# Does anyone believe the principle that you should not destroy life to save life? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 25, 2005, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-believe-the-principle-that-you-should-not-destroy-life-to-save-life/305368 "2005-05-25T01:13:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2005, 9:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-believe-the-principle-that-you-should-not-destroy-life-to-save-life/305368/41 "2005-05-27T09:56:12Z")
> [@yo no se](#): > > Mr. Mace… I have not backed away from that argument. Your ‘poll results’ link indicate 24% of those responding would like to keep the current restrictions on federal research funding and 19% desire no funding at all. You asked how much opposition? I say that 43% is a rather high number. Poll results are, of course, never decisive, but 43% is a minority. Exactly how small does the opposition need to be in your mind before it has to just live with the majority result? If you’re arguing a strict libertarian stance, I’ve already said I agree with that. But in the current situation, where the government is going to fund medical research, why let the minority rule? ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2005, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-believe-the-principle-that-you-should-not-destroy-life-to-save-life/305368/42 "2005-05-27T11:41:18Z")
> [@yo no se](#): > > Since the President’s Aug 2001 decision, federal funding for all forms of stem-cell research (including adult and umbilical stem cells) has nearly doubled, to $566m from $306m\*. Let’s not pretend our federal government is doing nothing. Just how much more do you suggest? IIRC from npr a day or two ago, the problem with adult and umbilical stem cells is that they can only turn into a few type of cells. Embryonic stem cells are virtually omnipotent. They can turn into any type of cell. While the president has done something for the field of stem cell research, he has put the brakes on the most promising parts. ---
**Author:** ![yo\_no\_se](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b487fb/32.png) [@yo\_no\_se](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yo_no_se)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2005, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-believe-the-principle-that-you-should-not-destroy-life-to-save-life/305368/43 "2005-05-27T17:06:21Z")
Doc. From DailyScience 5/3/05. …Bush’s policy approved 78 human cell lines – all of which were in existence prior to his decision – for use in federally funded research. However, only 22 of the lines currently are listed as available on the NIH Web site, and even some of those are not considered viable. In addition, some researchers worry the lines are contaminated with animal molecules because they were grown initially on mouse and fetal calf cells… The contamination… Is it that they are effectively ruined? Or is it that the research leads science to believe that recipients (once there are test subjects) will more likely reject the trasferred cells because they will more likely be compromsed by these feeder cells or their by-product(s)? Also, the recent success in S. Korea – they haven’t figured out the feeder cell issue either, correct? Yet, there was much rejoicing in their accomplishment. I will not comment on popular support/non-support of the Death Penalty or Iraq in the context of this thread – I see them as different issues altogether and this issue is complicated enough. Besides, whether you would agree with my viewpoint on those issues has little, if anything, to do with the validity of my view on the current administration’s position on the federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Mr. Mace, How small does the opposition need be before they are overridden? I don’t know, but theoretically I’ll go with 33% and lower – the same it takes to override a presidential veto in Congress. Btw, and interestingly enough (to me at least), about 45% voted against the recent relevant House Bill. Comparable to the 43% in your link, wouldn’t you say? ---
**Author:** ![Mockingbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c68b51/32.png) [@Mockingbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mockingbird)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2005, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-believe-the-principle-that-you-should-not-destroy-life-to-save-life/305368/44 "2005-05-27T17:23:49Z")
> [@smiling bandit](#): > > 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. Then that shows the flaw in you and your ‘logic.’ ---
**Author:** ![Mockingbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c68b51/32.png) [@Mockingbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mockingbird)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2005, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-believe-the-principle-that-you-should-not-destroy-life-to-save-life/305368/45 "2005-05-27T17:27:04Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > I wonder how many hundreds of thousands of lives you would have prevented. Eighty-one of them were on stage with President Bush this week. A hundred years from now, most of the children conceived by in this manner will have millions of offspring. > > Pro-life, are you? But not zero population growth. D’you think Bush really likes these kids because they’ll be paying into social security, making up for the lowered rates of children post Baby Boom? ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2005, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-believe-the-principle-that-you-should-not-destroy-life-to-save-life/305368/46 "2005-05-27T17:56:26Z")
> [@yo no se](#): > > The contamination… Is it that they are effectively ruined? Or is it that the research leads science to believe that recipients (once there are test subjects) will more likely reject the trasferred cells because they will more likely be compromsed by these feeder cells or their by-product(s)? Experiments can still be done with these cells, but the contamination means that they can’t be implanted in humans. The nonhuman proteins would trigger an immune response and the recipient’s body would attack the stem-cells. The contamination may cause other problems as well. > [@](#): > > I will not comment on popular support/non-support of the Death Penalty or Iraq in the context of this thread – I see them as different issues altogether and this issue is complicated enough. Besides, whether you would agree with my viewpoint on those issues has little, if anything, to do with the validity of my view on the current administration’s position on the federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. You say it’s acceptable for Bush to veto the stem-cell bill because of popular opposition. Why doesn’t that principle apply to other uses of government funds? Regardless of your views on the war in Iraq, it is funded by the government and their is popular opposition. ---
**Author:** ![yo\_no\_se](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b487fb/32.png) [@yo\_no\_se](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yo_no_se)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2005, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-believe-the-principle-that-you-should-not-destroy-life-to-save-life/305368/47 "2005-05-27T20:07:31Z")
quote from Doc, “You say it’s acceptable for Bush to veto the stem-cell bill because of popular opposition. Why doesn’t that principle apply to other uses of government funds? Regardless of your views on the war in Iraq, it is funded by the government and their is popular opposition.” Maybe I should have qualified it a little like so: There is simply too much opposition on moral/ethical/faith-based grounds [**WITHIN HIS VOTING CONSTITUENCY AND THOSE WHO WOULD TEND TO VOTE REPUBLICAN IN THE FUTURE**] to FORCE taxpayers to pay for it. Perhaps THAT is the real and, in my view, intelligent reason for the veto promise [**INSTEAD OF MAKING STATEMENTS THAT GET HIM CAUGHT IN THE STICKY WEB THAT IS "WHEN DOES LIFE BEGIN?**"]. In any event, I guess the cold and hard fact of the matter is that he WAS elected. I don’t kid myself into thinking he is going to push anybody’s agenda other than his and those that got him elected. There is no “principle” to this… by definition, that would mean a fixed, predetermined course of action or approach across all issues. On life issues, he’s consitent in his inconsistency in that you can very well expect him to vote down items that are pro killing ‘a life’ (abortion, stem cell research) and also vote with items that are pro killing a life (death penalty) or have a great likelihood of collateral damage (war on terrorism - Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria?) despite opposition from those having little, if anything, to do with getting him elected again. Responding to the OP – No, I don’t believe “you should not destroy life to save life”. I agree with capital punishment. I also agree with using embryonic stem cells to find cures for as many diseases as possible. I’m just not so caught up in Bush’s view that it does not deserve federal funding because I believe there is plenty of incentive for the private sector to address the necessary investment. ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2005, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-believe-the-principle-that-you-should-not-destroy-life-to-save-life/305368/48 "2005-05-27T20:52:38Z")
**Yo No Se** That clears things up. I’d interpreted what you said before as “Bush is justified in vetoing federal funding on something many people oppose.” ---
**Author:** ![cppguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@cppguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cppguy)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2005, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-believe-the-principle-that-you-should-not-destroy-life-to-save-life/305368/49 "2005-05-27T21:02:25Z")
> [@smiling bandit](#): > > 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.”. So you don’t object to [this](http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1461654,00.html) then? ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2005, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-believe-the-principle-that-you-should-not-destroy-life-to-save-life/305368/50 "2005-05-27T21:30:23Z")
**CPguy** Are you seriously comparing a quack beauty treatment using aborted fetuses to legitimate medical research using IVF embryos? ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2005, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-believe-the-principle-that-you-should-not-destroy-life-to-save-life/305368/51 "2005-05-27T22:24:46Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by \*\*Mockingbird \*\* > Then that shows the flaw in you and your ‘logic.’ That’s not an argument. More to point, it’s doesn’t need to be logical to you. I am making an axiomatic statement on moral worth. And in that estimation, I do not differentiate between babies ten minutes after birth, the “fetus” some time before birth, or the “embryo” at conception. > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by **cppguy** > So you don’t object to this then? Yes. Yes I do. I may not have organized my statement clearly. I said that I cannot object to killing children (Yes, I know some/many of you disagree; it’s irrelevant to this line) and not object to harvesting their remains for science. Harvesting them for cosmetic treatment is similarly wrong to me. Excuse me, because I don’t feel so well. This is one aspect of life I would really rather not have known about. ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2005, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-believe-the-principle-that-you-should-not-destroy-life-to-save-life/305368/52 "2005-05-27T23:27:04Z")
> [@smiling bandit](#): > > That’s not an argument. More to point, it’s doesn’t need to be logical to you. I am making an axiomatic statement on moral worth. And in that estimation, I do not differentiate between babies ten minutes after birth, the “fetus” some time before birth, or the “embryo” at conception. A thought experiment, which has graced this board before: Posit a blastocyst, that has already began to divide in earnest. According to you, this clump of cells is worth as much, morally speaking, as the slightly larger clumps of cells that make up you and me. Now, tease a cell off of the blastocyst. You now have twins. Of course, no extra conception has ocurred, so if you are of the belief that life begins at conception, then this cell isn’t actually alive, despite being just as potentially able to grow, divide, and mature as the other clump of cells. Now, put the cell back onto the blastocyst. No more identical twins (although you risk a chimeric child if you wait too long). If, by virtue of having the potential to have grown, divided, and matured, that lone cell was morally equivalent to a person, you’ve just murdered it. Unless, you tease it back out, at which point it’s alive (or rather, a life) again. Ultimately, if life is something that can be created and destroyed merely repeatedly by the positioning of a cell, then it’s an utterly specious definition of moral worth. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2005, 10:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-believe-the-principle-that-you-should-not-destroy-life-to-save-life/305368/53 "2005-05-28T10:33:25Z")
> [@robertliguori](#): > > A thought experiment, which has graced this board before: > > Posit a blastocyst, that has already began to divide in earnest. According to you, this clump of cells is worth as much, morally speaking, as the slightly larger clumps of cells that make up you and me. > > Now, tease a cell off of the blastocyst. You now have twins. Of course, no extra conception has ocurred, so if you are of the belief that life begins at conception, then this cell isn’t actually alive, despite being just as potentially able to grow, divide, and mature as the other clump of cells. > > Now, put the cell back onto the blastocyst. No more identical twins (although you risk a chimeric child if you wait too long). If, by virtue of having the potential to have grown, divided, and matured, that lone cell was morally equivalent to a person, you’ve just murdered it. Unless, you tease it back out, at which point it’s alive (or rather, a life) again. > > Ultimately, if life is something that can be created and destroyed merely repeatedly by the positioning of a cell, then it’s an utterly specious definition of moral worth. If one is to get into the time life started, one would have to go back eons ago. There is human life in a mans sperm,if the sperm is not alive no child will result. Each ejaculation lets many sperm die, so one could say, in order for a child to be conceived many lives would be sacrificed? The logic between a few cells and a full human being is quite a step. Monavis ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2005, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-believe-the-principle-that-you-should-not-destroy-life-to-save-life/305368/54 "2005-05-29T17:23:01Z")
I’m still waiting for someone to explain how support for the death penalty via emphasizing it’s deterrent effect is not at odds with the view that it is wrong to destroy a life to save others. At least without fatally crippling the very sanctimonious rhetoric that gets people so excited about the vaunted principle. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-believe-the-principle-that-you-should-not-destroy-life-to-save-life/305368.md?page=2)