stem cell research

[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.

[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.

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by cacophony

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.

I see what you're saying, however this is where I think my position splits away from yours. Instinctively, purely in terms of feelings, I share that same difference in how I feel about a fertilized egg as compared to an unfertilized one, between one that's closer to a human life and one that's less close - when the sperm and egg still have some distance between them. But the question is, why should that distance matter? Why even should the difference in complexity matter? There's still probability involved in the creation of the separate cells themselves, even before conception. Even that is remarkable. Why should the moment of conception itself be the defining moment that separates moral from immoral on an issue like embryonic stem cell research, if not for the sense of destroying a potential life by destroying the process that may lead to it?

From what I understand of what you're saying, the factor of 'potential life' does seem to be what this boils down to when you refer to the fertilized egg developing into a unique human being. I can identify with the feeling that, once we're past the stage of conception, we're interfering with a process that has already beaten many odds and is on the way to developing into something we can emotionally relate to - and ultimately ends up with an emotional state of its own. Something that most of us would agree IS sacred - a human being. But of course it's still not an actual human being yet, and in reality the only thing we're respecting is the sheer leaps of probability that have taken place to get as far as fertilization, the wonderfulness(?) of the fact of creation, and the potential of human life at the end of it. Appreciating those things is fine, but what does it mean to apply a moral distinction to them?

Another question might be: should the human life that will result from a currently separate individual egg and sperm cell be deemed less important than the human life that will result from a fertilized egg a second or a week or a month later when they join up? Sure, the fertilized egg is more advanced and closer to the stage of human life, and has undergone that whole chance encounter of egg meeting sperm - but is that a reason to assign it greater protection/sanctity, and use it as a measurement for judging whether an issue like human embryonic stem cell research is morally acceptable?

Here's what I think. As I see it, the line we're inclined to draw is essentially an arbitrary one based on how we instinctively feel ie. that interfering with one stage of complexity/development feels acceptable, while the other just feels wrong, or as you say, feels like cannibalism. And while that feeling might be perfectly natural and understandable given the unique status we afford the moment of conception, when you think about it, drawing a line at one particular moment of complexity, past one particular set of low-probability events, of the sperm and egg having no distance between them rather than having distance – well it seems somewhat irrational to use any of this as a moral yardstick without knowing fully why these things matter – and why going further back in the development process, they don't.

Originally Posted by cacophony

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,

The difference I'd draw is that most organ donors are human beings with awareness of themselves, their needs and wishes. An embryo, to my mind, is not - it's not that it's unable to communicate its wishes; it has no wishes – about anything. The only way I see the relevance of the 'embryo not having a choice' is if we view it through the prism of being the potential human life not having a hindsight choice – and as I wrote earlier, I don't see the 'potential human life' angle as one that can be consistently kept to. For me at this point in time, it really does only come down to the issue of the amount of suffering experienced, by whoever (and yes, I can see myself sliding back into the topic of abortion here!)

Originally Posted by cacophony

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.

I agree, it is an odd position.

Originally Posted by cacophony

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.

That's absolutely fair enough, and if enough people feel likewise, I'd say that's a good argument for blocking it, and for supporters like me to just accept that.

Honestly, I'm probably sounding more dispassionate and detached than I actually am when it comes to the wonder of life. Believe me I absolutely share that wonder (and not just human either – you should have seen me when my cat got pregnant!) though I can appreciate that you feel it far more deeply when you experience procreation first hand, so that will give you an insight that I will never have. All the views above are obviously what I feel in the absence of that insight - rightly or wrongly.

[bryantm3]

Originally Posted by Deckard

I see what you're saying, however this is where I think my position splits away from yours. Instinctively, purely in terms of feelings, I share that same difference in how I feel about a fertilized egg as compared to an unfertilized one, between one that's closer to a human life and one that's less close - when the sperm and egg still have some distance between them. But the question is, why should that distance matter? Why even should the difference in complexity matter? There's still probability involved in the creation of the separate cells themselves, even before conception. Even that is remarkable. Why should the moment of conception itself be the defining moment that separates moral from immoral on an issue like embryonic stem cell research, if not for the sense of destroying a potential life by destroying the process that may lead to it?

From what I understand of what you're saying, the factor of 'potential life' does seem to be what this boils down to when you refer to the fertilized egg developing into a unique human being. I can identify with the feeling that, once we're past the stage of conception, we're interfering with a process that has already beaten many odds and is on the way to developing into something we can emotionally relate to - and ultimately ends up with an emotional state of its own. Something that most of us would agree IS sacred - a human being. But of course it's still not an actual human being yet, and in reality the only thing we're respecting is the sheer leaps of probability that have taken place to get as far as fertilization, the wonderfulness(?) of the fact of creation, and the potential of human life at the end of it. Appreciating those things is fine, but what does it mean to apply a moral distinction to them?

Another question might be: should the human life that will result from a currently separate individual egg and sperm cell be deemed less important than the human life that will result from a fertilized egg a second or a week or a month later when they join up? Sure, the fertilized egg is more advanced and closer to the stage of human life, and has undergone that whole chance encounter of egg meeting sperm - but is that a reason to assign it greater protection/sanctity, and use it as a measurement for judging whether an issue like human embryonic stem cell research is morally acceptable?

Here's what I think. As I see it, the line we're inclined to draw is essentially an arbitrary one based on how we instinctively feel ie. that interfering with one stage of complexity/development feels acceptable, while the other just feels wrong, or as you say, feels like cannibalism. And while that feeling might be perfectly natural and understandable given the unique status we afford the moment of conception, when you think about it, drawing a line at one particular moment of complexity, past one particular set of low-probability events, of the sperm and egg having no distance between them rather than having distance – well it seems somewhat irrational to use any of this as a moral yardstick without knowing fully why these things matter – and why going further back in the development process, they don't.

if you leave your jizz on the bathroom floor it doesn't turn into a baby. even if you stick it in an incubator for 9 months it won't do anything except make a sticky mess. ditto with unfertilized eggs.

fertilized eggs develop on their own.

[Strangelet]

Originally Posted by Deckard

From what I understand of what you're saying, the factor of 'potential life' does seem to be what this boils down to when you refer to the fertilized egg developing into a unique human being.

This is what I find interesting about cacophony's position as I understand it. I don't think she needs to agree that it boils down to potential life. I've always thought that it is the materialist/reductionists (those who don't believe in a soul for example) who have the most justification to criticize abortion and I guess stem cell research as well.

If you believe in a soul as what separates life from matter, then its your obligation to pinpoint the time and place where the soul enters into the mix. Which obviously can't be done empirically, and that means you just shake your bible, praise god, and play pin the soul on the uterus.

But if you believe that humanity is simply genetic code, brought through several stages of life where the embryonic stage is really no different than puberty as they are all transformations on the same set of DNA, you must say that something "human", therefore sacred, begins when the unique genetic code, unique and never to naturally reoccur, is created - the zygotic stage.

I mean its actually an argument that can be made, where as arguments based on the soul or even some mystical essence of humanity are generally arbitrary and outside observation.

Here's what I think. As I see it, the line we're inclined to draw is essentially an arbitrary one based on how we instinctively feel ie. that interfering with one stage of complexity/development feels acceptable, while the other just feels wrong, or as you say, feels like cannibalism.

this is where you and I agree. there is something cultural, personal going on here. Even more so, I think you and I want to just maximize the happiness (utilitarianism) because these embryos are on their way out to the land fill anyway, other people's suffering could be alleviated, and its not like using them will promote creating more abortions/embryos to satiate the scientists' needs. But at the same time there is an irrefutable line to be drawn (categorical ethics) when it comes to human life found anywhere from the constitution to the 10 commandments.

We're not going to solve which system of ethics is better equipped to guide our lives.

So at this point I think cacophony's right. Lets keep it out of public funding. Even I have to admit that Bush's ban on embryonic stem cell research has probably done noting more than encourage scientific breakthroughs in the field in the attempt at getting around the sticky issue of embryos. which means a lot of this whole conversation is moot, and the democratic push to overturn this ban could very will just be some kind of smug needling.