Around 40% of the American Population are ideologically opposed to stem cell research. Of these people, some supported the war in Iraq on the grounds that The Coalition were liberating the Iraqi people. George W. Bush is one such person.
The ‘liberation’ argument in support of the war in Iraq is a Utilitarian one. Adherents shrug off the tens of thousands of dead, innocent Iraqi’s as being an ‘acceptable loss’, in pursuit of a greater good for the rest of the Iraqi population.
Why doesn’t Bush apply the same utilitarian reasoning to stem cell research? If the cure for Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, Lou Gehrig’s Disease and paralysis lies in the stem cells of newly fertilised embryo’s then surely the Republican Party should be supportive of stem cell research. By the same logic Bush used to justify the liberation of Iraq on humanitarian grounds, he should be supportive of stem cell research because it is the path to the greatest good for the greatest number.
I’m sure Bush isn’t the only opponent of stem cell research who supported the Iraq war on the grounds of ‘liberation’. If there are any such people on the boards, how do you account for the apparent contradiction?
Don’t forget to read the interesting thread on whether or not it is worth it for the innocent to die if we get more bad guys (re: the justice system). It is a veritable cornucopia of strange bedfellows.
Nonsense. First of all, stems cells do not have to be harvested from unborn fetuses or blastocysts!!!. Hence, it is simply false to say that killing the unborn is necessary in order to promote medical research. This alone proves that there is no contradiction between the two viewpoints.
And second, fetal stem cell research requires the direct and deliberate killing of the unborn, whereas in invading Iraq, the civilian deaths are a secondary effect which the military should attempt to minimize. (I say “should” because there is always the potential for abuse in such circumstances.) Now, one might debate the strategic value of military invasion or stem cell research, but the point remains that these distinctions mean that there is no inherent contradiction between these two positions.
I don’t see the moral difference. If I fire a gun into a house and my bullet kills someone, it doesn’t matter whether I had anyone specific in mind to kill. I still knew that my actions would and could cause deaths.
Also, the primary purpose of embryonic stem cell research is research. The deaths of embryos is merely a secondary effect.
Last I read, it was not proven that adult stem cells were proven as useful as fetal stem cells. It may indeed only be possible to cure diseases only by harvesting and destroying blastocysts. Actually, it is my understanding it hasn’t even been proven to be possible with those stem cells. If there’s been a breakthrough with adult stem cells I’m unaware of, I’d welcome that wonderful correction.
When you know for a fact the military operations are going to kill civilians, no matter how much you try to minimize them, then one is sacrificing those civilians for what one feels is the greater good. In the context of the question posed in the OP, I don’t see any significant difference between the necessary sacrifice of the civilians and if they were purposely killed. If there was some probability they wouldn’t be killed at all, then there’d be difference IMO. But if it’s inevitable, and you KNOW it is inevitble, it’s seem as much a sacrifice to me as if you had to cut them up for stem cells.
Not so, as discussed in this thread. Moreover, even if adult stem cells are not “as useful as fetal stem cells,” this still would not necessarily justify harvesting the latter. Heck, doing elaborate medical experiments on human beings would be more scientifically useful than experimenting on chimps or lab rats, but this does not automatically justify the former.
The greater good being to ultimately save as many of those lives as possible. Your argument is thus a false dilemma. Now, one might question the soundness of this strategy, but that is irrelevant to the question of whether there is any philosophical contradiction between the two stances. There is none.
Considering that the vast majority of frozen embryos out there are leftovers from fertility treatments, and eventually they will go down the drain anyway, what does it hurt to actually use these embryos for something that might actually benefit people?
I only see support in that thread, from robertliguori’s post, that the adult stem cells are not proven to be as useful. Can you reference the post/cite that says otherwise? Perhaps I am missing it.
Saving as many lives as possible, via treating disease, is also the goals of stem cell research. I still see the contradiction raised in the OP as valid.
I cited numerous articles, from respected medical journals, which showed that non-embryonic, non-fetal stem cells can indeed be used for vital medical research. Look them up.
No, because one can believe that this strategy is prudent in one case, but not the other. One might believe that the payoff is worthwhile in one situation, but not in all situations. There is no inherent contradiction.
And, as I said, in a military action one seeks to avoid such loss of innocent life. Even if it does occur, this happens accidentally and undesirably, as opposed to fetal/embryonic stem cell research wherein it occurs deliberately.
And finally, even if you don’t recognize that distinction (as some of you clearly do not), the point remains that stem cells for medical research do not have to come from unborn embryos, fetuses or blastocysts. As I’ve said, I’ve posted numerous medical cites which demonstrate this. This distinction alone demonstrates that there is no inherent contradiction between opposing fetal or embryonic stem cell research, and supporting a military action which is designed to avoid civilian casualities as much as possible.
Well, even if your claim is true (and I’m not prepared to accept it at face value), there is the concern that fetal stem cell research would foster the creation of embryos specifically for that purpose. Again, you might disagree with that view, but that grist for another thread. The point is that this concern — justified or not — is further evidence that proponents of that view are not hypocrites for supporting the war in Iraq.
Out of curiousity, what do you think of the morality of embryonic stem cell research done with monkey embryos? If research on those are ok, can you point out to me the objective difference between monkey and human embryos that justify treating them with different levels of respect?
OK, I’m as liberal and leftist as they come, and all that… but I really don’t see the correlation in this thread. I don’t think the argument for Iraq is utilitarian, and I certainly don’t think it can be compared to stem cell research. As mentioned, one is deliberate. Making cases like this only takes away from the real cases.
No one is saying they are useless, just it looks like they are not AS useful. Hence there are two types or stem cell research; and the OP is speaking of the research that involves embryos. This is still a valid area of study, even if there also valid non-embryonic cell lines that have worth. It’s just that embryonic research has the most possibility, and hence the most worth.
Yes, that’s the point of the OP. Many believe the payoff in the military scenario is worth it, but not in the stem cell scenario. This seems to be a rewording of the contradiction, not a refutation of it.
And as I said, if it’s guaranteed that civilians are to die in the conflict, as in the Iraq invasion, then the fact that it’s accidental is meaningless to the moral question. The issue is that they are AVOIDABLE by not partaking in the military mission under question. It is known for a fact that some will die, and it has to be judged whether it’s worth it. They are being knowingly sacrificed to the greater good. And if you can avoid embryonic stem cell research because you feel the innocent life of the embryos isn’t worth the advantage, you can avoid wars when you know civilians will die, even with the best intentions not to kill them.
It sounds like it is you who do not understand that even if there are uses for non-embryonic stem cells, that they may not me as useful as embryonic, and hence embryonic stem cells are still an important and useful area of study. Since it’s possible, if not likely, that the most useful results have to come from embryonic stem cells, the question regarding this type of research is a valid one raised by the OP.
Here’s a cite for you: http://www.stemcellresearchfoundation.org/About/FAQ.htm#4
“The general consensus is that adult stem cells seem to be less versatile. Scientists think that embryonic stem cells have a much greater utility and potential than the adult stem cells, because embryonic stem cells may develop into virtually every type of cell in the human body. Adult stem cells, on the other hand, may only be able to develop into a limited number of cell types”
Unless you have cite that it has since been proven that non-embryonic actually are as useful as embryonic, your arguments that embryonic stem cell research is unecessary are invalid. And again, simply showing they adult stem cells have use is not showing that embryonic stem cell research can be abandoned. You must show they have as much use.
It is unfortunate that many - maybe most, but I don’t know for sure so I won’t say - Republicans feel that way. Some of us do not. Just a lil’ reminder…
You know, I see now I likely missed your point in my last about this bit. Please ignore my response in my last post about this.
If I understand it properly now, you are saying something like that it’s not a contradiction because the stem cell research may not have as high a save/sacrifice ration as say, the Iraq invasion, so it’s perfectly valid and uncontradictory to oppose the stem cell research but support the Iraq invasion. If you think embryos are human, and you have to kill 100 embryos to save 100 people, but you think the Iraqi invasion will kill 10,000 but save a million, then it’s perfectly valid to be for the war but against the research.
I have no argument against this, I agree completely it’s not a contradiction. Making a judgement of cost vs advantage seems a perfectly logical way to approach these decisions.
However, my impression is that many of those who are against stem cell research are not doing a cost/advantage analysis. I always thought they were simply of the mind that an embryo is human, and has the right to life even if it could be sacrificed to save a thousand or a million lives.
It’s these people, if they are for the Iraq war (and know enough to realize there would be inevitable civilian deaths) that have, IMO, a contradictory viewpoint.
Even then, what’s the difference? You’re using embryos that wouldn’t have existed if it weren’t for stem cell research. Those are not embryos that would have turned into humans if stem cell research weren’t allowed.