Bush may make use of his first veto on a critical stem cell bill

Great Debates
121

[QUOTE=Hunter Hawk]
Okay, so you define “baby” roughly as “a collection of cells containing DNA that, given sufficient technological intervention, can be caused to develop into a human being”?

So considering the development of cloning technology, how is a blastocyst different from a loogie I hocked onto the pavement? Because a sufficiently dedicated and funded scientist could potentially scrape up that phlegm and grow a dozen little Hunter Hawks out of it.

(Anybody got the phone number of the Raelians?)
[/QUOTE]

Colorful analogy! And dead-on. May I call you Loogie-boy? ;o)

122

[QUOTE=Voyager]
That’s very reasonable, but please consider this. If you believe that God directed evolution, which I suspect you do (very different from creationism) then God designed a system very similar to that used for IVF. The health of each fertilized egg is randomly distributed, and the body has been designed to spontaneously abort ones which don’t meet minimal standards - no doubt because it is evolutionarily advantageous not to spend energy on fetuses which are not going to make it. I’d guess that no one knows how many fertilized eggs in an IVF environment will be acceptable - thus producing more than are likely to be used is not so much different from what God, in your view, has set up for us (or nature in my view.)
[/QUOTE]
I do not believe that God “directed” evolution. I actually believe that in our physiology, there is nothing that really separates us from the animals. What God gave us is our soul, and our ability to make moral decisions. It is our job to rise above the biological, and make better decisions morally than mother nature does, since nature gives us no morality, but only the desire to survive. As **wm ** said, it is not our place to decide who lives and who dies. If an embryo can possibly be saved, then it should be.

[QUOTE=Voyager]
Now certainly no one should be forced to go through IVF, but if someone does, isn’t it better for embryos that don’t make the cut to have some benefit to humanity, rather than just being discarded?
[/QUOTE]
That’s a good question, and I have to say that I am not sure. I am probably mostly in agreement with wm’s stance on this, stated earlier in the thread:

[QUOTE=wm–]
But unless or until I abandon my core belief that human life begins at conception, I must conclude that the moral evil of using human life as experimental fodder can’t be justified no matter the outcome.
[/QUOTE]
I am not sure that it accords the proper amount of human dignity to the embryo to just treat it as parts. However, I would also say that when it comes to legalities, while I would not support this use of embryos, I would not necessarily oppose it, either. (I don’t think that I would tend to vote based on this issue.)

[QUOTE=Voyager]
Some vegetarians feel very strongly about the evil of killing animals for food. They are a minority, but so is your position. Do you think it is right for that minority to force you into vegetarianism? I don’t want to get into the merits of vegetarianism, but once you allow one minority with strong moral views to override the will of the majority, you might as well allow all of them.
[/QUOTE]
As wm points out, vegetarians are as free to try to win people over to their side as anyone else. Also, animal rights advocates are a little bit like pro-life advocates, in that there are many sub-issues at stake. In some areas, they are more likely to get the general public to go along with their desires than not, and a vegetarian may believe (as pro-lifers often do), that every step in the “right direction” is a good thing. For instance, working to have slaughterhouses operating under humane conditions is an aim of the animal-rights groups, and where they are successful at this, I’m sure they consider it a victory. It’s not necessarily an “all-or-nothing” proposition.

123

[QUOTE=Onomatopoeia]
Really?
[/QUOTE]
I think that if there are people who believe that the mother must be sacrificed if there is a chance to save an in-utero baby, then they are nothing more than a tiny, tiny minority. I certainly don’t think anyone who is participating in this discussion would make that argument

124

[QUOTE=wm–]
It does indeed seem reasonable on its face. The only argument I can offer is that it is a morally different situation when these “minimal standards” are being deliberately imposed by a human on another human life, rather than by the random mechanisms of nature (God-directed or however you want to view it). A person dying of natural causes is not the same situation as a person being killed because they have been judged “advantageous not to spend energy on” by another person. (Of course, I’m stipulating here that a fertilized egg should be treated as a person.)

[/quote]

So I suppose you support the government intervening to keep someone alive when they have a living will telling their doctor to pull the plug? As in the Schiavo case, it is a matter of respect for a person’s wishes, and not spending resources on a lost cause. Since the embryo can have no wishes, the important party is the mother - and the law rightly only allows use of embryos the mother has agreed to use.
I understand you think the fertilized egg should be treated as a person - but I don’t, and our society doesn’t either, even those who are pro-life. No one is attempting to rescue fertilized eggs that don’t implant. No one is holding funerals for miscarriages in the first few days of pregnancy. We allow birth control methods that prevent implantation - though the extreme pro-lifers are beginning to try to take this right away from us. Contrast this with the extreme measures taken to save premies.

If their unpopular views involve destroying the rights of others, yes. We have removed the democrat right of the majority to vote to restore slavery. I’m not sure if eating meat is a constitutional right - I’m sure it could be fairly quickly. This is the difference between a theocracy and a constitutional democracy.

This addresses, by the way, any attempt to make stem cell research illegal, or IVF illegal. I’m not claiming there is a constitutional requirement to fund stem cell research.

125

[QUOTE=Voyager]
So I suppose you support the government intervening to keep someone alive when they have a living will telling their doctor to pull the plug?
[/QUOTE]

Actually, no, I fully supported Terri Schiavo’s right to decide when it was appropriate to allow herself to die naturally. I think that’s a completely separate issue, although I realize not everyone under the “pro-life” banner sees it that way.

126

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
I do not believe that God “directed” evolution. I actually believe that in our physiology, there is nothing that really separates us from the animals. What God gave us is our soul, and our ability to make moral decisions. It is our job to rise above the biological, and make better decisions morally than mother nature does, since nature gives us no morality, but only the desire to survive. As **wm ** said, it is not our place to decide who lives and who dies. If an embryo can possibly be saved, then it should be.

[/quote]

So you don’t believe that we are created in god’s image, and we could just as well have been intelligent rodents? Interesting. We should discuss this later. For now, no matter what we do we are deciding who lives and who dies. Once these embryos are created, they need special attention to survive. Given long enough, they will no longer be viable. Someone going through IVF is making the choice to create a life that couldn’t be created naturally. Is the right answer to let the embryos rot, and wash our hands of it?

But the choice is to use the embryo or let it die in a freezer. The outcome of the experiment is immaterial, since I’m sure some embryos will be used exploring false paths, and not contribute directly to the elimination of any disease.

How about “harvesting” organs from the recently dead? That is a very clear use of a human as parts. And very similar to an embryo - no brain activity, but a beating heart. (Well, embryos at this stage don’t have hearts, but things are pumping.)

Ah - there is a big difference between winning people over to your side and limiting the freedom of people not won over. The real test is whether rights are being violated. If a pro-lifer wanted to pass a law requiring abortion clincs to have soft music and nice carpets, okay. To a certain extent humane treatment of animals is okay also - but to require, say, all chickens be free-range, and thus limit the number of chickens available is going too far. Many of the pro-life partial steps, like parental notification, are aimed at making it more difficult for women to exercise their rights.

127

[QUOTE=wm–]
Actually, no, I fully supported Terri Schiavo’s right to decide when it was appropriate to allow herself to die naturally. I think that’s a completely separate issue, although I realize not everyone under the “pro-life” banner sees it that way.
[/QUOTE]

I think the relevence is the right of the government to get between individuals and doctors/researchers. Though Terri had a wish, and a fetus does not, no one would have tried to intervene if Michael had decided to keep her alive - as he did for years. In the Schiavo case, the courts found that it was Michael’s decision, not Jeb’s. In this case, why shouldn’t it be the mother’s decision, not the President’s?

128

[QUOTE=Apos]
What’s particularly distressing is how incredibly uninformed and poorly thought out most of the anti-stem cell positions are.

Take all the hubbub about adult stem cells. They want to claim that they can do what ES can. But if that’s so, then one of the things AS can do is… grow into people. Just like ES. Did they think this through, like, at all?
[/QUOTE]

Cite that a stem cell can, by itslef, grow into a person? I don’t think you could do that w/o using standard cloning techinques involving an ovum. But you could do that with any cell, and I’m not aware that stem cells have any advantage in that respect.

129

[QUOTE=Voyager]
So you don’t believe that we are created in god’s image, and we could just as well have been intelligent rodents? Interesting. We should discuss this later
[/QUOTE]
. I believe that we are made in God’s image in the spiritual sense, not in the literal sense of our bodies looking like God’s

The recently dead have had the the option to decide whether to donate organs or not. I don’t believe dead bodies should be used in any way without the consent having been given by the person ahead of time.

Ah - limiting of freedom goes on all the time. The owner of the slaughterhouse may think HIS rights are being violated, because it is more expensive for him to slaughter animals in a humane manner. I do not necessarily think that to require all chickens to be free-range is going to far. It depends on what the public thinks, and whether the animal-rights people can convince them that there is some compelling interest in doing so.

130

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
.
The recently dead have had the the option to decide whether to donate organs or not. I don’t believe dead bodies should be used in any way without the consent having been given by the person ahead of time.

[/QUOTE]

I just read [i[Stiff*, and pretty much universally if there is no statement from the deceased, the next of kin gets to decide. Very reasonble, since there is a social good from the donation, and everyone has the opportunity to say no. An excellent model for this case.

131

[QUOTE=Voyager]
I just read [i[Stiff*, and pretty much universally if there is no statement from the deceased, the next of kin gets to decide. Very reasonble, since there is a social good from the donation, and everyone has the opportunity to say no. An excellent model for this case.
[/QUOTE]
Except that the embryo doesn’t have the opportunity to say no.

132

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]

The recently dead have had the the option to decide whether to donate organs or not.

[/quote]

Not necessarily. Often, the decision to donate is made by next of kin, the potential donor being unable to communicate their wishes.

Similarly, the donation of unused IVF embryos should be the decision of the next of kin.

I suspect (although I have no cite for this) that this would drastically cut down on the number of organs available for transplant, if you don’t allow next-of-kin consent as well.

133

Whoops, sorta-simulpost!

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
Except that the embryo doesn’t have the opportunity to say no.
[/QUOTE]

True, but that applies to many other donors as well.

Granted, the argument might be made that embryos lack the capability to refuse. But since parental directives, as a rule, take precedence over the child’s in the context of medical decision making, does it matter?

I realize this sounds terribly cold, and I apologize for that.

134

[QUOTE=Pazu]
Granted, the argument might be made that embryos lack the capability to refuse. But since parental directives, as a rule, take precedence over the child’s in the context of medical decision making, does it matter?
[/QUOTE]
This is a pivotal point. If a child specifically denies a request to donate organs, can a parent donate them anyway after death? Do children possess the right to make a decision regarding organ donation? If not, then the argument that embryos never got the chance is moot.

135

[QUOTE=Pazu]
But since parental directives, as a rule, take precedence over the child’s in the context of medical decision making, does it matter?
[/QUOTE]

This rule isn’t ironclad. A parent can’t make the decision to subject their child to a medical procedure/experiment which will certainly kill the child.

136

[QUOTE=Pazu]
Not necessarily. Often, the decision to donate is made by next of kin, the potential donor being unable to communicate their wishes.
[/QUOTE]
I was thinking of it in the sense of an adult, who had time to decide while they were alive.

I do think there is an inherent difference between donating organs of a person who had died, than creating an embryo for a purpose (presumably, to gestate into a baby), deciding it is not necessary for that purpose, and turning it over to medical science instead. At least the dead person whose organs are donated had a chance to live.

137

[QUOTE=wm–]
This rule isn’t ironclad. A parent can’t make the decision to subject their child to a medical procedure/experiment which will certainly kill the child.
[/QUOTE]
Doctors are bound by their oath not to undertake procedures that are certain to kill the patient. A parent always has the right to approve a procedure, even if there is a risk of death.

138

[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
Doctors are bound by their oath not to undertake procedures that are certain to kill the patient. A parent always has the right to approve a procedure, even if there is a risk of death.
[/QUOTE]
I’d say that doing stem cell research on an embryo is pretty sure to kill it. And you cannot get the embryo’s consent.

139

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
Except that the embryo doesn’t have the opportunity to say no.
[/QUOTE]

The embryo doesn’t have the capacity to CARE one way or the other. Thinking about it as a person with desires and intentions and even hypothetical opportunities being passed up is a sure sign that you are ascribing things to it that are just out of touch with what it is.

140

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
I’d say that doing stem cell research on an embryo is pretty sure to kill it. And you cannot get the embryo’s consent.
[/QUOTE]
That’s my question. Why do we need the embryo’s consent? Do we need a child’s consent to donate organs? If not, that argument is dead in the water.