas of the brain causes certain reactions adn we are able to explain why these occurences come about. These however are very small parts of the brain, truly, pathetically small parts. However they are parts and start to form that picture, i think it'll take lieterally a few hundred years before we have it pinned down.

I liken our knowledge of chemical reactions in the brain to those of someone trying to understand how a car works. They may know that putting transmission fluid into the oil will stop a lifter from pecking, but they probably don't know how or why. They may know that putting water into the gas will cause the car to run poorly, but again, not know the basics of what they have done.

I cannot disagree with your time frame for furthering our knowledge, but I can say I hope it happens faster.

Please provide the research stating a 12 day old embryo has a discernable brain wave pattern, i am very interested in seeing it. I am going on pure speculation when i say those patterns are very likely nothing more than random electronic discharge from celular activity, not just brain waves but from the whole body and tweaked by pro life advocates. However i will correct what i say here if you can show me the research otherwise.

I will look this info up, but it will have to be at a later time. My week (as I explained to you in my last U2U) is very busy, and I would prefer to give more thorough information on this than I can do at this time.

Darn, character limit again... to be continued.

TheRedneck

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

Well that's our difference, i think it's status according to modern science is known to within 99.9% probability.

The status of a sleeping adult may be known, but the sleeping adult is still unaware of his surroundings and unable to communicate (without waking up). this is the same, insofar as these conditions, as the status of an embryo, unable to communicate and unaware of his surroundings. That's the point I am putting forth.

You misinterpret what i mean by look. I said it has no disernable organs. That isn't just not looking like us, that's not even being like us remotely. Human embryos at 12 days are not really discernable from cow embryos, sheep embyos or mice embryos. By your logic we should imbue them all with the same rights.

No, I do not mean that we should grant rights to any creature based on looks alone. That would be unscientific (and seriously insane, IMHO). I only mean that based on looks alone, or based on comparison between organ development alone, or based on anything without studying the nature of the sentience you claim it does not have and I claim it may have, is an unscientific view.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

Ahh the evidence is promising but not clear yet and until it is i will argue my case. As i said at the start, once we have gotten adult cels to the point we don't even need the embryonic kind them i'll argue your case all day long and most of the night. So lets not bother with that discussion again shall we

I'm sorry, I think this particular point goes to the heart of the argument. So while I will honor your request at this point, I can't promise not to bring it up again.

More correctly there are no indications YET! Hence more research.

Research into overcoming rejection is continuing, which is a good thing, but it does not need embryonic research to continue it. Most of the immunity rejection research is conducted in conjunction with organ transplant, a branch of medicine research that I fully support. So do not fear, rejection research will continue unimpeded even if embryonic research were halted tomorrow.

Well hugs all round

Does that mean we have to stop our religious war?

TheRedneck

TheRedneck, i have absolutely loved our debate and i must say i have found it one of my best on ATS simply because it remained civil. You have my undying respect. We have covered the issues i think and sadly can't come to a conclusion on the one issue of what constitutes conciousness. I think this is the nub of our disagreement (correct me if i'm wrong). Therefore i will make this my sort of closing statement and it will contain no questions.

We have gone over what we consider defines sentience, my standing is that a certain brain capacity and body to brain ratio is needed for sentience to be able to develop. Collective intelligence (bees, ants etc) isn't comparable to single brain intelligence of humans. I however would love to debate that in another thread given the chance.

In my view this 12 day old embryo cannot be concious unless we accept the idea of a soul being infuse at conception, and even then i think i would view the soul as being a learning vehicle. By that i mean as i stated before, a being that experiences what the organism goes through dependant upon their senses. As an embryo has no senses according to current science then i think experimentation is acceptable.

However i look forward to the future when one us of will be proven right. It may be you or it may be me, either way i'm looking forward to it. Currently however science seems to favour my view and so we should continue experimentation. However if it ever changes, and you are correct then i will post my agreement and an apology immediately.

All the best my friend.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Does that mean we have to stop our religious war?

No Redneck i'm sorry, but you and your dark chocolate believers will be destroyed.

[edit on 30-7-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]

Imagine cloning brain cells, you could revive the veggie humans!

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
And all the best to you as well, my friend.

As I mentioned to you in my U2U, I am giving you the last word on this debate, as a thank you for giving me one of the best debates I have had in some time. This is not a conclusion to my argument, but an acknowledgment of yours.

Till we meet again on opposite sides of a fence,
TheRedneck

I have not read all 6 pages of posts so I will just jump in here.

Cloning embryos is no big deal. Cloning full term, viable humans/animals gets very ugly. Maybe in the future it will be better but at this stage it is not pretty at all, they have to try several times before they get a viable result.

A while back that company that cloned cats was in the news. It made me question the buyers. They loved their animal so much they MUST have a genetic copy of that which they lost, yet they don't care if their animal is conceived artificially 6 or 10 times and because of mutations/disabilities those fetuses are destroyed?

How could anyone that truly loves another be okay with their copies of their loved one created and then destroyed several times over until a "good copy" is manufactured? It's horrendous.

Originally posted by Sonya610
I have not read all 6 pages of posts so I will just jump in here.

By skipping ahead you have disrespected the ideas of people on this forum, please read through them as they answer most of what you asked. Where is the logic in skipping ahead, where is the logic in asking questions or providing opinions when you havn't read the opinions already given?

Give the members of ATS respect and read the thread.

Thanks.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
By skipping ahead you have disrespected the ideas of people on this forum, please read through them as they answer most of what you asked.

I be disrespecting you? My apologies. I read back and did not see my points addressed anywhere. The question I asked “how could people do that”, I did not see that answered anywhere either. In fact the conversation never even came close.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Even if for a second we go hypothetical and assume a soul is attached at conception then the soul would merely return to heaven if it were used in research.

But some of your comments did make me laugh. This one above is priceless! It solves the debate right there huh? Just return the souls to heaven! In fact we could solve a lot of the worlds problems that way! The energy crisis, world hunger, disease, etc…all could be solved by merely returning souls to heaven!