Sam Harris An Atheist Manifesto

[ambush80]

I guess you could say that if worldview includes science and definition of mammal.
Yes it is, but if it is technically not a person, it is not a moral dilemma.
If that person is not breathing, has no hair, and no heartbeat, and no brain, then yes. Especially if that 'person' has been grown in a test tube for the sole purpose of research.

No more than using mice is animal abuse
No need. I think we have covered it all. Sorry for the derail.

Does science include listening for a heartbeat? Im a little lost as to how any discussion as to when life begins can be considered unscientific? Even "conception" must be defined scientifically.



Agreed, but, this is limited by the statement above.



I do not see a difference between a test tube person and another person. A person is a person. We get back to the above (what is a person).




I think you miss my point. If you and I agreed that the thing was a person, I think we would also agree that killing it in the name of science is still murder.

Most of the testing can be done on a blastocyst about 500 cells worth. I can't call that alive or human.

 

[pnome]

Wish pnome would post a follow up. Had to be hard for him to come clean on here.

You rang?

I am still an "Agnostic-Theist". I believe there is meaning to our existence. I just don't claim to know what that meaning is.

My life has not really changed. Though, I get in religious debates a LOT less now.

One thing that I've got to say is a nice side-effect is that I worry a lot less now. I'm more care-free in a sense. You might call it "putting things in God's hands". I call it "trusting in the meaning".

 

[ambush80]

You rang?

I am still an "Agnostic-Theist". I believe there is meaning to our existence. I just don't claim to know what that meaning is.

My life has not really changed. Though, I get in religious debates a LOT less now.

One thing that I've got to say is a nice side-effect is that I worry a lot less now. I'm more care-free in a sense. You might call it "putting things in God's hands". I call it "trusting in the meaning".

Meaning or not I'm having a pretty good time. It could have been much, much worse.

 

[660griz]

Most of the testing can be done on a blastocyst about 500 cells worth. I can't call that alive or human.

Exactly. However, for the 'life begins at conception" crowd, it is.

 

[JB0704]

Exactly. However, for the 'life begins at conception" crowd, it is.

life
/līf/

noun

noun: life; noun: one's life; plural noun: one's lifes

1. the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.

I think you should give that crowd a little more credit.

 

[ambush80]

I think you should give that crowd a little more credit.

You can suspend the growth of the blastocyst almost indefinitely, like an acorn. Is an acorn alive? How about brine shrimp eggs? Just add water.

Some nematodes can be dried and ground up and remain that way until you add water. Then the cells divide and grow new nematodes. Were they alive or nematodes in the ground up state?

 

[JB0704]

You can suspend the growth of the blastocyst almost indefinitely, like an acorn. Is an acorn alive? How about brine shrimp eggs? Just add water.

Some nematodes can be dried and ground up and remain that way until you add water. Then the cells divide and grow new nematodes. Were they alive or nematodes in the ground up state?

I thought we were all about science in here. Science says the embryo is alive. You then have to go to brine shrimp and acorns to keep your point valid........which is ultimately influenced by your worldview, as is mine. The only difference is that this situation puts me on the side of science.

 

[JB0704]

FWIW, I think implantation is a more accurate place to begin human life, because it will never become a human until implanted.........I am just sticking up for the "life begins at conception" view because that perspective is very logical and scientifically defendable.

 

[WaltL1]

FWIW, I think implantation is a more accurate place to begin human life, because it will never become a human until implanted.........I am just sticking up for the "life begins at conception" view because that perspective is very logical and scientifically defendable.

This is a tough subject for me. I still haven't figured out what I think about it.
"Life" is a pretty general term. Doesn't necessarily include self awareness or thought or feelings etc.
For example scrambled eggs vs. scrambled chickens/human egg vs. a human.
I'm just not sure.

 

[JB0704]

Yea, Walt, it is a tough one. I get the "just a bunch of cells in a petri dish" argument. But, if the other side is grounded in science (where to begin life), I do not think it should be dismissed as religious fanaticism. No matter where the line is drawn and who draws it, any killing beyond that line = killing human life which will make it discussion of morality. I think many AA's tend to draw the line closer to birth than Christians / believers do, but I don't know how much of that is because of the other side's position.

Another thing to consider is this, think about where you draw the line for human life v not human life. Let's say you determine it to be birth (very few hold this position). Would you ever support killing that person for the sake of scientific study?

 

[660griz]

I think you should give that crowd a little more credit.

I don't.

What is functional activity? What is reproduce?
Are sperm 'dead'? Why start at conception? Are fertilized eggs made from dead parts?
Alive, does not equal human/mammal.
Even Adam was dead until God blew air into him.

 

[JB0704]

I don't.

What is functional activity? What is reproduce?
Are sperm 'dead'? Why start at conception? Are fertilized eggs made from dead parts?
Alive, does not equal human/mammal.
Even Adam was dead until God blew air into him.

Every argument you are making against the fertilized egg can also be made against a newborn baby.

On it's own, reproductive cells will never be a human. Neither will the petri dish........neither will the baby just before birth. None can survive on their own even the post birth baby. Certainly none can reproduce.

So, instead of picking arbitrary lines, the conception crowd picks the most distinguishable event where the reproductive cells become a person. I say implantation because it will never become a person until that happens. They are using science.

 

[WaltL1]

Yea, Walt, it is a tough one. I get the "just a bunch of cells in a petri dish" argument. But, if the other side is grounded in science (where to begin life), I do not think it should be dismissed as religious fanaticism. No matter where the line is drawn and who draws it, any killing beyond that line = killing human life which will make it discussion of morality. I think many AA's tend to draw the line closer to birth than Christians / believers do, but I don't know how much of that is because of the other side's position.

Another thing to consider is this, think about where you draw the line for human life v not human life. Let's say you determine it to be birth (very few hold this position). Would you ever support killing that person for the sake of scientific study?

Difficult questions.
First, on this subject, religion or religious fanaticism doesn't even enter the equation for me. It's just not something that influences my thoughts on the subject.
Technically, I think, maybe, "life" beginning at conception is a valid argument. Technically.
I think for me personally, "consciousness" seems to be my dominant consideration.
I do agree that there is certainly a human life quite a bit prior to birth. It's how much prior that I haven't personally worked out. That's how I end up back at consciousness.
As for the scientific study question I need more details. Just for the sake of study?
Then no. After that it can get complicated.
As for the morality argument of it all I can't think of an argument that would allow me to call any of this "moral". Of course as we've discussed, morality is fluid depending on culture, society, personally beliefs etc.

 

[660griz]

Every argument you are making against the fertilized egg can also be made against a newborn baby.

On it's own, reproductive cells will never be a human. Neither will the petri dish........neither will the baby just before birth. None can survive on their own even the post birth baby. Certainly none can reproduce.

So, instead of picking arbitrary lines, the conception crowd picks the most distinguishable event where the reproductive cells become a person. I say implantation because it will never become a person until that happens. They are using science.

The catholic church was against all forms of contraception until very recent. They were using science too and 'potential'.

This is a pretty good example of bias in science. For a non-believer, science proves 5 day old blastocyst is not a human. For a believer, it proves it can become a human.
Many blastocysts fail to implant and die.

 

[bullethead]

Are we talking USA cells and fetuses or worldwide cells and fetuses?
And why is it immoral to do anything to a fetus or pre fetus but then be OK with a Daisy Cutter taking out a couple hundred at a time as long as they are 10,000 miles away and of a different religion?

My point is, that at some point we all draw the line in the sand but are willing to cross it for what we consider "right" or "ok " reasons.

 

[660griz]

Are we talking USA cells and fetuses or worldwide cells and fetuses?
And why is it immoral to do anything to a fetus or pre fetus but then be OK with a Daisy Cutter taking out a couple hundred at a time as long as they are 10,000 miles away and of a different religion?

Well, cause God hates other Gods. "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me"
Gotta do something about the competition.

 

[bullethead]

Well, cause God hates other Gods. "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me"
Gotta do something about the competition.

Yep.
Everyone has a line that they will cross.

For the record I have some similar concerns as Walt and sit between your views and his.

Throughout history, experiments on humans of all stages has been done in the name of science, medicine, genetics, warfare, etc etc etc.
Pigs, mice and monkeys only tell us so much.

 

[WaltL1]

Are we talking USA cells and fetuses or worldwide cells and fetuses?
And why is it immoral to do anything to a fetus or pre fetus but then be OK with a Daisy Cutter taking out a couple hundred at a time as long as they are 10,000 miles away and of a different religion?

My point is, that at some point we all draw the line in the sand but are willing to cross it for what we consider "right" or "ok " reasons.

Or drowning them all in a flood...
Emphatically supports your poiint.

 

[JB0704]

The catholic church was against all forms of contraception until very recent. They were using science too and 'potential'.

This is a pretty good example of bias in science. For a non-believer, science proves 5 day old blastocyst is not a human. For a believer, it proves it can become a human.
Many blastocysts fail to implant and die.

That's why I say implantation. But, I don't see how science proves anything other than the 5 day old blastocyst being alive. I think you are drawing your line when it becomes human / mammal.

Mammal is defined as a vertebrate having hair. There is some other stuff in there about caring for the young, n milk, but that doesn't apply to the newborn. Spine is week 5 and hair is around week 14 (thanks google). Are you saying birth, week, 14?

That's kind-of my point, though......there are lots of places in development where we can say "this is a person, this is not a person." The conception crowd is drawing a line at the earliest point, removing the subjective, and saying "this is a human." Which it is......just a human in an extremely early stage of development. Either way, it's grounded in science.

 

[JB0704]

My point is, that at some point we all draw the line in the sand but are willing to cross it for what we consider "right" or "ok " reasons.

....making it a question of morality.