Other lefty commentators have made some pretty crude attacks on this based on the idea that Bush violates this principle all the time in his role as commander in cheif (though they are vague whether they believe the principle or are just calling him on a percieved hypocrisy).
But seriously, can Bush really believe the principle he uses to justify his oposition to embryonic stem cell research? Does anyone here believe it?
It seems like everything from the death penalty to pre-emptive wars to any number of the regulations of industry (which often trade off some deadly problems for others) would violate the principle, and that’s just in regards to things that taxpayer dollars are spent on.
And on the other hand, isn’t the principle self-contradictory too? Cutting money to abortion-supporting family planning clinics inevitably increases deadly STDs and the death of mothers even as it saves fetuses. Heck, defunding embryonic stem cell research destroys the lives of those who could benefit from it in order to save embryos (personally, I find the idea that an embryo is of moral concern to be of no merit whatsoever, but we don’t have to agree on that to debate the question of whether the above principle makes any sense).
I think Bush might believe it, although I’d love to hear him confronted on it.
As far as the death penalty, maybe it’s just out of revenge. And the wars, well that’s for regime change.
So you can kill out of revenge and to topple dictators and maybe a couple of other things we haven’t thought of yet, BUT not to save life, that would be a no-no.
I don’t believe a human being (I’m pro-life but I don’t define a fetus as a human being for the sake of moral arguments, so I’m talking infants or older) that is not trying to actively cause harm to any other human being should be killed simply to maintain the life of one other human being.
So I would strongly disagree with such theoretical ideas like us keeping crops of clones locked away in camps, to be harvested and killed when “non-clones” need their organs (I steal this from an episode of Sliders.) I don’t believe we can take two human beings and say, “One of them should die to save the other” when one party is unwilling (I think there’s a moral debate when both parties agree to the matter.)
Now, I do believe it is okay to take a human life if that human is threatening the life of another, or if that person represents a general type of threat towards another State (ie I’d support us killing Osama bin Laden via a surgical strike even if he actively wasn’t doing anything to hurt anybody at that time.)
As for civilians who die in war (like the war in Iraq) that isn’t a case of us making an active decision to trade lives or engage in the killing of said civilians. They are incidental to the main target, we should do absolutely everything to minimize the harm they suffer but as long as they aren’t the primary target or even a target of aggression then I don’t see them as part of this moral debate.
I’m also (this will surprise many of you who are familiar with my ideas) against the concept of killing one person in order to achieve legal justice or to promote deterrence of crime. So I am unequivocally opposed to the death penalty, it goes against the core of my religious faith (Catholic).
I pesonally believe there are more valid reasons that explain the death penalty than simple revenge. There is the idea of equity in the legal system, that the legal system was set up in the first place to insure injured parties (victims’ families) did not directly punish those that injured them, thus insuring a fair and impartial trial for the accused. But once the accused is convicted the government has the responsibility to get the retribution the aggrieved party deserves.
I think it’s pretty easy to explain. The statement should be that it’s wrong to kill take an innocent life on purpose…
See above. I don’t hold to this belief myself, but if you are a Christian (for example) and believe in an immortal soul, there is simply no knowing when exactly that immortal soul becomes attached (for lack of a better word) to the body. Some clearly think that happens at conception. End of argument.
Back directly on topic, I do not agree with using aborted fetuses for these projects. At the same time, I would support giving money for projects devoted to creating stem cells from other cells. I can’t morally objet to the one and then say, “Oh, well, we’ll just use their corpses for our scientific experiments.”
I disagree with abortion. Of course, for those for whom abortion is no greater an act than trimming a hangnail, it means nothing other than waste of resources.
Well this is a little off topic, but I don’t see much of a difference between revenge and retribution no matter who’s doing it. Regardless of why, taking life is apparently alright in Bush’s eyes.
Well that was not what Bush said.
But even if he did say that, knowing that innocents are going to be killed when you start a war, and then starting one anyway pretty much counts as “on purpose” in my book.
Was it wrong to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki supposedly to save the lives of Allied soldiers?
Even if this were a certainty, I think it was wrong. I agree with the principle of not taking lives to spare other lives.
I do not believe in sparing embryonic cells that are not going to be implanted in a womb.
I think President Bush said that 81 “leftover” embryonic cells were rescued and implanted and resulted in babies through adoptions. Does anyone have any idea of the number of embryonic stem cells that are trashed each year that could have been used in stem cell research?
In death penalty cases, if the family doesn’t want retribution, should the murderer be put to death? What if the victim carries a card that states that she or he is opposed to the death penalty in the event of her or his own murder?
I’m almost sixty-two and I have never met anyone who has stated that she or he held that attitude about an abortion. There are those who see the embryo as a group of cells, but I don’t think anyone denies the potential for human life. And certainly, the procedure itself puts the lie to the notion that it is a simple as removing a hangnail. Your exaggeration is a disservice your point.
Does Bush believe it? Almost certainly he does. Lefties continue to make the mistake that Bush doesn’t actually believe any of this stuff. I tend to disagree…I think actually DOES believe this position on stem cells (as well as other things).
Do I believe it? Not at all…I think this is one of the biggest mistakes the US can make to be honest, and definitely towards the top of my list as to why I didn’t vote for Bush and why I’m becoming more and more anti-Republican. I understand that the South Koreans are making serious strides with this research, and other nations are right behind them. The US on the other hand is falling behind IMO, and this is something we need to be leading the way on. The only thing I’ll say though is that, on the other hand, I think that US COMPANIES should be doing this research…which they can do (afaik) as long as they do it without federal funds.
I doubt Bush see’s it that way at all…even in his deepest heart. Pre-emptive war (by which I assume you mean Iraq) was justified in his own mind (IMO) because I think Bush really did see Saddam and Iraq as a threat to the US, and thought that he really was striking a blow in the war on terror (again, lefties tend to think Bush doesn’t REALLY think this…but I’m coming to believe that he really does, which to my mind is actually pretty scary). Ends justify the means and all that…gods will.
As for the death penalty, its that whole ‘eye for an eye’ thing…in other words they were found guilty and their punishment is (again) gods will. So…if you actually can put aside your cynical mind for a bit and put yourself in the boots of a true believer, the logic actually makes some sense. Again, I don’t subscribe to this…but I can at least see how it would work.
Again, from the perspective of an idealistic true believer type I see no contridictions here. I’ve seen before that some folks just can’t do the mental reach to put themselves in anothers shoes…and I think thats why this stuff looks so contridictory to you. Because at a certain level it IS contridictory, if you don’t buy into the internal logic of faith and god and all that.
You have a different book than most people do. I’m not going to claim that Bush’s position is perfectly logically consistent. But playing “gottcha” as you are doing is just silly. I’ve explained where the reasoning comes from. You’re just playing semantic games at this point.
You obtain stem cells from embryos created at fertility clinics for implantation. In a standard procedure, more embryos are created than are needed, and some are never used. Even in cold storage, these embryos will no remain viable indefinitely. If the parents want them stored, they have to pay for it. Unless the parents donate the embryo to a woman who wants to be implanted with it, it eventually becomes medical waste.
Before speaking on an issue, educate yourself on it. Have you forgotten our motto?
Because, to accept the preimse that **no **innocent people can be killed in a war one must eschew ALL war, defensive as well as offensive. There are a few total pacifists in this world, but not many. Assuming that a president of the US would take that position is absurd.
As for the Iraq War, you might consider it to be offensive (no pun intended) rather than defensive, and I might consider it to be as well. But Bush did NOT, and so you have to judge him by his own premises, not by yours. You can’t say: Well, I don’t believe such-and-such, so his position doesn’t make sense. Your beliefs are not what informs his decisions.
What I was trying to say is that GW must be at least dimly aware that innocents were going to die in the war and therefore he must have had a rationalization for it. Being able to explain why the deaths of innocents are necessary is different from being a pacifist. The crux of the matter is, what is his explanation? That he invaded Iraq by mistake? I doubt it.
Hmmm… I think he said Iraq was a grave and gathering danger not an immediate threat. Even by the president’s logic, I think this was a pre-emptive war. Obviously, he found it to be the best decision for various reasons but to call it defensive seems quite a stretch.
Even if you maintain that his public opinion was that Iraq was a defensive war, his veracity in regards to that, is at the very least, up for debate in my book. From the obviously fake documents they so eagerly accepted, the actual non-existence of the WMD’s, and to the Downing Street Memo, one has to at least arch an eyebrow. It wouldn’t be prudent to get into this debate here, but can you concede that it’s at least an arguable point?
If it’s a matter of principle I get you’re point. But if his logic or if his actions are inconsistent with his principles then I think it’s worth pointing out.
John Mac
Oh yes, and even if the war was defensive, that doesn’t change the fact that innnocent lives are being taken presumably to save others. (which brings us back to “do”)
OK, I was using “defensive” instead of “pre-emptive”, which is more accurate. My mistake. But it doesn’t change the gist of the argument.
The real difference of opinion wrt embryonic stem cell research, is in defining what is and what is not human. Most people on this board, and most people in the US, do not consider a blastocyst to be a human being. But some people, including Bush, do. We all can agree that one human should not be made to sacrifice his life for the medical needs of another human-- right? But what we don’t agree on, is defining what a human is. Dragging in arguments about war just clouds the issue.
When I look at the context of the OP, dragging in arguments about war seems to be the gist of this discussion. Does Bush really believe in what he said as a general principle or does he just apply it to embryos? Certainly the vague way that he stated his justification seems to imply that it could extend to other situations. But I’m guessing we agree that he doesn’t believe in it as a general principle.
The position you are takling is exactly the sort of moral realism I might agree with. But it seems inconsistent with the idea that it is wrong to support policies that trade off some lives for others: kill Peter to save Paul. You can take the Hiroshima example as well as any other.
Can we? Especially if we at the same time sacrifice those lives for nothing much at all (such as the discarding of unused frozen embryos that is not banned from recieving federal funding?)
Would you be willing to throw a switch that would avert a missle from hitting a school full of kids, diverting it into the shack of a hermit?
Your point is well taken, but for me it morally amounts to the same thing. I do not see a differnce and make no distinction between embyos and fetuses.