"Why are all you atheists so angry?"

[Keep The Reason]

It seems to me there is a huge difference between changing our ethics to fir in with technological advances that have already been made and changing our ethics to fit in with advances that may be made at some future date. So what you would need to look at is some speculations in earlier science that were used as a basis for policy and then the science was found to be mistaken. A lot of ideas about race turned out to be mistakes for example. We are so far from being able to manipulate atoms to replicate humans that we really can't base any ethical conclusions on that.

Which is why we are at the present point of discussing proto-human life and what that means. We ARE at the point where my fingernail can supply the DNA to fertilize an egg and grow it to a human being (or, we are so close it's right in front of us). So that is the standard today, with the ethics it implies. How it happens (with or without interference or involvement by third parties) hardly seems relevant; and I have no dog in the future fight as to being able to manipulate atoms to that degree-- that's left for generations yet unborn (from fingernails or the tried-and-true, it matters not )to debate. But the fact is, the cloning technology is possible today and that means we have to have a new definition for what "proto-human" actually means.

[Moonwood the Hare]

It seems to me there is a huge difference between changing our ethics to fir in with technological advances that have already been made and changing our ethics to fit in with advances that may be made at some future date. So what you would need to look at is some speculations in earlier science that were used as a basis for policy and then the science was found to be mistaken. A lot of ideas about race turned out to be mistakes for example. We are so far from being able to manipulate atoms to replicate humans that we really can't base any ethical conclusions on that.

Which is why we are at the present point of discussing proto-human life and what that means. We ARE at the point where my fingernail can supply the DNA to fertilize an egg and grow it to a human being (or, we are so close it's right in fornt of us). So that is the standard today. How it happens (with or without interference or involvement by third parties) hardly seems relevant; and I have no dog in the fight as to being able to manipulate atoms to that degree-- that's left for future generations to debate. But the fact is, the cloning technology is possible today and that means we have to have a new definition for what "proto-human" actually means.

Maybe I'm missing the point here but cloning a human being from a fingernail is not the same thing as building life from the atoms up.

[Keep The Reason]

Maybe I'm missing the point here but cloning a human being from a fingernail is not the same thing as building life from the atoms up.

Sigh. Sometimes this is really a drag. Let me try once more.

1. "500" years ago (please read this as "a long time ago; no specific time meant"), the our ethical perspective on the ethics surrounding human life and when it starts or what defines it was not in a position to incorporate things like in vitro fertilization. So therefore, in those days, the ethics didn't say anything about whether the sperm/egg was human or not (in fact, I think at that time they believed in the homunculus-- a little fully formed human in the egg or sperm) -- but anyway, that was the ethics then.

2. Today, our ethics have changed; because now, we can say sperm and egg are proto-human, or maybe it's the fertilized egg that is, or our cloning skills makes every cell a viable "proto-human", etc.

3. Someday in ther future, if we gain the technology to manipulate atoms into the DNA to make a fully formed human, that will be another kind of ethical issue we need to deal with.

Right now, we don't have the technology for #3, so it's a non-issue, just like in #1's time, the #2 technology was unknown and so they DIDN'T have the ethics issue of what exactly "proto-human" means that we do today.

Today, the outdated measure of "proto-human" used in year's gone by (both long and short term in case you bring up some other left-field issue) is no longer applicable because today even my fingernail can be said to be proto-human under certain instances. That is the ethic we deal with today. If -- or when -- we get further technology to do more, then we can have that discussion on the ethics of that future technology.

If it isn't clear what is meant by this entire branch of discourse, I'm sorry, but it's so off topic it's not even funny any more and the points have been readily explained.

[Moonwood the Hare]

No that's fine. If you go back into history the question would have been framed in terms of when you have a soul and the soul was thought of as something being put in from outside. (in fact this still is the official RC position I believe) but now we generally ask about at what level of the organization of matter we have a person.

[gary_s]

Both of you are making this claim based on the idea that some actions won't lead to prgnancy, but the fact is, interventions now DO lead to it and so that re-defines what "proto" means. It's not a stretch. It's simply a fact. Because shooting a fingernail into a woman's vagina won't work doesn't mean pulling the DNA from that same fingernail and injecting it via a different method won't work either. As a point of fact-- it will in deed work.

Your argument gary is based upon an arbitrary self-limiting of view. It is not at all "nonsense" to make the case that given the right technological skills, we might very well be able to one day take base atoms and cobble them into fully fledged human beings.

As our technology progresses, our moral and ethical standards flex and change with them. What's so hard to believe about that? Isn't it better to take the longer view as we have discovered that our technical skills have quantitiative increases? Or is it better to wait until such technology is upon us before we move to discover its implications?

Today, yeah, you can laugh at the "extreme nonsensical idea" of humans manipulating atoms to create DNA that replicates humans. Just like in 1450, doctors who were bleeding their patients would have considered the infectious nature of influenza to be demon spirits.

KTR, there is something you are missing in this discussion and I'm doing a poor job of explaining it to you, but I'll try again. From a theoretical and scientific standpoint, you are correct that science exists to take human DNA, inject it into an egg cell and coax it into a state of fertilization, thus creating a real blastocyst. But that DNA, left to it's own devices, will never become a blastocyst. This is no arbitrary point. An egg cell is required and that egg must be either fertilized or tricked into thinking it has been fertilized, a process that cloning is merely mimicking. Anything less than a fertilized egg is merely a building block, not an emergent being. How it gets from A to B is pretty much academic. Human technology is not the issue here, it's about the capability is of these microscopic bits of humanity. A bit of DNA alone cannot transform into a new human being. A woman's egg sitting alone in a test tube will only die. But a fertilized egg, however it came to be that way, is a new and different thing. It has the capability to do something that no other human cell can do, build an entirely new person. You cannot in any practical way equate DNA with a fertilized egg simply by exploiting the existence of technology that can only simulate what nature does anyway, put 2 things together to create a blastocyst.

Maybe I'm missing the point here but cloning a human being from a fingernail is not the same thing as building life from the atoms up.

Yes, those are certainly different questions, Moon, ethically and otherwise. I think building a new human from atoms up would be the ultimate in genetic engineering and I'm sure it will happen some day. But the salient point here is that once you have the DNA you want to use to build a human, wherever it came from, there's no need to recreate a mechanism for transforming that DNA into a person. Nature already provides a process and it requires an egg and DNA to fertilize it. That's the basis for my point that cloning is basically irrelevant here; it's nothing but a proxy for natural human processes. 99.999% of all human reproductive cells never result in a new human because they don't come together in the proper environment where fertilization occurs. That is the real difference.

[Dr Mundo]

From a theoretical and scientific standpoint, you are correct that science exists to take human DNA, inject it into an egg cell and coax it into a state of fertilization, thus creating a real blastocyst. But that DNA, left to it's own devices, will never become a blastocyst. This is no arbitrary point.

I think it is. because if left to its own devices, unassisted by the female body or a life sustaining apparatus, the fertilized egg will never become a Blastocyst either.

An egg cell is required and that egg must be either fertilized or tricked into thinking it has been fertilized, a process that cloning is merely mimicking. Anything less than a fertilized egg is merely a building block, not an emergent being. How it gets from A to B is pretty much academic. Human technology is not the issue here, it's about the capability is of these microscopic bits of humanity. A bit of DNA alone cannot transform into a new human being. A woman's egg sitting alone in a test tube will only die. But a fertilized egg, however it came to be that way, is a new and different thing. It has the capability to do something that no other human cell can do, build an entirely new person. You cannot in any practical way equate DNA with a fertilized egg simply by exploiting the existence of technology that can only simulate what nature does anyway, put 2 things together to create a blastocyst.

Now I think the arbitrary line is drawn here as well. Could we at some point mimic the process of reproduction, yes. So a fertilized egg is capable of building an entirely new person. But so are we. If it wasn't for the womb or for some other mechanism for supporting the growth of that group of cells nothing would happen either. So you say naturally the fertilized egg in the womb would make a human, well now we can artificially create the same conditions using what we know about Biology and Chemistry. That arbitrary line has just been drawn on reproduction involving traditional sexual penetration. Granted I think we all draw arbitrary lines here. Yours, KTR's and mine are pretty much the same, as I think all three of us have the same view on abortion. But speaking only for me, the arbitrary line is drawn with brain development. I am not in favor of people getting abortions when ever they please, but I am also not for the outlaw of the practice. I am pro choice, but past a certain point, I don't feel its right to abort the fetus, and the laws are in place to avoid such things anyways. When did this turn into a discussion about abortions and where is this going by the way?

[Keep The Reason]

KTR, there is something you are missing in this discussion and I'm doing a poor job of explaining it to you, but I'll try again. From a theoretical and scientific standpoint, you are correct that science exists to take human DNA, inject it into an egg cell and coax it into a state of fertilization, thus creating a real blastocyst. But that DNA, left to it's own devices, will never become a blastocyst.

Yeah, I'm not missing it, I just disagree its a salient point. It's still proto human even if it sits on a window sill and turns into a flakey crust.

This is no arbitrary point. An egg cell is required and that egg must be either fertilized or tricked into thinking it has been fertilized, a process that cloning is merely mimicking. Anything less than a fertilized egg is merely a building block, not an emergent being.

Now you're saying "emergent being" when up til now we're talking " proto-human". I agree it's not an "emergent being". I disagree that it is not "proto-human". You've changed horses midstream.

How it gets from A to B is pretty much academic. Human technology is not the issue here, it's about the capability is of these microscopic bits of humanity. A bit of DNA alone cannot transform into a new human being. A woman's egg sitting alone in a test tube will only die. But a fertilized egg, however it came to be that way, is a new and different thing. It has the capability to do something that no other human cell can do, build an entirely new person. You cannot in any practical way equate DNA with a fertilized egg simply by exploiting the existence of technology that can only simulate what nature does anyway, put 2 things together to create a blastocyst.

You are aware that in cloning, the egg can be completely devoid of the "mothers DNA", yes? Dolly was cloned using an egg that was hollowed out. All the DNA came from 1 sheep. The egg itself had no "mothers DNA" in it. I concede that today we need both for humans, but that's likely a technical issue that we'll unlock at some point.

If the egg is merely a vehicle for splitting, well, I doubt that would likely matter in the very near future either. We'll likely figure out a way to do all of it artificially in short order. And then our ethics will have to flex again, which is the point.

Once more, that means my fingernail DNA is as much protohuman as is my sperm, in fact, it's even closer to being human than my sperm since my sperm only has 1/2 the code and my fingernail has both sides (although the sperm itself has it's own DNA which is mine too, I think. I'll have to look into that.)

As to the method, I still argue its a moot point. Why is sexual intercourse "valid" as a mechanism, but a needle doing cloning is not?

For the record, the sex method is definitely preferable.

[gary_s]

I think it is. because if left to its own devices, unassisted by the female body or a life sustaining apparatus, the fertilized egg will never become a Blastocyst either.

Then how do you think invitro fertilization works? The uterus is not what causes the growth of the blastocyst into a new human being; it's the environment for it to be protected and receive nutrition.

Now I think the arbitrary line is drawn here as well. Could we at some point mimic the process of reproduction, yes. So a fertilized egg is capable of building an entirely new person. But so are we. If it wasn't for the womb or for some other mechanism for supporting the growth of that group of cells nothing would happen either. So you say naturally the fertilized egg in the womb would make a human, well now we can artificially create the same conditions using what we know about Biology and Chemistry.

I'm not minimizing the role of the uterus, I'm just highlighting the point that the special ingredient here is a blastocyst. The womb plays a supportive role; it isn't what makes the blastocyst turn into a new person; that's all within the blastocyst itself.

That arbitrary line has just been drawn on reproduction involving traditional sexual penetration.

No, it hasn't. As I mentioned some posts ago, theists are just as concerned about embryos created invitro, and why shouldn't they be? An embryo created anywhere is still an embryo, a germinating human being. Given proper conditions, it can do something no other known cell or substance can do.

Granted I think we all draw arbitrary lines here. Yours, KTR's and mine are pretty much the same, as I think all three of us have the same view on abortion. But speaking only for me, the arbitrary line is drawn with brain development. I am not in favor of people getting abortions when ever they please, but I am also not for the outlaw of the practice. I am pro choice, but past a certain point, I don't feel its right to abort the fetus, and the laws are in place to avoid such things anyways. When did this turn into a discussion about abortions and where is this going by the way?

Haven't you read the thread?

[gary_s]

Yeah, I'm not missing it, I just disagree its a salient point. It's still proto human even if it sits on a window sill and turns into a flakey crust.

Well, then as I said before, I disagree with your definition of "proto-human", as it is practically meaningless.

Now you're saying "emergent being" when up til now we're talking " proto-human". I agree it's not an "emergent being". I disagree that it is not "proto-human". You've changed horses midstream.

No, I've just better defined what it is I've been talking about all along. "Emergent being", "germinating human", "Proto-human", these are all the same to me. Any definition that includes a cellular state of humanity that has the capacity within itself to multiply and grow into a human being. That's what I've been talking about from the start. You introduced the idea that DNA is just as much a proto-human as a blastocyst and I absolutely reject that notion. DNA is a building block, which is very different from a living cell. A blastocyst is something entirely different from a cluster of chromosomes which have no mechanism whatsoever for making copies of itself, let alone producing cells that will eventually become organs. There are a vast array of proteins to be created and cells to be formed that DNA itself is incapable of accomplishing. And, the unfertilized egg is just as incapable. The combination is something different. So if that's your definition, then I'm just not interested in it because it simply makes no sense at all. You are equating two things that are not the same. But I'm not interested in arguing with you until my fingers fall off either. You can keep your definition if you like. It's useless to me. I have plenty of other terms that fit.

To get parochial, your definition is analogous to a set of blue prints constructing a sky scraper without the presence of a team of engineers, contractors, materials, government regulators, and utility hookups. Simply put; it ain't gonna happen.

You are aware that in cloning, the egg can be completely devoid of the "mothers DNA", yes? Dolly was cloned using an egg that was hollowed out. All the DNA came from 1 sheep. The egg itself had no "mothers DNA" in it. I concede that today we need both for humans, but that's likely a technical issue that we'll unlock at some point.

Only the nucleus is removed. Anyway, DNA is not a living cell. If you can demonstrate that DNA can somehow reproduce itself and create new human cells while sitting in a petri dish, then I'll concede your point.

If the egg is merely a vehicle for splitting, well, I doubt that would likely matter in the very near future either. We'll likely figure out a way to do all of it artificially in short order. And then our ethics will have to flex again, which is the point.

Perhaps, but you are just speculating on yet another synthetic methodology. The method is not what I'm talking about at all; it's what comes from the method that matters. No amount of DNA you can pile up can create new living cells. So put it together however you like; once you've created a new living cell that wants to multiply and form into a human being, you've crossed that rubicon. At that point it becomes a developing human.

Once more, that means my fingernail DNA is as much protohuman as is my sperm, in fact, it's even closer to being human than my sperm since my sperm only has 1/2 the code and my fingernail has both sides (although the sperm itself has it's own DNA which is mine too, I think. I'll have to look into that.)

Yes, and that definition is essentially useless. And you've misinformed yourself about DNA. You only have your DNA in any of your cells. Sexual reproduction is a process of recombination of the DNA of two individuals. Cloning uses the DNA of only one individual and essentially fools the cell into thinking it's been fertilized. I know that's not scientifically accurate, but I'm no cloning scientist. But for a lay person; that's essentially what happens.

As to the method, I still argue its a moot point. Why is sexual intercourse "valid" as a mechanism, but a needle doing cloning is not?

Isn't that the same thing I just said?

[Rian]

Maybe I'm missing the point here but cloning a human being from a fingernail is not the same thing as building life from the atoms up.

Sigh. Sometimes this is really a drag. Let me try once more.

Since this is the angry atheist thread, I wanted to point out that I think KTR's response is one of the classic "angry atheist" responses that I mentioned before. I don't know of anyone who thinks it's wrong to be angry about child molesting, but then the "angry atheists" go on and start getting into things like condescension towards others. And I think that is one of the reasons why the term "angry atheist" arose.

[Dr Mundo]

Haven't you read the thread?

I have, and still I guess I just don't understand what the problem is. What exactly are you guys arguing for or against? and what is the purpose of it? I would like to participate but if I don't understand what the problem is it would just be stupid of me to interrupt. So I'm sorry if I don't get it.

[Keep The Reason]

Since this is the angry atheist thread, I wanted to point out that I think KTR's response is one of the classic "angry atheist" responses that I mentioned before. I don't know of anyone who thinks it's wrong to be angry about child molesting, but then the "angry atheists" go on and start getting into things like condescension towards others. And I think that is one of the reasons why the term "angry atheist" arose.

You're so busy telling me what I feel. I guess I should thank you for taking on that job.

I was tired (actually sleepy tired) of explaining it yet again, not angry. I had a headache, too.

But go on and assert "angry atheist" inappropriately; it's very Collins of you.

[Rian]

Since this is the angry atheist thread, I wanted to point out that I think KTR's response is one of the classic "angry atheist" responses that I mentioned before. I don't know of anyone who thinks it's wrong to be angry about child molesting, but then the "angry atheists" go on and start getting into things like condescension towards others. And I think that is one of the reasons why the term "angry atheist" arose.

You're so busy telling me what I feel. I guess I should thank you for taking on that job.

I'm not telling you how you feel. What I'm telling you is how you are coming off to me (and to others who complain of the same thing in "angry atheists"). That response came off as very condescending. And that is a very common thing with "angry atheists" - condescending language.

You're coming at this thread from the position of an atheist who is angry about things. It seems that you don't get why people apply that moniker, when you feel that your anger is valid. You seem to think people apply it to dismiss the position of the atheist. I disagree. I think most people apply it when the atheist in question (and there are many of them) move from valid anger about valid issues to a whiny, condescending, insulting, they're idiots, and everything about every religion is wrong manner.

[gary_s]

Haven't you read the thread?

I have, and still I guess I just don't understand what the problem is. What exactly are you guys arguing for or against? and what is the purpose of it? I would like to participate but if I don't understand what the problem is it would just be stupid of me to interrupt. So I'm sorry if I don't get it.

Pretty much semantics. And there's really no purpose; just two knuckleheads in a debating cull-de-sac. You haven't missed anything important.

[gary_s]

I'm not telling you how you feel. What I'm telling you is how you are coming off to me (and to others who complain of the same thing in "angry atheists"). That response came off as very condescending. And that is a very common thing with "angry atheists" - condescending language.

You're coming at this thread from the position of an atheist who is angry about things. It seems that you don't get why people apply that moniker, when you feel that your anger is valid. You seem to think people apply it to dismiss the position of the atheist. I disagree. I think most people apply it when the atheist in question (and there are many of them) move from valid anger about valid issues to a whiny, condescending, insulting, they're idiots, and everything about every religion is wrong manner.

Ahem; let me step in here for a moment. Both of you guys are kind of whiffing here. I don't think KTR's comment was meant as condescension at all. In fact, I think I posted a very similar comment during that discussion about abortion/DNA when I was sure he wasn't comprehending what I was saying. An admission here; I re-wrote those comments at least eight different ways before I finally posted it. The first was just nasty, so I deleted it. The next was better, but still too caustic. I didn't really want to come off as pissing on him, just trying to point out that he wasn't getting my message. So, I'm guessing here that KTR pulled just about the same thing on Moonwood. Sometimes you just can't get those words to come out in the sweet spot.

But, Rian has a valid point. At times we non-believers are very angry at things we perceive to be just ridiculous. I could think of a few very easily and if I mentioned them here, it would surely sound like an angry rant. But you know, I'm not angry all the time. It just flares up now and then and my wife tells me to calm down and drink a beer and it subsides. You know, I'm human. We get angry about things we don't like. Pretty normal stuff.

What I think would be best is if people could just air it out once in a while and confirm that not everyone wants to hate them. Usually there's less hate than one perceives.