Stem Cell Research vs Faith

[AZRogue]

Just wanted to make an offshoot from Deathe's other thread where we could talk more about this specific issue. Here's a link to the other thread: http://www.kaytastrophe.com/vb/showthread.php?t=2013


So, is the belief that a soul enters the zygote at formation the real reason why so many people are against stem cell research? That reason specifically?

People I've spoken to who are against it (I'm for careful stem cell research using donated or "extra" embryos that wouldn't otherwise be able to reach maturity) just find the whole thing distasteful. I don't remember the subject of a "soul" coming into it. If anything, the belief that I remember best is that who can be sure when an embryo can be considered a child? When exactly does that happen? I don't remember religion every really coming into it; they're just the people with the signs on TV from what I can see.

Do others have different experiences or opinions to share?

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Just wanted to make an offshoot from Deathe's other thread where we could talk more about this specific issue. Here's a link to the other thread: http://www.kaytastrophe.com/vb/showthread.php?t=2013


So, is the belief that a soul enters the zygote at formation the real reason why so many people are against stem cell research? That reason specifically?

People I've spoken to who are against it (I'm for careful stem cell research using donated or "extra" embryos that wouldn't otherwise be able to reach maturity) just find the whole thing distasteful. I don't remember the subject of a "soul" coming into it. If anything, the belief that I remember best is that who can be sure when an embryo can be considered a child? When exactly does that happen? I don't remember religion every really coming into it; they're just the people with the signs on TV from what I can see.

Do others have different experiences or opinions to share?

But drill deeper.

Where does that discomfort come from?

What is it that causes people to think of a zygote as a "child"?

What is it that causes people to assimilate a collection of cells smaller than the brain of a fly to a living, conscious human baby?

And why is it that some cultures have no problem with this? And why is it that those cultures also tend to be the ones where the dominant religion believes that the "soul" enters the body at birth or even some weeks after (e.g. some forms of Hinduism)?

And (just to be show the upside of the Christian conception of the soul) why do those latter Hindu influenced societies tend to tolerate infanticide or child exposure if it happens very soon after birth?

[AZRogue]

But drill deeper.

Where does that discomfort come from?

What is it that causes people to think of a zygote as a "child"?

I think it comes from the knowledge that, left to mature, that zygote will develop into an adult human being, barring mishaps and what-not.


What is it that causes people to assimilate a collection of cells smaller than the brain of a fly to a living, conscious human baby?

How many cells do you think it would take? As many cells as the the brain of a gopher? A cricket? Also, I don't remember anyone making any claims to the zygote being conscious. If that is a popular claim, than I apologize, I just haven't heard it before.

But I don't remember being conscious, per se, as in I don't have any real memories, other than vaguely recollected feelings which may or may not be accurate, until around the age of two years old. Was I not human?



And (just to be show the upside of the Christian conception of the soul) why do those latter Hindu influenced societies tend to tolerate infanticide or child exposure if it happens very soon after birth?

I'm not sure. Is there a relationship between the two factors? Does their religion cause them to value the life of an infant less than is common in the West? If a relationship can be shown, I would find that very interesting. I haven't seen any such relationship so far.

[Space Cadet B^3]

If there exists a thing such as a soul, I strongly believe it starts at intelligence.

(neither the definition of sentience or sapience seemed to quite fit here, if someone's got the word I'm looking for, throw me a bone. Thanks)

[Hastur T. Fannon]

So, is the belief that a soul enters the zygote at formation the real reason why so many people are against stem cell research?

I'm not sure. Genuine question: can anyone find a religious authority (preferably from one of the Big Three) using that specific argument against research into the applications embryonic stem cells?

All this talk of body-soul duality sounds a little gnostic to me. Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with gnosticism, but it ain't mainstream Christianity

(for more details specifically on the Catholic doctrine of the soul, look at paragraphs 362 onwards on this page (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1B.HTM). It's pretty mainstream)

[Varaj]

I'm not sure. Genuine question: can anyone find a religious authority (preferably from one of the Big Three) using that specific argument against research into the applications embryonic stem cells?

All this talk of body-soul duality sounds a little gnostic to me. Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with gnosticism, but it ain't mainstream Christianity

(for more details specifically on the Catholic doctrine of the soul, look at paragraphs 362 onwards on this page (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1B.HTM). It's pretty mainstream)

http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0102.asp

These claims are reflective of the traditional teaching recently restated, for example, in the Instruction from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Donum Vitae, that the "human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized" (I, 1).



Therefore some would conclude that killing the human blastocyst is not murder because there is as yet no personal subject to experience that wrong. Such a killing is a disvalue, to be sure, but a disvalue that might be offset by other positive values, such as health. The conclusion that some would draw, then, is that at least a case can be made for the use of human embryos in stem-cell research.

Once again, the Church does not endorse this view. The specific reason for the rejection of this position is the affirmation that fertilization, the time when egg and sperm merge and form a new genotype, is considered to be the biological beginning of the new human life. Together with this affirmation is the correlative presumption that this is the time of the infusion of the soul. Although there is no official doctrine on this position, the attitude of the Church is that moral priority should be given to this position.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

"You must spread some reputation around before giving it to Varaj again."

Can someone cover me?

Weirdly, I'd have an issue with specifically creating an embryo for stem cell research, but not the use of "leftover" embryos from an artificial insemination cycle. It's no different to organ donation in my view

[Xavier Lang]

done

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Thanks Varaj. I'd hate to have had to go trawling catholic websites for that.

I think the fact that attitudes to abortion and infanticide among cultures track very closely with their dominant religious beliefs on the "ensoulment" or "when does it become a person" issue is pretty strong evidence for my position here.

[Morbidity]

Weirdly, I'd have an issue with specifically creating an embryo for stem cell research, but not the use of "leftover" embryos from an artificial insemination cycle. It's no different to organ donation in my view
In some ways it’s a bit weird and in some ways not. What you are saying is that you shouldn’t create a potential human being lightly (ie for the purposes of research). If you had created them in order to actually create a human being and either succeeded or gave up and there were excess embryos then you go into “waste not want not” mode. They already exist, the alternative is destroying them, so why not obtain some useful research from them and potentially improve/save lives of existing human beings.

[Varaj]

"You must spread some reputation around before giving it to Varaj again."

Can someone cover me?

Weirdly, I'd have an issue with specifically creating an embryo for stem cell research, but not the use of "leftover" embryos from an artificial insemination cycle. It's no different to organ donation in my view

Are you opposed to growing organs specifically for organ donation?

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Having vacillated about evolution for some time, I'm increasingly coming to the view that the touchstone is consciousness.

That makes it open season on fresh zygotes, but out of prudence makes me rapidly become leary of interference as a foetus grows.

[AZRogue]

So, you're saying that the defining line is consciousness?

[Atticus_of_Amber]

So, you're saying that the defining line is consciousness?

I'm saying that's the way I'm headed.

There are, of course, problems with that.

Really what I'm searching for is what is it that makes us think of something as a "person"?

A good way of testing it might be: what would it take for me to start treating a computer program or a genetically boosted monkey as a person?

[Morbidity]

Consciousness ... genetically boosted monkey etc ...
Hmmmm extremely problematic consequences for severely disabled people. Based on that requirement, I can easily see a circumstance where you might consider a monkey human but not an intellectually disabled person.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Consciousness ... genetically boosted monkey etc ...
Hmmmm extremely problematic consequences for severely disabled people. Based on that requirement, I can easily see a circumstance where you might consider a monkey human but not an intellectually disabled person.

I agree, that's the problem with finding a principle here - you have to think through the consequences. I think a lot of thinking still needs to be done. But I think "it's a person because it gets a soul at conception" stops the conversation, rather than helps it along.

[AZRogue]

The thing is, I don't think that the whole "the soul enters at conception" is even the issue. I don't think that that is the reason there is so much resistance.

I think that the problem is that the zygote is the first stage of a person. We all were one, at one point. It's on it's unavoidable journey towards maturity and--and this is THE key issue, IMO--we don't know when it can be considered a person.

I think most of the people who find the whole thing wrong or distasteful do so because they MIGHT be condoning the killing of an infant. So, better safe than sorry, right? All the rest is just justification to try and support their rather natural instinctive reaction.

As I said before, I'm a supporter of stem cell research. I've worked at a doctor's office for over a decade and probably will be with the same practice for the rest of my life, so I know many cases where the technology can be applied to save lives. I'm not attacking stem cell research here, just talking about the conflict raging over it because I don't believe that faith is to blame.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

The thing is, I don't think that the whole "the soul enters at conception" is even the issue. I don't think that that is the reason there is so much resistance.

I think that the problem is that the zygote is the first stage of a person. We all were one, at one point. It's on it's unavoidable journey towards maturity and--and this is THE key issue, IMO--we don't know when it can be considered a person.

But the majority of zygotes aren't on an "unavoidable journey towards maturity". Many get flushed out before they implant. Many more fail to implant. Many die shortly after implantation. Hell, the mother's immune system sometimes kills them off as a parasite. And that's before anyone is aware that fertilisation has occurred. A zygote is no more on an "unavoidable journey towards maturity" than your last ejaculate was.

[AZRogue]

Then maybe I should have chosen a better word than "unavoidable". I meant that the process of the zygote becoming an adult has begun. The cells will multiply and continue to do so until it reaches maturity.

I meant it the same way as when I say that you are on your journey towards old age, barring car accident, disease, cancer, murder, hurricane, or suicide.

Any chance of you addressing the rest of my post?

[Eliezer]

Just throwing my opinion out there irrespective of the wonderful conversation going on already in the thread.

I'm not comfortable with the doctrine of sacredness (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9002085385040727366) as it relates to cells, so I'm okay with current stem cell research initiatives. The faith implications for me relate to dignity/preservation/sacredness of life and I don't hold zygotes and masses of cells to be human.

So zygotes, being nothing more than a dividing mass of cells is no more human to me than a sperm or an egg would be. Or for that matter, it's no more human than some nice stem cells from my Buddha belly.

I do find human life worth preserving and unborn children are of value to society for a variety of reasons, but stem cells harvested from a pre-embryonic mass of cells I'm pretty comfortable with.

I think the further implications of growing these cells for the specific purpose of vat growing organs for replacements in people has larger implications. Logically, this line of reasoning falls under the "slippery slope", but I think the potential reality is probably enough we need to look at the implications.

I'm okay with that as long as there's not potential for that mass of tissue in the vat to become fully human. Now organisms that provide their own organ growing vats and function very well for processing nutrients and eliminating wasts makes the temptation to grow human looking infants for organs that have had brain material removed so they can never achieve consciousness is something I'm uncomfortable with.

[AZRogue]

Just throwing my opinion out there irrespective of the wonderful conversation going on already in the thread.

I'm not comfortable with the doctrine of sacredness (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9002085385040727366) as it relates to cells, so I'm okay with current stem cell research initiatives. The faith implications for me relate to dignity/preservation/sacredness of life and I don't hold zygotes and masses of cells to be human.

So zygotes, being nothing more than a dividing mass of cells is no more human to me than a sperm or an egg would be. Or for that matter, it's no more human than some nice stem cells from my Buddha belly.

I do find human life worth preserving and unborn children are of value to society for a variety of reasons, but stem cells harvested from a pre-embryonic mass of cells I'm pretty comfortable with.

I think the further implications of growing these cells for the specific purpose of vat growing organs for replacements in people has larger implications. Logically, this line of reasoning falls under the "slippery slope", but I think the potential reality is probably enough we need to look at the implications.

I'm okay with that as long as there's not potential for that mass of tissue in the vat to become fully human. Now organisms that provide their own organ growing vats and function very well for processing nutrients and eliminating wasts makes the temptation to grow human looking infants for organs that have had brain material removed so they can never achieve consciousness is something I'm uncomfortable with.

You've summed up my opinion pretty closely. The whole reason I'm talking about the zygote as the first stage of human life is because many people feel that way, and NOT because they think it has a soul, which is what Atticus seems to believe. :)

[Hastur T. Fannon]

done

Damn. It defaults to "I comment" now and I just commented rather than posi-repped you. Can someone posi-rep Xavier?

:D

[Hastur T. Fannon]

In some ways it’s a bit weird and in some ways not. What you are saying is that you shouldn’t create a potential human being lightly (ie for the purposes of research). If you had created them in order to actually create a human being and either succeeded or gave up and there were excess embryos then you go into “waste not want not” mode. They already exist, the alternative is destroying them, so why not obtain some useful research from them and potentially improve/save lives of existing human beings.

Bingo. Based on the idea of theosis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis) I'm working towards an idea of "soul" as being an emergent property. As we grow more like God, becoming more like the people we were always supposed to be our "souls" develop

Are you opposed to growing organs specifically for organ donation?

No. Why?

[Varaj]

No. Why?

Because you made the analogy.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

Because you made the analogy.

Are you talking about (e.g.) growing a substitute kidney in vitro?

Why would anyone be against that?

[Varaj]

Are you talking about (e.g.) growing a substitute kidney in vitro?

Why would anyone be against that?

"You must spread some reputation around before giving it to Varaj again."

Can someone cover me?

Weirdly, I'd have an issue with specifically creating an embryo for stem cell research, but not the use of "leftover" embryos from an artificial insemination cycle. It's no different to organ donation in my view

That is why I asked. You said it was no different than organ donation. To me that implies you are opposed to growing organs since you are opposed to growing embryos since it is no different.

[Space Cadet B^3]

See, I think we could very quickly get to vat growth of tissue and organs if we could just get enough embryos to figure it out. The embryo would ultimately cease to be necessary once the science achieved that one point.

In my uneducated opinion anyways...

[Hastur T. Fannon]

To me that implies you are opposed to growing organs since you are opposed to growing embryos since it is no different.

Why?

[Varaj]

Why?

Because you said it was no different, when you say it is no different that implies you believe it is no different. So I asked. I'm not the one saying there is no difference between the two you are. If there is no difference why do you treat them different.

Let me quote you for a third time since you seem to have forgotten what you have written and didn't read it either time you responded to me.
"You must spread some reputation around before giving it to Varaj again."

Can someone cover me?

Weirdly, I'd have an issue with specifically creating an embryo for stem cell research, but not the use of "leftover" embryos from an artificial insemination cycle. It's no different to organ donation in my view

[Hastur T. Fannon]

I'm sorry Varaj, but you've got me completely confused.

I am against creating embryo's specifically for research purposes
I am not against using embryo's for research purposes if they are "leftovers" from in vitro fertilisation (my bad, I used "artificial insemination" earlier - I'm surprised no-one called me on it)
I am not against artificially creating organs for donation or research

Are you suggesting that an embryo is no different from an organ?

[AZRogue]

No, Hastur, I think he was asking you the question because you, quite directly, said that leftover embryos were no different than organs. I think I know what you meant though.

I think you were trying to say that using left over embryos would be a good thing as it isn't wasteful, just as using an organ from a dead or dying subject is also saving something valuable from being wasted. You did make the comparison in a way that could be misconstrued though. :)

[Hastur T. Fannon]

I left that "It" dangling didn't I? Resolving to the wrong clause? Sorry

[Varaj]

Are you suggesting that an embryo is no different from an organ?

No you are suggesting that. You said it specifically. I've quoted you three times and bolded where you said it. Read what you posted.

If embryo donation is no different than organ donation and you have no problem with growing organs for donation than you have no problem growing embryos for donation. If you do have a problem with growing embryos for donation than embryo is different than organ donation.

Right now I'm trying to make sense of what you said because it is self contradictory. One of the things you said is false and I'm trying to figure out which it is.

[Varaj]

I left that "It" dangling didn't I? Resolving to the wrong clause? Sorry

Can you explain by what you meant by " It's no different to organ donation in my view"? That is a direct quote from you.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

I think you were trying to say that using left over embryos would be a good thing as it isn't wasteful, just as using an organ from a dead or dying subject is also saving something valuable from being wasted.

That's what I meant

[Varaj]

That's what I meant

Cool. That isn't any thing close to what you said which is why I was trying to figure out what you meant since what you had said couldn't be true.

[AZRogue]

Then maybe I should have chosen a better word than "unavoidable". I meant that the process of the zygote becoming an adult has begun. The cells will multiply and continue to do so until it reaches maturity.

I meant it the same way as when I say that you are on your journey towards old age, barring car accident, disease, cancer, murder, hurricane, or suicide.

Any chance of you addressing the rest of my post?

Any chance of a response?

Here, by the way, is the other post that I asked to be further addressed, when possible:

The thing is, I don't think that the whole "the soul enters at conception" is even the issue. I don't think that that is the reason there is so much resistance.

I think that the problem is that the zygote is the first stage of a person. We all were one, at one point. It's on it's unavoidable journey towards maturity and--and this is THE key issue, IMO--we don't know when it can be considered a person.

I think most of the people who find the whole thing wrong or distasteful do so because they MIGHT be condoning the killing of an infant. So, better safe than sorry, right? All the rest is just justification to try and support their rather natural instinctive reaction.

As I said before, I'm a supporter of stem cell research. I've worked at a doctor's office for over a decade and probably will be with the same practice for the rest of my life, so I know many cases where the technology can be applied to save lives. I'm not attacking stem cell research here, just talking about the conflict raging over it because I don't believe that faith is to blame.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Any chance of a response?

Here, by the way, is the other post that I asked to be further addressed, when possible:

I'm thinking about it...

[AZRogue]

Haha, thanks. :)

[Atticus_of_Amber]

The thing is, I don't think that the whole "the soul enters at conception" is even the issue. I don't think that that is the reason there is so much resistance.

I think that the problem is that the zygote is the first stage of a person.

Why? Why not the egg or the sperm?

We all were one, at one point.

We were all an egg and a sperm as well.

It's on it's unavoidable journey towards maturity and--and this is THE key issue, IMO--we don't know when it can be considered a person.

Again, it's not unavoidable. MOST zygotes don't become people. Most die or get flushed before they impregnate in the uterus wall or miscarry early (usually without the mother ever realising she as ever pregnant).

I think most of the people who find the whole thing wrong or distasteful do so because they MIGHT be condoning the killing of an infant.

How is condoning the destruction of a zygote like condoning the death of an infant. Why are they the same? And if they are the same, why aren't sperm and eggs the same?

Then maybe I should have chosen a better word than "unavoidable". I meant that the process of the zygote becoming an adult has begun. The cells will multiply and continue to do so until it reaches maturity.

I meant it the same way as when I say that you are on your journey towards old age, barring car accident, disease, cancer, murder, hurricane, or suicide.

Any chance of you addressing the rest of my post?

But "disaster" happens to most zygotes before their mother is aware of their existence.

So, better safe than sorry, right? All the rest is just justification to try and support their rather natural instinctive reaction.

I disagree. I think the instinctive reaction comes from their (deeply but often tacitly held) beliefs. And those beliefs come from the culture. And those cultural beliefs are heavily influenced by religious beliefs about ensoulment.

The big counter-examples are cultures (such as traditional Indian cultures) where early infanticide or newborn child exposure is accepted. Very often these cultures have beliefs about the "soul" or "spirit" entering the body some days after birth.

What you're calling "instinctive" is a cultural conditioned belief.

As I said before, I'm a supporter of stem cell research. I've worked at a doctor's office for over a decade and probably will be with the same practice for the rest of my life, so I know many cases where the technology can be applied to save lives. I'm not attacking stem cell research here, just talking about the conflict raging over it because I don't believe that faith is to blame.

I think, deep down, it is.

All cultures have had beliefs about when a lump of meat becomes a "person". Most of these cultures have talked about this in terms of when the soul enters the body. This cultural inheritance will condition people's response to issues like abortion and stem-cell research and early infanticide.

Western science is rapidly zeroing in on what makes a lump of meat a conscious, self-aware narratively coherent intentional information processing system. It seems reasonable to say that this is the entity that is deserving of rights and respect.* It's also damn clear that you need more cells (and more cell differentiation) than are present in a zygote to get a conscious, self-aware narratively coherent intentional information processing system.

But at the moment we're stuck with our cultural inheritance, which is influenced by the fact that we live in a culture whose major moral narrative dates personhood/ensoulment from conception rather than from some other point (such as the way Hindu tradition used to based it from the Nth date after birth, N being a small integer I can't remember right now).

In other words, yes, I think it is about souls. It's just that the soul idea has become so ingrained in our culture, it doesn't need to be explicit to be operative. The story has become part of our "instinct".

And the counter example is that many cultures who tell themselves different stories don't have that "instinct" - indeed, they happily kill or expose newborns and can't understand what the problem is. Yet they'd string you up in an instant for killing a three-month year old baby - and would do so as a result of an "instinct" that is just as deeply (and tacitly) held as the one that causes Christianity-conditioned people to feel "instinctively" uneasy about embryonic stem cell research.

*This sentence was an overstatement written in the heat of a rhetorical flurry. It's not "clear". There are a whole lot of ethical and prudential considerations up in the air. Please excuse my flight of rhetorical hyperbole.

[AZRogue]

Cool. I'll respond to this tomorrow as it's a bit late for me and I want to put a little thought into it.

[Eliezer]

I think, deep down, it is.

All cultures have had beliefs about when a lump of meat becomes a "person". Most of these cultures have talked about this in terms of when the soul enters the body. This cultural inheritance will condition people's response to issues like abortion and stem-cell research and early infanticide.

Western science is rapidly zeroing in on what makes a lump of meat a conscious, self-aware narratively coherent intentional information processing system. It seems reasonable to say that this is the entity that is deserving of rights and respect.* It's also damn clear that you need more cells (and more cell differentiation) than are present in a zygote to get a conscious, self-aware narratively coherent intentional information processing system.

But at the moment we're stuck with our cultural inheritance, which is influenced by the fact that we live in a culture whose major moral narrative dates personhood/ensoulment from conception rather than from some other point (such as the way Hindu tradition used to based it from the Nth date after birth, N being a small integer I can't remember right now).

In other words, yes, I think it is about souls. It's just that the soul idea has become so ingrained in our culture, it doesn't need to be explicit to be operative. The story has become part of our "instinct".

And the counter example is that many cultures who tell themselves different stories don't have that "instinct" - indeed, they happily kill or expose newborns and can't understand what the problem is. Yet they'd string you up in an instant for killing a three-month year old baby - and would do so as a result of an "instinct" that is just as deeply (and tacitly) held as the one that causes Christianity-conditioned people to feel "instinctively" uneasy about embryonic stem cell research.

*This sentence was an overstatement written in the heat of a rhetorical flurry. It's not "clear". There are a whole lot of ethical and prudential considerations up in the air. Please excuse my flight of rhetorical hyperbole.


At least in the US I suspect that the judicial fiat of roe v wade has as much to do with the current debate (if not more) than religious perspectives on issues of life. Basically, because the issue was never really debated and legislated upon with the people being able to form a consensus on the subject it has remained a thorny subject for decades beyond what it should have. This is just the extension of a healthy debate that should have been had before most of us were old enough to vote and we, as a society, would be over it by not if not for the judicial intervention.

[Space Cadet B^3]

I was never a zygote. As there was never a "self" associated with that tiny little protein rich snot bubble.

A seed is not a plant. A plant is not a fruit.

[Space Cadet B^3]

Now don't you pull out your crazy logic, I'm irritable and won't like it. ;)

[Eliezer]

I was never a zygote. As there was never a "self" associated with that tiny little protein rich snot bubble.

A seed is not a plant. A plant is not a fruit.

Just remember you're special and unique, just like everyone else.

[Space Cadet B^3]

I'm not unique, I'm reactionary! :D

[AZRogue]

Why? Why not the egg or the sperm?

Because, the process of human embryogenesis begins at fertalization. Ask a physician. It's the first "event". The second is implantation and the third is the development of the fetus (there are others, but let's stick with the early stages for this topic, unless otherwise necessary).




We were all an egg and a sperm as well.


True. And immaterial.



Again, it's not unavoidable. MOST zygotes don't become people. Most die or get flushed before they impregnate in the uterus wall or miscarry early (usually without the mother ever realising she as ever pregnant).


Yes, I shouldn't have used the word "unavoidable". That was my error (I think I posted that earlier in the thread).

The fact remains that the zygote is the earliest medically recognized stage of our lifecycle. Human embryogenesis begins at fertalization. "Flushed" (zygotes that fail to implant properly) are usually the result of genetics, age and health of the mother (one of the most critical elements), or chromosomal deficiencies. Usually why you should talk to your doctor if you plan on becoming pregnant.




How is condoning the destruction of a zygote like condoning the death of an infant. Why are they the same? And if they are the same, why aren't sperm and eggs the same?


I don't think they're the same. I said that most people who are against the harvesting of stem cells from zygotes believe that it MIGHT be the same, since that is a potential human.

Remember, my whole point here is to give other reasons for people to be against stem cell research, other than the notion of a soul entering the egg at fertilization.

Sperm and eggs aren't the same because they are NOT the first stage of human embryogenesis.


But "disaster" happens to most zygotes before their mother is aware of their existence.


Most? You exaggerate. Many, yes, but not most. Not under the care of a doctor and the mother in reasonable health.

Are you using the same arguement as those who don't save for their retirement because they might not live that long anyway? It does seem to work for them, I suppose.


I disagree. I think the instinctive reaction comes from their (deeply but often tacitly held) beliefs. And those beliefs come from the culture. And those cultural beliefs are heavily influenced by religious beliefs about ensoulment.

The big counter-examples are cultures (such as traditional Indian cultures) where early infanticide or newborn child exposure is accepted. Very often these cultures have beliefs about the "soul" or "spirit" entering the body some days after birth.

What you're calling "instinctive" is a cultural conditioned belief.


I'm sure that religion has influenced our cultural inheritance. No arguement there. I just don't think it's as much a factor as you seem to believe.

You use the example of traditional Indian culture, that, you claim, they accept the deaths of their infants and newborn children; that the do so because they don't believe in a soul that enters the body at conception.

I don't agree. If anything, such an attitude would more likely be the result of a long history of higher than normal infant mortality combined with increased fertility. A lot of children, extreme poverty, disease, overcrowding--these factors, I think, are more likely to the lead to a more non-chalant attitude towards death than the possibility you put forth.


I think, deep down, it is.


So, you do have faith after all!



All cultures have had beliefs about when a lump of meat becomes a "person". Most of these cultures have talked about this in terms of when the soul enters the body. This cultural inheritance will condition people's response to issues like abortion and stem-cell research and early infanticide.

Western science is rapidly zeroing in on what makes a lump of meat a conscious, self-aware narratively coherent intentional information processing system. It seems reasonable to say that this is the entity that is deserving of rights and respect.* It's also damn clear that you need more cells (and more cell differentiation) than are present in a zygote to get a conscious, self-aware narratively coherent intentional information processing system.

But at the moment we're stuck with our cultural inheritance, which is influenced by the fact that we live in a culture whose major moral narrative dates personhood/ensoulment from conception rather than from some other point (such as the way Hindu tradition used to based it from the Nth date after birth, N being a small integer I can't remember right now).

In other words, yes, I think it is about souls. It's just that the soul idea has become so ingrained in our culture, it doesn't need to be explicit to be operative. The story has become part of our "instinct".

And the counter example is that many cultures who tell themselves different stories don't have that "instinct" - indeed, they happily kill or expose newborns and can't understand what the problem is. Yet they'd string you up in an instant for killing a three-month year old baby - and would do so as a result of an "instinct" that is just as deeply (and tacitly) held as the one that causes Christianity-conditioned people to feel "instinctively" uneasy about embryonic stem cell research.

*This sentence was an overstatement written in the heat of a rhetorical flurry. It's not "clear". There are a whole lot of ethical and prudential considerations up in the air. Please excuse my flight of rhetorical hyperbole.


Whatever influence the "soul" idea may have had on our cultural inheritance (I'd never heard of that as the major arguement against stem cell research, and I'm a Christian) I doubt it plays much of a part now.

Instinct combined with a lack of "knowing" is to blame, in my opinion. We don't know "what makes a lump of meat a conscious, self-aware narratively coherent intentional information processing system" and so people are sceptical of making a choice with such possibly harmful consequences.

I think that the answer is to be found in continuing to study the beginnings of life and consciousness and then talking about what we learn so that we can come up with workable and reasonable solutions instead of avoiding the issue becuase it's a "hot" topic and leaving it to the courts (of all things :rolleyes: ) to decide such things for us.

I think throwing in an attack on "faith" in there won't help this along at all and will just cause people to stop thinking and start reacting. It's not accurate and wouldn't be effective. That's not what we need, IMO.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Because, the process of human embryogenesis begins at fertalization. Ask a physician. It's the first "event". The second is implantation and the third is the development of the fetus (there are others, but let's stick with the early stages for this topic, unless otherwise necessary).

But why should embryogenesis determine when someone is a person? You're begging the question.

The fact remains that the zygote is the earliest medically recognized stage of our lifecycle.

The word "our" in that sentence begs the question.

I don't think they're the same. I said that most people who are against the harvesting of stem cells from zygotes believe that it MIGHT be the same, since that is a potential human.

And now you're back where you started. A sperm is a "potential human". The only way you can differentiate between them is to develop a theory as to when a lump of goo becomes a person deserving of rights.

Sperm and eggs aren't the same because they are NOT the first stage of human embryogenesis.

But you haven't established why embryogenesis is important. You're begging the question.

Most? You exaggerate. Many, yes, but not most. Not under the care of a doctor and the mother in reasonable health.

No. It's either most or a very high minority. Fertilisation happens all the time. It only gets noticed when the zygote lodges in the uterus wall. The figures are hard to work out, because women just don't know when they've created a zygote until it's impregnated (though, even for post-impregnation pregnancies, 25% miscarry in the first trimester) . But studies of how easy it is for sperm to fertilise an egg in a test tube (and how often that zygote then very quickly dies) indicate that a very large proportion of the little buggers either die shortly after fertilisation or never grab on to the uterus wall before being flushed down the toilet.

I'm sure that religion has influenced our cultural inheritance. No argument there. I just don't think it's as much a factor as you seem to believe.

You use the example of traditional Indian culture, that, you claim, they accept the deaths of their infants and newborn children; that the do so because they don't believe in a soul that enters the body at conception.

I don't agree. If anything, such an attitude would more likely be the result of a long history of higher than normal infant mortality combined with increased fertility. A lot of children, extreme poverty, disease, overcrowding--these factors, I think, are more likely to the lead to a more non-chalant attitude towards death than the possibility you put forth.

But, in medieval times, the infant mortality rate in Christian Europe would have been at least equal to that in India - probably higher than that in India, given the then superiority of Indian medicine. Yet Christian Europe had those soul beliefs back then, too.

You can't get around the fact that cultures with different religious beliefs about the soul have very different attitudes to stem cell research and abortion. Indeed, I think Jewish culture has some very different attitudes to these things and that theses are also traceable to their different beliefs about the soul, but I'm not sure of that. I'm afraid you can't avoid the counter-examples of other cultures quite so easily.

So, you do have faith after all!

If you're not joking, then that's a misrepresentation. I was saying that the evidence suggests to me that faith is the operative factor but operates "deep down" in the culture. Not that I'm drawing my belief from a "deep down" hunch.

Whatever influence the "soul" idea may have had on our cultural inheritance (I'd never heard of that as the major arguement against stem cell research, and I'm a Christian) I doubt it plays much of a part now.

Then why are the clear majority of opponents of stem cell research religious? (The biggest and most organised opponent is probably the Catholic Church) And why are the clear majority of agnostics/atheists/secularists/humanists/brights/freethinkers/rationalists in support of stem cell research? (Note I haven't said that most theists are stem-cell opponents, just that most stem cell opponents are theists; and also that most non-theists are stem cell research supporters.)

That little piece of circumstantial evidence, plus the other cultures counter-examples, is pretty power circumstantial evidence for my thesis.

Instinct combined with a lack of "knowing" is to blame, in my opinion. We don't know "what makes a lump of meat a conscious, self-aware narratively coherent intentional information processing system" and so people are sceptical of making a choice with such possibly harmful consequences.

The "instinct" seems to come from religious stories about the soul, based on the relatively persuasive circumstantial evidence given above.

As to uncertainly, it is true that we don't know all the conditions necessary for a lump of meat to become a "conscious, self-aware narratively coherent intentional information processing system", but we do know some of them. And we know with as much certainty as we know a lot of things we trust our lives on that you need more cells (and more cell differentiation) than is present in a human zygote to get a "conscious, self-aware narratively coherent intentional information processing system".

I think that the answer is to be found in continuing to study the beginnings of life and consciousness and then talking about what we learn so that we can come up with workable and reasonable solutions instead of avoiding the issue becuase it's a "hot" topic and leaving it to the courts (of all things :rolleyes: ) to decide such things for us.

I think throwing in an attack on "faith" in there won't help this along at all and will just cause people to stop thinking and start reacting. It's not accurate and wouldn't be effective. That's not what we need, IMO.

I think we already know a lot more than you think we do. I think we have more than enough information to make the call. We certainly have as much information as we accept in many other life-or-death calls.

I think the roadblock to using this information are culturally conditioned "instincts" rooted in specific faith-based beliefs about the soul. We need to confront those beliefs to remove those "instincts" in order to get that issues solved.

Now, where I might agree with you is where Sam Harris now agrees with you. He thinks "atheism" may be too blunt an instrument. We want to attack the very specific beliefs about the timing of the beginnings of person-hood. While those beliefs are rooted in a fundamental faith belief, there may be no need to take one the whole of faith to knock off that particular faith belief. Harris is suggesting that maybe we should focus on killing off irrational beliefs one at a time, rather than charging at all irrationality en masse.

I'm undecided as to whether I'm convinced yet. It sounds a lot to me like the strategy that was adopted by sceptics in the period between Bertrand Russell and Richard Dawkins - and that strategy hasn't worked very well. Part of me thinks there has to be a way to walk and chew gum at the same time.

[AZRogue]

I think that you're deliberately evading. I never said that a zygote is a person, I said that it's the first medically recognized stage of our lifecycle. It's quite obviously not a person, as I care to make the distinction, but it is, according to physicians, the beginning of our lifecycle.

Hell an M.D. or OB/GYN can be sued for medical malpractice if she harms an embryo and, if shown to be negligent, even face criminal charges since it is considered an "unborn child" from FERTILIZATION to birth and treated like a minor under 12 years of age, by law.

All of of this really helps muddy the water and makes it too easy for a person to be uncertain enough about the whole thing to feel uncomfortable when considering stem cell research. How many people understand that most of these zygotes would never have any chance whatsoever of maturing?

So, my point is that I think these things a much more powerful motivator for the average person than your theory regarding faith in souls.

And I'm in complete agreement with Sam Harris in regards to atheism being too blunt of an instrument to be effective. Faith is a word that has a lot of powerful, positive emotion behind it (just like fanatic has a lot of negative baggage attached to it) and if you attack it as a whole you will have a lot of people against you from the get go. It makes more sense to me to attack each belief one at a time, starting with those that are the most dangerous to others.

I think it's easier for people to surrender their prejudices one at a time than all at once.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I think that you're deliberately evading. I never said that a zygote is a person, I said that it's the first medically recognized stage of our lifecycle. It's quite obviously not a person, as I care to make the distinction, but it is, according to physicians, the beginning of our lifecycle.

I think you misunderstand me: I wasn't deliberately evading, I was primarily responding to your points but arguing they weren't relevant to the issue. Whether it's the beginning of our "lifecycle" or not is a an arbitrary matter of definition which has very little to do with the question of when a lump of cells should start being treated as if it had rights. It's true I was also taking issue with some your "life cycle" points in their won terms, but those are side issues that I'm happy to put aside for the sake of argument.

Hell an M.D. or OB/GYN can be sued for medical malpractice if she harms an embryo and, if shown to be negligent, even face criminal charges since it is considered an "unborn child" from FERTILIZATION to birth and treated like a minor under 12 years of age, by law.

Yeah, but so what? As I said, I don't see the relevance of definitions about when the "life cycle" begins to the question of personhood.

Sure, current laws give some rights of personhood to zygotes. But the debate between you and me is whether the this legislative decision and others like it were rooted in religious ideas about the soul or by cultural intuitions that derived from such beliefs (my view) or whether they're rooted in something (I'm not sure what) else (your view).

All of this really helps muddy the water and makes it too easy for a person to be uncertain enough about the whole thing to feel uncomfortable when considering stem cell research.

I agree it muddies the waters. But that muddiness is caused by ignorance and unclear thinking - such as assimilating biology textbook definitions of the start of the "lifecycle" with the ethical question of when a zygote/embryo/featus should start being treated as a person.

How many people understand that most of these zygotes would never have any chance whatsoever of maturing?

Indeed – this is an example of the ignorance I spoke of above. We need to fix it.

So, my point is that I think these things a much more powerful motivator for the average person than your theory regarding faith in souls.

Ok, but if you're going to defend that intuition, you need to address the two arguments based on circumstantial evidence I put above.

Why do cultures' faith beliefs about the soul track so closely with their have attitudes to things like stem-cell issues, abortion and infanticide? Why is this apparently unaffected by changes in infant mortality (soul beliefs held in Europe even when its infant mortality was probably higher than that in India)? Why are most opponents of stem cell research devout people of faith? Why are most secularists supporters of stem cell research?

The circumstantial evidence seems to heavily support my thesis. All I see so far from you is an intuition that it's something else. If I've got the evidence wrong or I'm misinterpreting it, I'd be glad to hear it. But so far, all I have to go on is your feeling that my argument doesn't "sound right". The feeling that my argument doesn't "feel right" is a good place to start, but you're going to have to come up with more than that before I'll buy what you're selling.

And I'm in completeagreement with Sam Harris in regards to atheism being too blunt of an instrument to be effective. Faith is a word that has a lot of powerful, positive emotion behind it (just like fanatic has a lot of negative baggage attached to it) and if you attack it as a whole you will have a lot of people against you from the get go. It makes more sense to me to attack each belief one at a time, starting with those that are the most dangerous to others.

I think it's easier for people to surrender their prejudices one at a time than all at once.

My problem with that strategy is ethical: It just seems dishonest and shifty in a debate on stem cell research to hide the fact that ones' position is ultimately founded on the one's view that faith itself is dangerous bollocks. I think I'm too honest to take the route that Sam Harris advocates - and I think, in reality, Harris is too (which is why he still answers to the name "atheist" when called).

I suppose the Betrand Russell tactic is available - fight on individual issues, but don't lie if asked about one's ultimate view of faith. The thing is, nearly fifty years after Russell, we seem to be in a far worse faith-swamp than we were back then...

I haven't come to a final position yet, but I do incline heavily towards the view that it really is necessary to make a concerted effort to change the culture so that faith beliefs become downright embarrassing. I think we need to get to the point where we treat theism the same way we treat astrology or the belief that Elvis is alive or that people are being abducted by aliens or visited by angels or that 9/11 was an inside job. Otherwise, there's always the potential for faith to metastasise.

[AZRogue]

My theory---that faith in souls and when they enter the body has little to do with past, or current, attitudes against stem cell research---isn't just an "intuition", or because your theory doesn't "feel right". It's primarily an observation but also a conclusion based upon the evidence available (as in, available to me). I'll show that here and try to simplify this down to a few central points since you've focused on two of them:

First, you claim that other cultures (you mention India several times) had different attitudes towards infant mortality because of their different attitude towards souls.

Second, you point out (quite correctly) that those (the most vocal, at least) currently against stem cell research are usually "devout people of faith".

I'll try and address both these points. Stay with me. :) I haven't mastered the art of the short and sweet post. At least when I'm actually trying to say something.

1. The attitudes towards infanticide, exposure, and early infant mortality (I'm going to focus on infanticide, since it is deliberate and thus a nice guage of a culture's attitude) were not very different even in medieval Judeo-Christian Europe. Even though Constantine declared it a crime in 318 AD. it remained extremely common and followed the traditional factors of overpopulation and poverty; there were also other significant factors and those DID differ, but had nothing to do with souls. For Judeo-Christian Europe the other factor was illegitimacy---the Catholic Church's contribution. It made children born to unmarried women outcasts and a burden to their family and, especially, to the now tainted mother.

A hint at how common infanticide was during that time can be found in penance books from that time where "overlying" (smothering a child with your body) was only considered a minor, or venial, sins, in the same category as quarreling with your wife or not being a "good samaritan". It was only after infanticide became so common, so prevalent, that in the early seventeenth century laws were passed against it with severe punishments, including execution.

Even so, Dr. Scheper-Hughes, Professor of Anthropology at the University of California at Berkeley, in 1993 wrote about her experiences in Alto do Cruzeiro (Hill of the Crucifix) in her book "Death Without Weeping" where she found the abject poverty and high expectation of death led the people to let the weaker children die, through neglect, so they could go to "Jesus" so that they could care for the stronger ones.

Infanticide was just as common in earlier periods, from Greece to Rome, where it was once again used to control overpopulation, defend against poverty-strained resources, and was considered noble eugenics with the Greeks and a private matter decided by the father with the Romans.

In Islamic cultures infanticide was usually performed on female children, to spare them a life of misery (some speculate) and that women were viewed as property.

In India, the country you mentioned, it is economic pressure, again, which is the primary factor, as their traditional dowry system placed a huge burden on the female child's family. Even today, despite efforts to abolish the dowry system, a female child places unimaginable stress on her family who must provide a suitable gift or face the real danger of becoming social outcasts. This is especially true in rural areas. Also, nothing to do with a soul.

The dowry system caused similar havoc with the Chinese during the Qing dynasty where it is estimated 10% of all Qing dynasty females were killed. This didn't get much better in 1979 when China implemented their one-child-per-family policy, as we all know. All, once again, due to economic and population pressures, not different beliefs as to when a soul enters the body.

2. Your second point, that most opponents to stem cell research are "devout people of faith", is quite correct, from what I can tell. I think you may be surprised at the number of secular opponents, but they are much less vocal. I have a theory for this:

For one, we (the modern world, mostly the West) don't have the same population or economic pressures so have developed a much harsher attitude towards infanticide, reinforced by the harsh penalties that began in the seventeenth century as a response to its massive wide-spread practice at that time.

Second, we don't know when a zygote/fetus/newborn becomes a "person". I think the fact that medicine, as in modern medicine, clearly states that the beginning of the human life cycle is at fertilization makes it easy for some people to just assume that the zygote must be considered a person. I don't think that's correct, but I think that THAT is one of the primary motivators, especially among those secular opponents of stem cell research (this is the reason I've heard myself several times). They associate the two things--a zygote, which they probably can't really picture, with an infant that might be born, which they can easily imagine--and from there comes their feeling of distaste and uncertainty (I'm naming this as the main secular reason, and a secondary issue for the non-secular, with a final major reason that applies to both at the end).

Those "devout people of faith", as you called them, have another factor added in: they believe that murder is a sin and that they may be punished for allowing it if they don't fight against it. I think this probably explains why the US has so many more vocal protesters as we have, from what I can tell, a bit more of the fundamentalist-fire and brimstone types.

The final reason, and another big one, is that children are viewed as innocent. They can't defend themselves and so, when one is threatened, it is normal to want to defend it yourself. Once the initial association is made, that a zygote might be a child, than this is a natural, and powerful, emotional response; derived from our lack of understanding, lack of economic or population pressures, and lack of a desire to find out the truth and, instead, accept the most emotionally powerful arguement presented to us.

So, those are my reasons for believing that faith in a soul entering the zygote has little to do with the resistance to stem cell research. It may be used as arguement by some when they're defending themselves, but only because it's convenient. There's no evidence that it is the cause of anything, merely another point they can use to justify their beliefs to themselves.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

But the debate between you and me is whether the this legislative decision and others like it were rooted in religious ideas about the soul or by cultural intuitions that derived from such beliefs (my view) or whether they're rooted in something (I'm not sure what) else (your view).

I'm wondering if this "something else" could be empathy - recognising ourselves in the zygote. We have more empathy towards a fetus than towards an embryo because it's becoming more like a us and have no empathy towards gametes because they're utterly unlike us

I haven't come to a final position yet, but I do incline heavily towards the view that it really is necessary to make a concerted effort to change the culture so that faith beliefs become downright embarrassing. I think we need to get to the point where we treat theism the same way we treat astrology or the belief that Elvis is alive or that people are being abducted by aliens or visited by angels or that 9/11 was an inside job. Otherwise, there's always the potential for faith to metastasise.

I see three problems with that approach. Firstly, our heroes have faced (e.g.) being burnt to death on an outsized griddle with the statement "This side is done - turn me over." A little embarrassment is nothing.

Secondly two of the leaders of this movement (Hitchens and Dawkins - I haven't studied Harris and Dennett in detail yet) so enough ignorance about faith as believed and practiced that the general public are more likely to embarrassed for them then they are for believers. How many beggars has Hitchens washed during his lifetime?

Thirdly, your lot tried that last time and it didn't work. What makes you think it'll work this time?

[Darkfire]

In Islamic cultures infanticide was usually performed on female children, to spare them a life of misery (some speculate) and that women were viewed as property.


Point of fact. In Arabic culture it was extremely common. In Islamic culture it was expressly forbidden right from the start and was one of the first things that the Prophet clashed over with the Meccans.