Journal pudge's Journal: Embryonic Stem Cell Research 32
The most common argument I hear against those who oppose embryonic stem cell research is one that is, to me, completely vapid. It basically goes, "we could save a lot of people with this research, so therefore we should do it."
This argument makes one of two assumptions, as best I can tell. It could be assuming that the embryonic life (and it is a unique human life, biologically speaking; this is a scientific fact not seriously questioned) is not a life that deserves any protection at all. This is, of course, classic question-begging: this is the very crux of the issue, and so assuming it is nonsensical.
The other possible assumption -- sometimes stated explicitly -- is that even if these are lives, it is acceptable to kill them, because other lives are worth more. Humanity has gone down this path before, and I refuse to. It's anathema. And its atrocity is compounded by the fact that it's the government choosing which lives are more valuable.
So please, save your breath. Don't say "we should do this because good may result." (And worse, don't tell me that good will result, because no one can know that.) If you want to convince me, you cannot possibly do so by telling me the potential benefits; you can only do so by convincing me that no human life is being intentionally killed for the sake of research. I don't care if you convince me that we will cure AIDS and cancer tomorrow by killing off a few dozen embryos today, I will oppose it, if I believe, as I do now (because how could I not?), that those are human lives. Period, end of story.
they will be destroyed anyway... (Score:1)
Re:they will be destroyed anyway... (Score:2)
Re:they will be destroyed anyway... (Score:2)
*Disclaimer: This entry is at least partially in jest. The writer of this snippet is using a literary t
Re:they will be destroyed anyway... (Score:1)
Re:they will be destroyed anyway... (Score:1)
The situations aren't similar enough to constitute the start of a slippery slope, IMO.
In my opinion, refuting this to my satisfaction will involve pointing out other alternative paths that said embryos can take.
Re:they will be destroyed anyway... (Score:2)
An alternative path would be embryo adoption.
AKA Snowflake Babies [wthr.com]
It is interesting to think about. If (as an embryo) he would have been sent to an ESC lab Braden Robinson wouldn't exist today. I am a little biased since I am adopted also, and if my biological mother would have decided to have an abortion instead of giving me up for adoption I wouldn't be around either.
Re:they will be destroyed anyway... (Score:2)
Re:they will be destroyed anyway... (Score:1)
Do you oppose fertility treatment? (Score:2)
Re:Do you oppose fertility treatment? (Score:2)
It's different. Look at what I wrote. There's a difference between intentionally killing something, and what happens in fertility treatments, where some embryos inevitably die, but are not intentionally killed.
That said, I do find the practice, to be polite, distasteful.
This appears to me to be the inverse of the slippery slope argument, and it's no better than the slippery slope argument itself is. I could say "I oppose fertility treatments because they mig
Re:Do you oppose fertility treatment? (Score:2)
I disagree. In both cases embryos are killed, and the participants make a decision that leads to their being killed. If you oppose one you should oppose the other.
What did he ever say that implies he should, to be consistent, try to prevent private people from doing it
Isn't that exactly what the GOP "moral values" agenda is about
Re:Do you oppose fertility treatment? (Score:2)
That's obviously false, since they are, in fact, different. Again, in one you are actually intentionally killing something, and in the other, you are not. You may not see a difference between doing something that leads to the death of something, versus actually intentionally killing it, but it is unreasonable for you to say I should not see a difference.
Isn't that exactly what the GOP "moral values" agenda is about - preventing private individuals from doing t
Re:Do you oppose fertility treatment? (Score:2)
If someone is so in a hurry to kill babies for research, they can do it on their own dime, or in another country.
jason
Re:Do you oppose fertility treatment? (Score:2)
Hm. It's my understanding that, in many fertility treatments including IVF, many embryos are intentionally culled so as to leave only the viable ones. Only the ones that are most likely to survive are implanted into the womb for further sustenance. Most others are destroyed (unless they are frozen).
Re:Do you oppose fertility treatment? (Score:2)
Re:Do you oppose fertility treatment? (Score:2)
But generally speaking, fertility treatments that involve creation and direct manipulation of embryos are not respectful of life in a similar sense to the disrespect that embryonic stem cell researchers employ.
So the consideration of the topic of fertility clinics, with regard to whether one approves or opposes their treatment of embr
Re:Do you oppose fertility treatment? (Score:2)
Yes, but the actual actions taken are not entirely similar. Similar enough to compare, but not similar enough to say "if you oppose embryonic stem cell research, you should therefore oppose fertility treatments." That said, I would not personally engage in such treatments, but my time is too valuabl
Another assumption... (Score:1)
Just so I'm clear (Score:2)
Re:Just so I'm clear (Score:2)
Re:Just so I'm clear (Score:2)
Or does this anathema only apply within the scope of research? Or even just within embryotic research?
Re:Just so I'm clear (Score:2)
Yes, my comments were specific to the context of killing for the sake of research. Sorry if that wasn't entirely clear before.
Permission vs Funding (Score:1)
I'm somewhat ambivalent about the research myself. As you brought up, the key is how one views the individual lives of the embryos, similar to how the abortion debate often revolves around when a fetus is presumed to be viable. Personally, I've never really settled on a firm answer, so my approach is to err on the side of preserving life where possible. That said, all Bush said is that our federal taxes won't pay for this research.
While fairly socially conservative, I usually don't advocate that my vi
Re:Permission vs Funding (Score:2)
Right, the Star Trek approach: "look, that little blip of light is showing possible signs of intelligence, so we can't terraform this planet!"
Yup (Score:2)
FWIW I agree with you.
RG recently mentioned in his journal that it seems that ESC doesn't produce good results; in fact, tumors have been a result.
I'm very much against ESC for a simple reason:
- it destroys that which, if left alone, could grow into a human being (those who submit tha
Re:Yup (Score:2)
I disagree. If it is wrong, the fact that it is the only viable method to accomplish something important doesn't make it right. There are some lines I am unwilling to cross, and experiments on what are (again, this is indisputable biological fact) unique human lives is one of those lines.
Re:Yup (Score:2)
I meant, "fine, show the research, although I doubt you can prove anything by it."
It's still wrong, even if it's the only way.
What happens... (Score:2)
Re:What happens... (Score:2)
Re:What happens... (Score:2)
Re:What happens... (Score:2)
This is an important issue, but it's not the one I posted about, or have given much thought to.
Do some support them?
Middle ground (Score:2)