Poll: So my Question is: Do we as Humans have the Right to infringe upon Gods domain, assuming that you believe in God?
Yes!
No!
[Show Results]
 
Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
To Play God Or Not to Play God that is the Question!
11-05-2009, 02:15 AM (This post was last modified: 11-05-2009 02:17 AM by Azrael17.)
Post: #1
To Play God Or Not to Play God that is the Question!
So I was thinking about Stem Cell Research and the use of Science to Create life.

So my Question is: Do we as Humans have the Right to infringe upon Gods domain, assuming that you believe in God? If so Why or Why Not

If by the Power of Science we can Save a Life, do we Save it even if the means of Saving it seem unnatural? If So Why or Why Not!

If by the Power of Science we can give Parents who can't have Children their own Children do we do it even if doing so is unnatural? If so Why or Why Not!

Should we use Science as a Tool to Improve our lives or do some of you think that it is Evil? If so why or why not!

If we can have Legal Abortion than Why Not Legal Stem Cell Research?

If your allowed to kill a Baby than Scientist should be allowed to Make Them!

"Hidden underneath the stoned cold surface of every Pious Person lays buried a Kinky Pervert, Stop bringing shovels, Where not digging!"-Azrael
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-05-2009, 07:40 AM
Post: #2
RE: To Play God Or Not to Play God that is the Question!
(11-05-2009 02:15 AM)Azrael17 Wrote:  So I was thinking about Stem Cell Research and the use of Science to Create life.

So my Question is: Do we as Humans have the Right to infringe upon Gods domain, assuming that you believe in God? If so Why or Why Not

If by the Power of Science we can Save a Life, do we Save it even if the means of Saving it seem unnatural? If So Why or Why Not!

If by the Power of Science we can give Parents who can't have Children their own Children do we do it even if doing so is unnatural? If so Why or Why Not!

Should we use Science as a Tool to Improve our lives or do some of you think that it is Evil? If so why or why not!

If we can have Legal Abortion than Why Not Legal Stem Cell Research?

If your allowed to kill a Baby than Scientist should be allowed to Make Them!

There are those who beleive that any form of medical intervention is "infringing on Gods domain". An argument could be made that doing anything at all is "infringing on God's domain".

I am not voting because the question is making an assumption about the answer.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-05-2009, 10:03 AM
Post: #3
RE: To Play God Or Not to Play God that is the Question!
I'm agreeing with Parousia on this one. Even ignoring for the fact that there is no god and thus he has no domain, any time we do anything it "infringes on god's domain". Every war hero in history has saved the lives of his comrades, thus "infringing on god's domain." Every doctor "infringes on god's domain." Every advancement in the quality of life "infringes on god's domain."

Stem cell research isn't anything special. It's no more notable from a moral perspective than the development of penicillin. You can debate whether a fetus is a sentient life (I happen to think it is,) but it certainly isn't during the embryonic state when it's just a random collection of cells.

I'm back baby! Thanks for everyone who sent me PMs asking what had happened to me.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-05-2009, 11:16 AM
Post: #4
RE: To Play God Or Not to Play God that is the Question!
Science will eventually clone humans, it's inevitable. I'm sure I remember an article that mentioned that there's already a guy in Europe who was denied permission to do so in his country, so he just said he'd go elsewhere and do it anyway.

God aside, it's an interesting ethical question, but as you included God I can't vote.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-05-2009, 04:26 PM
Post: #5
RE: To Play God Or Not to Play God that is the Question!
There are many ethical questions, but not the ones people think. People still have the image of cloning of sci-fi shows. A tube, and suddenly where there was one fully grown, adult person there are now two. That would have tons of questions, the biggest of which being "does a clone have a soul." Except, you know, cloning doesn't work like that at all. You're not dealing with a living creature. You are rewriting the DNA of an embryo so that it will grow into a specific genetic type of person. That embryo was going to become a person anyway. So there are still some ethical considerations - how much of personality, achievement, and morality is genetic, and how much is individual choice? But these considerations are not as drastic as the ones most anti-cloning people say.

I'm back baby! Thanks for everyone who sent me PMs asking what had happened to me.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-05-2009, 07:13 PM
Post: #6
RE: To Play God Or Not to Play God that is the Question!
It would certainly shed light on the whole nature / nurture debate.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2009, 03:23 AM
Post: #7
RE: To Play God Or Not to Play God that is the Question!
(11-05-2009 10:03 AM)GTseng3 Wrote:  I'm agreeing with Parousia on this one. Even ignoring for the fact that there is no god and thus he has no domain, any time we do anything it "infringes on god's domain". Every war hero in history has saved the lives of his comrades, thus "infringing on god's domain." Every doctor "infringes on god's domain." Every advancement in the quality of life "infringes on god's domain."

Stem cell research isn't anything special. It's no more notable from a moral perspective than the development of penicillin. You can debate whether a fetus is a sentient life (I happen to think it is,) but it certainly isn't during the embryonic state when it's just a random collection of cells.

I Argue,
That it is alive the moment the Sperm touches the Egg!

"Hidden underneath the stoned cold surface of every Pious Person lays buried a Kinky Pervert, Stop bringing shovels, Where not digging!"-Azrael
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2009, 05:53 AM
Post: #8
RE: To Play God Or Not to Play God that is the Question!
(11-06-2009 03:23 AM)Azrael17 Wrote:  
(11-05-2009 10:03 AM)GTseng3 Wrote:  Stem cell research isn't anything special. It's no more notable from a moral perspective than the development of penicillin. You can debate whether a fetus is a sentient life (I happen to think it is,) but it certainly isn't during the embryonic state when it's just a random collection of cells.

I Argue,
That it is alive the moment the Sperm touches the Egg!

The disagreement here seems to be whether it is life that matters or sentience (the ability to perceive subjectively). Which is it and why? No one ever seems to debate that question.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2009, 07:13 AM
Post: #9
RE: To Play God Or Not to Play God that is the Question!
Parousia's right here, GT said sentience, not life. You could argue that sperm are alive seeing as they swim.

I used to love discussing this subject with students, as you'd get such a range of answers with some very good justifications. Some said, as Az did, that it's as soon as the egg is penetrated, others that it's once the heart beats, others also said once it could live independantly of the mother. The last one then gets into the issue of whether that is without medical aid, as premature babies can be saved much, much younger nowadays. I forget the figure, but it's something staggering like 23 weeks!

If you add religion in, ie, when souls become involved, it gets even trickier.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2009, 12:13 PM
Post: #10
RE: To Play God Or Not to Play God that is the Question!
The thing is we don't really know when life starts. I argue that "life", in the human sense of the word, does start before conception. I just don't see that much of a biological difference between an infant right after birth, and right before birth. The question is, how far before conception? Because quite frankly there's little difference between an embryo and an egg or a sperm. It's just two cells combined, that's all. Biologically it's incredibly simple, and it barely qualifies as life. It certainly is nothing like intelligent life.

If you try to claim an embryo is sacred, then you must also deal with the mass-murder of bacteria caused whenever you take anti-biotics. Is that not murder for convenience as well? And I hope you don't eat meat.

Or perhaps you object to killing an embryo because of its potential to become a human. But in this case women are committing a crime every time they do not attempt to inseminate themselves during their ovular cycle. And every man who masturbates is a mass murderer.

The argument simply holds no water. The inherent property of life is that we must kill other life for our very survival. There are only three logical camps to belong to, this being the case (note: For simplicity, none of these examples take war or the justice system into account, nor self-defense. These are specific circumstances and we are talking about general philosophies here. Their inclusion would expand these three options to a whole plethora of them.):

1. Death is a part of life, so therefore hurting and killing anyone is all right. This is the philosophy of those who casually kill to advance their goals, or do it for fun. I believe we can all agree this option is morally indefensible.

2. Death is a part of life, but humans are part of the global community and thus should be preserved, so therefore hurting and killing anything that is not human is all right. This is the philosophy of most human beings. We eat meat, some of us actually enjoy hunting, others find it distasteful, but still we understand that killing animals is acceptable. An embryo is not a human, not in any true biological sense of the word. A fetus becomes a human at some point which we have not yet determined.

3. Death is a part of life, but creatures that can feel and have emotions should be preserved, for we are humane and kind. This is the stance of some vegetarians. They generally have their own, not-very-well thought out ideas (I don't want to eat animals that are cute! So fish are okay.) But ultimately it boils down to the fact that if it has feelings, it's wrong to kill it. Animals have feelings, even though they do not have sentience. Bacteria, vegetation, and other brainless life forms do not. Under such a philosophy, a fetus becomes a feeling creature much earlier in life, when it manufactures a brain and nervous system capable of feeling pain and releasing the chemicals for emotion. But, I would like to note: this still does not apply to an embryo. An embryo has none of this.

The only philosophy in which defending the embryo makes sense is defending it as a potential future human. In which case, I propose this: Stem cell research is vitally important, so let that go for now. Focus on all the acts that don't benefit the human race instead to begin with, and deal with stem cell research last. So as soon as it's illegal for women to ovulate without an attempt to impregnate herself, and as soon as it's illegal to [censored], then come after stem cells.

I'm back baby! Thanks for everyone who sent me PMs asking what had happened to me.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  New indy movie about religion and technology - THE GOD QUESTION hamphouse 2 557 07-01-2014 01:40 PM
Last Post: hamphouse
  A question to/about god. Cass 40 3,585 02-01-2013 04:32 PM
Last Post: KAYSER



User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)