I’m talking about embryonic stem cell research. If you accept the premise that the embryo is alive, then whatever research is done will certainly result in its death. There is no “risk” of death; death is the planned outcome.
A parent can make the decision to remove a child from life support, which will lead to its death.
Frankly, I saw the article by Cheshire as crafting the ethical issues rather than reaching any conclusions. But, the ability to frame the issue can be outcome determinative. And, Cheshire arguably concludes non-embyronic stem cell research will prove more productive.
As I am a stranger here, it is only fair to give you my perspective on the issue. Ultimately I am torn about this issue and similar issues. The utility argument is persuasive, but then so is the argument that “utility” is irrelevant to a determination of whether nascent human life is worthy of protection.
The approach taken by our governement to permit research and funding using existing lines, while placing no barriers on private funding of research, fits with my free market approach to value and the reality that government has funded embryonic research in the past. It permits ongoing research while the ethical issues are sorted out, which is sound policy in my opinion.
I am squarely against a government prohibition on embryonic stem cell research and fully support a couple’s decision to donate “leftover” embryos for research.
But, I disfavor creating an embryo only to destroy it for the benefit of another (therapeutic cloning). Cloning yourself by creating an embryonic duplicate of yourself and then destroying that embryo to harvest its parts creates grave ethical problems in my opinion.
And just to be perfectly clear, I do believe an embryo is life. The question is whether that nascent life is worthy of protection under our laws. I understand the arguments why all life is worthy of legal protection; likewises, I understand the argument that such nascent life doesn’t share enough of the factors commonly agreed to constitute legally protected life.
But it isn’t moot on the issue of whether government funding should propel this research forward. To accept a free market approach to embryonic research or to permit continued funding of line that predated a ban on funding (which I do) is very different from moving into the realm funding for new lines. Government funding to destroy new embryos forces a discussion of whether such a leap is warranted from an ethical standpoint.
Further, it forces a discussion on what we will face if such research is successful. Will we permit therapeutic cloning? What are the ethical landmines associated with such treatment?
More specifically, should tax dollars fund the destruction of such embryos and, if so, what if the research is successful?
How do we get around the cloning issue with the promises of treatment from embyronic stem cells? From a medical standpoint, isn’t rejection of tissue a major issue unless the embryo is a clone of the patient?
By defining the most optimistic outcome of such research.
Intellingent post on your part no-name (and on this thread in general), which is refreshing on this subject.
If you have two children, A and B, and A needs a heart transplant in order to survive, do you have the right as a parent to force B to donate her heart to A? Consent is irrelevant.
No, I am not. As I said before, my 2 year old doesn’t have any concept of any of these things either. She cannot give consent to things. Therefore, I need to be the steward of what is good for her, and society makes sure that I do, in the sense that I am not allowed to kill her because I decide I don’t want to deal with her anymore. I can’t leave her in stasis in a cryogenic freezer if I don’t want to deal with her, either, and likewise, I think putting embryos in this situation is a moral wrong.
If someone were to create a child in order to put it to death and use its organs, then you would have a valid analogy.
No, he’s pointing out a very slipperly slope inwhich a portion of the population exacts it’s will on another portion of the population and the potential ramifications of such a scenario.
The embryos in question have no chance to become children. They are going to be discarded. It is not in your power to change tjhis outcome. However, you could save someone one else who may benefit from stem cell transplantation. Why is it not morally wrong to snatch away this chance to be saved, when to do so does not protect life?
I believe those in the minority of any position has the same due process rights as those in the majority. The governing process permits the elections of animal rights activists or Christian Scientists. With a veto, we foster a balancing of power and the protection of a minority view - with also the right to overcome the veto via a super-majority. I think the process works.
No question.
I support that fully. The rub is government funds paying for the destruction of the new embryos, which forces a discussion of whether a government should fund that destruction and whether the ethical issues have been resolved regarding what this would mean if the research is successful (the cloning issue).
The cloning issue if the research is successful has not been fully addressed from an ethical perspective.
Right now, in this very country, the portion of the population that believes murder and robbery are unacceptable is exacting its will on another nontrivial portion of the population that wishes to commit these acts. People who don’t think taxes are a sound idea are forced to pay them anyway or go to jail. People who wish to drive on the left side of the street are ticketed if they choose to do so. What else is new?
If you could round up terminal cancer patients and subject them to harmful yet useful medical experiments, would that be the correct choice?
What does a terminal disease patient have to do with discarded tissue?
If you’re going to argue that treating embryos like they’re not life is equitable to legalizing murder and robbery I expect some cites and studies to show the similarities these actions have on society.
washpark, thanks for the reply.
Well, in this specific case, the government isn’t funding destruction of new embryos, because the ones in question are going to be destroyed regardless. The argument is whether government should fund efforts to create something positive out of what would otherwise be trashed.
No, but since one of the accompanying bills specifically prohibited “embryo farming” (which, IIRC, will most likely pass without a problem), isn’t it a moot point at the moment?
I’m only saying that “a portion of the population exacting its will on another portion” is not a slippery slope; it’s another way to state the fact that our society is governed by laws.
Nothing, of course. This debate is over whether “discarded tissue” is in fact an accurate description of a fertilized embryo.
But in the cases of robbery and murder, you are taking life or property from another citizen. These laws exist to protect citizens from other citizens.
Now you’ll argue that embryos are citizens and… so I’ll just say: Show me how. Describe to me how an embryo is a citizen and in need of the protections of law.
That would be quite a feat, wouldn’t it? There is an inherently philosophical aspect to questions like “What is a person?”, “What is a person worth?”, and “Who deserves human rights?” I can’t offer irrefutable scientific proof that one form of life is “worth” as much as another. On that level I’m afraid we just have to agree to disagree.
I will say that in my view, when there is a question as to the “personhood” of any form of human life, the default position should be to extend full human rights and protections, and the burden of proof should be on those who would take those rights and protections away.
By the way, I apologize for the harsh tone of post #150. I was trying to answer your objection but it came out as sarcasm. Sorry about that.
Bush has vetoed the bill easing restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.
I have my doubts that the House will be able to overturn the veto.
That’s an absurd comparison that is, frankly, demeaning to your two year old’s very humanity. Your two year old is not equivalent to a nerveless clump of cells with no feelings or interests whatsoever. You are a steward for her precisely because she is a being with feelings and interests and concerns but without the maturity and capacity to see or acheive them. An embryo has nothing: no needs, no concerns, no capacity to feel wronged, no pain upon death, no concern over its fate, nothing. And it never previously has had any of those things.