How seriously are you considering your idea of a DIY medical equip repository?
I've thought of doing something like this in the past so if you are serious about doing something like this, let me know at joel at mawhorter dot org.
By the way http://www.thinkcycle.org/ is an interesting MIT sponsored site that is something like what you suggest.
Joel
The thing is, we CAN do somthing to prevent at least some miscarriages.
Many unborn babies have genetic problems. The body aborts them naturally. We can give expectant mothers anti-aborfactant drugs which would preserve the life of these unborn individuals which are weaker than us and deserve our protection.
Maybe you're just trolling and I'm nieve but how exactly do you think that would be possible? Many genetic problems are not compatable with life and any "anti-abortificient" drugs would not change that. I think your proposal is interesting philosophically but far-fetched medically.
If what you propose was possible, do you really think that saving babies with genetic problems would be a "truly ghastly implication" of accepting the easily verified fact that conception creates a new human organism? Why should we force parents of children with Down syndrome to do what they can to protect the lives of those children? Is that a ghastly implication of accepting that being a living human being is sufficient reason to deserve protection regardless of your level of "genetic perfection"? Once you start going down that road of ranking the worth of human beings you are only a short trip away from some of the arguments used by the Nazis and other white supremicists.
Research which involves destroying embryos could save people's lives and prevent suffering.
Research which involves the destroying of humans at every level of development could save people's lives and prevent suffering. Would you sign up to be a subject of that research? This reminds me of a good quote by Abraham Lincoln on the related topic of slavery:
"I have always thought that all men should be free; but if any should be slaves, it
should be first those who desire it for themselves, and secondly those who desire it
for others. Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to
see it tried on him personally."
Apparently, you privilege the preservation of embryos which can't feel, suffer, or think over saving the lives or ending the suffering of people who unquestionably can.
This kind of thinking can and has been used to justify a great deal of evil throughout history. Once we start ranking the value of one human over another we are in a dangerous situation where oppression of the "less valuable" human(s) is likely to follow.
In order for an action to be unethical, someone has to be harmed. When destroying an embryo, there's no one who suffers or feels pain or is harmed in any way.
I think you first statement is completely false but I'll accept it for the sake of the argument. If I give you sufficient anesthetic, I can kill you without causing you any pain. Do you think that would be morally acceptable? I think the fact that I was killing a human being would be doing serious harm regardless of who did or did not suffer as a result. Why can't we apply that same standard to humans at all levels of development?
So does one of my skin cells, but there's no laws against me extracting one and then experimenting on it (or destroying it without purpose). This argument doesn't hold.
As I noted in my comment to the previous comment, a skin cell is not a organism and an embryo is, so the comparison is invalid.
I'll save you some time: The argument you're looking for is that an embryo has the potential, on its own (assuming it has the uterine and nutritive framework) to grow into a fully-developed human.
I can't speak for the person you are responding to but that certainly isn't the argument I use. The idea of "potential" is a weak argument largely founded on a misunderstanding or lack or understanding of basic biological science. An embryo is not a potential human being. It is a living organism of the human species and therefore a human being. It is certainly a potential "fully-developed human being". So is a neonate and a todler and a teenager. That potential for full development has nothing to do with being fully human. Few people serious suggest that it should be legal to kill newborn children. However, newborns seem to have minimal or no self-awareness. There cognitive development is such that they probably don't have much in the way of meaningful thought. Properly anesthetized, that newborn would not suffer from being killed. By your argument then, it sould be legal to do so. The reason we outlaw the killing of most human beings is because it is recognized that killing human beings is wrong not because doing so causes suffering.
Having unique DNA does not make you a human (I don't see anyone here suggesting that). Being a living organizm with human DNA does. That is why a human embryo is objectively and clearly a human being since it is a living organism that is of the human species. I recognize few people actually study embryology but this is basic science (i.e. high school level here in Canada) and I am surprised that so few people seem familiar with it. Perhaps if the obvious scientific conclusions didn't have such significant moral implications this would not be the case.
Comparisons of embryos to individual somatic cells of chimeras or humans are not valid comparisons. No part of my hair, nails, sperm, etc. is a living organism even though it is all human tissue. An embryo is clearly a living human organism.
People inherently understand the moral difference between the distruction of human tissue (which is regularly done in surgery) and the distruction of a human organism. People also inherently understand the moral difference between killing a human organism and killing a non-human organism. If you doubt me on this last point try this experiment: 1. find two groups of the most radical animal rights activists you can find. 2. in front of the first group, kill a calf and note the response. 3. in front of the second group, kill a child and note the response.
I think your question is not the right question. The question to be answered is not when "life" begins but when a human organism's existance begins. Life is clearly a continum: a sperm and egg are both alive and so is a zygote and at no point in between can those cells be called dead. However, a new human organism is clearly present from the moment of conception on. Any remaining confusion about that has been cleared up the understanding we now have of genetics. At every point after conception, there is objectively a unique, autonomous (i.e. self-regulating and self-directing) organism of the human species in existance. Certainly it is in a highly dependent state and far from "fully" developed. However near complete dependency continues for at least the first few years after birth (and often reoccurs with advanced age) and developmentally a newborn human is still very far from the level of development of an adult human. Given that, we certainly can identifity exactly (at least to the minute) when the existance of a human being begins.
That said, I don't think this is the heart of the disagreement regarding the use of embryonic stem cells. The question is not whether an embryo is a human being. The question is, are we going to treat all human beings equally regardless of their level of development, depencency, characteristics, etc. ?
As a clear example, significant medical and scientific advancement was made under Nazi rule in Germany. Unfortunately, it was made at the expense of the suffering and death of innocent human beings. Needless to say, that "progress" was thankfully brought to an abrupt halt.
It just goes to show that progress doesn't mean improvement and it doesn't justify all means used to achieve it.
My point wasn't to make Bill's donation seem trival. It isn't. My point was that this attitude that we can't possibly colletively give this kind of money becuase we aren't all rich like Bill is not true.
I'm glad to hear that but it is irrelevant to my point. I showed that the Linux community could easily give 10 billion USD over 10 years which is still a lot more than 1.5 billion.
I stand corrected. Thanks for pointing that out.
However, my point remains unchanged. The Linux community could outgive Bill Gates (especially in the long term) if it wanted to. As I mentioned in my original post, the Linux community could almost certainly give $100 billion USD over 10 years. There is no way Bill could sustain that kind of giving.
Please understand I'm not bashing Bill Gates here for what he is doing. I'm just showing that giving large sums of money to help people is well within the reach of a large group like the Linux community.
Huh? Did you read my whole post? I just showed how easily the Linux community could give away 1 billion USD per year. I highly doubt the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation gives away more than that per year.
My point, which I think is easily demonstrated, is that we as a group can easily compete with Bill Gates' giving. We just choose not to!
This donation represents 750 million USD over 10 years, thus 75 million USD per year.
For the sake of argument let's say there are 2 million people in the "Linux community". I'm sure that is an underestimate but it doesn't matter for the sake of this exercise.
75 million USD/ 2 million = 37.5 USD per year per Linux user. I'm sure the vast majority of Linux users either live in wealthy western nations or are of above average wealth in the nations in which they live. So 38 USD per year is pocket change for most Linux users. I'm sure this is less than the average annual spending of Linux users on carbonated beverages (for which to total worldwide annual spending is ~200 billion USD). Even 500 per year would hardly be noticed by most Linux users. That would amount to 1 billion USD per year. I would bet most Linux users could afford with some small sacrifice to give 5000 USD per year away. That would amount to 100 billion USD over the 10 year period of Bill Gates' 750 million USD donation which starts to make his gift look like a drop in the bucket.
Don't underestimate the power of a large number of people.
If anyone is interested I've put together a short "slide show" examining visually what people choose to allocate money to and what they don't. It is at http://joel.mawhorter.org/priorities/priorities-in tro.html. I will warn you that it is graphic and you will likely find it disturbing (but hopefully moving and educational).
This donation represents 750 million USD over 10 years, thus 75 million USD per year.
For the sake of argument let's say there are 2 million people in the "Linux community". I'm sure that is an underestimate but it doesn't matter for the sake of this exercise.
75 million USD/ 2 million = 37.5 USD per year per Linux user.
I'm sure the vast majority of Linux users either live in wealthy western nations or are of above average wealth in the nations in which they live. So 38 USD per year is pocket change for most Linux users. I'm sure this is less than the average annual spending of Linux users on carbonated beverages (for which to total worldwide annual spending is ~200 billion USD).
Even 500 per year would hardly be noticed by most Linux users. That would amount to 1 billion USD per year. I would bet most Linux users could afford with some small sacrifice to give 5000 USD per year away. That would amount to 100 billion USD over the 10 year period of Bill Gates' 750 million USD donation which starts to make his gift look like a drop in the bucket.
Don't underestimate the power of a large number of people.
If anyone is interested I've put together a short "slide show" examining visually what people choose to allocate money to and what they don't. It is at http://joel.mawhorter.org/priorities/priorities-in tro.html
I will warn you that it is graphic and you will likely find it disturbing (but hopefully moving and educational).
Joel
Slashdot Mirror
How seriously are you considering your idea of a DIY medical equip repository? I've thought of doing something like this in the past so if you are serious about doing something like this, let me know at joel at mawhorter dot org. By the way http://www.thinkcycle.org/ is an interesting MIT sponsored site that is something like what you suggest. Joel
Maybe you're just trolling and I'm nieve but how exactly do you think that would be possible? Many genetic problems are not compatable with life and any "anti-abortificient" drugs would not change that. I think your proposal is interesting philosophically but far-fetched medically. If what you propose was possible, do you really think that saving babies with genetic problems would be a "truly ghastly implication" of accepting the easily verified fact that conception creates a new human organism? Why should we force parents of children with Down syndrome to do what they can to protect the lives of those children? Is that a ghastly implication of accepting that being a living human being is sufficient reason to deserve protection regardless of your level of "genetic perfection"? Once you start going down that road of ranking the worth of human beings you are only a short trip away from some of the arguments used by the Nazis and other white supremicists.
Research which involves the destroying of humans at every level of development could save people's lives and prevent suffering. Would you sign up to be a subject of that research? This reminds me of a good quote by Abraham Lincoln on the related topic of slavery:
Apparently, you privilege the preservation of embryos which can't feel, suffer, or think over saving the lives or ending the suffering of people who unquestionably can.
This kind of thinking can and has been used to justify a great deal of evil throughout history. Once we start ranking the value of one human over another we are in a dangerous situation where oppression of the "less valuable" human(s) is likely to follow.
In order for an action to be unethical, someone has to be harmed. When destroying an embryo, there's no one who suffers or feels pain or is harmed in any way.
I think you first statement is completely false but I'll accept it for the sake of the argument. If I give you sufficient anesthetic, I can kill you without causing you any pain. Do you think that would be morally acceptable? I think the fact that I was killing a human being would be doing serious harm regardless of who did or did not suffer as a result. Why can't we apply that same standard to humans at all levels of development?
As I noted in my comment to the previous comment, a skin cell is not a organism and an embryo is, so the comparison is invalid.
I'll save you some time: The argument you're looking for is that an embryo has the potential, on its own (assuming it has the uterine and nutritive framework) to grow into a fully-developed human.
I can't speak for the person you are responding to but that certainly isn't the argument I use. The idea of "potential" is a weak argument largely founded on a misunderstanding or lack or understanding of basic biological science. An embryo is not a potential human being. It is a living organism of the human species and therefore a human being. It is certainly a potential "fully-developed human being". So is a neonate and a todler and a teenager. That potential for full development has nothing to do with being fully human. Few people serious suggest that it should be legal to kill newborn children. However, newborns seem to have minimal or no self-awareness. There cognitive development is such that they probably don't have much in the way of meaningful thought. Properly anesthetized, that newborn would not suffer from being killed. By your argument then, it sould be legal to do so. The reason we outlaw the killing of most human beings is because it is recognized that killing human beings is wrong not because doing so causes suffering.
Having unique DNA does not make you a human (I don't see anyone here suggesting that). Being a living organizm with human DNA does. That is why a human embryo is objectively and clearly a human being since it is a living organism that is of the human species. I recognize few people actually study embryology but this is basic science (i.e. high school level here in Canada) and I am surprised that so few people seem familiar with it. Perhaps if the obvious scientific conclusions didn't have such significant moral implications this would not be the case.
Comparisons of embryos to individual somatic cells of chimeras or humans are not valid comparisons. No part of my hair, nails, sperm, etc. is a living organism even though it is all human tissue. An embryo is clearly a living human organism.
People inherently understand the moral difference between the distruction of human tissue (which is regularly done in surgery) and the distruction of a human organism. People also inherently understand the moral difference between killing a human organism and killing a non-human organism. If you doubt me on this last point try this experiment: 1. find two groups of the most radical animal rights activists you can find. 2. in front of the first group, kill a calf and note the response. 3. in front of the second group, kill a child and note the response.
That said, I don't think this is the heart of the disagreement regarding the use of embryonic stem cells. The question is not whether an embryo is a human being. The question is, are we going to treat all human beings equally regardless of their level of development, depencency, characteristics, etc. ?
You can stop "progress".
As a clear example, significant medical and scientific advancement was made under Nazi rule in Germany. Unfortunately, it was made at the expense of the suffering and death of innocent human beings. Needless to say, that "progress" was thankfully brought to an abrupt halt.
It just goes to show that progress doesn't mean improvement and it doesn't justify all means used to achieve it.
My point wasn't to make Bill's donation seem trival. It isn't. My point was that this attitude that we can't possibly colletively give this kind of money becuase we aren't all rich like Bill is not true.
I'm glad to hear that but it is irrelevant to my point. I showed that the Linux community could easily give 10 billion USD over 10 years which is still a lot more than 1.5 billion.
I stand corrected. Thanks for pointing that out. However, my point remains unchanged. The Linux community could outgive Bill Gates (especially in the long term) if it wanted to. As I mentioned in my original post, the Linux community could almost certainly give $100 billion USD over 10 years. There is no way Bill could sustain that kind of giving. Please understand I'm not bashing Bill Gates here for what he is doing. I'm just showing that giving large sums of money to help people is well within the reach of a large group like the Linux community.
Huh? Did you read my whole post? I just showed how easily the Linux community could give away 1 billion USD per year. I highly doubt the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation gives away more than that per year.
My point, which I think is easily demonstrated, is that we as a group can easily compete with Bill Gates' giving. We just choose not to!
Joel
Sorry. Preview first, post second :-)
n tro.html. I will warn you that it is graphic and you will likely find it disturbing (but hopefully moving and educational).
This donation represents 750 million USD over 10 years, thus 75 million USD per year.
For the sake of argument let's say there are 2 million people in the "Linux community". I'm sure that is an underestimate but it doesn't matter for the sake of this exercise.
75 million USD/ 2 million = 37.5 USD per year per Linux user. I'm sure the vast majority of Linux users either live in wealthy western nations or are of above average wealth in the nations in which they live. So 38 USD per year is pocket change for most Linux users. I'm sure this is less than the average annual spending of Linux users on carbonated beverages (for which to total worldwide annual spending is ~200 billion USD). Even 500 per year would hardly be noticed by most Linux users. That would amount to 1 billion USD per year. I would bet most Linux users could afford with some small sacrifice to give 5000 USD per year away. That would amount to 100 billion USD over the 10 year period of Bill Gates' 750 million USD donation which starts to make his gift look like a drop in the bucket.
Don't underestimate the power of a large number of people.
If anyone is interested I've put together a short "slide show" examining visually what people choose to allocate money to and what they don't. It is at http://joel.mawhorter.org/priorities/priorities-i
Joel
This donation represents 750 million USD over 10 years, thus 75 million USD per year. For the sake of argument let's say there are 2 million people in the "Linux community". I'm sure that is an underestimate but it doesn't matter for the sake of this exercise. 75 million USD/ 2 million = 37.5 USD per year per Linux user. I'm sure the vast majority of Linux users either live in wealthy western nations or are of above average wealth in the nations in which they live. So 38 USD per year is pocket change for most Linux users. I'm sure this is less than the average annual spending of Linux users on carbonated beverages (for which to total worldwide annual spending is ~200 billion USD). Even 500 per year would hardly be noticed by most Linux users. That would amount to 1 billion USD per year. I would bet most Linux users could afford with some small sacrifice to give 5000 USD per year away. That would amount to 100 billion USD over the 10 year period of Bill Gates' 750 million USD donation which starts to make his gift look like a drop in the bucket. Don't underestimate the power of a large number of people. If anyone is interested I've put together a short "slide show" examining visually what people choose to allocate money to and what they don't. It is at http://joel.mawhorter.org/priorities/priorities-in tro.html
I will warn you that it is graphic and you will likely find it disturbing (but hopefully moving and educational).
Joel