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.

 

[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.