Pepsi used aborted fetus in flavor-enhancing research

PDN

Barr125 wrote: »

Ok, so what? I highly doubt that Pepsi ordered the abortion or were possibly even aware of where the cell batch came from. I use human cells cultures from anon donors in my lab all the time. I don't get a script on the donors life unless it's needed for what I'm doing with them.

Genuine question. Are you saying that the source of the cells (or even of the cells that started a cell line) is immaterial to you? Would you be happy, for example, if you knew the cells you were using came from a line that was originally harvested by a dictatorial regime from the bodies of political opponents that they had executed?

dj357

One can almost immediately disregard the discussion upon reading the term "aborted human beings" in the Shareholders Resolution. A human being is a discrete entity imbued, by society and society alone, with inalienable rights. A fetus does not equal a human being especially before it passes into the gestation weeks.

Peregrinus

dj357 wrote: »

One can almost immediately disregard the discussion upon reading the term "aborted human beings" in the Shareholders Resolution. A human being is a discrete entity imbued, by society and society alone, with inalienable rights. A fetus does not equal a human being especially before it passes into the gestation weeks.

Huh?

Over in the “Keep abortion out of Ireland” thread, you say that “The whole issue of what is a human being and what is not is not something that can be argued on the basis of religious convictions, teachings and/or doctrines. It can only be argued on the basis of the actual science i.e. what we like to call independently verifiable facts.”

Is there not a certain inconsistency here? Are there “independently verifiable facts” to support your claim here as to what a human being is? It looks to me that you are advancing a claim arising out of your own philosophical convictions in this thread, while in the other thread denying that philosophically-based claims are legitimate, and insisting on the need for scientific claims resting on empirical evidence.

dj357

Peregrinus wrote: »

Huh?

Over in the “Keep abortion out of Ireland” thread, you say that “The whole issue of what is a human being and what is not is not something that can be argued on the basis of religious convictions, teachings and/or doctrines. It can only be argued on the basis of the actual science i.e. what we like to call independently verifiable facts.”

Is there not a certain inconsistency here? Are there “independently verifiable facts” to support your claim here as to what a human being is? It looks to me that you are advancing a claim arising out of your own philosophical convictions in this thread, while in the other thread denying that philosophically-based claims are legitimate, and insisting on the need for scientific claims resting on empirical evidence.

No, one argument is grounded in the other. Society provides human beings with inalienable rights, giving us a rounded definition of what defines a human being. Empirical evidence gives us the developmental timeline of human offspring and can help us isolate the point at which these rights can be afforded to the individual in question. My point in this thread was to point out the inconsistency in the term "aborted human beings", the verb 'to abort' being used as reference to terminating the growth process, a human being consisting of an individual who is outside of that particular growth process. Not only are terms like this incorrect but they betray an inherent lack of objectivity.

Peregrinus

dj357 wrote: »

No, one argument is grounded in the other. Society provides human beings with inalienable rights, giving us a rounded definition of what defines a human being. Empirical evidence gives us the developmental timeline of human offspring and can help us isolate the point at which these rights can be afforded to the individual in question.

No offence, but I don’t think this is completely coherent. Science certainly informs us of the developmental timeline of the human offspring, but how does that influence when society “can” accord inalienable rights to that offspring? If society accords inalienable rights to the fertilized ovum, is there as scientific case for saying that this is somehow invalid? I don’t think there is. You can argue that inalienable rights should only be accorded to the human offspring when it has developed certain capacities, but that’s a moral position, not a scientific one, and there is no scientific case for saying that someone who takes the opposite view is incorrect.

Secondly, I think the implications of what you are saying are alarming. If a human being is an entity to which society has accorded inalienable rights, then an entity to which society has not accorded inalienable rights is not a human being. And the logic of that is that, if society decides that - say - Jews, or persons with Down’s Syndrome, or convicted criminals, do not have inalienable rights, then those people are not “human beings”.

Most people - you included, I don’t doubt - revolt against that. The truth is that an individual doesn’t become a “human being” because we accord them certain inalienable rights; rather, we accord them rights because we recognize that they are already human beings.

And this raises the question, on what basis do we recognize this? You’re arguing, I think, for a scientific basis - we look at their human development - but ultimately I think that argument is incomplete, for two reasons. Firstly, we have to pick a point along the continuum of human development and say “this is the point at which the individual becomes a human being” and your argument offers no criteria for doing that. (Why should it not be fertilization? At the other extreme, why should it not be the attainment of psychological maturity at around the age of 25?) Secondly, and more fundamentally, you don’t address the question of why any point of human development should be the relevant point. (Why should it not be human genetic identity? Why should it not be human potentiality? Why should it not be legal citizenship?)

I’m not saying there are no possible answers to these questions. There are, but they are not, for the most part, scientific answers. I think your claim that the question of what is a human being “can only be argued on the basis of the actual science” is wrong. Science is, basically, incapable of answering this question.

dj357 wrote: »

My point in this thread was to point out the inconsistency in the term "aborted human beings", the verb 'to abort' being used as reference to terminating the growth process, a human being consisting of an individual who is outside of that particular growth process. Not only are terms like this incorrect but they betray an inherent lack of objectivity.

I don’t think they do. Or, at least, not more than your own position does. You are claiming the status of objective truth for your opinion that the developing human entity is not a “human being” because society has not yet accorded it inalienable rights, and for your opinions that whether society can legitimately or validly do this is determined by the degree of development which the individual has attained. And yet you make no attempt to demonstrate the objective truth of your opinions.

dj357

Peregrinus wrote: »

No offence, but I don’t think this is completely coherent. Science certainly informs us of the developmental timeline of the human offspring, but how does that influence when society “can” accord inalienable rights to that offspring? If society accords inalienable rights to the fertilized ovum, is there as scientific case for saying that this is somehow invalid? I don’t think there is. You can argue that inalienable rights should only be accorded to the human offspring when it has developed certain capacities, but that’s a moral position, not a scientific one, and there is no scientific case for saying that someone who takes the opposite view is incorrect.

While arguing such would indeed be a moral position, it would also be a scientific one, providing one was using science to argue the position.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Secondly, I think the implications of what you are saying are alarming. If a human being is an entity to which society has accorded inalienable rights, then an entity to which society has not accorded inalienable rights is not a human being. And the logic of that is that, if society decides that - say - Jews, or persons with Down’s Syndrome, or convicted criminals, do not have inalienable rights, then those people are not “human beings”.

And yet the reason we have come to a stage in human development where we accord those rights to individuals and groups who society previously deemed sub- or non-human is because we have a robust science of human traits, capabilities and faculties and we recognise even the most basic of these in everyone regardless of age, race, creed or disadvantage.

Peregrinus wrote: »

The truth is that an individual doesn’t become a “human being” because we accord them certain inalienable rights; rather, we accord them rights because we recognize that they are already human beings.

I will completely agree with you here and I think the confusion is mainly due to my narrow definition based on the assignment of these rights. I would however argue that there are therefore two distinct sides to the definition of a 'human being' and I'll accept that I've likely been remiss thus far in not recognising that.

Not only that, this agrees with my initial post as we do not recognise that an aborted fetus is already a human being.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I’m not saying there are no possible answers to these questions. There are, but they are not, for the most part, scientific answers. I think your claim that the question of what is a human being “can only be argued on the basis of the actual science” is wrong. Science is, basically, incapable of answering this question.

I would disagree here. In the realm of morality, which is where this part of the discussion has strayed, we can argue moral policies based on scientific foundations as we can see in the work of Sam Harris. Furthermore if science cannot answer the question "what is human being", then what can?

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don’t think they do. Or, at least, not more than your own position does. You are claiming the status of objective truth for your opinion that the developing human entity is not a “human being” because society has not yet accorded it inalienable rights, and for your opinions that whether society can legitimately or validly do this is determined by the degree of development which the individual has attained. And yet you make no attempt to demonstrate the objective truth of your opinions.

Again this relates to the narrowness of my initial definition, however as I said earlier I was not arguing the validity or legitimacy of according rights at a certain point.

muppeteer

Peregrinus wrote: »

You can argue that inalienable rights should only be accorded to the human offspring when it has developed certain capacities, but that’s a moral position, not a scientific one, and there is no scientific case for saying that someone who takes the opposite view is incorrect.

If the moral position is contingent on when a human trait is present or not then science can inform the decision and tell you if you are correct or incorrect, but it can't make ethical positions in of itself. We can ask the question "when does a fetus develop cabability for pain" or "how can societies reduce suffering" and science can throw back an amoral answer which we use in our moral assesment. Science on its own can't find ethical answers but ethics without science is blind.

Peregrinus

dj357 wrote: »

While arguing such would indeed be a moral position, it would also be a scientific one, providing one was using science to argue the position.

If so, then the position that “the human being comes into existence at fertilization” is also a scientific one, since science can be (and indeed is) used to argue that position. (Science tells us that a living human entity, genetically unique and genetically distinct from both its parents, comes into being at this time.)

I think science can (and should) inform our moral positions, but it can’t determine them. You can critique a particular moral position if it requires a rejection of scientific truth. But I don’t think the converse is true; you can’t say that we are ever compelled to hold a particular moral position by a particular scientific truth. Science can tell me in great detail what will happen if I hang you or shoot you or stab you or poison you, but it can’t, on it’s own, establish when (if ever) I am justified in doing any of these things.

dj357 wrote: »

And yet the reason we have come to a stage in human development where we accord those rights to individuals and groups who society previously deemed sub- or non-human is because we have a robust science of human traits, capabilities and faculties and we recognise even the most basic of these in everyone regardless of age, race, creed or disadvantage.

Just not true, I’m afraid. The Nazis had “a robust science of human traits, capabilities and faculties”, and that didn’t prevent them from concluding that Jews were “subhuman”. Conversely, the view that Jews were human was held by many people, and many cultures, long before the development of modern science. And you could even argue that the Nazis positively invoked the “science of human traits, capabilities and faculties” in support of their attitude to the disabled.

dj357 wrote: »

I will completely agree with you here and I think the confusion is mainly due to my narrow definition based on the assignment of these rights. I would however argue that there are therefore two distinct sides to the definition of a 'human being' and I'll accept that I've likely been remiss thus far in not recognising that.

Not only that, this agrees with my initial post as we do not recognise that an aborted fetus is already a human being.

I appreciate your openness to refining your thinking here. I’m afraid, though, I not quite following you.

You say that “we do not recognise that an aborted fetus is already a human being”, which prompts a couple of thoughts.

First, who’s “we”? I think you and I can agree that it isn’t everyone; there are many who do accord the foetus the status of a human being. If we’re going to argue that the moral status of humanity comes from others, then which others?

Secondly, if “we” refers to a societal consensus (as opposed to societal unanimity) the I would suggest that - in Ireland at any rate - we don’t have a societal consensus on this question. (Or, if we do, it is that the foetus is a human being).

Thirdly, if “we” refers to a simple majority, then in those societies where a majority do regard the foetus as having the status of a human being, the implication is that the minority who take a different view and campaign for legal change, or go abroad to seek an abortion, or whatever, are indeed advocating the killing of human beings. And, presumably, there societies would be justified in dealing with them as people who advocate or even practice murder.

For all those reasons, I can’t see the notion that “human being” status comes simply from recognition by others as terribly satisfactory.

It also completely ignores the central question; on what basis does society (or you, or I) decide that we do or do not recognize a human foetus as a “human being”. Are there legitimate, valid bases for doing this, and illegitimate, invalid ones? If we can insist that society ought to regard Jews as human beings, and that those societies which fail to do this have got it wrong, then can we not at least potentially make as similar argument in respect of those societies which deny that the foetus is a human being?

In short, I don’t think that the observation that “we [whoever “we” is] do not recognize an aborted foetus is already a human being” is a terribly useful one, in terms of answering the ethical questions that face us in this area.

dj357 wrote: »

I would disagree here. In the realm of morality, which is where this part of the discussion has strayed, we can argue moral policies based on scientific foundations as we can see in the work of Sam Harris. Furthermore if science cannot answer the question "what is human being", then what can?

I don’t think the discussion has “strayed” into morality; the thread has always been about the moral question, as far as I can see. (Nobody has raised the question of whether Pepsico’s use of the stem cell line was poor science, for example.)

I’ll admit I was unimpressed with Harris; the concept of the book had great promise but in the end, it seems to me, he bottled out. Too often, his moral arguments ultimately could be traced to an “. . . and this is obviously desirable/a good thing” claim, which lacked any scientific basis.

Science can inform and enlighten moral arguments but, as I’ve pointed out above, it can inform and enlighten inconsistent moral arguments, which is not always much help.

The view that a foetus deserves human respect when it achieves a certain level of development is informed by a scientific understanding of embryonic and foetal development, but ultimately it depends on our according moral significance to the development of some capacity or group of capacities (rather than, perhaps, some other capacity which is developed much earlier or much later). And there is no scientific case for saying that we must accord moral significance to the development of this capacity, but not that one. Indeed, I don’t think there’s a scientific argument for saying that we have to accord moral significance to any capacity.

Simlarly, the view that a foetus deserves human respect from the moment of fertilization is informed by a scientific understanding of what happens at fertilization (this particular moral view was in fact unknown before the invention of the microscope), but it ultimately depends on our according moral significance to what happens, and there is again no scientific case for saying that we must do so.

The problem is highlighted by the fact that people with opposing moral views may be in complete agreement on the science - the pro-lifer may fully accept scientific truth about embryonic/foetal development, and the pro-choicer may fully accept scientific truth about fertilization. They may both share exactly the same scientific understanding and yet, informed by their shared scientific understanding, they arrive at irreconcilable moral views. Neither of them can (truthfully) claim that his position is more scientific than the other’s, or better supported by science, or better informed by science, or more scientifically demonstrated, or more demonstrably objectively correct, or anything of the kind. And this neatly illustrates both the ability of science to enlighten moral thinking but also the limitations of science in answering moral questions.