Sunday, May 18, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

Brown says embryo research is key to life

by Guardian

Thanks to PJG for the link.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/18/stemcells.medicalresearch

Gordon Brown today mounts a passionate and personal defence of scientific research using animal-human hybrid embryos as an 'inherently moral endeavour' that could save millions of lives.

Writing in today's Observer, he challenges critics in the churches and elsewhere who condemn what they regard as 'Frankenstein science', arguing that MPs 'owe it to ourselves and future generations to introduce these measures' when they vote on controversial embryology legislation this week.

The Prime Minister's interest in the issue is said by friends to be deeply personal, because his younger son, Fraser, has cystic fibrosis, a condition that could one day benefit from embryo research.

Brown supports scientists who want to create hybrid embryos in which the nuclei of human cells are inserted into animal eggs and allowed to grow for a few days. Then each embryo's immature stem cells - containing DNA that is 99 per cent human - can be harvested and used to create brain, skin, heart and other tissue for treating crippling diseases. Crucially, only hybrids can help solve problems created by a worldwide lack of donated human eggs, he argues.

'The scientists I speak to are committed to what they see as an inherently moral endeavour that can save and improve the lives of thousands - and, over time, millions - of people.'

MPs have a free vote over the next two days on three controversial proposals: hybrid embryos; allowing the creation of 'saviour sibling' children, who could donate tissue to help older siblings with serious genetic disorders; and ending requirements for IVF clinics to consider the child's need for a father before treating single or lesbian women.

They also have a free vote on a number of backbench amendments to tighten the law on abortion. The vote on the Human Fertility and Embryology Bill comes at a difficult time for Brown, days before a critical by-election. But in today's article he stakes his moral authority unequivocally on the controversial proposals, while professing 'deep respect' for those with religious objections.

Three Catholic cabinet ministers - Ruth Kelly, Des Browne and Paul Murphy - are wrestling with their consciences, while at least another three have signalled they may vote to lower the upper time limit for so-called 'social abortions' from 24 weeks of pregnancy.

Pro-life MPs want the limit cut to 22 or 20 weeks. Most of the cabinet will join Brown in defending 24 weeks but Andy Burnham, the Culture Secretary and a Catholic, was said to be considering the issue over the weekend while chief whip Geoff Hoon will wait to listen to the debate. Shaun Woodward, Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, where abortion is still illegal, was silent.

Abortion is legal until 24 weeks on 'social' grounds, such as risk to the mother's mental welfare, and beyond this limit in cases with a serious risk of severe foetal disability. But late abortions authorised for relatively minor problems, such as a cleft palate or club foot, have fuelled controversy. Backbench rebellions are also likely over the requirement for a father in IVF treatment. However, Brown argues that people should be 'able to approach IVF clinics without fear of discrimination on the grounds of their sexual orientation'.

His insistence that mixed embryos are essential to research was challenged yesterday by Tory MP David Burrowes, who sat on the parliamentary committee scrutinising the bill and has tabled amendments arguing instead for the collection of blood from the umbilical cords of newborn babies, another source of stem cells. He said 'false hopes' were being raised when there was no evidence that so-called admixed embryo research could deliver the promised benefits.

Andrew Lansley, the shadow health secretary, said that while the research had a 'moral purpose', scientists should not have free rein. Labour MP Nick Palmer, who will lead attempts to reduce terminations on disability grounds, claims today that women are aborting babies who suffer from only relatively minor conditions because of an obsession with 'physical perfection'.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Sunday, May 18, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 149 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #181793 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 18, 2008 at 9:19 am

Brown supports scientists who want to create hybrid embryos in which the nuclei of human cells are inserted into animal eggs and allowed to grow for a few days. Then each embryo's immature stem cells - containing DNA that is 99 per cent human - can be harvested and used to create brain, skin, heart and other tissue for treating crippling diseases.

How could someone condemn this. It is unbelievable.

The Roman Catholic church has taken the first step towards what could be a historic shift away from its total ban on the use of condoms.

Pope Benedict XVI's "health minister" is understood to be urging him to accept that in restricted circumstances - specifically the prevention of Aids - barrier contraception is the lesser of two evils.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/nov/23/catholicism.topstories3

Could a statement like that even be entertained by someone who doesn't believe in bullshit? The Catholic Church's activities are far more destructive than Islamic terror and yet they seem to get a easy ride.

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

2. Comment #181794 by Rawhard Dickins on May 18, 2008 at 9:25 am

Humans are 90-odd percent genetically the same as many other animals, so it's not really such a big issue.

Other Comments by Rawhard Dickins

3. Comment #181796 by Mango on May 18, 2008 at 9:26 am

Gordon Brown urges more research on stem cells because of his child's needs, and Dick Cheney supports gay marriage because his daughter is lesbian. If *everyone* could sympathize with these situations, then the fulminations against stem cell research and gay marriage would largely evaporate.

Other Comments by Mango

4. Comment #181797 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 18, 2008 at 9:27 am

Gordon Brown urges more research on stem cells because of his child's needs

I think that's unfair but I get the point.

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

5. Comment #181800 by Chris_The_Positivist on May 18, 2008 at 9:30 am

I'm glad to hear our prime minister is a proponent of such research. It would of been fairly easy for him to follow what the churches say, maybe this will help him win back some credibility and popularity in the polls.

I'm sure most rational people can see the overwhelming merits in such research and how the religious groups fascination and unjustified influence must be challenged. I hope this vote of support can now give way to sensible, careful and 'moral' research.

Other Comments by Chris_The_Positivist

6. Comment #181803 by Mango on May 18, 2008 at 9:33 am

ThoughtsonCommonToad: please let me know how I've unfairly misrepresented the article's statement on Brown's motivation.

Other Comments by Mango

7. Comment #181808 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 18, 2008 at 9:40 am

ThoughtsonCommonToad: please let me know how I've unfairly misrepresented the article's statement on Brown's motivation.

You haven't as the article quotes unverifiable hearsay

...said by friends to be deeply personal, because his younger son, Fraser, has cystic fibrosis, a condition that could one day benefit from embryo research.

but to say that is the only reason he or by extension anyone could be behind a cause (by being directly affected) is insulting.

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

8. Comment #181812 by mordacious1 on May 18, 2008 at 9:48 am

Mango

Nancy Raygun (starwars ref.) supports stem cell research because Ronnie had Alz. I can hardly see her taking a pro stance if she hadn't lived through this. I don't know enough about Brown to say that this is his motivation, but I'm always suspicious when someone goes to the "darkside" on one issue alone.

Other Comments by mordacious1

9. Comment #181813 by Mango on May 18, 2008 at 9:49 am

ThoughtsonCommonToad

but to say that is the only reason he or by extension anyone could be behind a cause (by being directly affected) is insulting.

I'm not saying that about everyone, but the story indicates it for Brown and it's fairly clear that Cheney would be aligned with the rest of the Bush administration on gay marriage were it not for his daughter. What I *am* saying is that to overcome religious prohibitions against matters such as stem cell research and gay marriage religious people often need a personal connection because they are often incapable of sympathizing.

I think it's ridiculous for you to assert that I, or the story's author, believe everyone {"anyone") needs to be personally affected by something to hold a forthright opinion. You must be misreading my sentiment wholesale.

Other Comments by Mango

10. Comment #181818 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 18, 2008 at 10:00 am

I think it's ridiculous for you to assert that I, or the story's author, believe everyone {"anyone") needs to be personally affected by something to hold a forthright opinion. You must be misreading my sentiment wholesale.

Well sorry for misrepresenting you, but it seems you are implying that the majority of people need such a connection with an issue otherwise there wouldn't be a problem. This seems to be true (evidently) and it's a disheartening fact.

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

11. Comment #181856 by moderndaythomas on May 18, 2008 at 1:02 pm

Nancy supports stem cell research because Ronnie had Alz

Ronald and Nancy Regan both regularly sought psychic advice. So to say that she supported stem-cell research isn't saying much.
Had she given birth to an autistic child, to Nancy, facilitated communication would have been as good a treatment as any.

When a person with an active belief engine chooses real science, it's probably not the science that they're choosing.

Other Comments by moderndaythomas

12. Comment #181858 by epeeist on May 18, 2008 at 1:17 pm

The one thing that nobody seems to have picked up is what stance the previous prime minister would have taken, having been worked upon by his wife and her "lifestyle advisor" Carole Caplin.

Other Comments by epeeist

13. Comment #181872 by D'Arcy on May 18, 2008 at 2:17 pm

Three Catholic cabinet ministers - Ruth Kelly, Des Browne and Paul Murphy - are wrestling with their consciences,

I suppose this is different to mud wrestling. Is there a video link?

Other Comments by D'Arcy

14. Comment #181880 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 18, 2008 at 2:55 pm

...allowing the creation of 'saviour sibling' children, who could donate tissue to help older siblings with serious genetic disorders; and ending requirements for IVF clinics to consider the child's need for a father before treating single or lesbian women.

Good riddance to the father clause although I still wonder about the social stigma that will be attached to such children.
The Saviour Sibling notion is again one that is troubling, but only because of the possible psychological effects on the child. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis is an important option for people however, so seeing as this is freely allowed I don't have any problem with the selection of 'saviour siblings' other than the possible psychological effects on the child. The argument against this notion is incredibly strong however, that saviour siblings will be merely saviour siblings and not wanted children. It's a hard question.

Three Catholic cabinet ministers - Ruth Kelly, Des Browne and Paul Murphy - are wrestling with their consciences, while at least another three have signalled they may vote to lower the upper time limit for so-called 'social abortions' from 24 weeks of pregnancy.

Pro-life MPs want the limit cut to 22 or 20 weeks. Most of the cabinet will join Brown in defending 24 weeks but Andy Burnham, the Culture Secretary and a Catholic, was said to be considering the issue over the weekend while chief whip Geoff Hoon will wait to listen to the debate. Shaun Woodward, Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, where abortion is still illegal, was silent.

Abortion is legal until 24 weeks on 'social' grounds, such as risk to the mother's mental welfare, and beyond this limit in cases with a serious risk of severe foetal disability. But late abortions authorised for relatively minor problems, such as a cleft palate or club foot, have fuelled controversy. Backbench rebellions are also likely over the requirement for a father in IVF treatment. However, Brown argues that people should be 'able to approach IVF clinics without fear of discrimination on the grounds of their sexual orientation'.

The 20 week scan is an important one where severe abnormalities are revealed so I think the limit should stay as it is.

However if I were a politician I would vote in favour of the bill as I think these decisions are for the individuals involved and not to be legislated against.

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

15. Comment #181883 by theantitheist on May 18, 2008 at 3:14 pm

Bloody Ruth ' Opus Deis' Kelly. She is a pain in the arse, i've never had a major problem with Brown and this improves my opinion of him. He's to intelligent to be taken in with all the religious bullshit but nods his head to it in the general fashion needed by a leader. Be better if he did call it bullshit but that's politics.

Other Comments by theantitheist

16. Comment #181884 by Mitchell Gilks on May 18, 2008 at 3:19 pm

I am fully supportive of embryolic reseach, with consenting human participants. I am however fully against the exploitation of non-consenting non-human animal subjects. Of course in any and all cases, not just this one.

I find it highly presumptuous for some people to outright say that it would be impossible to object to this unless religious. To stem-cell research, perhaps (though I'm not omniscient, so I can just say that I've never heard any good secular objections), but the use of non-human animals is completely another story. Surely the religious would have completely different reasons for objecting to it. Like the specialness of humans, or something silly about souls or something. I highly doubt any are objecting for the sake of the non-human animals being exploited in the process. Undoubtably it would be useful, and perhaps even save lives. So would killing one person to harvest the organs for six, also information gathered from scientific testing on humans would be far better, and easily applicable to human beings than information gathered from testing on non-humans. For the same reasons that I would be against doing such things on humans, I am against using non-human animals in the same way.

What I find sad is that no one seems to even raise this as a possible point of objection in the artical, or in the comments above. Silly, and rediculous objections by the delusional of course take center stage. Everyone is so apparently desensitized to the sufferage and exploitation of non-humans.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

17. Comment #181886 by T4Baxter on May 18, 2008 at 3:21 pm

Oh! Good show Brown!
I'm not entirely shocked as Gordon has often scattered seeds of suspicion, that he favors the benefits of a technologically advanced, science driven society with world class competitive brains.
Please don't destroy this fragile moment of relative joy for me, I'm well aware that Brown's caper is rubbing it's eyes with onion epidermis right now, Frankly, I'm of the opinion it's exactly what they deserve to be doing! Having said that, The next fool to gambol on, stage left. Will no doubt get his arm crushed reaching for his beanie hat, as he pops into the spotlight performing his latest 'hip hoperation 'you'th appeal' act. What can you do?
... Oh yeah, thats right: Drop the kids off go to work hit the 'food shop' eat, repeat.

Other Comments by T4Baxter

18. Comment #181888 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 18, 2008 at 3:34 pm

I am however fully against the exploitation of non-consenting non-human animal subjects. Of course in any and all cases, not just this one.

I may have missed something and I apologise if I have, but where are non-human animal subjects being used raised in this article?

MPs have a free vote over the next two days on three controversial proposals: hybrid embryos; allowing the creation of 'saviour sibling' children, who could donate tissue to help older siblings with serious genetic disorders; and ending requirements for IVF clinics to consider the child's need for a father before treating single or lesbian women.

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

19. Comment #181900 by james1v on May 18, 2008 at 4:54 pm

Hands up who would not take advantage of this research if their only child was dying of a disease this line of medicine found a cure for!
What?.... no Spartacus's...Mmmm.

Other Comments by james1v

20. Comment #181915 by Teratornis on May 18, 2008 at 6:12 pm

Comment #181793 by ThoughtsonCommonToad:

Where I live, almost everyone still drives a petroleum-fueled car. What could be more unbelievable than that?

When people oppose stem cell research, they aren't actively killing people right now or helping to finance the people who are actively trying to kill us right now. People who oppose stem cell research are stupid, but not nearly as stupid as people who insist on driving petroleum-fueled cars with empty seats.

The Roman Catholic church has taken the first step towards what could be a historic shift away from its total ban on the use of condoms.

Could a statement like that even be entertained by someone who doesn't believe in bullshit? The Catholic Church's activities are far more destructive than Islamic terror and yet they seem to get a easy ride.

If our goal is really to stop the spread of AIDS, it appears that Islam is actually a more effective means of stopping AIDS than condoms are.

That is, if we can believe the CIA World Factbook figures on the rates of HIV infection in various nations. In the nations which have an overwhelmingly Islamic majority, even the poor nations where we would expect public health to be much worse than in the USA and Europe, the rates of HIV infection are amazingly low. See:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2155rank.html

Notice that Saudi Arabia had the second-lowest incidence of HIV infection in the world in 2001. Saudi Arabia seems to have a solid handle on how to stop this horrific disease: behead the occasional adulterer, enough to insure the remaining would-be adulterers get the message; stamp out recreational drug use by any means necessary; and make it exceedingly difficult for gay men to hook up at all.

I'm not suggesting we all convert to Islam as a way to stop the spread of AIDS, although by all available evidence that would probably work better than any other currently-available option. Rather, I'm saying that as rational people we need to make sure our rationality works at least as well as religion does on every problem that matters.

Otherwise we're not going to win a lot of arguments.

Do you suppose there is anyone in Saudi Arabia who isn't aware of the Saudi theocracy's great success at combating AIDS? Will they be receptive when we advise them to become more like the liberal West? So they can start watching each other wasting away and dying horrible deaths from opportunistic infections?

I think that for science and rationality to be seen as comprehensively superior to ancient supersititions, they must in fact become superior at solving all the important problems.

Other Comments by Teratornis

21. Comment #181919 by Mitchell Gilks on May 18, 2008 at 7:06 pm

18. Comment #181888 by ThoughtsonCommonToad

I am amazed that you could have missed it. Where do you think those animal eggs are coming from? The egg fairy? The entire artical is about using non-human eggs for embryolic research because human eggs are hard to come by. Mainly because they have to ask permission for female human eggs. They can just harvest eggs from non-humans.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

22. Comment #181961 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 18, 2008 at 11:57 pm

Where do you think those animal eggs are coming from?

It shows my "desensitisation" as this didn't register as being exploitative. I drink cow's milk and eat beef I see this as no worse, and potentially providing unquantifiable benefits to fully conscious human beings, that are infinitely more capable of suffering. This consideration didn't enter into my moral calculus.

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

23. Comment #181968 by Rawhard Dickins on May 19, 2008 at 12:43 am

Isn't this what retroviruses have been doing for eons?

There seems to be great opposition from some quarters to accept that humans are animals too!

Other Comments by Rawhard Dickins

24. Comment #181971 by Tagred on May 19, 2008 at 1:13 am

23. Comment #181968 by Rawhard Dickins on May 19, 2008 at 12:43 am

Isn't this what retroviruses have been doing for eons?

There seems to be great opposition from some quarters to accept that humans are animals too!Here here. I suppose by the mere fact that nucleus and egg could result in a hybrid would blur the lines even for theists showing that we are similar enough, and therefore are part of the animal kingdom.

What do i know, I'm trained in geology, i care about rocks, and of course a cure for ageing.

what ever happened to those telemeres being revitalised?

Other Comments by Tagred

25. Comment #181972 by maelzoid on May 19, 2008 at 1:30 am

Hey, I EAT animal eggs!

Other Comments by maelzoid

26. Comment #181973 by hungarianelephant on May 19, 2008 at 1:37 am

Ruth Kelly
mud wrestling

That put me right off my breakfast.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

27. Comment #181974 by Tagred on May 19, 2008 at 1:43 am

bah i cant edit my post, now i made it look like Prof. Dawkins said stuff he didn't...doh.

Other Comments by Tagred

28. Comment #181991 by mmurray on May 19, 2008 at 4:09 am

bah i cant edit my post, now i made it look like Prof. Dawkins said stuff he didn't...doh.

You need to be logged in to edit.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

29. Comment #181993 by mmurray on May 19, 2008 at 4:13 am

In the nations which have an overwhelmingly Islamic majority, even the poor nations where we would expect public health to be much worse than in the USA and Europe, the rates of HIV infection are amazingly low.

Why are you surprised ? We have it from the President himself that there are no gays in Iran and I imagine there are no injecting drug users either. So, unless they have transfusion problems, there will be no HIV/AIDS in Iran.

Seriously how reliable are those numbers likely to be? How well is an Islamic country going to count HIV/AIDS sufferers if it can't count gays.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

30. Comment #182000 by Clydey on May 19, 2008 at 5:10 am

Mitchell Gilks:

I'm sorry, but you are displaying startling insularity. Animal testing is, I'm afraid, very necessary. It is obviously not ideal, but without it we would be living in a different world entirely. Many of your friends and family will have benefited from animal testing.

Perhaps you're not aware of exactly how critical it is to medical advancement. This reminds me of the well placed PETA employee who, while protesting animal testing, justified her insulin prescriptions by arguing that she needs her life to fight for the rights of animals.

It's easy to be morally outraged if you are ignorant of what animal testing has done for the world or do not directly benefit from it.

Other Comments by Clydey

31. Comment #182001 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 5:11 am

22. Comment #181961 by ThoughtsonCommonToad

It shows my "desensitisation" as this didn't register as being exploitative. I drink cow's milk and eat beef I see this as no worse,

I'm sure you don't, but you are wrong.

and potentially providing unquantifiable benefits to fully conscious human beings,

What does "fully conscious" mean exactly?

that are infinitely more capable of suffering.

Huh? Where did you get this idea? This is patantly false. A statement of faith completely contradicted by the available evidence. It seems the religious are not the only ones that hold to metaphysical differences between human and "animals". I find that so-called rationalists are just as irrational when it comes to this.

This consideration didn't enter into my moral calculus.

What do you base your moral considerations on exactly?

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

32. Comment #182002 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 5:15 am

30. Comment #182000 by Clydey

Clearly you did not see my rationale. Do you not agree that information gathered from testing on humans would be more valuable? Holding more benefits? That harvesting a few humans here and there for organs would also be beneficial to the whole?

It is a sheer unjustified double-standard to use other animals in this way but not human beings.

It is also rather silly, and irrational to note a case of hypocrisy and say it reminds you of me, unless you can point out where I have contradicted myself? Beyond what you imagined to be my ignorance of the subject.

The "you don't agree with me, so you must not know any better" is an annoying mind set.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

33. Comment #182006 by Clydey on May 19, 2008 at 5:34 am

Information from humans is more scarce. As unfair as it may seem (bear in mind that I am more empathetic towards animals than humans generally), I recognise that the well being of animals is considered secondary to the well being of humans.

The results of animal testing demonstrate just how beneficial a practice it is. Would you swap the medical advancement as a result of animal testing for the lives of those animals subjected to it? Bear in mind that many of the people you know would be dead, gravely ill, or otherwise suffering if not for animal testing.

It is naive to take such a stance, as it demonstrates a complete lack of awareness of the value of animal testing. Yes, it's cruel and unjust. It is also necessary.

As for your hypocrisy, it might not be to the same degree as the PETA employee. That said, I doubt you have lived your entire life without some sort of medical treatment. And that treatment is most likely the product of animal testing.

Other Comments by Clydey

34. Comment #182008 by Steve_Mutton on May 19, 2008 at 5:37 am

Mitchell, are you volunteering your organs for the proposed harvest? I'm not, however I can see the benefits of animal testing, carried out in the least cruel way possible, whatever that is.

The fact is, some people or species will always get the short end of the stick to the betterment of others. I'd be interested in any ideas you may have which put everbody in an equal position.

Kind regards

PS To address the digression which has taken over this board, our dear PM is probably incapable of separating his personal motives from his political ones, in terms of this research. How can he be sure he'd be all for it if his offspring didn't have cystic fibrosis? I suggest that he can't.

Other Comments by Steve_Mutton

35. Comment #182011 by Clydey on May 19, 2008 at 5:39 am

I'll further illustrate my point, Mitchell.

Here's a hypothetical situation. Your mother needs insulin to live. You have two choices.

1. Your mum can keep getting insulin and live.

2. The lives of the animals used in producing and refining that medication are restored, but your mother no longer gets insulin and will die.

Which option do you choose? This should better demonstrate the hypocrisy to which I referred.

Other Comments by Clydey

36. Comment #182012 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 5:40 am

I'm getting rather annoyed by you implications that I'm an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about, Clydey. Please reframe from insulting my intelligence. Also you have evaded my questions.

Answer my questions. Is it not the case that more peoples lives would have been saved by testing on humans, and harvesting human organs? Are you willing to not do this with the understanding of all the potential people that could have been, and could be saved by this? Or do you not also understand the unjust, and unacceptable nature of taking some lives, to save others, or causing suffering to augment suffering?

This is hypocrisy. You must concede this for animals if you concede this for humans. What this truely comes down to is where you draw the line on your moral considerations. If you are as informed as you pretend to be, you will know that drawing the line at human beings is completely arbitrary, and no more justified than drawing it at race, religion, nation, height or weight.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

37. Comment #182014 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 5:47 am

35. Comment #182011 by Clydey

We're all the kings of our own hypothetical worlds. This demonstrates nothing. If your family were being held by a psycho and you were given the option to kill your own family or a strangers family. Which would you decide?

If you decide to kill the strangers family does this mean that you believe that your own family deserves more rights and freedoms, than anyone else? Simply because you are willing to sacrifice any other family before your own.

Anyone can play hypothetical games.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

38. Comment #182016 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 19, 2008 at 5:48 am

Fully concious was lazy use of language. I think it's fairly obvious that humans are capable of suffering more than ants. There is, and you would agree I assume, a difference between killing an ant and a human, between eating lettuce and eating chimpanzee. What makes these things different? It's the capability for the respective organisms to suffer. I think this is almost axiomatic.

It seems the religious are not the only ones that hold to metaphysical differences between human and "animals"

We are animals we are apes. We are unique in that we have complex language and abstraction, the largest brains on the planet (relatively) and are capable of "feeling" abstract emotions such as exploitation. I do not doubt that there is distress for the cows involved, but exploitation no, and that shouldn't be bandied about although you didn't say the cows felt exploited only that we are exploiting them.

In a perfect world there would be no disease, we would be able to fully simulate the human body on computers and perform medical tests and trials etc "virtually" without any unnecessary suffering. We do not live in a perfect world and for that reason our ideals collide with reality and we have to make decisions.

That harvesting a few humans here and there for organs would also be beneficial to the whole?

Suffering covers that attempt.

I assume your a vegetarian, and a "moral vegetarian". Now I think "moral vegetarians" have got it wrong. One argument for vegetarianism is that the animals reared for consumption are treated appalling and only in regard to cheap food (on which I agree). However, if these millions of "moral vegetarians" paid for meat reared in a considerate manner, where the animals were given stress free lives etc, the suffering of animals would decrease unimaginably because money talks. Moral vegetarianism actually perpetuates animal suffering.

What do you base your moral considerations on exactly?

I start with ideals and when I have to I consider carefully where reality interacts with these ideals and I make decisions.

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

39. Comment #182019 by Clydey on May 19, 2008 at 5:56 am

I honestly couldn't say the degree to which testing on humans would be better. I'm sure it would be more beneficial. I don't know how much more so, mind you.

I could not care less whether I've offended you. I'm giving you my opinion. That I've offended you is entirely incidental. I'm astounded by your naiveté. Presumably you also object to the diet of lions and tigers, too? Where does plant life rank, out of curiosity? All life forms are equal, correct? Where do you draw the line? How about viruses, bacteria etc? Should we respect HIV's right to survive?

Your plea for equality is admirable, but it is spectacularly unrealistic. That's just not how the world works, my friend.

Other Comments by Clydey

40. Comment #182021 by Clydey on May 19, 2008 at 6:00 am

You didn't answer my question, Mitchell.

I'd kill the stranger's family. I am a slave to logic, but at some point emotion takes over. Do the stranger's family have less right to live? No, of course not. We're not robots, though. Emotion plays a role in decision-making.

Do answer my question. In order to not be a hypocrite, you would have to let your mother die. Are you so committed to absolute equality?

Other Comments by Clydey

41. Comment #182024 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 6:05 am

38. Comment #182016 by ThoughtsonCommonToad

Please keep this serious. Where are ants relevent to the artical? And who is exploiting ants exactly? If you mean to draw some less absurd divergance between suffering and consciousness, know that none exists among the higher mammals.

In a perfect world there would be no disease, we would be able to fully simulate the human body on computers and perform medical tests and trials etc "virtually" without any unnecessary suffering. We do not live in a perfect world and for that reason our ideals collide with reality and we have to make decisions.

So I'm too assume that you are okay with the forceful testing on humans and harvesting of organs then?

I assume your a vegetarian, and a "moral vegetarian". Now I think "moral vegetarians" have got it wrong. One argument for vegetarianism is that the animals reared for consumption are treated appalling and only in regard to cheap food (on which I agree). However, if these millions of "moral vegetarians" paid for meat reared in a considerate manner, where the animals were given stress free lives etc, the suffering of animals would decrease unimaginably because money talks. Moral vegetarianism actually perpetuates animal suffering.

You seem to not understand that I am simply drawing no fundemental difference between humans and other animals. So just replace "cows" with "humans" and see if you'd agree.

All of the conclusions I have made follow logically from the realisation that there is no metaphysical or fundemental difference between humans and other animals. Only arbitrary differences. Most of the people on this site don't object to this fact, they merely are unwilling to take it to it's logical conclusion.

I start with ideals and when I have to I consider carefully where reality interacts with these ideals and I make decisions.

Really? I have to admit that I am surprized. I saw a study a few months ago, I think it was posted on this site that asked the question of how people draw moral considerations, and the graph was almost linear moving to "ideals" the more religious and conversative you got, and "consideration of suffering and well being" the more liberal and irreligious you got.

The religious have some imaginary backing for ideals, they believe that the authority of god is behind them. You do realise that without that all of your moral considerations are entirely arbitrary, right? That doesn't bother you? If not then I am incapable of convincing you that raping children is wrong unless you already hold that opinion.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

42. Comment #182027 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 19, 2008 at 6:13 am

No.

All of the conclusions I have made follow logically from the realisation that there is no metaphysical or fundemental difference between humans and other animals. Only arbitrary differences. Most of the people on this site don't object to this fact, they merely are unwilling to take it to it's logical conclusion.

You can dress up the fact were all animals however you want it doesn't get rid of the fact that there is a difference in the suffering of chickens (obliquely relevant considering were talking about eggs. Attempt at a joke) and chimpanzees. So your premise has the logical conclusion that we are all related, not that we should all have equal consideration.

Really? I have to admit that I am surprized. I saw a study a few months ago, I think it was posted on this site that asked the question of how people draw moral considerations, and the graph was almost linear moving to "ideals" the more religious and conversative you got, and "consideration of suffering and well being" the more liberal and irreligious you got.

I can see how that would be true. I hold as close as I can to ideals such as equality, freedom etc but with respect to the real world.

You do realise that without that all of your moral considerations are entirely arbitrary, right? That doesn't bother you. If not that I am incapable of convincing you that raping children is wrong unless you already hold that opinion.

Yes that is elementary. It doesn't bother me else I would be a nihilist.

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

43. Comment #182028 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 6:14 am

Lol, Clyder. You have fled into absurdity. I can't convince lions and tigers on what to do, and they don't have a choice. We do.

All life is not equal. My moral considerations are built on the desires of the agents involved. The realisation of the universal evaluation of all higher animals, that to survive and survive well. Also, on whether or not they can suffer, and realise their suffering. Drawing lines are intelligence is of course not possible, some animals overlap some humans, and it would result in the absurdity of some humans having more rights and freedoms than others based on intelligence. All the evidence suggests that all the other higher animals can suffer to the same degree humans can, some perhaps more so. Then again not all humans have the same threshold for pain, drawing a line here would result in another absurdity.

I think you will find that you draw your moral considerations on similar ground. It is up to you to demonstrate a fundemental difference between humans and other higher mammals, and show why a racist isn't just as justified in drawing the line on his moral considerations at race as you do species without objective cause.

Also you answered your own question. That was one of the points of my hypothetical, the second point was to demonstrate that ad hoc hypotheticals are not rationally applicable to the real world.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

44. Comment #182031 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 6:23 am

42. Comment #182027 by ThoughtsonCommonToad

Yes that is elementary. It doesn't bother me else I would be a nihilist.

Then you are immune to appeal. How would being bothered by something make you a nihilist exactly?

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

45. Comment #182035 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 19, 2008 at 6:27 am

You do realise that without that all of your moral considerations are entirely arbitrary, right?

Yes

That doesn't bother you.

No otherwise I would be a moral nihilist.

Then you are irreproachable.

I don't see how this makes me irreproachable.

You seem to have avoided the point. We can have an abstract discussion where we can cling to our ideals. However there is a real world to consider.

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

46. Comment #182037 by Clydey on May 19, 2008 at 6:28 am

Mitchell, please answer my question. Would you let your mother die? A yes or no will suffice.

The point isn't whether you can convince them. The point is whether or not you object. You might think I'm being absurd, but I'm taking logic to the sort of extremes you are.

Your moral considerations are built on the desires of the agents involved. Do viruses not also seek to survive? Is obstructing their survival not a moral consideration?

You used suffering as another moral consideration. Is it more acceptable if the animals are sedated/anaesthetized?

Another hypothetical for you. And please don't object on grounds that you feel it's absurd. Just answer, as I've answered your questions.

Viruses don't suffer when we kill them. If we anaesthetize/sedate animals they don't suffer either. Both seek to survive. Why is one morally acceptable, whereas the other isn't?

In a way I admire your dedication to logic. I never thought I'd meet anyone else who so strictly adheres to it. That said, this conversation has highlighted the limitations of pure, undiluted logic.

Other Comments by Clydey

47. Comment #182040 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 19, 2008 at 6:37 am

In a way I admire your dedication to logic.

He dismisses the hypothesis that comparative suffering should be a consideration. I think I am just as concerned about animal suffering as Mitchell (that's why I buy meat from "ethical" farms, I accomplish more than a moral vegetarian). I however consider comparative suffering seriously. Taking eggs from cows that will potentially make millions of peoples lives better is just not a consideration. If the cows had to be mutilated, tortured I would consider long and hard, they however don't. I would barely ever condone testing on "higher animals" as Mitchell says. But I wouldn't be dogmatic about it.

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

48. Comment #182042 by nalfeshnee on May 19, 2008 at 6:41 am

It is up to you to demonstrate a fundemental difference between humans and other higher mammals,

Well, I don't know of a higher mammal that could understand your question, for one thing.

Other Comments by nalfeshnee

49. Comment #182043 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 6:41 am

I have answered you question. I said that I accepted your answer to my hypothetical as my own. Do you not understand what I mean by this? I will quote you just in case.

I'd kill the stranger's family. I am a slave to logic, but at some point emotion takes over. Do the stranger's family have less right to live? No, of course not...

I'm sorry, but for someone who claims strict adherence to logic you fail to grasp mine still. Firstly, define desire. Clearly you are not using the word as I use it. Desire is an emotional and behavioural reaction to external stimuli. Viruses do not have a emotions, or behaviours, and it is questionable if they are even alive, based on the biological definition of life. Which is something that grows produces it's own food, and reproduces. They do not produce their own food, so there is argument about whether they are even alive. In any case they surely do not suffer.

What you are not understanding, and completely fail to address is that there is no fundemental difference between humans and other animals. So the questions you asked you should easily be able to answer yourself by asking youself if you would find that acceptable for human beings.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

50. Comment #182046 by Clydey on May 19, 2008 at 6:43 am

You have to weigh the benefits of animal testing. You cannot argue that it's just. It's not fair, but it is necessary. We, like other animals, seek to survive. Lions kill, viruses kill, and we kill to ensure the propagation of the species and to alleviate suffering.

Do I like it? No, I'd rather a more humane alternative. It is unavoidable, though. And the results it has provided are extraordinary.

Other Comments by Clydey