NationStates Jolt Archive

So, it appears that the newest tactic of the Heathen Left and their Homosexual Agenda is to first CLONE human embryos, then extract stem cells from the clones. How despicable! Pray to Jesus and vote Republican. They must be stopped!

But seriously. Do you think this will alter the average anti-stem-cell-research rightwinger's opinion? As many believe, cloning is immoral because the clone would have no soul (I've heard people make this claim), and of course extracting stem cells is murder. But if those cells are taken from soulless clones?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060606/ap_on_sc/harvard_cloning

Discuss.

Hate to disappoint you, but I'm a fundamentalist neocon who supports stem cell use and supports cloning.

So do most of the people in my church.

So shove your offensive generalization up your...

So, it appears that the newest tactic of the Heathen Left and their Homosexual Agenda is to first CLONE human embryos, then extract stem cells from the clones. How despicable! Pray to Jesus and vote Republican. They must be stopped!

But seriously. Do you think this will alter the average fundamentalist neoconservative's opinion on stem cell research? As many believe, cloning is immoral because the clone would have no soul (I've heard people make this claim), and of course extracting stem cells is murder. But if those cells are taken from soulless clones?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060606/ap_on_sc/harvard_cloning

Discuss.
How does one decide who does or doesn't have a soul? What exactly is a soul anyway?

why wouldent a clone have a soul?

There will always be something inside a human being no matter how they are concieved. A clone child will be a clone child, and will still have a soul.

There will always be something inside a human being no matter how they are concieved. A clone child will be a clone child, and will still have a soul.
Where does the soul come from? What exactly is a soul?

Hate to disappoint you, but I'm a fundamentalist neocon who supports stem cell use and supports cloning.

So do most of the people in my church.

So shove your offensive generalization up your...
You're quite a rare breed ... or else I'm not sure that we're both using the same definition. but ok. Sorry. Fixed.
Better?

according to some it is what makes us human.
the soul is places with in us by a devine being

How does one decide who does or doesn't have a soul? What exactly is a soul anyway?
Ha, don't ask me to fathom their minds. :p

Where does the soul come from? What exactly is a soul?

I don't even know if a soul even exists. Whether a soul exists in someone or not, the cloned child will be just another child with the same DNA and functions.

You're quite a rare breed ... or else I'm not sure that we're both using the same definition. but ok. Sorry. Fixed.
Better?
Try running into a few more Pentacostals.

according to some it is what makes us human.
the soul is places with in us by a devine being
So if I have no divine being in me I'm not human? I don't believe that divine beings exist. Does that mean that nobody's human?

So if I have no divine being in me I'm not human? I don't believe that divine beings exist. Does that mean that nobody's human?
no it means that that is one explination of the soul...just means that you dont beileve in it...

How does one decide who does or doesn't have a soul? What exactly is a soul anyway?

Nothing. It's a meaningless, undefined nonconcept. If you can find me one person who has a concrete definition of a soul that does not include any trait also in the definition of mind, (that includes identity, thought, memory, personality, consciousness, and emotion) I'll pay both of you megabucks for proving me wrong.

A reproductively cloned child would just be another human child, interesting only in that it has the identical genotype of another human being already in existence.

I want to wish everyone on this thread good luck in trying to define a soul.

Whatever a soul is, according to James Brown, it makes one want to shout, it tells one what it's all about and it might make one "super bad".

Whatever a soul is, according to James Brown, it makes one want to shout, it tells one what it's all about and it might make one "super bad".
James Brown is beyond us. It will take us centuries to decipher the meaning.

How does one decide who does or doesn't have a soul? What exactly is a soul anyway?

The Soul is that little part inside each of us that likes James Brown. :D

Whatever a soul is, according to James Brown, it makes one want to shout, it tells one what it's all about and it might make one "super bad".

DAMN YOU! :mad:

:p

There will always be something inside a human being no matter how they are concieved. A clone child will be a clone child, and will still have a soul.

Luckily, we aren't talking about reproductive cloning - which would have much more difficult-to-answer ethical questions. Thus, there is no child involved in this research.

Luckily, we aren't talking about reproductive cloning - which would have much more difficult-to-answer ethical questions. Thus, there is no child involved in this research.

See, that never really made sense to me. I have no ethical problem with either form of cloning, but attempting to force myself into the point of view of those who do, what you said still doesn't make sense. Therapeutic cloning kills an embryo; reproductive cloning creates a living child. Somehow, I thought that abortion was worse for fundies than the conception of life....

See, that never really made sense to me. I have no ethical problem with either form of cloning, but attempting to force myself into the point of view of those who do, what you said still doesn't make sense. Therapeutic cloning kills an embryo; reproductive cloning creates a living child. Somehow, I thought that abortion was worse for fundies than the conception of life....

Reproductive cloning represents all sorts of problems. First of all, as cloned animals have shown, the DNA in a cloned creature is not the same - as the telomeres are already shortened. All of the DNA is not "turned back on", as it were.

On top of that, there is the problem of the expectations it would set up. People would expect the child to look and act like the person from whom he was cloned - and that simply would not actually happen. Thus, the child born as such would be in a bad situation.

Then there is the issue of the efficiency of the process - it isn't. Even in animals that we know how to clone, it seems to be 1 in 100 live births at best. Do we want to put in the time and effort and put a woman through 100+ pregnancies (or 100 women through failed pregnancies) to try this? Considering the fact that the entire process seems to be even less efficient in humans, 1 in 100 is an incredibly optimistic number.

They have taken stem cells from menstrual fluids as well as other areas besides embryos and clones.

They have taken stem cells from menstrual fluids as well as other areas besides embryos and clones.
Adult stem cells and umbilical cord stem cells aren't as versatile and useful as embryonic stem cells.

Nothing. It's a meaningless, undefined nonconcept. If you can find me one person who has a concrete definition of a soul that does not include any trait also in the definition of mind, (that includes identity, thought, memory, personality, consciousness, and emotion) I'll pay both of you megabucks for proving me wrong.

A reproductively cloned child would just be another human child, interesting only in that it has the identical genotype of another human being already in existence.

What is a soul?

A soul is that spark that delineates us from all other creatures in God's good earth. It is the essence of our inner being, a spiritual representation of morals, beliefs, and ethics. It is something that cannot be found, or seen, or even truly understood--it does not even exist in the true meaning of the word. Rather, it is a reflection of who we are, a spiritual blueprint, if you will, of each individual.

To the OP:
My reasons for not supporting stem cell research are based solely on my fears of where does it stop. Placing such a powerful tool in the hands of the government would provide unprecedented power that is more than slightly reminiscent of Brave New World and We. I do not dispute the potential benefits, but is the success of stem cell research only reliant on medical benefits, or will it evolve into something...more?

To the OP:
My reasons for not supporting stem cell research are based solely on my fears of where does it stop. Placing such a powerful tool in the hands of the government would provide unprecedented power that is more than slightly reminiscent of Brave New World and We. I do not dispute the potential benefits, but is the success of stem cell research only reliant on medical benefits, or will it evolve into something...more?

...Ummm...Let's start at the begginning...Do you know what stem cells are?

I want to wish everyone on this thread good luck in trying to define a soul.
Simple; that which causes conscious awareness.

As to what that thing actually is, I believe it's an emergence of a mindful body; the result of our muscles, organs and systems all communicating and interacting. Evidently, many people don't agree, given their whole "animals don't have souls" thing, which is why I find this cloning thing so fascinating. I think a successful clone would have a conscious and unique self as long as its body is physically constructed in a similar way to its origin.

...Ummm...Let's start at the begginning...Do you know what stem cells are?

Yes, let's start at the begginning. Of course I do. But, for the sake of argument and since you are going to presume I don't anyway, let's assume I do not. Please, enlighten me.

What is a soul?

A soul is that spark that delineates us from all other creatures in God's good earth. It is the essence of our inner being, a spiritual representation of morals, beliefs, and ethics. It is something that cannot be found, or seen, or even truly understood--it does not even exist in the true meaning of the word. Rather, it is a reflection of who we are, a spiritual blueprint, if you will, of each individual.
Really? That's fascinating!
And that's all true? How do you know that?

They have taken stem cells from menstrual fluids as well as other areas besides embryos and clones.

Indeed they have (although we have not gotten stem cells from human cloned embryos), but all stem cells are not the same.

Adult stem cells and umbilical cord stem cells aren't as versatile and useful as embryonic stem cells.

Yet I wonder why scientists consistently sideline and minimize otherwise widely accepted spiritual belifs for an ends to their means. There is little question to the POTENTIAL benifit embrionic stem cells present, yet instead of attempting to resolve the ethical questions they steam forward, hoping society will catch up.

Yet with potential resolutoins such as these...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/16/AR2005101600754.html

it seems to be science, as it so often does, is looking both for the quick and easy answer, as well as not stoping to ask "If we should do such a thing, rather than CAN we do it".

What is a soul?

A soul is that spark that delineates us from all other creatures in God's good earth. It is the essence of our inner being, a spiritual representation of morals, beliefs, and ethics. It is something that cannot be found, or seen, or even truly understood--it does not even exist in the true meaning of the word. Rather, it is a reflection of who we are, a spiritual blueprint, if you will, of each individual.
So it's indistinguishable from one's mind? If so, why do you need two words that carry very different connotations for the same thing?

Yet I wonder why scientists consistently sideline and minimize otherwise widely accepted spiritual belifs for an ends to their means. There is little question to the POTENTIAL benifit embrionic stem cells present, yet instead of attempting to resolve the ethical questions they steam forward, hoping society will catch up.

Yet with potential resolutoins such as these...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/16/AR2005101600754.html

it seems to be science, as it so often does, is looking both for the quick and easy answer, as well as not stoping to ask "If we should do such a thing, rather than CAN we do it".
It's not science's job to determine if something should be done. That's a job for the law. Since the law is separate from religion in the USA, the society must decide if it's acceptable. I say it is. I have no moral opposition to it, and the potential benefits are very great. To me it's immoral not to conduct research into embryonic stem cells.

Yes, let's start at the begginning. Of course I do. But, for the sake of argument and since you are going to presume I don't anyway, let's assume I do not. Please, enlighten me.

What sort of thing do you expect could be done with stem cells?

Yet I wonder why scientists consistently sideline and minimize otherwise widely accepted spiritual belifs for an ends to their means. There is little question to the POTENTIAL benifit embrionic stem cells present, yet instead of attempting to resolve the ethical questions they steam forward, hoping society will catch up.

Yet with potential resolutoins such as these...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/16/AR2005101600754.html

it seems to be science, as it so often does, is looking both for the quick and easy answer, as well as not stoping to ask "If we should do such a thing, rather than CAN we do it".
I think most of the scientists involved already answered that question for themselves and I agree with them.

So it's indistinguishable from one's mind? If so, why do you need two words that carry very different connotations for the same thing?
The mind is the thinking thing. The Soul includes the interplay between mind and body; the link between conceptual thought and perception and interaction of the physical world.

Yet I wonder why scientists consistently sideline and minimize otherwise widely accepted spiritual belifs for an ends to their means.

In truth, spiritual persons seem to take all sides on this matter. Some churches have made statements that embryonic stem cell research should be funded; others that it should not. But none of them can provide an empirical reason that it should not be funded. At best, they say, "We believe it has a soul," something that is a purely religious viewpoint, and, for many reasons, does not make sense - unless twins are one person and chimeras are two.

There is little question to the POTENTIAL benifit embrionic stem cells present, yet instead of attempting to resolve the ethical questions they steam forward, hoping society will catch up.

You think scientists don't think about the ethical questions? I have attended more than one scientific meeting on such issues. Perhaps you should look into these things before you speak.

Yet with potential resolutoins such as these...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/16/AR2005101600754.html

And these things are being looked into. In one of the cases described, a single cell is removed from an 8-cell embryo - something that may or may not endanger it. It has been done in mice, but mouse cells are infinitely more robust than human ones.

The other still involves the creation of an embryo - simply one that would never reach full development.

Simple; that which causes conscious awareness.

As to what that thing actually is, I believe it's an emergence of a mindful body; the result of our muscles, organs and systems all communicating and interacting. Evidently, many people don't agree, given their whole "animals don't have souls" thing, which is why I find this cloning thing so fascinating. I think a successful clone would have a conscious and unique self as long as its body is physically constructed in a similar way to its origin.
Gravity causes falling but that's not a definition of Gravity.

Gravity causes falling but that's not a definition of Gravity.
Yes it is. Gravity is that which causes masses to experience an attractive force; that's all we can really say about it right now. The fact that we don't know exactly how it happens doesn't change the fact that however it happens is what we call Gravity.

Yes it is. Gravity is that which causes masses to experience an attractive force; that's all we can really say about it right now.

....which means that "causes falling" is not a definition of gravity.

Yes it is. Gravity is that which causes masses to experience an attractive force; that's all we can really say about it right now. The fact that we don't know exactly how it happens doesn't change the fact that however it happens is what we call Gravity.
What theories of the mind can be made by using that definition for the soul?

What theories of the mind can be made by using that definition for the soul?
This definition for Soul is essentially a sort of compromised Dualism; the idea that, while mind and body are essentially distinct things, they are interdependent.

Descartes, in particular, was full of such theories of the mind. The idea of treating the soul as an effective interface between the I of the mind and physical realilty that may or may not be fairly reflective of it (or, as he called it, the evil demon hypothesis) directly resulted in his meditations on the necessity of existence of Mind regardless of the composition of body or soul.

Locke and Leibniz both used something similar in their discussion of how the expressions of the mind must be reflected in some way in the expressions of the body. Where it really comes into play is in its handling of refutation of traditional dualist ideas. It plays the role of the deliverer of causal interaction and closure, which are otherwise big arguments against treating mind and body as separate.

Without it, essentially, Dualism falls apart, but if the soul can be explained, there is still reason to hold on to it.

It still falls to that accursed Occam's razor, but I really hate that damned principle anyway.

....which means that "causes falling" is not a definition of gravity.
What is falling?

This definition for Soul is essentially a sort of compromised Dualism; the idea that, while mind and body are essentially distinct things, they are interdependent.

Descartes, in particular, was full of such theories of the mind. The idea of treating the soul as an effective interface between the I of the mind and physical realilty that may or may not be fairly reflective of it (or, as he called it, the evil demon hypothesis) directly resulted in his meditations on the necessity of existence of Mind regardless of the composition of body or soul.

Locke and Leibniz both used something similar in their discussion of how the expressions of the mind must be reflected in some way in the expressions of the body. Where it really comes into play is in its handling of refutation of traditional dualist ideas. It plays the role of the deliverer of causal interaction and closure, which are otherwise big arguments against treating mind and body as separate.

Without it, essentially, Dualism falls apart, but if the soul can be explained, there is still reason to hold on to it.

It still falls to that accursed Occam's razor, but I really hate that damned principle anyway.
Descartes also thought that the pineal gland was the seat of the soul.

It could also be said that Descartes was trying to leave intangible things to religion and material things to science. Res cogitans and res exstensa.

http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~marvega/Philosophy%20132_Summer_05/Consciousness.pdf

I don't really like John Searles that much but I can't remember the name of the other book I read on the subject.

What is falling?

Good question. And as with all good questions, we turn to Wiki for the answer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falling
...movement due to gravity.

The mind is the thinking thing. The Soul includes the interplay between mind and body; the link between conceptual thought and perception and interaction of the physical world.
I'm pretty sure that's the spinal cord and the nerves.

Regarding the soul, I would suggest that it is neither definable nor corporeal.

However, in regards to the morality of cloning, and, indeed, animal testing, I fail to see how the moral permutations outweigh the potential advantages.

Good questions. And as with all good questions, we turn to Wiki for the answer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falling
So if Gravity is the tendency of masses to move towards each other and this movement is called falling then surely "Gravity causes things to fall" is a sufficient definition?

I'm pretty sure that's the spinal cord and the nerves.
I could go further Descartian here and ask how you're sure you have a spinal cord, since that kind of knowledge is actually a point worth raising in discussion on the link between the mind and the physical world. You could be a mind in a jar being fed information about what a body is and how it works.

In any case, your body influences your mind and vice-versa beyond what you consciously control. Even were your spinal cord to be damaged, your legs would go on transporting blood and all its contents to their muscles, which in turn influences and is influenced by the rest of the body.

The body is a complex system, and as such all of its elements are in some way influenced by the behaviour of the whole. You can't single out one aspect of the system and say "This is what causes the mind" since, in a very real sense, there is nothing living in the system that does not in some way cause the mind. Similarly, everything is in turn affected by the mind even where you don't explicitly wish it to be so.

The soul is simply the means by which this takes place, however it does.

So if Gravity is the tendency of masses to move towards each other and this movement is called falling then surely "Gravity causes things to fall" is a sufficient definition?

Hmm...I suppose. "the force that causes fallling", essentially...Yeah, that'd work.

So it's indistinguishable from one's mind? If so, why do you need two words that carry very different connotations for the same thing?

No, it's not indistinguishable from one's mind. The emphasis is on spiritual here. And I don't mean this in a Christian godly sense--many religions use the soul as the primary vessel of spiritual essence. The mind creates morals and ethics, etc.--the soul is a reflection, and this is what will be judged on the day of reckoning. And another thing...it serves truly to separate us as human. The very fact that we are sitting here, right now, contemplating the idea of such an abstract concept is testament to the reality that we are not just another animal.

What sort of thing do you expect could be done with stem cells?

For the benefit of all, perhaps a little calrifcation is needed as to what exactly stem cells are and what they can do. I my self do not know much about this and am certainly confsed.

Frankly I don't see a problem with cloning or stem cells. It seems that there is this fringe of religious nut cases who insist on holding back progress that could help millions of people.

By the way, I'm generally a conservative, just not part of the lunatic religious right fanatics.

No, it's not indistinguishable from one's mind. The emphasis is on spiritual here. And I don't mean this in a Christian godly sense--many religions use the soul as the primary vessel of spiritual essence. The mind creates morals and ethics, etc.--the soul is a reflection, and this is what will be judged on the day of reckoning. And another thing...it serves truly to separate us as human. The very fact that we are sitting here, right now, contemplating the idea of such an abstract concept is testament to the reality that we are not just another animal.

There was a time when many religions said that the earth was the center of the universe. There was a time when many religions said that everything in the sky was devine. Just because many religions use the soul as a vessel of spiritual essence doesn't mean that the soul exists in reality. It merely indicates that the soul exists as an idea.

The unicorn's existance as an idea is not evidence toward its existance as a fact. The same is true for the idea of the soul. If anyone could come up with a working definition of a soul or a way to test its existance then perhaps they would be justified in using it in a scientific argument. Until that time leave the soul to the mysics of whatever religion you choose and leave the science to the scientists.

For the benefit of all, perhaps a little calrifcation is needed as to what exactly stem cells are and what they can do. I my self do not know much about this and am certainly confsed.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=415786

No, it's not indistinguishable from one's mind. The emphasis is on spiritual here. And I don't mean this in a Christian godly sense--many religions use the soul as the primary vessel of spiritual essence. The mind creates morals and ethics, etc.--the soul is a reflection, and this is what will be judged on the day of reckoning. And another thing...it serves truly to separate us as human. The very fact that we are sitting here, right now, contemplating the idea of such an abstract concept is testament to the reality that we are not just another animal.
What does "the soul is a reflection" mean? The statement about the "day of reckoning" is a statement of faith, not fact. The difference between our minds and those of, let's say a chimp, aren't differences of kind but rather of degree. When taught to communicate in sign language they too can discuss abstract ideas, though not as complex.

Adult stem cells and umbilical cord stem cells aren't as versatile and useful as embryonic stem cells.

Really? That's not what I've heard. Several cures from adult stem cells are aready in the here and now, while nothing has come from embryonic stem cells. Even if the experments prove good, there is the question of putting organs with vastly different DNA into donors; this problem is common with transplants and embryonic stem cell is so far behind that no one wants to think of solutions other than a lifetime of immuno suppressants and bubble boy lifestyles.

Really? That's not what I've heard.
You heard wrong. Read Dempublicents thread it might claear some things up for you.

Just a question.

Does the idea of embryo farming freak anyone else out?

Just a question.

Does the idea of embryo farming freak anyone else out?

Not really.

Just a question.

Does the idea of embryo farming freak anyone else out? ;>>
Not really

Just a question.

Does the idea of embryo farming freak anyone else out?

Think about it.

If you never let them reach maturity - i.e., you dispose of them before the third term - it isn't any different from an abortion.

If you don't have a problem with abortion, then you shouldn't have a problem with embryo farming.

I am against abortion, but if people really want it that bad they have to pay a fine, jail time, and their tax rate increased by 3%. There should be no reason why women have to be so irresponsible and careless about their bodies.

Now about cloning, it is a very dangerous thing. Clones would be just like you and me, the only problem is if some maniac in China decides to a million clones or 10 million, and puts them in the military. Now doesn't that sound sort of scary? Robotics is something alot of fanatics fear. Robots don't have minds. Their controller is the one who does. And yes clones would have a soul.

Really? That's not what I've heard. Several cures from adult stem cells are aready in the here and now, while nothing has come from embryonic stem cells.

We've also been studying adult stem cells much, much longer and the therapies developed from them are very limited.

Even if the experments prove good, there is the question of putting organs with vastly different DNA into donors;

Actually, with therapeutic cloning, this wouldn't be a problem at all. The organ grown from the clone would match the DNA of the donor - and would hence not be rejected.

Just a question.

Does the idea of embryo farming freak anyone else out?

"Embryo farming"? We are talking about growing specific cells for specific patients. Is that really "farming"?

Now about cloning, it is a very dangerous thing. Clones would be just like you and me, the only problem is if some maniac in China decides to a million clones or 10 million, and puts them in the military. Now doesn't that sound sort of scary?

We aren't really talking about reproductive cloning here.

Clones would be just like you and me, the only problem is if some maniac in China decides to a million clones or 10 million, and puts them in the military. Now doesn't that sound sort of scary?
Not at all. They'll die soon after reaching maturity.

Now about cloning, it is a very dangerous thing. Clones would be just like you and me, the only problem is if some maniac in China decides to a million clones or 10 million, and puts them in the military. Now doesn't that sound sort of scary? Robotics is something alot of fanatics fear. Robots don't have minds. Their controller is the one who does. And yes clones would have a soul.
Why would anyone do that? A clone is just like a younger identical twin. They wouldn’t grow super fast. They would need segregate mothers to gestate. There is no inherent advantage to a clone army. Besides, we’re not talking about reproductive cloning anyway.

Back to stem cells. It seems to me that the fundamental question is: Are the embryos used in stem cell research people? My answer is no. These embryos are very early in their development. They’re still just microscopic balls of undifferentiated stem cells. They don’t have any brain cells. So they’re incapable of thinking or feeling. They are human organisms, but they’re not people.

Think about it this way. Imagine an adult man who was decapitate in an accident, but his body is being kept alive on life support. Is it a living human organism? Yes. Is it a person? Of course not; the person is dead. In the case of an early embryo, the person doesn’t exist yet.