Persuasive speech on stem cell research

[Imparcticle]

life or consciousness.

So life=consciousness then? All things conscious are therefore alive? makes sense.

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?

I believe any fertilized egg is alive, including a humans. I strongly believe that it cannot feel pain. That is the point. If it cannot feel pain, why is it a crime to kill it? It has no feeling. When the egg proceeds through the process of meiosis, it multiplies according to what the genetic code dictates. There is no independent thought going on. Therefore, it is not, so to speak, "killable".

 

[Dissident Dan]

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

That's not what I'm saying. I was saying that I think there is no precise instant in time at which a non-living object becomes a living one. The object grows from something less resemblent of what we consider to be life to something that is completely resemblent of what we consider to be life. In reality, it's all just chemical reactions. As humans, we love to classify things, especially when classifying makes us feel special, so we classify things as living or not living, depending on how well the system being observed matches our mental model of "life".

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.

I have not known anything that is sentient that did not fit our definition of biological life. It therefore seems reasonable to assume that life is a necessary condition for sentience, at least on Earth. But being alive is not itself the issue. Sentience is. Analogously, when a couple decides to have a baby, the baby is the issue. Sperm is a necessary precursor to the baby, but the sperm is not itself the point of concern. The baby is. It is important to not cognitively replace the topic of concern with one of its preconditions.

 

[cookiemonster]

I'm kind of tired, so I'll post something a little more substansive tomorrow, but there is one thing that's been getting to me.

If we anaesthetize someone, they stop feeling pain. If we then kill them, according to Square's condition for moral death, not immoral to murder someone in their sleep.

Additionally, perhaps a more fair condition for the value of human life would be potential. It complicates things, for sure, but when we boil it down, death seems to be the loss of potential.

cookiemonster

 

[Point_Particle]

My current physics professor often calls attention to the fact that every floor of the science building at my community college has a different definition of room temperature. On the first floor, the physics floor, room temperature is twenty degrees Celsius. On the second floor, the chemistry floor, room temperature is around twenty five degrees. On the third, or biology floor, room temperature is closer to thirty. I see the definition of "life" as being similarly context-dependent. For example, are viruses alive? In a biology class I once took, life was defined as any organism that could reproduce without (directly) soliciting the aid of a member of another species. This means that viruses can never be alive, because they can only reproduce by hijacking the replicative mechanisms of invaded cells. Well then, what are viruses? By this definition of life, they are kind of an anomaly. What about organisms that can't reproduce at all? Mules for example, are mules not indisputably alive? Obviously this definition of life is overly exclusive. My point is that it may not be productive to talk about an absolute definition of "life" in determining what kinds of behavior might be "moral" relative to another organism. Instead, perhaps we should discuss morality in terms of some things a little more concrete. Pain, for example, might be a good place to start. Most people experience and understand pain to a reasonable extent. However, there is nothing inherently "painful" about pain. It is a matter of interpretation. Can an embryo experience pain in the same sense that a fully grown human can? Most certainly not. They simply lack the requisite complexity to interpret the sensation. However, what about non-human animals, like cows? Can cows feel pain? They sure act like they do. Does that mean they interpret pain similarly to the ways that humans do? Maybe, maybe not, we may never know. How about plants? Can plants feel pain? By definition, plants can not feel pain. Plants are alive by almost every definition of life, but most people wouldn't think twice about ending the life of a plant if personal gain were involved. It is my belief that conception of life doesn't necessarily impact behavior, instead it is empathy, i.e. like signal interpretation that usually guides morality.

 

[Rader]

awareness

So life=consciousness then? All things conscious are therefore alive? makes sense.

I believe any fertilized egg is alive, including a humans. I strongly believe that it cannot feel pain. That is the point. If it cannot feel pain, why is it a crime to kill it? It has no feeling. When the egg proceeds through the process of meiosis, it multiplies according to what the genetic code dictates. There is no independent thought going on. Therefore, it is not, so to speak, "killable".

Although we can know, only through personal experience I am alive and conscious, awarenss of it seems to settle in sometime after we are born, as far as we know, our first memories.

So a human can be alive and consciouss and a fertilized human egg also. You do not think that a human egg can think or feel pain. Now the cookiemonster beat me to the punch but, I will use other examples. A soldier with his spinal cord cut in half from a motar attack, will have no pain, so is it killable. How much thinking can a person in a coma, think, is it killable. You seem to have then a moral view that feeling pain has priority over life and consciousness.

Does an icecube melting feel pain? Does a change of a physical state form a experiential experience. We may never know that, because we can experience only human experience. Does a change in the physical state of a human, form a experiencial experience, in this case pain and death? The only argument, that I can see, if a human egg feels pain, is we can not be aware of other levels of consciousness, that occur before memory sets in. At anyrate I value life and consciousness above thinking and pain.

 

[Rader]

That's not what I'm saying. I was saying that I think there is no precise instant in time at which a non-living object becomes a living one. The object grows from something less resemblent of what we consider to be life to something that is completely resemblent of what we consider to be life. In reality, it's all just chemical reactions. As humans, we love to classify things, especially when classifying makes us feel special, so we classify things as living or not living, depending on how well the system being observed matches our mental model of "life".

Now that's interesting, you think that something is alive or dead only because of the subjuntive experience you have of awareness and perception, of whatever you are observing. Of course you correlate this to a objective physical process. So then nothing is dead or alive or we just think it is. Or maybe its because we can not percieve, other states of conscious awarness. In that case, everything would just be alive, and we do not know it.

 

[Dissident Dan]

I'm just saying that the idea of life is just a classification of interactions, and sometimes this classification seems to break down.

 

[one_raven]

I agree with:

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.

I would also like to recommend that you drop the "World Peace" bit.

I think focusing energy on when life/consciousness starts is not only a waste of time, but could seriously injure your debate.
First of all, no one will ever truly know when an egg becomes a person, because, partly, it is a matter of personal opinion.
Also, people already have deeply engrained notions of when "life" starts and a short debate will do nothing to sway that.
Third, the subject is far too steep into religious Dogma for the majority of people to have an open mind to the subject.

I think, if you want to win this, you should change your focus away from the dead horse of when life begins.

Pointing out that it happens in a dish, rather than a womb is smart and important, but I don't think there is much of a benefit (and, like I said, you run the rsik of it being a detriment) in taking that any further unless you are deflating your opponent's argument.

Focus on the potential benefits and simply point out that those who claim it is immoral offer vague ambiguous reasoning at best to support their claims.
Basically put a pin-prick in the moral argument right off the bat and let it deflate itself, unless it doesn't, then you can step on it in rebuttal.

That's what I would do, anyway.
It would bring your speech to within time limits.

 

[Imparcticle]

I would also like to recommend that you drop the "World Peace" bit.

I said it would DECREASE suffering, it would make the world a little bit more peaceful.

I think focusing energy on when life/consciousness starts is not only a waste of time, but could seriously injure your debate.

I shouldn't ignore an important opposing argument just because it will challenge me greatly. In fact, if my arguments are flawed, I should know about it.

First of all, no one will ever truly know when an egg becomes a person, because, partly, it is a matter of personal opinion.

Opinion can at times be proved wrong. I could say that it is my opinion that E does not equal mc², but as you know that is not true. E does =mc² . Even then, we should see if it is possible to dictate the validity of this matter (that you mentioned in the quote above) as being classified an opinion or a differing hypothesis.

Also, people already have deeply engrained notions of when "life" starts and a short debate will do nothing to sway that.

A short debate will at least help those involved get a more educated opinion about the subject. That is the purpose.

Third, the subject is far too steep into religious Dogma for the majority of people to have an open mind to the subject.

As you may know, it was once belived that the Earth was the center of the universe. This was promoted, and made into fact based on the religious community's belief that the bible says so. They came to this conclusion because of the scripture which states that the sun stood still in the sky. To them, this indicated the Earth was the center. This was a religiously motivated idea. It was later proven wrong of course. "Religious Dogma" as you call it should not deter scientific exploration.

I think, if you want to win this, you should change your focus away from the dead horse of when life begins.

You mean, I should change my focus away from the most prominent opposing argument?? This is a persuasive speech. I should be able to convince people that their opposing argument about how stem cell research promotes murder of unborn children is wrong. That is the sole point of my essay, and I'm sure the sole point of the essay should be addressed.

Pointing out that it happens in a dish, rather than a womb is smart and important, but I don't think there is much of a benefit (and, like I said, you run the rsik of it being a detriment) in taking that any further unless you are deflating your opponent's argument.

Shouldn't I delfate my opponent's argument?

Focus on the potential benefits and simply point out that those who claim it is immoral offer vague ambiguous reasoning at best to support their claims.
Basically put a pin-prick in the moral argument right off the bat and let it deflate itself, unless it doesn't, then you can step on it in rebuttal.

Okay, I'll do that. Thanks.

That's what I would do, anyway.
It would bring your speech to within time limits.

I was thinking of taking out all the definitions I have (of zygotes and stem cells) and making a chart of the definitons and other background data my audience need to know to understand what it is I am talking about. Of course I will emphasize the definitons necessary for my argument.

 

[Imparcticle]

If we anaesthetize someone, they stop feeling pain. If we then kill them, according to Square's condition for moral death, not immoral to murder someone in their sleep.

Ah! Brilliant argument. I am trully baffled. so how can we possibly say something is "killable"?? Is it wrong to kill a rock then? It is not alive.
But the zygote never had any conscious recognition of such sensations, if any. Also, it does not have the ability to think on its own. It is certainly "killable" though. Cells die everyday in our bodies. So how is a zygote any different?
Also, what is the rate of supply of stem cells in the zygote? Are there an infinite supply?

Additionally, perhaps a more fair condition for the value of human life would be potential. It complicates things, for sure, but when we boil it down, death seems to be the loss of potential.

cookiemonster

Or the absence of potential?

POTENTIAL is extremely vital! Thank you cookiemonster! This is certianly a prominent embellishment for our basis on defining "when life begins".

 

[Imparcticle]

Someone said (I don't know who, and I haven't the time to look right now) that there is no instant where life begins. True, then it must occur in a gradual basis. Could it only be 1/7 alive then?

 

[one_raven]

I said it would DECREASE suffering, it would make the world a little bit more peaceful.

I can't say what others will think, but I can tell you what I would think.
This person is really over-selling his position by saying it will help promote world peace.
It would call your credibility into question for me, at least.
It will likely make me think that you don't have much of a validn argument, so you feel the need to bolster your position by stretching the facts and/or it would make me question the validity of the rest of your claims.

I shouldn't ignore an important opposing argument just because it will challenge me greatly. In fact, if my arguments are flawed, I should know about it.

It has nothing to do with your argument being flawed.
It is akin to arguing whether or not God or the soul exists in your 3 minute speech about the value of religion.
You will not likely convince any of your audience to change their views on whether or not these things exist with a short monologue.
(if you don't believe me read some of the give and take about when life starts on this thread.)
So, rather than being inefficient with your limited alotted time, you should focus on point that you CAN convince people of and things you have some hope on swaying them over.
Recognize what battles you can and can not win in order to win the war.
If you have little to no hope of saving this one front, do you send another 20,000 soldiers there to die and ignore all the other fronts?
Or do you focus more of your time and resources on what you CAN do in order to win?
Idealism does not win debates, pragmatism does.

Opinion can at times be proved wrong. I could say that it is my opinion that E does not equal mc², but as you know that is not true. E does =mc² . Even then, we should see if it is possible to dictate the validity of this matter (that you mentioned in the quote above) as being classified an opinion or a differing hypothesis.

That has nothing to do with this at all.
Dis Einstein chamge millions of people's minds by simply making a 3 1/2-minute speech?
No, he spent yars researching then spand many more years championing his efforts.
Beyond that, E=mc² is something that is verifiable and falsifiable.
When exactly life begins is not and will likely never be.
Try convincing a Bible-thumper that God does not exist with a 3 1/2-minute speech, what will happen?
However, if you do not dwell on the existence of God, you may have a shot at convincing him that Evolution IS a reality, by using verifiable facts and sound arguments.

A short debate will at least help those involved get a more educated opinion about the subject. That is the purpose.

Exactly.
So prostelytizing your opinion will not do that at all.
Supporting your argument with valid and supportable facts will.
It will also help you win (which is the other half of the point when debate is viewed as a sport).

As you may know, it was once belived that the Earth was the center of the universe. This was promoted, and made into fact based on the religious community's belief that the bible says so. They came to this conclusion because of the scripture which states that the sun stood still in the sky. To them, this indicated the Earth was the center. This was a religiously motivated idea. It was later proven wrong of course. "Religious Dogma" as you call it should not deter scientific exploration.

Again, this has nothing to do with the case at hand.
We are talking again about verifiable science.
Besides, did Copernicus convince the world of this in a speech?
No, it took millenia.

You mean, I should change my focus away from the most prominent opposing argument?? This is a persuasive speech. I should be able to convince people that their opposing argument about how stem cell research promotes murder of unborn children is wrong. That is the sole point of my essay, and I'm sure the sole point of the essay should be addressed.

Try and think of it like a lawyer.
The more time and effort you put into an argument that you couldn't possibly win on facts alone. the more it looks like you need to and the more it looks like you know that your oponent has a good argument.
By simply discounting it as opinion (which it is) and demonstrating that there is no scientific evidence to back up the "Immoral" argument (which there isn't) in your opening statement, you already deflated all the arguments they had by untying their baloon right off the bat and completely disarm them.
If you simply, concisely and convincingly show that the "Immoral" argument is vague, unsupportable, unverifiable and nothing more than unsubstantiated abstract morality with no basis in fact then you force them to rely on reason, of which they have little to none.
Do this right, and you are a shoe in.
It's like lifting up the curtain on the Wizard of Oz.
Once you take the power of vague baseless opinion and emotional reaction from them, you expose that they have no REAL power, just bells and whistles.

Shouldn't I delfate my opponent's argument?

I meant deflating in rebuttal if your opponent finds away to bring it up around your initial deflation.
If you do your initial deflation right, then your opponent will not find a way around it that you wouldn;t be able to discount with a smirk and an "I told you so".

Again.
This is just what I would do.

 

[one_raven]

You have little to no chance of convincing someone that they are wrong on when they think life begins.
What I would focus my efforts on is what IS possible.
Convincing them that the issue of Stem Cell Research is not contingent upon when life starts.
If you do that, you take their biggest argument out from under them.

 

[Imparcticle]

How do you propose I convince people that stem cell research isn't murder, that it doesn't have anything to do with when life begins?

 

[Canute]

How do you propose I convince people that stem cell research isn't murder, that it doesn't have anything to do with when life begins?

Couple of points. First we don't know whether morality has an absolute basis or not. Perhaps moral are relative and just social constructs, perhaps not. Many people (not all of them theists) argue that a system of human morality is entailed by our ontology, by the nature of the universe if you like.

Secondly it was said in the first post that an appeal to morality was the best argument against stem cell research. This is not necessarily true. Some people would argue that an appeal to common sense and our long-term self-interest is a far stronger argument against our interference in evolutionary processes.

 

[Imparcticle]

[PLAIN]http://www.nhnscr.org/

[/PLAIN] Read[/URL] this.[/PHP]http://www.nhnscr.org/[/PHP]

Does this indicate that there is a stem cell source in the brain?

I found another article in Health Day news (but I can't find it now) which indicated that this was true.