stem cell research

[cacophony]

hey look, a non-election thread!

bryantm3 brought up embryonic stem cell research in the john mccain thread and it got me thinking.

bush took a hard stance against federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. obama believes in relaxing these restrictions and allowing some federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. so it's not unlikely that we're going to see the debate over the morality of this kind of research bubble up in the next 4 years.

so what do you, joe sixpack, think about the issue? should embryonic stem cell research be pursued? do we have enough alternative stem cell sources to make embryonic sources obsolete? do embryonic stem cells provide greater promise that we cannot simply ignore? and finally, should public funding be provided for this research?

let's have a good old fashioned discussion.

[34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j]

I admit I don't know much about it but honestly I think stem-cell research is great and would lead to the biggest medical advances in the decade. And I don't think you will need abortions to do it, I remember them talking about getting stem-cells from parts of your own body, etc. etc. Maybe someday we can even grow them ourselves. And even if it does require an abortion, you would think the mother-to-not-be would be happy to know that she's saving a life or two in the process. It needs more research. It would be stupid to ignore this if it has even half the potential it's often claimed to...

[Strangelet]

Originally Posted by cacophony

let's have a good old fashioned discussion.

lets start with the arguments employed by the bushistas. this from the bush press conference back in the day

If this legislation became law, it would compel American taxpayers for the first time in our history to support the deliberate destruction of human embryos. I made it clear to Congress and to the American people that I will not allow our nation to cross this moral line.

In other words, his objective is to basically construct a hadrian's wall, a marginot line between our culture and the barbarians of sin. By drawing such a line, he's assuming that there exists a tipping point between medicine as a tool of humanism, and medicine as the harbinger of nihilism and a culture of reckless violence.

This argument appeals to a moral law of nature that its easier to commit greivous sin if previous sins of an equal or smaller magnitude have been committed in the past. IE the whole frog in the boiled water thingie.

What I find the most staggering is that this argument worked in redirecting the entire country's scientific endeavor at the expense of human suffering simply because it lead into the no man's land of "WHAT GOD THE LORD ON HIGH WANTS FROM HIS CHILDREN AS MANIFEST TO GEORGE W BUSH." That little underlying premise, that God hates embryo destruction for medical purposes, seemed to be just taken for granted.

I suppose its the nature of the beast when atheists are asked to refute religious arguments in public policy. The point is you have to go there, and do so in religious, ethical language. Especially when there's so many examples in history where these moon bats have drawn lines in much more odious places.

"If God had decreed from all eternity that a certain person should die of smallpox, it would be a frightful sin to avoid and annul that decree by the trick of vaccination." - Timothy Dwight, president of Yale

and

Edward Massey, in "The Dangerous and Sinful Practice of Inoculation." describes how clergymen and devout physicians formed an Anti-vaccination Society, declaring that "the law of God prohibits the practice." Some even proposed that those who gave inoculations should be tried for attempted murder.

so basically when it comes to the suffering of human beings, I think its important to follow the line of reasoning and ask, even in polite circles, who the fuck are you anyway to know what God wants?

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Originally Posted by Strangelet

lets start with the arguments employed by the bushistas. this from the bush press conference back in the day
In other words, his objective is to basically construct a hadrian's wall, a marginot line between our culture and the barbarians of sin. By drawing such a line, he's assuming that there exists a tipping point between medicine as a tool of humanism, and medicine as the harbinger of nihilism and a culture of reckless violence.

This argument appeals to a moral law of nature that its easier to commit greivous sin if previous sins of an equal or smaller magnitude have been committed in the past. IE the whole frog in the boiled water thingie.

What I find the most staggering is that this argument worked in redirecting the entire country's scientific endeavor at the expense of human suffering simply because it lead into the no man's land of "WHAT GOD THE LORD ON HIGH WANTS FROM HIS CHILDREN AS MANIFEST TO GEORGE W BUSH." That little underlying premise, that God hates embryo destruction for medical purposes, seemed to be just taken for granted.

I suppose its the nature of the beast when atheists are asked to refute religious arguments in public policy. The point is you have to go there, and do so in religious, ethical language. Especially when there's so many examples in history where these moon bats have drawn lines in much more odious places.

and

so basically when it comes to the suffering of human beings, I think its important to follow the line of reasoning and ask, even in polite circles, who the fuck are you anyway to know what God wants?

I've always loved a good spa treatment. Too.

[Strangelet]

Originally Posted by jOHN rODRIGUEZ

I've always loved a good spa treatment. Too.

i think we need to use you for medical research

[Deckard]

Yay, no election!

Well, in a nutshell, I'm in favour.

My problem with the argument that embryonic stem cell research devalues human life is that the very phrase 'human life' needs more qualification, but opponents rarely give it.

So what is this devaluing specifically?

I'm not going to attempt to argue against those who claim we're "playing God" - for obvious reasons. I don't wish to turn this into a religious thread by asking which God or gods, how we know that he/she/it/they exist, and how we know what he/she/it/they really want and whether we can really believe that his/her/its/their words in the relevant Holy book are the genuine ones, and not put there by primitive man/the Devil.

And fear of "playing Mother Nature" is little more than fear of going somewhere we've not gone before. A cursory glance through the history of scientific development and the various fears and oppositions that have accompanied pivotal moments should remind us of how selective we are about this reason.

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 know it seems like an over-the-top point to be making, but to me it points to the bankruptcy of this argument, and it's more than a little telling that the only way these people end up truly squaring this dilemma is by invoking the Lord, a higher power, an unquestionable dogma. So every sperm becomes sacred, and the Holy institution of marriage is the only environment in which we can procreate - but we don't think too closely beyond those simple easy-to-grasp rules. ANyway this is moving more on to issues surrounding abortion I guess. My point is that the very idea of opposing embryonic stem cell research based on the notion of it killing a potential life just seems groundless, because a potential life is a potential life, wherever in time it's born - a year away, 10 years or 14 billion years.

When it comes to issues involving the sanctity of human life, suffering is really the only barometer I use, whether it's the supposed/actual suffering of the newborn/foetus/cells, or the suffering of the parents - emotionally or physically. I can honestly say that, morally speaking, no other objections concern me.

should embryonic stem cell research be pursued?

As long as there are benefits, yes.

do we have enough alternative stem cell sources to make embryonic sources obsolete?
do embryonic stem cells provide greater promise that we cannot simply ignore?

Don't know enough about the science to know one way or the other. If embryonic stem cells do provide greater promise, then I would have no problem supporting that, and no moral objection.

should public funding be provided for this research?

I think so, just as public funding is provided for research involving testing on animals, something else that receives vocal opposition from members of that same funding public. I guess if the majority of the public were vehemently opposed to it, then that opposition - and any distress people feel - needs to be taken into account in the moral argument. But I don't believe opposition is anything like that strong. So yes public funding should be used, just as it's used for countless other areas of scientific research.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

One area that's never discussed within this arguement is the omnipotent monetary.

Who gains? Who losses?

Morality plays the magic curtain on many fronts.




And I don't mind being the thorn in many one's side. I like to think I'm good at it.

[Strangelet]

Originally Posted by jOHN rODRIGUEZ

And I don't mind being the thorn in many one's side. I like to think I'm good at it.

you're good at removing any doubt you're an insufferable ass. back to the ignore list for you, sport. enjoy those drugs. inhale hard, mate.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Originally Posted by Strangelet

you're good at removing any doubt you're an insufferable ass. back to the ignore list for you, sport. enjoy those drugs. inhale hard, mate.

If it makes you feel better, sprout. Also, cannot go without commenting on this one, please, let me know when the right crowd(no political jab there, I think, maybe) say it's right.

Wishing you a reflective Veteran's Day as well. OK, now ignore me, and get back the the discussion on hand.

[Strangelet]

meanwhile, back to the adult conversation...

Originally Posted by Deckard

I'm not going to attempt to argue against those who claim we're "playing God" - for obvious reasons. I don't wish to turn this into a religious thread by asking which God or gods, how we know that he/she/it/they exist, and how we know what he/she/it/they really want and whether we can really believe that his/her/its/their words in the relevant Holy book are the genuine ones, and not put there by primitive man/the Devil.

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....

it's more than a little telling that the only way these people end up truly squaring this dilemma is by invoking the Lord, a higher power, an unquestionable dogma. So every sperm becomes sacred, and the Holy institution of marriage is the only environment in which we can procreate - but we don't think too closely beyond those simple easy-to-grasp rules.

however...

killing a potential life just seems groundless, because a potential life is a potential life, wherever in time it's born - a year away, 10 years or 14 billion years.

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.

When it comes to issues involving the sanctity of human life, suffering is really the only barometer I use, whether it's the supposed/actual suffering of the newborn/foetus/cells, or the suffering of the parents - emotionally or physically. I can honestly say that, morally speaking, no other objections concern me.

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