You have the right to “mess about” with nature whether or not it’s going to be destroyed. Without my mother taking certain drugs during pregnancy, my younger brother would have been born mentally disabled; should nature have been allowed to take it’s course ?
:dubious: And why would that happen ?
Possibly he’s referring to the thalidomide babies, who were born with significant deformities often including no arms or legs.
Interestingly, it doesn’t support ChainGangis2Sweet’s argument, since proper testing wasn’t performed on the drug before it was issued. It’s really an example showing why medical products require rigourous testing before issue, rather than all medical breakthroughs being horrible.
Even if they are to be destroyed anyway? Say there is an expiration date on each embryo (there is kind of, even if we don’t know it.) Would plucking the embryo from the freezer and using it for research five minutes before the expiration date really be worse than keeping it in the freezer to basically rot?
I’m assuming that no additional embryos are produced because some might be used for research. The state of the embryo is the same in either case. The embryo obviously feels nothing. The state of the world is improved if the embryos are used for research.
That was 45 years ago - hardly modern science. On the other hand “modern science and experiments” have saved the lives of countless babies.
Sweet Jesus, what about modern human civilization - and the medical industry in particular - can be considered “natural?” The internet is sure as hell not “natural,” so what the hell are you doing here?
I think that really should be up to the parents of the embryo from which the cells have been taken. As it stands now, parents have the legal right (and, I would argue, the moral responsibility) to allow organs from their dead children to be donated to help other kids survive. Do you think parents have no right to make this decision? If they do, then should they not have an equal right to make that decision on behalf of embryos they’ve created through fertility treatments? How is the situation different?
Wow, that’s pretty random. How is this argument specific to stem cells research in a way that’s not equally applicable to all forms of medical science? Heck, how is it applicable to stem cell research at all? What, exactly, am I supposed to “think twice” about here, anyway? Modern science as a whole? Sorry, but despite the Thalidomide scandal of the '60s, I’m still very much in favor of modern science and experiments. I don’t see that changing any time soon.
Well, children not having rights to make their own decisions is a problem still not resolved in modern culture. In fact, maybe stem cells are just a bad idea period, and nobody should be messing with them, certainly not modern science of all things!
Actually computers are based on Binary Math which is based on the I ching so in theory there is nothing wrong with it. The technology itself can’t have come from somewhere good though.
There’s no excuse to interfere with nature and the natural way of things. Modern scinece, in application, can never be natural or ever produce something that can technically be called good or harmonious with nature
How is it a problem?
What do you mean by “messing with them?” How are people “messing with them” outside the context of modern science?
How is the I Ching “natural”? Where does it appear in nature, with absolutely no intervention by man?
So you’re saying we should all be living in caves, then? Eating raw meat that we have captured with our bare hands and grunting at eachother like apes?
Thanks, but no thanks.
I disagree entirely. Science, modern or otherwise, gives meaning to life. It enables us to understand the world around us, to live in comfort, and to be free of the terror of night and fear of the thunder. Without science, human exsistence would be unbearable. It would barely be human at all.
Of course, I’ve long held that the word “natural” itself, as commonly used, is meaningless. Ultimatly, everything comes from nature. Humans are entirely natural beings, and by definition, nothing we do can be unnatural. A parking garage is every bit as natural as a forest meadow. Every thing that exists in the universe is a part of nature, and can never be otherwise. The word “natural,” therefore, only makes any sense when contrasted with things that are do not exsist. The antonym of “natural” is not “unnatural.” It is “supernatural.”
:dubious: Stem cells are utterly necessary to human life. Should we rip every fetus out of a woman’s body, scream “Stem cells ! NOOOOO !”, and beat it to pulp with a club ?
Errrr, no.
Just about everything worthwhile is unnatural, in whole or in part. There is nothing sacred or perfect about nature.
Michael Crichton? Is that you?
Well then. I had an appendectomy when I was 13. You’re saying the doctors should have let me die? Have you ever taken an antibiotic? Surgery and antibiotics are derived from science. Ever ridden a car? Rode a bike? Taken a bus? SCIENCE! Do you eat food? I guarantee all of your food has been modified by some scientific means, be it irradiation, genetic engineering, or pesticide treatment. “But wait!” I can already hear you screaming, “I’m a organic vegan!” Well your large, succulent vegetables were generated by artificial selection. Unless you still eat this instead of this.
I’ll never understand why people bite the hand that feeds them, and feeds them so well.
It’s possible to have IVF without risking the creation of surplus embryos. In fact, in the state I live in, it is illegal to create embryos with the intent of destroying them. If you do not agree to freeze any extras they are legally obligated to try to fertilise no more eggs than the number of embryos you intend to implant. While there is no way they can force you to use embryos you’ve frozen, the act of freezing them fulfills the legal requirement that they not be made simply to be destroyed. My point is that it doesn’t have to be a forseeably possible outcome, there are options that prevent this circumstance occurring - it’s just they are undesirable to many because they come with a reduced success rate.
Sarahfeena stated earlier “If I had had IVF, I would create embryos knowing FULL WELL that perfectly healthy ones would be not be used, and may very well be destroyed.” As others have indicated, this is absolutely false. We are hoping to be fortunate enough to produce enough embryos for the procedure, the idea of producing too many is one that we hardly dare contemplate. Two embryos will give us a first attempt and hopefully a child or perhaps twins. Four embryos will give us a second attempt or perhaps sibling/s if the first attempt works. Six means we can have up to three cycles without needing to go through the egg harvesting procedure again - maybe more if we only use one at a time in future. How many embryos will there be? I have no idea. There are too many factors to even make a guess. My inner pessimist is convinced that it will all fail and we will have none, which is as far from “knowing FULL WELL that perfectly healthy ones would not be used” as you can get.
And Sarahfeena, the reason I’m confused by the statement I questioned earlier is because you specifically mentioned bad implantation being immoral if it happens during IVF. For clarity, here is the series of posts that I disagree with:
The success rate of IVF varies between individuals and clinics but these days many clinics are reporting success rates higher than natural conception. At our clinic, they report the average success rate for people our age as 40%, and that is achieved despite restricting the maximum number of embryos they’ll transfer at a time to two. Two healthy fertile people in their twenties having unprotected sex are widely cited has having a 20-25% chance of success during any given cycle. I don’t know what the natural implantation rate is, but with 1 in 4 pregnancies ending in miscarriage in the first six weeks, IVF still has a comparibly high success rate.
If I’ve misread your argument then I’m sorry, but it appeared to me that you were saying is that it’s immoral to risk a bad implantation during IVF but moral to risk it if you’re concieving naturally, and if that is the case then I stand by my opinion that this is hypocrisy.
This is not a stem cell debate. It is an abortion debate. These microscopic entities are not a human being any more than your skin cells are. Is scratching your arm murder. It is theoretically possible ,deep in the future, to clone a human off a group of cells. If enough dna info exists you can defend it as potential life. But it is not a human being.
No.
The Federal government is and is required to be a secular body.
Bolding added.
What secular purpose is there behind stopping/impeding stem cell research?
By any argument of the intentions of the first amendment, you have to agree that it requires that the govenment not favor any one particular religion. How is the government to do this if the individuals comprising it do not?
Can you argue with Thomas Jefferson’s point, here?
Once you start allowing the people in our government to start subscribing to the teachings of their religion instead of rationality and due-process, where do you end?
The Federalist talked a bit as well about “factions”, including religion, and whether a majority faction acting on its beliefs to force over their ideas is something to be encouraged or allowed to pass:
Which continues on here: The Federalist #10
Other stuff:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm
Come on; I think this veto is right up there with Bush’s stupidest acts, but really: the reasoning “the fetus is a human, therefore we should not destroy it” makes no reference to any religion whatsoever, let alone any specific one. You may disagree with it (I do), but it is clearly not intrinsically religious. There are quite a few atheists who are opposed to the destruction of embryos; would they be allowed to exercise this veto? For that matter, I’d imagine you’re on shaky ground contending that the establishment clause applies to the exercise of the Presidential veto at all, referring as it does to passing laws.
Well, you end here, since people in government were allowed to use their personal beliefs for guidance since day one, despite what you contend. What do you suggest? Do they have to do the opposite of what their religion dictates? Are religious people simply not to be allowed to hold office in case they do something based on their beliefs? How on earth do you propose to enforce this ultra-extreme version of “establishment” that you’re pushing? How is “rationality” assessed in your version of the Constitution, and how does this apply to the panoply of mindbogglingly stupid things that legislatures do without even thinking about religion? There simply is no reading of the first amendment that says that no person holding public office can use their religion to motivate any of their actions. This is just fantasy.
And no, I’m not religious in the slightest.
Firstly, I was pointing out a critical error in Sarahfeena’s argument and no other. Her argument does depend on a religious foundation, so while what you may say is true–it still has very little to do with what I wrote.
But, in regards to your statement. Certainly, but that just means that we need to put it in law what constitutes a human, as according to our best secular evidence and debate. Certainly there is no answer that will agree with everyone (even mutual atheists) and their outlook, but that can’t be helped.
Unless you can say that the President isn’t a representative of the government, has no power to take action in regards to a law, and no effect on Federal policy–I don’t see how his merely wielding the Veto Rod should make him any less beholden to the rules that come with the powers we have granted him.
“Getting away with” is different from what is “allowed.”
I contend that the solution to this issue that the founders followed, and as shown in The Federalist paper that I linked, is as best as one can get. That is, that the representatives of the people hold themselves to a higher standard, and yes if necessary deny their own personal beliefs if they can’t support them based on evidence and logic. It’s what they are getting paid to do, just as much as the CEO of a company may have to lay off his best friend in the company if the person isn’t up to the task, or that a doctor has to try and aid any wounded person in immediate need regardless that he is in the middle of his vacation to the Bahamas.
“to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations.”
I’m just quoting the founders of the nation so…if you think they’re pushing an ultra-extreme view then I guess that simply we are screwed.
When did I use such a reading of the first amendment?
Do you disagree with the “minimum” I gave? “[…] the govenment not favor any one particular religion.”
OK, let me rephrase or see if I can make my position more clear. I fully allow that I do not know the latest on IVF technology. I will also phrase this according to what I, personally, would do. I am not and have never proposed that IVF be made illegal. I think it is up to each person to decide what they want to do about fertility. I personally would not have IVF for 2 reasons:
I, personally, feel that trying to get pregnant in the “regular” way, and perhaps losing embryos in the process has NO morality attached to it (except maybe in these rare circumstances where there might be repeated failure to implant, and I would have to make the decision as to whether I should keep trying or stop.) Having children is a biological act that usually works and sometimes doesn’t, and we have no control over that. On the other hand, once you TAKE control by using IVF, you then have moral culpability. You have made yourself responsible for those embryos. I, for one, would not want to have to try to figure out what, for me, would be a moral conundrum.
I obviously overstated it when I said that I would know full well that there will be left-over embryos. Maybe I should have said that I would know full well that there is a very good chance that there would be left-over embryos, and that to me, leaving them in a freezer somewhere or donating them to medical science would not be an acceptable alternative. Giving them up for adoption is a terrific alternative, but as pointed out, also fraught with its own emotional issues.
So, these are my, personal, moral issues with this. I certainly do not think that everyone who has IVF is cavalier about the embryos. But, there sure seem to be a lot of embryos in freezers whose parents at this time have no intention of gestating them, and to me, the original intention is no longer relevant. The question is, what will happen to them now?
I don’t believe I was in error. A law can have a valid secular purpose, and the President can still believe it is right based on his personal religious moral code. Murder is an example, and if he thinks this is murder, then there you go.
Well, when you asked what secular purpose there was behind curtailing stem cell research, I rather thought that implied you didn’t think there was one. To be clear: do you believe that the establishment clause should prohibit President Bush from signing this veto?
The President is not Congress. He does not pass laws. Vetoing a bill allocating federal funding to a particular type of research is not “making a law”, nor is its effect “establishment”. The failure of the government to actively fund something which happens to be opposed by many religious people is simply not establishment, not by any tortuous reasoning, and certainly not as ever held in the rulings of the Supreme Court so far as I am aware (although I am clearly not a constitutional lawyer). Perhaps an actual lawyer might weigh in on whether a President’s veto actions could be appealed to the Supreme Court?
More than 200 years of jurisprudence suggests that what is actually allowed is substantially different to what you think ought to be. Your example of an act of establishment (the Lord’s Prayer) is so radically removed from the example at hand that it should really serve to illustrate to you how far off the constitutional reservation you’re straying. Forcing children (whether explicitly or constructively) to worship one particular religion’s God is a veritable light year away from withholding funding from something whose opposition is not even uniformly religious, let alone uniformly from one religion.
And I agree that this would be nice 'n all, but you’re ignoring that the standard for “valid secular purpose” is rather less constraining than you would have it. It’s eminently possible for most things to be both religiously motivated and logically justified, even if one disagrees with the premises used for this justification. In the instance here, the premise is that the fetus is alive; no religious statement is made there, despite the majority of those holding this view being religiously motivated. Prostitution is bad? Well, we’re protecting the women from exploitation. Et cetera and so forth. You can’t winkle out motivations of individual legislators; you can only reasonably examine the effect of the resulting law.
It depends what you’re talking about, really. If you’re talking about a standard to which legislators should hold themselves, above and beyond the strictures enforced by the First Amendment, then fine; I have no real disagreement. If, however, you’re trying to argue that the First Amendment can somehow be used to excise any religious motivation from our legislative process, then I think you’re both wrong in stating that it enables such a thing, and indulging in massively wishful thinking in believing that separating religious motivation from the morass of subjective morality is even possible. The system at the moment allows for the post-hoc examination of laws to ensure that there is some valid secular purpose. It doesn’t allow for the eradication of religious thinking in our legislatures, and I don’t see how it even could.
Wow. Thanks, Dead Badger (a badger and a rat, having a discussion…only on the SDMB! 
) I only had a few minutes to post this morning, and so I posted that lame response. Came back to flesh it out, and found that you already did so. Basically, my argument boils down to what you said here:
Of course, this gets muddied when we are talking about issues where the premises argued from are in so in question themselves, and passions are so infamed on both sides. But, I hardly think that my statement, that people in government are in no way obligated to set aside their religious convictions, has been in any way logically refuted here. I would venture to say that most laws that have some logical justification in terms of having a secular purpose ALSO have some basis in religious morality (my example of murder, for instance). Certainly, there are non-religious and even atheist pro-lifers out there who have all kinds of logical justification for being against stem-cell research, and a lot of this justification rests on their belief that this kind of thing is bad for society.
That makes zero sense. Just because two plus two equals the same thing as two times two doesn’t mean that addition and multiplication are the same thing.
If the only reason the President believes that murder is a “bad thing” is because God said, then he is not performing his job in a rational manner. That what God said happens to match up with what is logically valid is irrelevant. God also supports genocide, slavery, burning witches at the stake, and the subjugation of women depending on who you ask at what time in history. Even though for that entire period the Bible hadn’t changed a jot.
Whether it is just to enslave black people is related only to popular opinion of what interpretation is accurate. Yet at the same time as slavery continued there were any number of educated blacks in the US and Europe who gave perfect lie to the idea that black people couldn’t develop mental capabilities past a child. What say you? Is it better to let the President follow the teachings of his religion or should he be obligated to base his policy only on what evidence can support?
I never said that this was the only reason that the President thinks that murder is a “bad thing.” What I said was that he could think that murder was a bad thing because his religious convictions tell him so, AND because there is a valid secular purpose. You can easily use logic that tells you that an embryo is human without bringing God into it…people do that all the time.
I agree that I did not explain this very well in that first post. I hope that this one and my second earlier post lays out my opinion a little more clearly.
I say that this is a perfect example of where requiring a valid secular purpose and scientific evidence would outweigh any religious opinion one might have.
