I guess killing infidels is fine by their religion… while dabbling with life is a prerogative of god ?
Still discussing the logic aspect is wrong. How much did genetic engineering companies donate to Bush vs Oil companies ? Or better compared to Religious groups ?
Rashak, you continue to miss the point. Revtim, at least, appears to grasp the situation better, even though we still have our disagreements.
We are not talking about whether embryonic stem cell research is right or wrong. Nor are we talking about whether the Iraq war is justified or not. Those topics are grist for other threads altogether. The question at hand is whether these two viewpoints are “mutually exclusive,” as the title of this thread says. They are not. There is absolutely no contradiction between the two.
One might argue (erroneously, based on my aforementioned medical cites) that only embryonic or fetal stem cells are suitable for medical research. Or alternately, one might argue that they are simply more suitable (again, misguidedly). This is all irrelevant though, since that only addresses the issue of whether people are misguided in recommending alternate stem cell sources. When it comes to the question of whether there is a *moral contradiction at hand, that objection simply has no relevance.
The difference is that, according to these objectors, the embryos are already human. They won’t simply “turn into humans,” as you stated. Ergo, the objection that they would never have become human does not accurately reflect their position.
Now, I know that you’ll disagree with that, but again, that’s matter for another thread (and indeed, beagledave, stratocaster/Bob Cos and I have addressed it may times before). The point remains that there is no fundamental inconsistency in these Iraq/stem cell research views, even if you happen to disagree with those views.
Humans can be frozen for years and then be thawed out?
How is it misguided to argue they are more suited? I agree with you that adult stem cells can and should be studied, but surely since it’s (at least currently) an accepted fact that fetal stem cells have more use, it is certainly not misguided to see that they are more suited for study.
I say “misguidedly” because there are at least some studies (some of which I cited) which suggest that other stem cells can be equally efficacious. While many believe fetal or embryonic stem cells to be more effective, this is not firmly established by any means.
And as I said before, that’s ultimately irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Not all humans, but embryonic humans can, according to that view. You’re making what’s known as a category error of composition. That pro-life view holds that embryonic humans can be frozen and then thawed out, but this does not logically imply that all humans can survive such a process. For this reason, your objection is not valid.
Can we rephrase the question as “using aborted foetuses in research” or something? I think that’s the question the OP wants to explore, and I think there are plenty of people who do think that is wrong, and support the war in Iraq.
It took me a while to get these arguments, but I think I have.
The agument for mutual exclusivity
The only objection anyone has to the research is that it involves killing, or using killed, foetuses. No one has any other objection, right? If so, the objection must be that the killing is wrong, even for the greater good. But in Iraq, surely the only argument for it is that the deaths for the greater good are necessary. This appears to be a contradiction.
Another argument could be that the ratio of people killed/saved is greater. Does anyone make this claim? I have literally no idea of the figures.
Does this make sense to you? Are there any other objections to this argument than the one below?
The rebuttal*
(1) Delierately killing someone is worse than (2) doing something you know is likely to kill someone, but not certain. I’m not saying this is necessarily a justification, but many people believe it in some cirumstances.
To illustrate this, it’s analogy time with Dr. Science! <analogy>Suppose someone has taken a number of hostages. (2) You have a gun, and are a good shot, but he’s holding a hostage in front of him. The other hostages will die if you do nothing. You shoot him, with the possibility of hitting the hostage he’s holding. * I think most people would see this as regrettable but necessary. If you disagree, I can try to find another analogy, or you can just reject this argument*. (1) Now, let’s suppose you’re on a roof above him. Someone walks past, and you throw him off, squashing the hostage-holder. (Assume there was no other object to hand, and you couldn’t sacrifice yourself.) Most people would think this was wrong. If you disagree, blah, blah, ditto.</analogy> Is the analogy clear? Do you see why some people might hold both positions?
*Heh.
I think it IS the currently established position in most of the scientific community that that embryonic stem cells are indeed more useful, and although perhaps some studies say adult stem cells “may” be as useful, it is THAT idea that is not established/proven yet. Hopefully, it will be proven true someday. But until then, we have to work under the possibility that there may treatments that can only be derived from embryonic.
Looking at the titles of your cites from the other thread, with one possible exception each one refers to only a specific application or area of application that adult stem cells may be useful for treating. Even if all these studies turn out to be 100 percent true, it only disproves the idea that adult stem cells are completely useless (which nobody is arguing), not they aren’t AS useful as embryonic. “Having some uses” does not equal “as many uses”.
I cannot find the one cite of yours that I suppose may imply as much use as embryonic, “Maggie Fox, “Limitless Source of Repair Cells Come from Fat,” Reuters, February 27, 2001.” If you have access to it, please quote relevent portions of it to support your claim that stem cells from adults “can be equally efficacious” as embryonic. Not having a use, but as useful.
Until is proven that non-embryonic stem cells are as useful as embryonic, and there need not be research on anything but adult stem cells, then it’s perfectly relevant to discuss embryonic cells in the topic at hand.
Look, you yourself said that other stem cells may be as useful as embryonic or fetal stem cells. This alone suggests that we should not be quick to insist that “We MUST harvest them from the unborn!!!”
Also, to further emphasize the versatility of adult stem cells, I refer you to “Adult Stem Cells May be Redifineable,” by Deborah Josefson, British Medical Journal, January 30, 1999 (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/318/7179/282/b). Researchers found that adult stem cells were as effective in reconstituting the immune system as their fetal counterparts; furthermore, the problem of immune rejection can be circumvented, since the individual’s own cells can be used.
Other journal articles (too many to list here, but enumerated at http://www.str.org/free/bioethics/harvest.pdf), likewise illustrate the previously unknown versatility of adult stem cells. Now, these do not yet prove that adult stem cells are as useful as fetal or embryonic cells, but as I said, this is a matter that merits further investigation.
What’s more, even if it could be proven that stem cells from the unborn are superior and more useful, that still would not be sufficient to justify their use. Suppose that one could feasibly eliminate poverty by hoarding all the poor folks into a gas chamber. Would that be ethical? No. The mere existence of a tactical advantage is not sufficient grounds for espousing a particular strategy.
(Before anyone objects, I’m not saying that this would be an effective way of dealing with the poor. Rather, I’m presenting it as an illustration. The purpose is to show that compelling advantages – medical, financial or otherwise – are not sufficient grounds for justifying a particular action, especially when grave moral issues are at play.)
JThunder, I am not arguing whether or not it’s worth it; I was countering your argument that there is no contradiction in the viewpoints in the OP because “stems cells do not have to be harvested from unborn fetuses or blastocysts!!!” Unless you prove adult stem cells are as useful as embryonic, then there is indeed use for harvesting embryos, and the contradiction stated in the OP is not moot as you tried to show it to be.
Whether or not there are uses for adult stem cells is unrelated to removing the contradiction posed in the OP, unless it’s proven they could replace the need for embryonic. I agree that if there was to way to get stem cells that involved no sacrifice by anybody’s definition, that are as useful as embryonic, then there is no necessary contradiction. But we’re not there yet, and may never be there.