stem cell research

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Originally Posted by Strangelet

meanwhile, back to the adult conversation...



My point here is that if the people in charge are employing religious arguments then opponents, you or me, are more effective assuming the language of religion. handwaving and dismissing it all as fairy tales, while emotionally satisfying, just ends the debate. Which is not what you want to do when they are in power, as was the case during the bush administration. its a small point to make but it flows well into your next argument....

however...

my understanding is that they don't even have this leg to stand on. these embryos are on their way to being destroyed. There's no real expectation of potential life here, even for those against using the embryos.

and that's the humanist perspective in a nutshell from my understanding of it. and one that I firmly support.

Atta boy. See how easy that was?

I'd love to hear your points on the monetary side of it all. Capitalism, now that's a slippery slope..

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by Strangelet

My point here is that if the people in charge are employing religious arguments then opponents, you or me, are more effective assuming the language of religion. handwaving and dismissing it all as fairy tales, while emotionally satisfying, just ends the debate.

Sure, and I largely accept that, certainly in the sense that if the intention is to convince someone of the merit of an argument, then constantly scoffing about the Sky Pixie is only going to make them dig their heels in deeper. I understand that, and wasn't intending to suggest that that's the approach I'd take if ever in the situation of trying to sway a religious person's point of view.

The difficulty as I see it though, is that if religion IS the bottom line for those opponents, if we've debunked their argument and pointed out various contradictions and absurdities, and they're left with no option but to resort to the ultimate dogma "because the Good Lord tells us so", then how on earth do we successfully argue against that? Can you give any examples of how, by assuming the language of religion, such people could be convinced, without us coming across as, well, insincere and false? Because that's the whole problem of religion isn't it? That every convincing argument to the contrary is viewed as a test of faith, rather than on its own merit - and embryonic stem cell research is a classic example of that. Religion actually represents THE obstacle to accepting any alternative position at odds with what they think they're allowed to think. I appreciate what we don't do: ridicule and sneer and denigrate. But I genuinely have no idea what we DO do other than continue to calmly make the case FOR this kind of research - in ethical and philosophical terms (perhaps that's what you meant) - while, in the background, the enormously gradual process of encouraging people to relinquish the shackles of religion and have the confidence to think for themselves continues slowly and surely with education and scientific progress.

I know I said I didn't want to derail this thread by going into religion, but I guess it's unavoidable.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Originally Posted by Deckard

I know I said I didn't want to derail this thread by going into religion, but I guess it's unavoidable.

You are correct sir.

Again, morality: The great, magic carpet ride behind the curtain.

[cacophony]

well here's something to consider:

i'm pro-choice. i support a woman's right to choose to carry or abort a pregnancy. however, i am against embryonic stem cell research. i'm also an atheist. chew on that for a second.

for me religion has nothing to do with it. god has nothing to do with it. and it doesn't necessarily rely on the argument that you're throwing away potential life because, as was stated earlier in the thread, stem cells from aborted fetuses would be discarded anyway.

i don't need a god figure to tell me to respect the creation of human life. i'm pro-choice but i'm better described as reluctantly pro-choice. i'm pro-choice because of the necessity to women's healtrh and human rights, not because i feel embryos are just silly little cellular clusters to be discarded without remorse. i see a fertilized egg is as special thing that would, if a billion and a half crucial developmental moments happen correctly, develop into a unique human being.

because of that, i have a hard time accepting the idea of using those discarded embryos for research. it smacks of a kind of cannibalism to me. now, i realize there's something contradictory in my view because i also support organ donation, which is essentially the same thing. however, with organ donation the donor had a choice in the matter before death. that's where i draw my moral line, i guess. it may help explain my view if i share the fact that i oppose the "bodies... the exhibition" show because the displayed cadavers were obtained from chinese prisons without the deceased's permission.

there's also the issue that abortions aren't the only source. people who participate in in vitro fertilization fertilize and store many eggs in the hopes that one will implant and gestate successfully. after their efforts are concluded, the extra fertilized eggs are discarded.

what's curious to me is that people use the in vitro example as though it's somehow a good thing, and therefore the argument for the discarded embryos' use in research is unrefutable. what makes no sense to me is how anyone can be pro-life but not against the in-vitro process of fertilizing and discarding eggs. it is essentially the same moral dilema. how many conservative right-wing pro-lifers participate in in vitro fertilization without a second thought? if you create 7 potential lives but only one gestates, you threw away 6 potential humans.

but i digress into abortion rights issues instead of stem cell research...

my point is, i'm gravely pro-choice, i don't support the practice of in vitro fertilization that results in an excess of fertilized eggs, and i don't support the notion of embryonic stem cell research. i am uncomfortable with the idea of my tax money going to support this research when private funding is available. i wouldn't expect to impose my view on the general public and try to block the research completely, but i would prefer not to be part of the funding and support.

and god plays no role in my opinion.


so what does that do for the arguments presented so far? what about those of us who aren't religious but morally object anyway?

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Originally Posted by cacophony

so what does that do for the arguments presented so far? what about those of us who aren't religious but morally object anyway?

Good Luck?

[Strangelet]

Originally Posted by cacophony

so what does that do for the arguments presented so far? what about those of us who aren't religious but morally object anyway?

well you got me. I really don't know how to argue against that. Basically you do see a line that can't be crossed. it kind of boils down to utilitarian ethics versus rules based ethics, I guess? there's things you just take as sacred. end of? What is interesting is that maybe my complete comfort level is an artifact to my mormon upbringing, mormon politicians were pretty supportive of the research bill against the tide of the evangelical criticism. if I had grown up pentacostal and broke away from that maybe I would feel completely differently, even without any belief in God.

[34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j]

Originally Posted by Deckard

But... I will just touch on something that I hear quite often - that it's because the future life – human or child - will be lost. The potential life.

People who hold this argument need to be reminded that the same future life could well have been lost had contraception been used, or (perhaps more appropriately for them) had abstinence been practised at that crucial moment in time. It seems to me one of those crazy philosophical arguments where it's almost impossible to find consistency. Unless the parents are having sex 24/7, then they're denying a future life - many future lives in fact. Even by having Child X, they're denying life to potential twins Y and Z. The argument that we shouldn't deny a future life it's child/adulthood seems to me to rest on incredibly shaky ground. Even if by some incredible feat, we turned into 24/7 baby-making machines, the resulting overpopulation would end up denying life - and quality of life - to many.

I went to Catholic high school and made this same point when they argued against contraception. I mean the Bible is full of things that were great ideas 2000 years ago but it doesn't adapt to modern times. If Jesus came back today and decreed jaywalking, wouldn't it be ridiculous if 2000 years from now, when we all fly through tubes and wish ourselves cross-country, if jaywalking was still 'immoral'? Sure it is a good idea today to not jaywalk but come on who knows what kind of interpretation that gets in 2000 years. I mean knowing Jesus if we told him that one dead fetus could equal 3 lives that were definitely dead anyway I think he would probably choose to save the 3 people? (well let's assume they're all cute little tykes)

The point is I think researchers want to not just say let's abort our way out of any health crisis but rather let's see what these cells are made of and why they work? Unforunately we get into that moral dilemma where in order to save an indeterminate amount of lives we have to sacrifice a few.

[BeautifulBurnout]

Hmm. This whole question is difficult for me, and I have to say that I understand Cacophony's views entirely. But, on reflection (and I have been mulling this over for an hour or two before coming back and responding) I don't think I agree with her.

Thinking about it logically, if the foetus is abandoned in any event, their whole "life" had no meaning at all. It served no purpose for them to be conceived. If, on the other hand, something good could come out of their death, then it has to be the right thing to do in my book.

I would also add that it would be likely that foetal stem-cell research would reduce the amount of research on, and the amount of suffering caused to, living animals, which is also a benefit.

People leave their bodies to science, for medical research after their death. I know the tiny little proto-lives have no say in whether they should be researched-upon or not, but frankly they have no say in whether their existance is created or terminated either. So I don't personally feel it is a huge moral leap to go a stage further and create some kind of value out of the loss of their lives.

[Strangelet]

Originally Posted by cacophony

my point is, i'm gravely pro-choice, i don't support the practice of in vitro fertilization that results in an excess of fertilized eggs, and i don't support the notion of embryonic stem cell research. i am uncomfortable with the idea of my tax money going to support this research when private funding is available. i wouldn't expect to impose my view on the general public and try to block the research completely, but i would prefer not to be part of the funding and support.

I guess i have to agree with you. there's enough gray area here (and I didn't mean to earlier intimate you were being irrational, only that there's got to be a cultural aspect to these values). So I guess its best out of public funding. I just don't want some jackass rich kid from texas saying god told him we couldn't do it. like he's moses or something.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Wrong again, it's just mo. Nothing more, nothing less. Just mo. That's all it will ever be.

Right?

I love my whoooopliiisshhh moments. I've now accomplished something today. What time is it? I'm gonna have a drink now. Man, I'm good.