Persuasive speech on stem cell research

[Imparcticle]

I'm doing a persuasive speech on stem cell research for my English class. I am defending stem cell research; I'm for it.
But some people aren't, and of course, I have had to address that in my speech. But the main argument (against stem cell research) is that it is immoral.
It is not moral, many say. But what exactly is moral? The philosophical nature of moral is a great mystery to me; I am accustomed to the idea, it is a social role that I have grown to respect. But it bothers me that I cannot directly define it, in a philosophical way rather than the dictionary definition. The dictionary definitions for the record are as follows:

"Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.

n.
The lesson or principle contained in or taught by a fable, a story, or an event.
A concisely expressed precept or general truth; a maxim.
morals Rules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong: a person of loose morals; a decline in the public morals. "

-www.dictionary.com-

Can anyone lend a post?

 

[one_raven]

"Morals" is simply what the majority of people within a certain culture or subculture agree (to a great degree, if not unanimously) is the standard of behavior to judge others upon.

As a rule of thumb, if it is seen as positive for that particular community, it is morally "good", if it is seen as a negative thing it is "bad".

Personally I think it is all bull****.

I agree with Ayn Rand (paraphrased because I can't find the exact quote right now):
"Living life by anyone's morals but your own is living an immoral life."

 

[Imparcticle]

I agree with you in some ways. It was immoral to believe the Earth was not the center of the universe, but now it is as normal an idea as the idea of morals is.

But in other ways, morals are important. In many cases, they can promote honor. Even then, they too need criticism. they are after all human creations, and human creations are not perfect. People act like you can't change morals just because.

None the less, morals are important to humans, socially.

 

[one_raven]

In many cases, they can promote honor.

That falls into the same trap.
Who defines what honor is?

 

[Rader]

Morals are a set of rules to determine and govern the way we should treat other humans. In other words in this dualistic world, to decide what is good or evil. We humans make the rules. We also define what the rules mean to suite the moment. Our set of morals change over time. We as individuals and group set our own meanings to what morality is to us. There is no fixed set of rules in this dualistic world. Although it appears, at least to me, that we strive to move in the direction of making our moral decisions more good, it is only a perception of the individual or group. The human reason behind having morals, is that every human is equal and special in its own way, that life is sacred. There are 1,000 words we could attach to what morality is, and then we would have to explain them first, before we could even come close, to explaining what morality is. Its a difficult task if not impossible.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Morals are a set of rules to determine and govern the way we should treat other humans.

Why does morality only apply to our actions towards humans?

 

[Kerrie]

i think morals are more of an individual set of guidelines that one should set for themself, stem cell research has to do more with ethics...ethics i believe is more of what is "politically correct" within the social environment. a few years ago i took a class in college about the morals and ethics of medicine, and this gave me a good basis of the difference...

 

[Imparcticle]

So would you say stem cell research is politically correct? On what basis is something politically correct? After all, isn't politics heavily influenced by morals?

BTW, thanks for specifying the difference. It is a great embelishment to my knowledege (and I'm sure of others' as well).

 

[Kerrie]

when i put "politically correct" in quotes, i meant to infer that ethics is what is socially acceptable over what is an individual decision of what is correct...

 

[Imparcticle]

Originally Posted by Rader
Morals are a set of rules to determine and govern the way we should treat other humans.

Why does morality only apply to our actions towards humans?

I strongly believe Dissident Dan has a good point here. You see Rader, the semantical error in your aforementioned statement arises when you say "...the way we treat other humans...". If that were the case, the idea of potching animals as being immoral would be non-existent. In fact, I do believe vegeterians are vegetarians on the basis that murdering animals for food is an immoral practice?

 

[Rader]

Why does morality only apply to our actions towards humans?

A human moral code contains many things that can be applied only to humans. How would you apply "thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife to a goat"? That is not to say that the hunmans should not have a moral code towards all things that are not human.

 

[Rader]

moral and ethics

i think morals are more of an individual set of guidelines that one should set for themself, stem cell research has to do more with ethics...ethics i believe is more of what is "politically correct" within the social environment. a few years ago i took a class in college about the morals and ethics of medicine, and this gave me a good basis of the difference...

Kerrie, It might not be a bad idea to define the difference between morals and ethics. Sometimes they overlap. Since you have some good experience.
Your statement is highly debatable.

 

[Rader]

no error

I strongly believe Dissident Dan has a good point here. You see Rader, the semantical error in your aforementioned statement arises when you say "...the way we treat other humans...". If that were the case, the idea of potching animals as being immoral would be non-existent. In fact, I do believe vegeterians are vegetarians on the basis that murdering animals for food is an immoral practice?

There is no semantical error, my post, was well thought out. Poaching animals is against the law. Its morally wrong only if it is part of your moral standards. The poacher does not think so, but he know its against the law. A vegetarian could use your reasoning as a basis for there decision or any number of others. For example maybe the vegetarian knows that his or her blood type is type A and meat is better for Type O than Type A for good health..

Can we get back to the subject: stem cell research

The reason why there is a hot debate on this, is becasue there is two groups of people, that have different opinions when a human is a human.

A= conception
B= whatever there moral standards dictate for the moment.

It comes down to the question, do we have morals to be morally more good? or just set them up for our own self interest for the moment?

 

[Monique]

But the main argument (against stem cell research) is that it is immoral.

That is not an argument, you should ask why is it immoral? You can in the same right say that nót developing stem cell research is immoral. Immoral just means something goes against your beliefs of what is right.

Is it immoral to sacrifice a few day old fertilized egg or is it immoral to not exploit a technical advancement that could have a major impact on medicine?

 

[olde drunk]

within the context of the original question: religious zealots will always claim that something is immoral, if they feel their beliefs threatened.

the scientists, who see the benefits, with a more liberal inclination will call it moral.

when does consciousness enter a body/fetus?

peace,

 

[selfAdjoint]

within the context of the original question: religious zealots will always claim that something is immoral, if they feel their beliefs threatened.

the scientists, who see the benefits, with a more liberal inclination will call it moral.

when does consciousness enter a body/fetus?

peace,

Hah! If you mean self-awareness, then around three years old. How far do YOUR memories go back?

 

[Imparcticle]

when does consciousness enter a body/fetus?

good question. I guess when there is some sort of nervous system, which I believe begins to develop say when the fetus is a few months old.

Stem cell research only takes stem cells from a zygote only a few days old, when its just a bunch of cells going through meiosis.

 

[Monique]

Is it immoral to amputate a limb? Maybe far-fetched, but there is a similarity.

 

[Imparcticle]

Originally posted by Rader
There is no semantical error, my post, was well thought out.

Incorrect. You said "...how we treat other humans..." which explicitly indicates morals are rules as to "how we treat other humans". That is all you said, and nothing about how we treat things not human. I'll restate your sentence in its entirety:

Morals are a set of rules to determine and govern the way we should treat other humans.

This sentece explicitly state that morals are for ONLY humans.

yet, as in your post to Dissident Dan...

That is not to say that the hunmans should not have a moral code towards all things that are not human.

You expand your definition for things not human.

The poacher does not think so, but he know its against the law.

No, I don't suppose the poacher thinks its immoral. As you said, "We as individuals and group set our own meanings to what morality is to us.". I concur. But, before I can go further in addressing whether or not poaching is illegal because it is immoral, I'd like to see Kerrie's specification concerning the differences of ethics and morals.

 

[Rader]

morality of stem cell research

SquareItSalamander, your thread deals with morality of stem cell reseach, this concerns humans. There is a human moral code to discuss. If you want to.

When i said morals are a set of rules to determine and govern the way we should treat other humans, i was referring to human moral code, my focus was on that only. My intention was not to mislead you. Yes there is and are moral codes for animals, let Dissident Dan discuss that on the other thread "should we eat meat"

Can we get back to the subject: stem cell research

The reason why there is a hot debate on this, is becasue there is two groups of people, that have different opinions when a human is a human.

A= conception
B= whatever there moral standards dictate for the moment.

It comes down to the question, do we have morals to be morally more good? or just set them up for our own self interest for the moment?

Since you say you will ague in favor of stem cell research, what is your view?

 

[hypnagogue]

Hah! If you mean self-awareness, then around three years old. How far do YOUR memories go back?

I believe he asked about the onset of consciousness, not about the onset of long term memory formation.

 

[olde drunk]

Hah! If you mean self-awareness, then around three years old. How far do YOUR memories go back?

LOL - very funny. Consciousness, within my definition, is far more than memory. Even a fetus could be inbued with consciousness, however it may be willing to surrender a birth for the further good of this civilization. Same basic disagreements as with abortion.

Let's stay with the thread and not degenerate into a moral debate. The poster asked for help with the defiinition of moral-immoral for this subject.

peace,

 

[Imparcticle]

Since you say you will ague in favor of stem cell research, what is your view?

here is my speech (it still needs to be edited here and there...):

“You can cut the spinal cord of salamanders and they grow back….In humans this cannot be done.” Says Dr. Pasko Rakic, professor of neuroscience at the Yale University School of Medicine. Anyone would agree this is true, but a recent discovery in stem cell research opposes this fact…which has now become a thing of the past. Scientists have discovered that by extracting the stem cells from an embryo which are naturally converted into any type of cell the body needs, they can grow virtually any kind of body part in the lab. This new discovery calms the moral accusation towards stem cell researchers as playing God. Now thanks to this research, people don’t have to die anymore just because they couldn’t get the right organ donor on time. Stem cell research is a positive, life changing opportunity that should be promoted, not deterred.
Stem cell researchers are often accused of playing God; of course, anyone can see this is an entirely narrow minded allegation. First off all, the only reason why stem cell research has been perceived as a moral crime by the general public is because only one side of the subject has been deliberated. The fact that scientists take cells from an embryo has been emphasized. Now when people think of an embryo, they, for some reason think of a few months old embryo. They forget that there are stages in embryo development. When scientists say they are going to extract stem cells from embryos, they follow a particular modus oprandii. First they create a zygote, the cell created when a sperm enters an egg. Then, they allow meiosis (cell formation in a zygote) to continue for a short amount of time, say a day or two. Subsequently, they would extract a cell and genetically engineer it to a certain cell’s characteristic, say an insulin producing cell. In fact, stem cell research does not involve pregnancy. The eggs and sperm used in stem cell research are leftovers from invitro fertilization. The embryo created is only a few days old, so it is made up of nothing but cells. There is no nervous system, there is no heart, no brain, nothing that would indicate any level of consciousness. All that there is in a few days is comparable to a few cells from your blood stream. So how are scientists playing God? The fact is they’re not.
Stem cells are currently being used to cure more than 70 diseases. A few examples include Alzheimer’s disease, heart disease, stroke, diabetes and more. Diabetes is one common disease. It is an autoimmune affliction that basically is a result of the body’s cells recognizing the insulin producing cells as a foreign germ. Insulin is important for the body because it regulates sugar levels in the body. Without it, the only alternative diabetics have is suffering. They have to take a shot in different parts of their bodies every few ours. At this rate, they end up spending quite a bit of money on insulin and needles. But thanks to stem cell research, there is now a better alternative. Insulin producing cells can be manufactured and engineered to be accepted by the bodies cells. Just think, a world without disease! Isn’t it, after all, every government’s goal to promote world peace, less suffering? This is our chance to decrease suffering dramatically.

the only problem I have is that it's too long. I have had to shorten a lot and take out a lot (as you may have noticed I don't have a lot of counter arguments) but even then, it's too long. The speech has to be between 2 and 3 minutes long; mine is 3 1/2 minutes.

 

[Monique]

Just make sure that when people use fetus in their debate that you correct them, you seem to have used embryo correctly in your speech.

embryo: An organism in its early stages of development, especially before it has reached a distinctively recognizable form.
fetus: The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.

In your speech you also already seem to touch the subject.. in IVF (in vitro fertilization) many eggs are fertilized and not all are transplanted to a womb. Such eggs are now cryogenized and at some point will be thrown away. Maybe not a strong argument though that it is already being done..

 

[Rader]

"The debate"

here is my speech (it still needs to be edited here and there...):

the only problem I have is that it's too long. I have had to shorten a lot and take out a lot (as you may have noticed I don't have a lot of counter arguments) but even then, it's too long. The speech has to be between 2 and 3 minutes long; mine is 3 1/2 minutes.

I see your dilema, some debates go on for centuries how could you expect to compile all in 2 to 3 minutes?

I have read your debate.

QUOTE=SquareItSalamander Stem cell researchers are often accused of playing God; of course, anyone can see this is an entirely narrow minded allegation. First off all, the only reason why stem cell research has been perceived as a moral crime by the general public is because only one side of the subject has been deliberated. The fact that scientists take cells from an embryo has been emphasized. Now when people think of an embryo, they, for some reason think of a few months old embryo. They forget that there are stages in embryo development.

In order for your statement to have any scientific validity, for what you are saying, it would have to be known, what life is, and when it enters the embryo. We only know what the end result of an embryo is, to arrive at a conclusion, to the question.

QUOTE=SquareItSalamander The embryo created is only a few days old, so it is made up of nothing but cells. There is no nervous system, there is no heart, no brain, nothing that would indicate any level of consciousness.

What proof is there that any of those things have anything to do with consciousness if life equates to consciousness and life is instaneous upon conception.

I can see how good can be attributed to stem cell research. It is noble, good, compassionate to relieve suffering of other humans and save lives. Fireman and police officers give there lives every day to save many. You could ask, is it moral to give your life to save many others?
There is one difference, one is a voluntary offering the other is not.

The reason why there is a hot debate on this, is becasue there is two groups of people, that have different opinions when a human is a human.

A= conception
Why do some humans not recognize that a human is a human upon conception? There is no physical process in biology where upon an exchange of parts does not dictate a new part, conception is instantaneous. There argument is based on the dignity, respect and equality of all humans.

B= whatever there moral standards dictate for the moment. What paramenters are used to define when a human is a human? Why are different measuring sticks used to define this question? conception, fetus or birth. The reason why i ask this is, over time the rules have changed, yet nothing in nature has changed, all physical processes remain the same.

It comes down to the question, do we have morals to be morally more good? or just set them up for our own self interest for the moment?

 

[Imparcticle]

In order for your statement to have any scientific validity, for what you are saying, it would have to be known, what life is, and when it enters the embryo. We only know what the end result of an embryo is, to arrive at a conclusion, to the question.

What life is falls into the definition of the state of being alive. But the opposing argument is that we are killing a zygote if we take stem cells from it. How is that possible? How can we kill something without consciousness?
All it is is taking stem cells from a zygote. Is it a crime to kill cells?

Do you believe I have an insufficient number of facts in my speech?

What proof is there that any of those things have anything to do with consciousness if life equates to consciousness and life is instaneous upon conception.

Oh yes! That is an invalid argument isn't it? It just occurred to me that bacteria (who have no brain or heart...wait, do they have a nervous system?) are considered subconsciously alive. But is a zygote at any level conscious?
My sister brought up a good point: A zygote is an individual. Interesting point, I would say. What is your take on this?

 

[Dissident Dan]

Salamander,

I thought that your speech is rather good. There are some grammatical errors, but they won't matter if you're only presenting the speech in spoken form. It seems like it would be very hard to shorten it. Perhaps you could just speak faster?

One thing that caught my attention:

Stem cells are currently being used to cure more than 70 diseases. A few examples include Alzheimer’s disease, heart disease, stroke, diabetes and more. Diabetes is one common disease. It is an autoimmune affliction that basically is a result of the body’s cells recognizing the insulin producing cells as a foreign germ.

This makes it sound as if it's a done deal that these diseases are or will be cured. As far as I know, there is no cure for any of these (although some have preventative measures associated with them). You might be more cautious in your wording.

As far as rader's comment regarding "how do we know that these result in consciousness"...not to denigrate him at all, but I don't find that a valid objection. Every bit or research shows that the nervous system, and especially the limbic system of the brain, is necessary for subjective experience. An argument that relies upon "but we are only 99.99999% sure" is not a very good one, IMO.

As far as when "life" begins, I don't think that it's a very important. "Life" is just a distinction made in a human mind. There is no point in time at which a life begins. Life shouldn't even be the criterion, anyway. Sentience, or the ability to experience, should be the criterion. I don't think that sentience all-of-a-sudden appears, but rather grows from a more nebulous state of existence to more precise experiences as you and I have. I can't be exactly sure of the progression, but there has to be some sort of continuum or gradient of sentience.

 

[Imparcticle]

"Life" is just a distinction made in a human mind. There is no point in time at which a life begins.

Is it logical to say that life has no beginning and therefore no end? I believe that is what your aforementioned statement asserts.

Life shouldn't even be the criterion, anyway. Sentience, or the ability to experience, should be the criterion.

EXACTLY! the ability to experience death is the important thing here. But something has to be alive to feel, correct? But the definition of life should be directed specifically towards the issue at hand, stem cells and the embryo.

There are some grammatical errors,

lol, now you've made me feel very self-conscious about my grammmar. :)

 

[Rader]

><

What life is falls into the definition of the state of being alive. But the opposing argument is that we are killing a zygote if we take stem cells from it. How is that possible? How can we kill something without consciousness?
All it is is taking stem cells from a zygote. Is it a crime to kill cells?

When a human body is dead it is deficient in two ways. It has no life or consciousness. We know what is the end result of an human egg, being fertilized. Upon conception the process of human development begins and occurs instantaneously. If the egg is allowed to develope a human will be born, and live a life, if not, it will die. A human fertilized egg is alive, if that were not true, we could not be here. What paramenters are used to define when a human is a human? Why are different measuring sticks used to define this question? conception, fetus or birth. It seems to contradicts science, to use any other paramenter but conception.

Do you believe I have an insufficient number of facts in my speech?

In my opinion, you have enouh to make B correct.

Oh yes! That is an invalid argument isn't it? It just occurred to me that bacteria (who have no brain or heart...wait, do they have a nervous system?) are considered subconsciously alive. But is a zygote at any level conscious?
My sister brought up a good point: A zygote is an individual. Interesting point, I would say. What is your take on this?

You missed my point totally. Humans are alive and conscious, I am and I assume you are, so we can agree on that. I repeat, when a human body is dead, that is the end process of its beginning. Human life and consciousness leaves it, there is no reason to believe that when conception occurs that, human life and consciousness does not begin then. Do you deny a human fertilized egg, is alive? Do you then deny, that a human is a human, when that egg is fertilized? Is then the reason you believe that, is because, the egg is not conscious?

 

[Rader]

As far as rader's comment regarding "how do we know that these result in consciousness"...not to denigrate him at all, but I don't find that a valid objection. Every bit or research shows that the nervous system, and especially the limbic system of the brain, is necessary for subjective experience. An argument that relies upon "but we are only 99.99999% sure" is not a very good one, IMO.

Thats only your opinion and the statistics are inaccurate, on this forum. Neither consiousness or subjective experience, has been explained, we just know through personal experience that it appears to be real to us.

As far as when "life" begins, I don't think that it's a very important. "Life" is just a distinction made in a human mind. There is no point in time at which a life begins. Life shouldn't even be the criterion, anyway. Sentience, or the ability to experience, should be the criterion. I don't think that sentience all-of-a-sudden appears, but rather grows from a more nebulous state of existence to more precise experiences as you and I have. I can't be exactly sure of the progression, but there has to be some sort of continuum or gradient of sentience.

Well fine then we have another B vote. Whatever there moral standards dictate for the moment. Thanks for helping me understand your point of view. Now I understand better.