ideology/morality and science

Life, the universe, and everything.
Forum rules
- No personal attacks against players or staff members - please be civil!
- No posting of mature images/links, keep content SFW. If it's NSFW, don't post it on these forums.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

ideology/morality and science

Postby kiryan » Sun Mar 15, 2009 2:03 am

I heard a set of arguments on "embryonic" stem cell research the other day that I thought were interesting.

Background, Bush ordered that no one could use federal funds on stem cell research except on the original 14 or so lines. The reasoning was that to make these stem cell lines, they basically "kill" an embryo and harvest the stem cells and that was immorale and we as a nation are above it. I believe federally funded research can be done on "adult" stem cell lines (not the result of killing an embryo).

Obama said during campaiging that when life begins is a question above his pay grade.
Scientists and the left reject the limits on stem cell research. Primary criticism is that Christian ideologically is holding back science.
Obama stands up after reversing the limits on stem cell research saying Science will rule again rejecting "ideology"
He also stands up and restores the "science" requirement in EPA permits or something. (Bush's idea here was on small projects that didn't seem likely to have an impact, he waived the requirement to do an expensive science study. His other idea was probably being able to selectively ignore the law, but we won't talk about that.)

So the argument is this. We live in a society where we do place moralistic, ideological limits on science and its proper. Scientists left to their own pursuit of science will cross the boundaries of what is morally acceptable and it is the responsibility of society to place limits. Scientists can not be allowed to regulate themselves because first of all its a conflict of interests and second because science is founded on the idea that everything has to be proved. You can not prove any morality. We don't allow testing on humans. Nazi experimentation on Jews comes to mind. There are lots of examples where we as a society limit what Science, what Scientists are allowed to do and its proper.

Heres an article, that touches on some of these same concepts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/14/us/14 ... tml?ref=us

choice quotes:

Obama: Science, it was said, should be isolated from politics, from ideology, from dogma, from religion.

But these words frequently function as weapons. One person’s ideology can be someone else’s political philosophy or even morality. One person’s dogma can be someone else’s self-evident truths.

Science has certainly developed safeguards to isolate its work from distorting influences. The danger is that those safeguards, like antibodies run amok, can also isolate it from morality.

To label the opposition to embryonic stem cell research as “ideology,” Mr. Saletan suggests, is to “forget the moral problem.” To pursue this research is a moral choice. Not to pursue it is a moral choice. And moral choices of this nature properly wind up in the political arena.

And the paper ran a Page 1 article about European nations’ debating whether surgical or chemical castration is an effective, humane and legitimate treatment to rehabilitate violent sex offenders. No one can read that article and imagine that this is simply a scientific question, to be resolved by medical scientists on their own terms, rather than one that is profoundly moral and political.

So my questions.

Should Obama have reversed Bush's limits if he on his own admission admits the answer to the moral question of when life begins is "above his pay grade".

Where do you draw the line between science and morality and who draws it. Did Bush draw it wrong given the success with "adult" stem cells vs "embryonic" stem cells? Did Obama draw it right by "freeing" to use Federal money to harvest or grow fetus's and then destroy them despite sound "moral" alternatives?

After you're done answering those, I want you to think about why its critical to free science from these "moral" restrictions yet its fine for for the government to impose its moral standards on business by telling them how much to pay their CEOs and whether they can have or use private jets. Isn't business a science of its own?
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: ideology/morality and science

Postby Ragorn » Sun Mar 15, 2009 2:55 am

I think your post is too broad to have any kind of meaningful conversation... I imagine you and I start from such wildly different perspectives that we're not even going to reach a place where we can usefully talk about the subject you're posing.

Examples:

1) Human embryos are not human lives, and thus are not governed by morality or muder.
2) Even if they were, the sacrifice of a small number of "potential lives" to further research that could save millions from dying of infectious or genetic diseases is such an easy decision that it doesn't even warrant conversation. Of course you do the research.
3) Government should not legislate morality. Ever. Legislation based around consequences is fine... you can criminalize crack cocaine because crack addicts are a danger to society... but you shouldn't criminalize it because "drugs are bad mm'kay?"
4) The only instance of the government questioning CEO salaries/bonuses in recent history is in regards to companies who begged for bailouts of taxpayer money. I'm not sure why you consider this a moral issue.
5) "Business is a science" in the same way that "masturbation is an art form." That is to say... it's not.
6) Scientists are not frizzy-haired witch doctors who will stop at nothing to pursue SCIENCE. Taking a page from Adriorn's book, "they're just portrayed that way on TV."

Bush was wrong to force his morality on the scientific community. Obama was correct to overturn that executive order.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: ideology/morality and science

Postby kiryan » Sun Mar 15, 2009 3:48 am

1) What universal truth or scientific basis do you use to justify that human embryos are not human life? Where is human life defined and who defined it?
2) So who determines how many lives can be sacrified to save how many lives? Is it 1 for 2? Is it 1 for a 50% chance to save 100? Is it 1 for a .4% chance to save 1 million?
3) I think your statements are exactly how most morality is legislated. I'm not talkign about "cuz god says its good" mmkay.

To be utterly stupid, I might say this. What if I create babies in a test tube using donated sperm and eggs. Grow them up like animals completely separated from the human population then experiment on them. The danger to society is what? Is it a human life if they were grown like cattle and or were grown in an incubator (vs a womb)? If so, maybe we just change the definition to be human after they reach say the age of 2 months. I mean is it really alive if all it can do is eat drink shit, sleep and would die if not cared for by someone else? (viability outside the womb is one of the key argument points in whether an embryo is alive).

4) umm morality doesn't always mean religion. Its an evaluation of conduct based on a world view. We are imposing our views of CEO compensation on companies based on the morality of whether CEOs get paid too much for "failing" by our definition.
5) Science is governed by rules and objectives in the search of truth and understanding. Business is governed by rules and objectives in the aspirations to make money. Maybe I'm stretching here, but I was drawing a parallel to the rejection of the imposition of moral standards on science while pointing out that we find it perfectly acceptable today to impose moral standards on business. What makes science and business different?
6) no shit sherlock? but they all have differing moral standards. Some scientists think its ok to encourage pedophiles so they can study pedophilia, others think its ok to kill embryos, others think its inhumane to test household products on animals. Others think its ok to perform grotesque experiements on Jews.

Is your position that Bush was wrong or that it is wrong to impose morality on the scientific community?

Obama doesn't know when life begins, but has declared that it is ok to harvest stem cells from embryos. What basis is he making his decision on if he doesn't know when life begins? That science wants it?

There are some scientists that want to seed small sections of the ocean with iron to stimulate algae/plankton growth to increase carbon absorption to fight climate change. They don't see a problem with their experiments either... The scientific community can not decide what is right or wrong. Society MUST impose its moral standards on the scientific community. In fact, we always have. Given the dramatic success of adult stem cells and the existing lines of embryonic stem cells, what is the scientific imperative to create and maintain new lines of embryonic stem cells for experiementation... what is the scientific imperative that this is federally funded. Bush didn't outlaw embryonic stem cell research at all, he just ELIMINATED FEDERAL funding for experiments on NEW EMBRYONIC STEM CELL LINES.

Oh and again, we wouldn't even have to have this debate as a nation of we weren't paying for it. It seems like most of our disagreements would go away if DC quit paying for everything.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: ideology/morality and science

Postby Ragorn » Sun Mar 15, 2009 4:27 am

Yeah... sorry mate, this thread is going to take way longer than I'm looking to spend chatting on a BBS :P
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: ideology/morality and science

Postby Sarvis » Sun Mar 15, 2009 6:28 am

The funny thing is that the big fear people had was people getting abortions just to provide stem cells for research. The problem is those aren't necessary. There are plenty of left over fetuses from fertility clinics which can be used for stem cell research, but the previous law blocked that as a source because they were technically embryonic.

So the real question is:

Why is it ok to throw away a half dozen embryos from a fertility clinic, but not ok to use them for research into life saving medicine instead?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: ideology/morality and science

Postby kiryan » Sun Mar 15, 2009 9:30 pm

I think you are wrong Sarvis... I'm not a stem cell expert, but my understanding is that fetus's from abortions are not useable for establishing or harvesting embryonic stem cells. A very quick google search basically said that the embryo's are harvested after 1 week. They have to create embryo's specifically to destroy them for harvesting the stem cells.

If you believe life begins at conception, then this is paramount to murder. This is where the moral debate begins and ends. Its not a scientific question to be answered by scientists.

Interestingly enough, pro choice / abortion laws do not define when life begins. They define when a woman can choose to have an abortion without legal reprecussions. Another interesting facet is that some states, including California, actually charge you with 2 murders if you kill a pregnant woman in her 3rd trimester (maybe 2nd as well).
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: ideology/morality and science

Postby Sarvis » Sun Mar 15, 2009 9:58 pm

kiryan wrote:I think you are wrong Sarvis... I'm not a stem cell expert, but my understanding is that fetus's from abortions are not useable for establishing or harvesting embryonic stem cells.


I didn't say they were, I said that is what people fear. I never said they properly understood the issue.

A very quick google search basically said that the embryo's are harvested after 1 week. They have to create embryo's specifically to destroy them for harvesting the stem cells.

If you believe life begins at conception, then this is paramount to murder. This is where the moral debate begins and ends. Its not a scientific question to be answered by scientists.


My previous questions stands either way: why is it ok to throw away fertilized eggs from a fertility clinic?

Here's an article that discusses it: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/09/60minutes/main1300667.shtml
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: ideology/morality and science

Postby kiryan » Mon Mar 16, 2009 5:18 am

No I don't think it is right to throw away fertilized eggs, but I like most pro lifer's believe that life begins at conception... at fertilization.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: ideology/morality and science

Postby Sarvis » Mon Mar 16, 2009 5:24 am

kiryan wrote:No I don't think it is right to throw away fertilized eggs, but I like most pro lifer's believe that life begins at conception... at fertilization.


But no one's lobbying for laws to prevent fertility clinics from throwing out embryos at the parents' request. Everyone seems fine with it. They only get their panties in a bunch when it could be used to save lives instead of coating the bottom of the landfill.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: ideology/morality and science

Postby kiryan » Mon Mar 16, 2009 5:33 am

Oh I'm sure if you check the prolife agenda, its in there.

With any problem, you start with the simple stuff. We can't even stop women from terminating embryos in the womb with fingers and toes and eyes. We just barely got partial birth abortion, which is truly reprehensible, banned last year?
Jhorr
Sojourner
Posts: 515
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2001 6:01 am

Re: ideology/morality and science

Postby Jhorr » Mon Mar 16, 2009 5:44 am

The scientific community can not decide what is right or wrong.


Actually, it is precisely the endeavor of the scientific community to figure out what is wrong, not right. The only proper scientific studies strive to reject a hypothesis, not confirm it.

Of course, you are talking about right and wrong in terms of morality. I am talking about it in terms of epistemology.
Last edited by Jhorr on Mon Mar 16, 2009 5:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: ideology/morality and science

Postby kiryan » Mon Mar 16, 2009 5:46 am

I'm talking morally right and wrong.

Not scientific facts.
Jhorr
Sojourner
Posts: 515
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2001 6:01 am

Re: ideology/morality and science

Postby Jhorr » Mon Mar 16, 2009 6:02 am

As far as embryos go, they aren't all worth saving anyway. In fact, many of them spontaneously abort anyway.

If we were able to determine which embryos weren't viable before they miscarried, and could harvest stem cells from them, the ethical dilemma here would be moot.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: ideology/morality and science

Postby kiryan » Mon Mar 16, 2009 6:28 am

so predictable. I want to let you know, I thought about addressing that very argument before, but decided to wait for someone to bite.

If you come across a man who for certain will die in 60 seconds and you pull out a gun and shoot him in the head. You have committed murder. The cause of death will be listed as gunshot wound to the head despite the fact that he was about to die anyways. You probably won't be prosecuted, but you certainly could be and it would be up to a jury of your peers to decide... supposedly not by what they believe is right or wrong, but by the legal definitions of murder.

The deliberate act is what makes it murder. Babies die all the time in the womb, some fertilized eggs never plant. That is natural. As natural as dieing in your sleep. There is a difference.

The objection of pro lifers is to the direct intentional "destruction" of embryos.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: ideology/morality and science

Postby Kifle » Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:53 pm

Cliche attack: Why are human lives more important than animal lives? Explain that without the bible, please.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: ideology/morality and science

Postby kiryan » Mon Mar 16, 2009 4:46 pm

I don't know where you are going with this.

Since you use the word "important" it is obviously not a scientific question, so the answer is because we say so. Thats why a human life is more "important" than an animal life.

Yet this is a different question about whether its right or wrong. Which has is governed by absolute truth regardless of whether society deems an unborn child to be alive or not. You know someday, science will probably "prove" when life begins... and we'll all just be stand around with stupid looks on our face and say "oh well we didn't know at the time". 10,000 babies were aborted in Oregon last year, 40-50k born.

Do you really appreciate and understand the scale of what is occuring legally? If you figure 30% miscarriage, thats 7,000 babies that could've... would've been born if we would just recognize that they are alive and shouldn't live or die based on a unilateral decision. 5-6 million people in Oregon.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: ideology/morality and science

Postby Ragorn » Mon Mar 16, 2009 5:15 pm

Legitimate question, because I don't know:

My understanding is that the Bush administration's ban on stem cell research also extends to cells harvested from the umbilical cord/cord blood of live birth babies. Is that correct? If so, what's the rationale behind that ban, since the cord/cord blood doesn't have the same moral concerns as a human embryo?
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: ideology/morality and science

Postby kiryan » Mon Mar 16, 2009 7:03 pm

I would support a change to that if its the situation.

I remember early on reading some stuff about cells in the umbilical cord. I believe they thought those were going to turn out to be something, but turned out to be a dead end... or they decided there was more potential in early embryos.

Then they found adult stem cells which are much easier to work with than the embryonic stem cells... because the chemcial induers they use to change the cells work better on the adult cells.... as far as I understand it at least.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: ideology/morality and science

Postby Ragorn » Mon Mar 16, 2009 7:41 pm

When my daughter was born in October 2006, they asked if we wanted to cryofreeze some of the cord blood to harvest stem cells in case she developed a blood condition later in life. I remember asking if we could donate the stem cells to research, and being told that that wasn't an option. I just don't remember if the reason given was federal policy or whether it was a logistical issue.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: ideology/morality and science

Postby Sarvis » Mon Mar 16, 2009 7:49 pm

kiryan wrote:I would support a change to that if its the situation.

I remember early on reading some stuff about cells in the umbilical cord. I believe they thought those were going to turn out to be something, but turned out to be a dead end... or they decided there was more potential in early embryos.

Then they found adult stem cells which are much easier to work with than the embryonic stem cells... because the chemcial induers they use to change the cells work better on the adult cells.... as far as I understand it at least.


Since you want other people to prove your argument for you, I looked it up. Turns out adult stem cells can be used, are limited to the same kind of tissue they are derived from, are harder to obtain in necessary quantities, but are less likely to cause an immune response.

So a bit of a mixed bag, but it sounds a lot more limited than embryonic stem cells overall. Nothing at all about chemical inducers.

http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics5.asp
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: ideology/morality and science

Postby kiryan » Mon Mar 16, 2009 8:46 pm

Ah ok, I went through the same thing with my last 2 children. The cord blood banking thing is based on the idea that at some point in the future, they may be able to use cord blood to treat people. As far as I know, its purely speculative at this point.

Think of it like cryofreezing your seconds before death body so that they can revive you and cure you someday in the future... except probably with a lot more possibility of actually being true and at a more affordable cost.

--

Like I said not an expert on stem cell research, but what I read in a couple of science magazine articles was that coaxing the stem cells into the type of cells they want is easier with adult stem cells than embryonic stem cells. The adult stem cells seem to be damaged less and produce more viable results. That part about the immuno thing was in there too, forgot about it.

anyhow, like i said there are alternatives and have been for at least a couple years. Would it be terrible to stymie science a little to maintain some standards of moral behavior? We already do it, so the answer to that is yes.

Do you wonder if we might never have found adult stem cells (or found them much later) if we hadn't said its immoral to kill embryos for this purpose?
Jhorr
Sojourner
Posts: 515
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2001 6:01 am

Re: ideology/morality and science

Postby Jhorr » Tue Mar 17, 2009 4:20 am

Take the stem cells from non-viable embryos and use them for research. What is unethical about that? They are already stillborn.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: ideology/morality and science

Postby Kifle » Tue Mar 17, 2009 9:14 am

kiryan wrote:I don't know where you are going with this.

Since you use the word "important" it is obviously not a scientific question, so the answer is because we say so. Thats why a human life is more "important" than an animal life.

Yet this is a different question about whether its right or wrong. Which has is governed by absolute truth regardless of whether society deems an unborn child to be alive or not. You know someday, science will probably "prove" when life begins... and we'll all just be stand around with stupid looks on our face and say "oh well we didn't know at the time". 10,000 babies were aborted in Oregon last year, 40-50k born.

Do you really appreciate and understand the scale of what is occuring legally? If you figure 30% miscarriage, thats 7,000 babies that could've... would've been born if we would just recognize that they are alive and shouldn't live or die based on a unilateral decision. 5-6 million people in Oregon.


So, in your first statement, you're saying that there is no real reason why you'll kill an animal to eat, but you wont allow a doctor to use an embryo to save lives? You're really just making a trade-off in both situations, one life for another; however, it takes many more animal lives to sustain a human than the amount of embryos. Basically, your ethics are being derived from a whim.

As far as the figures. I just don't understand you, Kiryan. You complain all the time about welfare bitches, poor people, redistribution of wealth, third world countries, etc., yet you somehow want more of them. If we were to ban abortion worldwide, could you imagine the population crisis that would go on? With the advances in medicine, people live longer, God can no longer kill most of us because we get the flu or bronchitis. But, I assume you believe that humans interceding in this plan to control population naturally is ok, but doing so through abortion is bad? Either way, you're fucking with the big guy's plan. Furthermore, if he gave us the resources to save lives due to medical properties found in plants (living) and animals (living), the same must be said about the resources we can find elsewhere.

Long story short, keep morality out of government. Morality is inherently selfish to personal agenda and has no place within an institution that forces its will upon a majority. If I wish my doctor to remove a baby I don't want, can't afford, and can't hope to emotionally or physically sustain, then that is my choice -- and if I do not want this embryo (and I will use these terms interchangably), he can use it for whatever he wants. Hell, he can eat the thing if he wants.

If a giant panda will purposefully let one of her cubs die (already born child) if she has two (due to survival reasons of both herself and the other cub), why is it different for us? God made both of us, correct? But, yes, god gave us free will, right? Look at dolphins -- they exhibit the same free will as us. We also have remnants of animalistic instinct as well (pheremons), we have behavior altering pills proving that much of human behavior is chemical. Is a person on, lets say, prozac no longer a human because their actions are being manipulated chemically? How far removed are we really from animals? Can you prove animals do not have free will, or do you just take the word a book written before they figured out the earth revolved around the sun?

Again, morality truly has no place in science. In fact, I would argue that they are inversely correlative. I would also argue that there is no "absolute truth" in morality. The idea, quite frankly, is retarded to put it nicely. Hell, the golden rule, which I believe is somewhere in that bible thing, implies as much -- treat people the way opposite of the way you're scared to be treated. I.e. Don't kill that guy for his money because you'll probably get killed. Fear is the opperant variable in morality, not a god. The biological imparative to preserve one's own life and bloodline is the reason we have morality. But, I've gotten way off course here.

tl;dr: Morality has no place in science. Keep that stuff in your crazy house where you congregate with other schizophrenics.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
oteb
Sojourner
Posts: 432
Joined: Mon May 27, 2002 5:01 am
Location: poland

Re: ideology/morality and science

Postby oteb » Tue Mar 17, 2009 11:37 am

Random nerd info:
St. Thomas Aquinas said the soul is conveyed to embryo after 40 days for males and 80 days for female (since they are inferior beings)
You group-say 'who is da red shape?'
A red shape group-says 'I'm a shape'
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: ideology/morality and science

Postby kiryan » Tue Mar 17, 2009 6:35 pm

Not from a whim from the absolute truth of God and the Bible that killing humans is wrong, but animals are ok.

I'm easy to understand. There are some absolute truths I can never deny. That doesn't mean I like the practical result or that I can't argue against a solution to a problem becaues I disagree with the solution on moral grounds. I'm not against birth control like condoms or pills (that prevent eggs from being released) or tied tubes or spermicide, but I will never say its ok to kill an embryo or intentionally prevent an egg from implanting... until I have proof (god or science) of when life begins. I also don't want my tax dollars paying for these things, but thats a completely different issue.

I can't prove to you that God exists or that the Bible is true. I can give you empirical evidence that should suggest strongly to you that its at least possible. You can choose to ignore the billions of people who believe in God and the Bible because no one has ever proved it to you scientifically, but that doesn't make it not true. yea yea yea i know the converse.

Morality has no place in science. You are spot on there. Science is a framework that has a single purpose which is to define, explain and prove. Morality is what people believe is appropriate conduct. To say that we should not hold science to any standards is crazier than my belief in God... or that only scientists should be allowed to regulate scientists is giving the prisoners the key to the cell. It is reasonable to hold science to some moral standards of decency or are you seriously ok with scientists experimenting on humans like they did on the Jews?
Ashiwi
Sojourner
Posts: 4161
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 5:01 am

Re: ideology/morality and science

Postby Ashiwi » Tue Mar 17, 2009 7:11 pm

"How much more then, should I have pity on Nineveh, that great city. After all, it has more than 120000 innocent children in it, as well as many animals." Jonah 4:11

"All the animals in the forest are Mine and the cattle on thousands of hills. All the wild birds are Mine and all living things in the fields."
Psalm 50:10, 11

"For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity." Ecclesiastes 3:19
Gormal tells you 'im a dwarven onion'
Gormal tells you 'always another beer-soaked layer'

Inama ASSOC:: 'though it may suit your fantasies to think so, i don't need oil for anything.'

Haley: Filthy lucre? I wash that lucre every day until it SHINES!
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: ideology/morality and science

Postby Sarvis » Tue Mar 17, 2009 7:28 pm

The really fun part of the bible: Being able to find a quote to prove your point, no matter what your point is. :P
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: ideology/morality and science

Postby kiryan » Tue Mar 17, 2009 8:49 pm

Are you trying to say that the Bible, that God, places human and animals on equal footing? I don't think there are (m)any that would agree with that conclusion.
Ashiwi
Sojourner
Posts: 4161
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 5:01 am

Re: ideology/morality and science

Postby Ashiwi » Tue Mar 17, 2009 9:35 pm

"A good man takes care of his animals, but wicked men are cruel to theirs." Proverbs 12:10

"Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves. Protect the rights of all who are helpless." Proverbs 31:8


Equal, no. Last I remember the Bible taught that animals were created, then man was created and given dominion over all the animals and the earth. Man was put into the Garden of Eden to tend and to keep it... to keep it, translating from the original tongue meaning "to take care of," "to exercise great care for," "to guard," "to watch over." As we do to them, we do to ourselves. As we exercise destruction, so is destruction wrought upon us. I don't think that we're equal in the eyes of the Bible, no... I just think that it was telling us to be good caregivers, because not only is it the moral way to treat God's gifts to us, but also the damage we do to them and to the planet can wreak havoc with us. Aren't we supposed to treat the gifts God gives us with respect and cherish them?
Gormal tells you 'im a dwarven onion'
Gormal tells you 'always another beer-soaked layer'

Inama ASSOC:: 'though it may suit your fantasies to think so, i don't need oil for anything.'

Haley: Filthy lucre? I wash that lucre every day until it SHINES!
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: ideology/morality and science

Postby kiryan » Tue Mar 17, 2009 9:40 pm

Yes... I agree. Did I contradict that someplace?
Ashiwi
Sojourner
Posts: 4161
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 5:01 am

Re: ideology/morality and science

Postby Ashiwi » Wed Mar 18, 2009 12:52 pm

I can't agree that supporting any kind of animal testing involving what constitutes torture would be considered "treating God's gifts with care and kindness."

"Wicked men are cruel to theirs" ... Does that include intentionally overdosing them, burning their eyes out with chemicals, flaying them open while they're still alive, and all the atrocities that are perpetrated on animals for the sake of science?

I agree that science and morality have very little common ground, but I also believe that many of the acts of cruelty perpetrated in the name of science are unnecessary. I'm all for advancing science, but if paring down some of the mostly needless animal testing means slowing the rate of scientific advancement a small amount, is it really going to hurt us?

If wicked men are cruel to their animals, and science relies on cruelty to animals in order to advance, then logically those scientists who utilize cruel methods to advance their science are wicked in the eyes of God, aren't they?

I would never argue against hunting with consideration, or slaughtering animals in order to feed people, as long as those who hunt and slaughter go about it in the most humane means possible. I buy farm-raised chickens and farm-raised beef, and I refuse to allow veal to touch my plate because I haven't found a way yet to tell if the grower used veal stocks. If you support what the Bible says about treating animals without cruelty, can you really support all forms of animal testing for the sake of advancing science?

Or is the definition of cruelty mutable, so that it changes for the sake of convenience and haste?
Gormal tells you 'im a dwarven onion'
Gormal tells you 'always another beer-soaked layer'

Inama ASSOC:: 'though it may suit your fantasies to think so, i don't need oil for anything.'

Haley: Filthy lucre? I wash that lucre every day until it SHINES!
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: ideology/morality and science

Postby kiryan » Wed Mar 18, 2009 6:45 pm

I still agree with you in principle, still not sure where we are going. humans and animals are still not equal and yes we are taught to respect and take care of our environment, not to needlessly waste or destroy.

I'm not so sure I would agree that its biblical not to experiment on animals. animals were provided as a resource; you are meant to use them. some experimentation is very likely not bilbical, some probably is ok.

I have and would eat veal. I don't think their treatment is cruel or abusive, but i could be wrong. they were provided as resources specifically for our consumption and although naturalists might prefer to see them running free and treated humanely (humanized), i'm not sure its abuse. abuse of an animal would be not feeding them, intentionally injuring or not treating of injuries, not putting down a suffering animal. Branding them is not abuse, not giving them an open range to run in is not abuse, slaughtering them for food is not abuse.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: ideology/morality and science

Postby Sarvis » Wed Mar 18, 2009 6:54 pm

kiryan wrote:I still agree with you in principle, still not sure where we are going. humans and animals are still not equal and yes we are taught to respect and take care of our environment, not to needlessly waste or destroy.

I'm not so sure I would agree that its biblical not to experiment on animals. animals were provided as a resource; you are meant to use them. some experimentation is very likely not bilbical, some probably is ok.

I have and would eat veal. I don't think their treatment is cruel or abusive, but i could be wrong. they were provided as resources specifically for our consumption and although naturalists might prefer to see them running free and treated humanely (humanized), i'm not sure its abuse. abuse of an animal would be not feeding them, intentionally injuring or not treating of injuries, not putting down a suffering animal. Branding them is not abuse, not giving them an open range to run in is not abuse, slaughtering them for food is not abuse.


So if someone stuck you in a cell which didn't allow you room to move and branded you it wouldn't be abuse?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: ideology/morality and science

Postby teflor the ranger » Wed Mar 18, 2009 8:14 pm

Sarvis wrote:
kiryan wrote:I still agree with you in principle, still not sure where we are going. humans and animals are still not equal and yes we are taught to respect and take care of our environment, not to needlessly waste or destroy.

I'm not so sure I would agree that its biblical not to experiment on animals. animals were provided as a resource; you are meant to use them. some experimentation is very likely not bilbical, some probably is ok.

I have and would eat veal. I don't think their treatment is cruel or abusive, but i could be wrong. they were provided as resources specifically for our consumption and although naturalists might prefer to see them running free and treated humanely (humanized), i'm not sure its abuse. abuse of an animal would be not feeding them, intentionally injuring or not treating of injuries, not putting down a suffering animal. Branding them is not abuse, not giving them an open range to run in is not abuse, slaughtering them for food is not abuse.


So if someone stuck you in a cell which didn't allow you room to move and branded you it wouldn't be abuse?


Your argument is that Kiryan is a cow or cow-equivilant? This is not a good argument.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: ideology/morality and science

Postby kiryan » Wed Mar 18, 2009 9:01 pm

see you are humanizing animals. animals != humans. yet there is a social liberal movement that keeps trying to push us to treat animals with the same rights as humans. I forget exactly where whether it was UN or the US house sometime over the last year, but we've now extended "special protections" (read rights) to high primates. Theres anti animal abuse laws in every state and city. Cattle used to range all over the wild, now they have to be provided with shelter or a farmer can be turned in for abuse.

i guess we shouldnt cut lawns! We're butchering them for nothing more than aesthetics!

seriously get some perspective.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: ideology/morality and science

Postby teflor the ranger » Wed Mar 18, 2009 9:19 pm

kiryan wrote:see you are humanizing animals. animals != humans. yet there is a social liberal movement that keeps trying to push us to treat animals with the same rights as humans. I forget exactly where whether it was UN or the US house sometime over the last year, but we've now extended "special protections" (read rights) to high primates. Theres anti animal abuse laws in every state and city. Cattle used to range all over the wild, now they have to be provided with shelter or a farmer can be turned in for abuse.

i guess we shouldnt cut lawns! We're butchering them for nothing more than aesthetics!

seriously get some perspective.


Dude, you're totally missing the fact that Sarvis is trying to insult you by calling you a cow. Put the cheeseburger down man.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: ideology/morality and science

Postby Sarvis » Wed Mar 18, 2009 10:46 pm

kiryan wrote:see you are humanizing animals.


No I'm not.

Let's assume you do think it would be abusive to brand a human. Why is it abusive to brand a human?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: ideology/morality and science

Postby teflor the ranger » Thu Mar 19, 2009 4:07 am

Sarvis wrote:
kiryan wrote:see you are humanizing animals.


No I'm not.

Let's assume you do think it would be abusive to brand a human. Why is it abusive to brand a human?


Does this question even need to be answered? Seriously consider my advice that you're making a bad argument. You weren't humanizing animals, you were animalizing Kiryan :P
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: ideology/morality and science

Postby Ragorn » Thu Mar 19, 2009 5:25 am

kiryan wrote:see you are humanizing animals. animals != humans. yet there is a social liberal movement that keeps trying to push us to treat animals with the same rights as humans. I forget exactly where whether it was UN or the US house sometime over the last year, but we've now extended "special protections" (read rights) to high primates. Theres anti animal abuse laws in every state and city. Cattle used to range all over the wild, now they have to be provided with shelter or a farmer can be turned in for abuse.

i guess we shouldnt cut lawns! We're butchering them for nothing more than aesthetics!

seriously get some perspective.

I'm no animal-rights activist, but it's still pretty fucked up to raise cattle in 2'x4' pens from birth until death, jacking them up with hormones and force feeding them to the point of sickness. I don't think you're going to find anyone who thinks that cattle who "range all over the wild" are being abused. I think that's the outcome that the animal rights terrorists are aiming for, actually.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: ideology/morality and science

Postby teflor the ranger » Thu Mar 19, 2009 5:50 am

Ragorn wrote:I'm no animal-rights activist, but it's still pretty fucked up to raise cattle in 2'x4' pens from birth until death, jacking them up with hormones and force feeding them to the point of sickness. I don't think you're going to find anyone who thinks that cattle who "range all over the wild" are being abused. I think that's the outcome that the animal rights terrorists are aiming for, actually.


Yet, cattle would have been hunted into extinction without industrial farming.

Interesting, wouldn't you say? (Yes, industrial farming is "fucked up," but it is a necessary evil unless you want to start culling the human population.)
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: ideology/morality and science

Postby Sarvis » Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:59 pm

I know I'll regret this but...

Teffi: There's a difference between raising cattle in a 2x4 cage for veal and raising cattle on a ranch. That is what Rags is referring to. Frankly animals can be well cared for by humans (see especially dogs and cats) but they can also be mistreated by humans who are "caring" for them (see: Michael Vick.)
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Delmair Aamoren
Sojourner
Posts: 604
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Contact:

Re: ideology/morality and science

Postby Delmair Aamoren » Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:24 pm

kiryan wrote:If you believe life begins at conception, then this is paramount to murder. This is where the moral debate begins and ends. Its not a scientific question to be answered by scientists.


With that logic, are miscarriages, also called "spontaneous abortions", then considered involuntary manslaughter?

As best i can tell, a fetus would be scientifically considered a parasite in mammals until an age in which it can survive outside of the host body. That is a bit of a stretch as it is part of the planned reproductive cycle of the organism, but it otherwise is quite a good fit!

Bottom line, i agree with Obama at this point. I think people have different opinions of what point it is considered life. Some are extremist one way, some are extremist the other. It is a question that is paramount, but one that i don't see us answering anytime in the near future.

And lastly, i don't see this research in any way related to the Nazi expiramentation in the 1930's-1940's. That was a particular ethnic group selected. This is completely different. Perhaps viewed as equally inhumane by some extremists, but its like apples and oranges.

Del
Delmair Aamoren
Sojourner
Posts: 604
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Contact:

Re: ideology/morality and science

Postby Delmair Aamoren » Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:27 pm

oteb wrote:Random nerd info:
St. Thomas Aquinas said the soul is conveyed to embryo after 40 days for males and 80 days for female (since they are inferior beings)


Some could argue that females have no souls.... but thats for a different thread.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: ideology/morality and science

Postby Sarvis » Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:30 pm

Delmair Aamoren wrote:
oteb wrote:Random nerd info:
St. Thomas Aquinas said the soul is conveyed to embryo after 40 days for males and 80 days for female (since they are inferior beings)


Some could argue that females have no souls.... but thats for a different thread.


Some could argue no one has a soul. :P
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: ideology/morality and science

Postby kiryan » Thu Mar 19, 2009 5:22 pm

delmair a parasite is not the same species by definition. Now we can talk about parasitic relationships, which a lot of offspring would fall into, but its not a parasite. Also, Most natural miscarriages / failure to implant in the uterine wall would NOT fall into manslaughter.

wikipedia

Voluntary manslaughter occurs when the defendant may have an intent to cause death or serious injury, but the potential liability for the person is mitigated by the circumstances and/or state of mind.

involuntary manslaughter ... occurs where there's no intention to kill or cause serious injury, but death is due to recklessness or criminal negligence.

---

its unclear to me that veal is abused. its definitely being raised in an unnatural way, but again not sure its abuse. i hadn't heard about the injections to the point where they are sick... that would probably do it for me, depending on what we are calling "sick".

one definition of abuse would be whether or not all basic needs are met. the strongest case you can make that the needs aren't being met is one based on "freedom" of mobility or being allowed to grow up naturally. Again, not sure that this qualifies as abuse in my book. For naturalists, or animal rights activists I'm sure it is abuse, but I look at that as humanizing animals and despite all the rhetoric, humans and animals are fundamentally different.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: ideology/morality and science

Postby Ragorn » Thu Mar 19, 2009 7:05 pm

kiryan wrote:its unclear to me that veal is abused. its definitely being raised in an unnatural way, but again not sure its abuse. i hadn't heard about the injections to the point where they are sick... that would probably do it for me, depending on what we are calling "sick".

When you consider that "fat cows offer more meat than skinny cows" and "the less space each animal has, the more animals you can raise," you can start to see how the tenets of capitalism and profit win out over humane treatment of feed animals.

Cows, for example, are routinely injected with growth hormones. That's why organic beef and milk advertise "no hormones"... because most beef is laced with cow steroids :)

Is it considered abuse to bulk a cow up so much that it can't stand on its own legs? I dunno, up to you.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Ashiwi
Sojourner
Posts: 4161
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 5:01 am

Re: ideology/morality and science

Postby Ashiwi » Thu Mar 19, 2009 7:09 pm

There are several forms of housing for veal. Many producers are moving toward a group housing situation, but the most controversial form of pen is constructed like the human stocks of old. I don't think many producers still utilize this form of production, so until there is a fairly reliable information source, I simply abstain. The stocks used in veal production involve a wooden structure that holds the calf stationary throughout the first 10-20 or so weeks of life. Some of them allow the calf enough room to lie down, if they can maneuver the tight space, but there are some that bind the calf and prevent even those small movements, in order to prevent any sort of musculature development. In some instances, again a practice that is being weaned out and is only found in the most objectionable producers, the calf is also force-fed in order to gain the maximum amount of weight.

I only tend to humanize my personal pets, because I recognize the necessity of the consumption chain as an integral aspect of evolution. I don't think it's humanizing them to expect them to be given sufficient food, water, light, shelter if necessary (if kept in a pen with no natural shelter or shade, then yes, shelter is a necessity that any intelligent producer will recognize), clean conditions to prevent disease, freedom from unnecessary intentional injury, and room to practice natural range of motion.
Gormal tells you 'im a dwarven onion'
Gormal tells you 'always another beer-soaked layer'

Inama ASSOC:: 'though it may suit your fantasies to think so, i don't need oil for anything.'

Haley: Filthy lucre? I wash that lucre every day until it SHINES!
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: ideology/morality and science

Postby teflor the ranger » Fri Mar 20, 2009 9:15 pm

Sarvis wrote:I know I'll regret this but...

Teffi: There's a difference between raising cattle in a 2x4 cage for veal and raising cattle on a ranch. That is what Rags is referring to. Frankly animals can be well cared for by humans (see especially dogs and cats) but they can also be mistreated by humans who are "caring" for them (see: Michael Vick.)


No, you won't regret it. Veal farming does seem to be more cruel than a feedlot, but that also depends on perspective.

At least with veal farming, the cows don't have to live through years of it.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: ideology/morality and science

Postby teflor the ranger » Fri Mar 20, 2009 9:16 pm

Delmair Aamoren wrote:Some could argue that females have no souls.... but thats for a different thread.

Soyulent ... pink?
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: ideology/morality and science

Postby kiryan » Wed Mar 25, 2009 6:10 pm

Interestingly enough, Obama touched on this very subject last night. He danced around the bigger issue of "abortion/life begins", but Obama supports moral and ethical restrictions on Science.

Enjoy.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-cou ... nswer.html

Some choice quotes...

Look, I believe that it is very important for us to have strong moral guidelines, ethical guidelines when it comes to stem cell research or anything that touches on, you know, the issues of possible cloning or issues related to, you know, the human life sciences.

...

Jon Ward, Washington Times: I meant to ask a follow-up, though. Do you think that scientific consensus is enough to tell us what we can and cannot do?

THE PRESIDENT: No. I think there's always an ethical and a moral element that has to be—be a part of this.

Return to “T2 General Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest