Lab Equipment Blog

Isn't the end effect of war? of training? of teaching? of parenting?

So many things we do to save lives in the furture. We teach kids to swim at the risk one may drown because their are so many in the pool learning at one time.

We fight wars to stop people like Hitler who would kill other for their religious beliefs.

I agree partially with you.

Many things we do, have the intention to save or just make easier the live.

But regarding wars, what about the WWII? It began when Hitler invaded Poland. Did Hitler began the war to fight against the Poland people who were killing others for their religious beliefs?

The difference is related with the title of the original post: "ethics", or if you prefer moral or whatever you want call this sort of behaviour.

Technology by itself isn't ethic or moral. Is the use we make of it who could be ethic or not.

There is a limit for all we do: to respect the rights of everybody else.

Of course, there are some priorities: We all kill live beings to feed us (even vegetarians, because plants are alive too). That is a common behaviour in Nature, some are predators and some others predated.

And last, regarding experiments with human embryos I wouldn't call it "ethic", even if it's made trying to save lives, diseases remedial or whatever you want.

I think there are many other technological possibilities and enough ways to investigate to achieve the same goal respecting the rights of human embryos (who only need time to become a born human)

Is "ethic" or even desirable a world like that showed by Aldous Huxley?

Can somebody justify the Dr. Mengele experiments because he made them by preserve the "aria race"?

I agree we have lost footing on ethics. Two years ago I did an indepth study of embryonic stem cells. There was no reason then and there is no reason now to use embryonic stem cells. Amniotic stem cells show as much promise if not more.

"who only need time to become a born human"

This argument seems a bit silly to me, I mean the same is true when a 13 year old girl has her period, or some kid "jerks off." These both have the potential for human life as well, so why aren't we collecting all this discarded potential for human life and giving those possible embryos the chance for life? If every instance of potential life was preserved, I imagine the world would be immensely populated in less than 5 years.

Also a fact I'm not sure you're too aware of regarding obtaining embryonic cells is that they are typically from "leftover" embryos, like from fertility clinics. Usually what happens is women that are donors will be induced, and thus have a bunch, up to two dozen eggs at a time. These are then fertilized. two to four are then implanted in the womb. A couple more are quickly deep frozen for possible future use by the couple, and the rest are discarded. The embryos that are typically discarded are the main source of embryos for embryonic stem cell research. So if you will, embryonic researchers are in fact stopping mindless killing of embryos instead of just discarding/killing them for no reason...

One additional side note pertaining to stem cell research is that embryonic cells are so sought after because they are totipotent, or they have the ability to change into any type of cell. Researchers have been working on taking adult stem cells from living humans--not harmed by the procedure other than simple removal of tissue--and when applying hormones/chemicals are getting closer and closer to reversing their characteristics so they are identical to embryonic cells. Not quite there, but close. If this were current technology, would you also oppose this use of stem cells since by using these cells you are denying that stem cell the potential to start a new human life?

I mean the same is true when a 13 year old girl has her period, or some kid "jerks off." These both have the potential for human life as well.

There is a little difference: a spermatozoon itself, or an "egg" as you say, cannot become a human being. An embryo IS. you only have to feed and take some care of him (as with a just born baby).

I follow the advances in genetics and I was taking just about what you mentioned:

Researchers have been working on taking adult stem cells from living humans--not harmed by the procedure other than simple removal of tissue--and when applying hormones/chemicals are getting closer and closer to reversing their characteristics so they are identical to embryonic cells. Not quite there, but close

The fact we haven't still the technology doesn't mean it will be possible. I use the same argument with those who don't believe in the "climate change" issue: Well, I can admit that we have no scientifically based certainty about that, but what if it's true? I think to take measures to avoid it doesn't injure, does it?

In this case is the same, why an embryo with few days is not considered an human being and some weeks later even not still born he/she is? Usually in different countries are different laws about that, but "ethic" doesn't mean "legal". Just take a look to the news and you'll find a lot of examples.

I'm sure that genetics will have a great impact in the next future, and that some diseases like cancer will have a solution but in the name of who can anybody create a human life and destroy it to the benefit of someone else.

Do you really think this will help people? How many African people are infected by HIV and almost nobody cares? ¿Pharmaceutical corporations?

Will the results of that type of investigations (which involves billions $) help human kind globally speaking?

When a great portion of world people is hungry and hardly can survive it's a bit cynic to spend a lot of money (resources) in fertilizing women artificially, implanting some embryos, freezing some others, use others for investigation and if there are some more go to trash. What about adoption?

Best regards

There is a little difference: a spermatozoon itself, or an "egg" as you say

There is little difference in definition of the the sperm and egg I completely agree, but in concept it is exactly the same. You say with a little food to take care of him he will become a baby. Well, all the sperm/egg needs is to be put together with food, and there she will become a baby. It is the concept that "you" by acting/or not acting, are denying the possibility of life--the same as is claimed with using an embryo.

On the fact of the technology with 'un-determining' adult stem cells, they have come very close to being totipotent, and by very close I mean taking an arm cell and have it be able to recreate tissue, as long as it is the same germ layer type. This is the last step before it becomes totally totipotent--equivalent to an embryonic stem cell. It's not just speculation, it is scientifically based on the process observed during pregnancy, in reverse, that the first determination of cells is into the germ layer types. This technology is not similar to some hoopla to scare mass numbers of people into thinking that if they buy this or that they can reduce their carbon footprint and stop the natural cycles of global warming...

Back to stem cells, I noticed you didn't answer my question about if technology was available to 'undetermine' adult stem cells for research would you be against this...? I feel asking this question is important because it directly relates to the embryonic issue with stem cells and right to life for potential embryos, and I would like to know your opinion.

When a great portion of world people is hungry and hardly can survive it's a bit cynic to spend a lot of money (resources) in fertilizing women artificially, implanting some embryos, freezing some others, use others for investigation and if there are some more go to trash. What about adoption?

Whoa, hold on here. I think you are mixing the private sector with the government sector(could be wrong--language/word usage misunderstanding). I agree with you that people who are looking for the joy of a child could put their money to use elsewhere, but it's their private choice whether or not they want to pay some female to have a baby for them, or donate their thousands to relief organizations--it is not a choice that relates to the ethics of the stem cell research team, it is something that takes place already, independently, in the world and the research community uses it as a source for the embryonic stem cells. ~As for the government, they(for me the US) do allocate funds to help fund social programs to help those in need around the world...though they also build their egos by buying this new big jet plane, or new smaller, lighter, more explosive bombs...I'm not sure how the governments "ethics" play out, government allocation of funds is more dependent on other factors, not necessarily ethical...

The issue with your adoption stand point is: as a woman donating her womb, to a fertility clinic, I'm not sure I(if I was a woman) would want to to have a dozen babies at a time. I don't think I'd be to keen on having even 4 or 5 at a time. This is why only a couple are kept in the woman's womb--in case one or two encounter common development problems and don't make it to birth. Also a few are kept on hand in case the couple wants more children through the same woman later in the future. The rest would otherwise be thrown own. You can't adopt an embryo as far as I'm aware of...

Do you really think this will help people?

Yes

How many African people are infected by HIV and almost nobody cares?

Many are infected, if a cure is found for HIV through stem cell research would this not be an extremely ethical path, to help millions, perhaps a billion people now, and more to come...

Pharmaceutical corporations?

The pharm companies hold the ability to produce their researchers' finds to help the general public. Without the pharm companies medicine would not be available to everyone(even narrower spectrum than it currently is.)Thus pharm companies hold considerable power and are necessary to medical health.

Will the results of that type of investigations (which involves billions $) help human kind globally speaking?

yes-stem cell research will allow more direct observance of diseases and abnormalities so that treatments steadily improve, and thus will be for the betterment of multiple billions of people of future generations that will have maladies that arise from diseases and abnormalities and will seek help. These treatments will most likely(based off today's "workings") not be entirely available to everyone, but generally the more needy areas are subject to help from large countries, and will get the help they need as provided. **Globally, I find it hard to see anything helping every human being. Advances in stem cell research will certainly help the majority over time.**

--side note to adoption argument--not sure what happens if all the implanted embryos are eventually birthed, and the paying couple only desire to raise one child, the rest might be open for adoption from other persons desiring to raise a child, not sure...

Regards

Right now the U.S. is spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a war. War is where you impose your will by killing those who oppose it. I'm not saying the war is right or wrong, I'm just pointing out we're killing people who disagree with this country (and some who don't) at this very moment.

So now we are supposed to make a nuanced morality decision regarding stem cell research? Who are we kidding? We're not qualified.

Some of us probably are, but none of them occupy positions of authority in the current administration. I used to make the same mistake, substituting our goverrnment for our country. These days, and probably during all but Washington's administration, they are significantly different. "We, the people", don't seem to be a part of "us, the government" very much these days.

Blaming our government is our way of displacing our guilt. Somehow in this country a myth has evolved that says that as long as you are not directly complicit in the terrible act, you absolved. You don't have to take any action to oppose it, just don't contribute to it. (and voting isn't nearly "opposing it" enough)

Right now, I guarantee you that there is a little girl in Africa who has be raped and mutilated and hasn't had a bite to eat in days, lives in a refugee camp, has no family, and most likely will die soon. We don't even think about her. No guilt, no driving need to do something, to make sacrifices to help her, nothing. It would be considered bad form for me to bring it up in the office. Many would feel it's inappropriate for me to bring it up in a thread regarding morality. What does that say about us? I hesitated to bring it up because of the potential criticism, what does that say about me?

We're all guilty, we do nothing and to add insult to injury debating the morality of esoteric issues while we turn food into ethanol to save a few cents while people starve. Seriously, we are not qualified.

Seriously, we are not qualified.

I agree and disagree with this. I think we--in fact no one, is qualified to say right and wrong in consideration of ethics. Are we qualified to think and discuss what we interpret as "good ethics"... I think so. We can debate and argue and convince and perhaps slightly tweek our ideas and tweek other peoples ideas and morals to hopefully better the world bit by bit. I think the price we commit of our costless (besides time, and power consumption) responses are worth it, even if it betters one person...For instance say a billionaire reads our blog and then decides to donate millions towards the cause to stop the seemingly completely unethical treatment of individuals around the world. I'd say that that is qualified enough for me to keep responding.

What I'm trying to say is that debating this when there are so many real issues out there is like trying to choose a paint color for a wall in a house that's burning down. Sure their are good reasons for debating paint color, but in the larger context of the burning house we realize the exercise is short sighted and ultimately useless.

As for the debate being costless, every single thing we do has a cost, it just isn't always us who are paying the price.

But who am I kidding, I'm on an internet forum. The billions of people who would agree with me don't have access to the internet. It is what it is.

"The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life." -Adolf Hitler

Anyone can talk about morality, it doesn't mean anything if we don't live morally.

And all that is needed for evil men to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

Attributable to someone famous (probably Churchill) but since I can only guarantee a paraphrase, not a quote, I'm not applying credit here. The truth of it stands without knowing the author.

I agree, though I think there is a personal consequence to remaining silent.

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." -Martin Luther King Jr.

Sure there is - which is why I speak out when I see injustice done and sleep well at night...

The truth is, there is no way to live a perfectly moral existence and survive long. Wars are necessary. Poverty is necessary. The problem is when we absolve ourselves of the guilt of these necessities we allow them to go to extremes beyond justification.

I sleep well at night, but I am well fed, live in a nice apartment, don't have to worry about cash, am educated so I don't have to worry about a job. It certainly isn't due to any moral superiority. The truth is, I'm almost worse, being aware of injustice and not doing anything.

Anyway definitely better to speak then to play it safe and stay silent and I do love to speak.

Hi all,

Sorry, I've been out for some days and I've just see all the posts sent since my last one.

Let me point out a couple of things: Chlorine is a greenish gas rather toxic, sodium is a light very reactive metal which can explode just throwing a small piece into water, but one atom of each make common salt we use everyday in our meals.

In the same way, a spermatozoon and an ovule are two different cells which can combine to form an embryo. Embryo is different from the forming cells. He/she has his/her own DNA, different from any other and which will be responsible of the main characteristics of such human (skin and eyes color, skeleton structure, resistance to some diseases, etc.)

There is not a common agreement in the scientific community about "when" becomes a human being with all his rights. And because of that there are different regulations about abortion on different countries. Is a bit complicated thing than applying Newton's laws.

The only thing I say regarding the question in the original post: Is saving a life tomorrow worth risking a life today? is that, in my opinion, the answer is NO. Think about that in terms of mechanical, electrical or any other engineering field : Would you make a design without knowing the consequences?

Because of the preceding, I wouldn't experiment with embryos. A different thing is use cells or even complete organs (I'm not against transplant from DIED to LIVE humans).

Cheers

You Said "Is saving a life tomorrow worth risking a life today? is that, in my opinion, the answer is NO."

So then do you believe that war is ok under any circumstances, and if so, under which circumstances? I'm asking because thousands die in war, does that mean we should never fight? (Please keep in mind I'm asking in the spirit of debate, it's difficult to convey tone in writing and I don't want you to take this as confrontational in tone, because that isn't my intent)

Sorry, perhaps my knowledge of English language is not enough...

I never try to say such a thing about war (even I think I didn't mention this word)

Of course, I do not feel offended by your or any other colleagues opinions. This is an open forum!!!

But answering your specific question: I don't believe war is ok at all. I think sometimes is the last option we have, even I consider it undesirable.

All I'm trying to explain (unsuccessfully, it seems) is related with the original post which deal with research/ experiments and I talked about those with embryos (I don't include war in such category) and I'm defending that due to the lack of knowledge, we should take care with research and not causing injuries to human beings if we cannot demonstrate when the human life begins.

Just the same as with climate changes/global warming issue: There is not an absolutely admitted scientific position, but, what if it's true? There cost few to take into account the possibility and act accordingly.

Best regards

You Wrote "I don't believe war is ok at all. I think sometimes is the last option we have, even I consider it undesirable."

War results in tens of thousands of deaths when only thousands of ebryos are killed for scientific research. You say that war as a last option may be necessary, for many people who are sick, research on ebryos is their last option. How can you draw a distinction that war is ok as a last option but ebryos for research is never ok? What makes one better than the other?

Sorry for being unable to make understandable my thoughts.

I think the first human right is life. It is not a matter of quantity of deaths, ANY "forced" death is undesirable.

I've personally never started a fight, even when I was a child, but we all have the right to defend us. That's in what I was thinking when I said war could be the last option (the war has been started by others by attacking us and we've just defending our rights)

The difference with embryos I think it's clear, the embryo hasn't attacked nor is a menace to nobody and kill them just to research has a great difference with war. Are you sure that all killed embryos will serve to save a life? Have you any scientific proof?

Do you think there is no scientifically possible alternative?

Seven years ago I overcome a kidney cancer and lost my left one. I don't know if it will grow again but I prefer to die before to kill anybody for the remote possibility of getting a solution for me.

I call this "ethics" or "principles", perhaps I'm only a stupid...

Best regards

I don't think you're stupid. I just beleive you have an opinion that is different from mine, no big deal. I agree with you that there are scientific alternatives and I actually agree with you that using ebryos is wrong, however I don't agree that we are morally consistant, that we truly believe that killing to save ones life is not acceptable. I'm trying to demonstrate to you that there are situations where you feel killing is justified.

You said that war is ok if you are defending yourself? Let me ask you to be more specific. What if an army conquered your country and said that if you abide by their religon you will be safe, but if you don't worship the God they say you should they will kill you and your family. Would you be willing to go to war to fight against such an army or would you willingly worship whatever God they say to avoid taking a life?

Good morning (here)

Thank you for not thinking I'm stupid. I don't think our opinions are too different, perhaps just a little bit.

I agree we all are not consistent, after all we are humans not gods.

Regarding your last example, I'll try to be more specific: I will never accept a force imposed God, nor any force imposed regime like tyranny (I prefer this word to dictatorship), even if this would cost my life, but it doesn't means that I will kill anybody for it.

I've been living 25 years in a tyrannic regime and I know how it goes, but I've been fighting against such regime without using violence (the violence was exerted by tyranny) and finally the regime fall.

When I say war (or killing) is the last option I mean that everybody has the right to defend his life and his beliefs and if somebody attack we could need to defend (there are some other option: run and hide for example).

One more example: If a violent thief gets into my home surely I will defend myself and my family, but I will try to do it without killing him. If he results died I will be in no way happy. It's a question of will.

Last: I'm happy to read somebody saying experiments with embryos is wrong.

Best regards

Yes well, I think once we start rationalizing using embryos because they are "left over", we aren't far from rationalizing other "necessary sacrifices" for society, and that is dangerous. Stem cells have been found from other sources:

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/TECH/12/01/spinal.injuries/index.html
http://catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=12334

So this isn't the all or nothing proposition being presented by this post.

With regards to you nonviolence, I commend you, I'm not sure I could do the same. The point though is that there is a point where you are willing to kill, just as there's a point where I'd probably be willing to take a life (as you said, if my own were in great danger). Just like you, the act of it would probably tear me apart, I'm certainly not built for that sort of thing, but the point is there is a situation where it is conceivable. My point is, in the end, we are all capable of killing when put in terrible situations, which an important thing to know since it removes the moral superiority we feel when examining a situation like that which is occurring in the Sudan, Kenya, etc. It's important for us to realize that we are no better than most of the people in the world, just given a better situation. Furthermore, to some degree, our better situation is at the expense of these poorer nations. Until we realize these things, we'll never fell the social responsibility necessary to act to help. We'll absolve ourselves of their guilt and continue the cycle.

"The Aesthetics of Ethics" is the perfect title for this thread, because if morality is not universal and objective in its source, all discussions of morality or ethics reduce to mere aesthetics, i.e., taste. Aesthetics is personal and subjective, varies over time and social conditions. What were considered distasteful practices 50 years ago are now celebrated as icons of "diversity;" and 50 years from now they may again be considered distasteful and repugnant. Change happens, in all directions. Any form of utilitarian ethics concerning human life is, in my opinion, fundamentally immoral and unethical. Even prominent atheists like Nat Hentoff can reason out the position that any ethics that does not revere human life as a bright line drawn in the sand, so to speak, that utilitarian ethic threatens each of us, individually and collectively. Treating any human life as a "thing" to be exploited or manipulated, no matter how small or powerless, threatens me directly -- and you. The title of C. S. Lewis's book, "The Abolition of Man," comes to mind.

No, taking a life is not justified. Especially not that of an animal. It is unnecessary and the ultimate result is fruitless. If a child is born deformed - that is the misfortune of fate or generations of incorrect living.

For example: obese and unhealthy people are not born that way - generally - they create their own conditions and NO animals should have to die or suffer to 'help' the humans.

Rather focus on the causes of disease than the cures. There is no justification for sanctioned torture of animals at their expense. They are sentient beings.

The end does NOT justify the means.