Agreed, however, when one (or both) side’s idea of a compromise is “my way or the highway” then we’re back to square one.
If, by “infanticide” you mean throwing newborns or toddlers down a well, I concur; There is little good that could come of such a practice. The argument about experimentation on inmates is a straw man (or a red herring, or, or…something), I would point out that something similar occurs every day in this country under the name of “Phase I clinical trials.” You posit that experimentation on inmates (or embryos) is beyond the pale. PETA thinks they same about the use of animals in research, and has used similar arguments to those raised in this thread. Where ( and how) do you draw the line?
Agreed. However, the argument I’m hearing against embryonic stem cell research are not “moral” arguments as much as they are religious ones, cloaked in a more palatable guise. As such, they bother me as the vanguard of an assault on the other aspect of our democracy which you appear to be forgetting: separation of Church and State. If the Vatican is opposed to embryonic stem-cell research, then by all means, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences are free to not do it. If a clear majority of Americans were dead-set against it, based upon introspection and reasoned consideration (as opposed to fear-mongering), then I’d have no choice but to go along with their decision, and let the godless animists at say, Chugai Yakuhin, do the research. Truth will out, as they say.
Hypothetical question, Mr. M. If you were diagnosed with Alzheimers and the only choice between becoming a zombie or remaining a fully-functioning member of your family and community was a treatment derived from embryonic stem cells, would you scruple to take it? Not trying to be tricky or snarky; just trying to point out the more practical aspects of this discussion.
Right. In other words, you have to draw the line somewhere.
Now, you have an opinion of where it should be drawn, an opinion that differs from mine. But the whole idea of ethical restrictions on scientific research is obviously a concept that you explicitly endorse.
With all that, it isn’t proper to accuse people who advocate a certain restriction as being against science, or against the victims of terrible diseases. You can merely argue whether a particular restriction is necessary, and the potential consequences of it.
The rhetoric on this issue has been overblown, to the point where John Edwards claimed in a campaign speech that a Kerry victory will make people like Christopher Reeve walk again. This assertion is clearly ludicrous, and it’s disturbing to me that some people actually believe this.
I think if we all cool off a little, and look at the costs and benefits of the research, mindful of the moral implications of experimenting with actual human embryos, we can agree on a political and scientific consensus. Now, this consensus may not be favored by all parties, but they would, like all laws, be bound by it. This would guide allocation of federal research monies and may outlaw certain practices.
I don’t regard this as a legitimate question. It’s as loaded emotionally as asking Mike Dukakis if he’d support the death penalty if his wife were raped and murdered.
I will say that there are choices I’ve made in my life based on moral introspection of the challenges I faced at the time, and that some of these choices involved medical treatments.
Mr. Moto, if you’re concerned about emotionally laden tactics, why do you keep comparing embryonic stem cell research with Nazi experiments and torture of humans?
I did it to point out what I saw as faulty logic - that scientific utility trumped all other considerations.
It is clear that civilized society does not take this view. Neither do any of us as civilized people. Once you accept the reality that ethical considerations guide all behavior, everything else is quibbling over details.
Let’s cut to the chase, shall we? Do you advocate banning federal funding of embryonic research on the grounds that you (and presumably a majority) find it morally repugnant?
In this case, aren’t all research proposals first run through a vetting process to determine whether research is a) worth doing and b) does not cross any ethical guidelines? Aren’t these proposals reviewed by “ethicists” who are presumably aware of both the scientific AND moral/religious issues involved?
Why not leave the decision to those trained and employed to make these decisions? Isn’t THAT the way it’s supposed to work?
And if you favor a complete ban on research, there’s really nothing else to say, is there? I personally think you’re cutting off your nose to spite your face, but as I said, if a blanket ban on embryonic stem cell research is enacted, the work will nonetheless be done elsewhere and we will eventually reap any rewards which come from it.
Finally, I’m sorry you chose to dismiss my hypothetical scenario; I wasn’t going to hold you to your decision, but I was hoping that you would at least consider it.
I have said as much in this thread, and in fact I would have no trouble banning such research entirely.
Well, yes. But the process is guided by law and by executive order as well, both of which have a proper place in constraining the system. Both of which, too, are influenced (and properly so) by democratic processes.
It’s a limit I have to accept, since law enacted here cannot have force in other countries. Should other countries demonstrate a lessened reverence for human life, I cannot do anything but wish it otherwise.
What makes you think I haven’t?
I won’t, though, wallow through an emotional appeal to discuss an issue that by its nature must be solved rationally.
So let me get this straight… We have a system in place which evaluates the potential benefits of research against the ethical questions it may raise, appointed and enacted by the democratic process you hold dear and manned by people familiar with both the science and the ethical issues involved.
Then you come and raise the issue based on your own personal religious/moral compass, ignoring the system in place and advocating something more palatable to your convictions.
And this is an absolute strawman. Nobody has argued that scientific utility trumps all other considerations. To continue to equate embryonic stem cell research with torture and Nazism is simply juvenile.
To you it may be quibbling, but you have that luxury. Enjoy it, I suppose. I wonder if you could look into the face of a person with a disorder of the type we have been discussing, and tell them that you are sorry, but your beliefs about when life begins trump their hope for a cure. Do you think you could explain to them that it is better for an IVF blastocyst to be discarded than to be used to move towards a cure for them?
Well, let’s see. I’m a man in my mid-30s and I come from a huge family. It’s safe to bet that people I know, people very dear to me, have died from conditions that could in the future be cured by stem cell therapies.
I hope this comes to pass, or that other cures are found. But with all of this, I still believe embryonic stem cell research invites a moral dilemma that is simply not present when adult stem cells are used. Adult stem cells also show tremendous promise in treating a wide variety of diseases, adding to the large number of conditions currently treated using them.
As much as I recall, scientists operate within societal, financial and ethical constraints all the time. Remember Super Conducting Super Collider project? Who knows what we might have been able to learn by now if it wasn’t cancelled! Scientists almost never get all the materials and equipment they claim they need. Yet I don’t remember a political campaign to give scientists all the money, precious metals or rare elements they require. So how precious do we hold those embryos? After all, they are the prototype of Human Life, without which all the money and gold in the world has absolutely no meaning.
Again, not saying to stop embryonic research, but why revolt against restrictions? The whole modus operandi of real scientists is to make do with what they can, tinkering even in they garages if needs must. Why not to keep the emphasis on less controversial adult stem cells and treat embryonic cells as precious?
The way I understand scientific process, first the promising results need to be shown using the most basic means, next the potential to produce better results using the limited resources has to be proven, only then can scientists hope to get some access to those limited and valuable materials for their experiments. Looks like we still didn’t reach the completion of stage two. We still don’t know if embryonic stem cells will allow scientists to accomplish things they can’t do with adult stem cells.
C’mon…admit it …you just pulled this one out of thin air.
They are unviable by-products of the IVF process. There is NO way they could EVER be brought to term. Icky, but true.
Hey, why not just chalk it up to “God’s will” and halt * all* biomedical research? After all, after decades of research, we still don’t have a cure/vaccine for AIDS. Clearly, further research would be pointless.
This would be nice, but for the fact that the “limited and valuable resources” that are evidently abundant and cheap enough to allow somatic stem cell research (petri dishes, pipettes, Grad students) are the same ones required for embryonic stem-cell research; with the exception of embryonic cells, which are slated for destruction anyway.
What this all boils down to, as I stated right from the beginning, is that only ethical considerations are holding back full-on embryonic stem cell research. The only argument I’m hearing to counter this is that they’re not important considerations for that particular poster.
Well, you know what? It’s not solely your decision. Other people have a say in the process, and many of them find research on human embryos abhorrant.
If their views prevail through the political process, then you’re all just going to have to live with it. Luckily, this won’t hold back progress in this area, since adult stem cell research will continue apace. The recent news illustrates that we’ve probably only begun to reap the benefits of this currently viable and utterly noncontroversial technology.
I posed the question earlier whether support would still be there for embryonic stem cell research even if every cell fo the body could be produced using adult stem cells. II Gyan II answered yes, an answer that baffles me. The purpose of stem cells is to produce other cells, and if that can be done without destroying an embryo, then that embryo is being destroyed for no good reason. None.
And to repeat, the purpose of research is systematic exploration. It is premature and prejudicial, especially for an outsider, to demarcate what utility embryonic stem cells possess, or not. Currently, ESCs are preferred because they are pluripotent. Maybe they’ll discover ESCs are good for some other purpose not satisfied by derivative stem cells. We won’t know.
I asked a question of you earlier, to which I don’t believe I recieved an explicit response. This ‘ethical consideration’ that you speak of, does it rely on the Christian concept of ensoulment? If not, why is the embryo a privileged entity?
Unless the donor submits to another round of implantation, they will never become a person. Get it? EVER. Since they are currently going to be destroyed, wouldn’t you agree that it behooves us to try to bring something positive out of their destruction?
Ok…you and other think it’s wrong. I and others think it’s ok. I think that pretty much sums up this thread. One question though:
I believe that Jewish funerary law requires a person be buried whole and intact. What if Jews in this country successfully campaigned against organ donation as the morally untenable desecration of a corpse. No more life-saving heart or liver transplants. I gather you’d be ok with that?
And again, I have to point out that embryonic stem cells aren’t preferred at all, at least when it comes down to actual therapeutic applications. My cited articles showed quite clearly that any use of embryonic stem cells outside of the lab is at best years away. That is, if they are able to make the technology work at all.
Scientific inquiry has to have a goal, II Gyan II. The mere tinkering around with cells you have no use for doesn’t cut it. And if pluripotent adult cells are ever discovered, there won’t be a use for embryonic stem cells.
The ethical considerations I spoke of do not rely on any concept of ensoulment, or indeed any Christian tenets at all. They rely on a basic respect for individual rights.
For all of the certainty that some people appear to show on the subject, the fact is that the dividing point between an embryo being merely a clump of cells and the point where it becomes a separate discrete human being is not known clearly. Indeed, politics has poisoned this subject as well, with ardent pro-choicers insisting, sometimes against all available evidence, that an embryo or fetus has no consciousness, cannot feel pain, and deserves no consideration.
The available biological evidence shows something very different. At some point quite early in the pregnancy, there is brain function, movement, and response to stimuli. All of these things we typically take to be signs of individual life.
Since the point where the embryo or fetus becomes an individual cannot be known for certain, I prefer to treat them as individuals worthy of basic respect from the earliest point.
In new frontiers of research, tinkering is often all there is.
Individual rights? Are these embryos supposed to be diverted from pregnancy for the purpose of research? If not, which potential individuals will be harmed?
You see them as potential individuals, whereas others see then as a separate living human being already. And those who think that way have a biological basis for this belief, noted above.
Why don’t you tell me why you consider then merely potential humans? If they weren’t human, we couldn’t use the stem cells from them anyway, at least not in treatment.
Are you trolling? I asked you if these research embryos are diverted from pregnancy. If yes, then potential individuals are being killed. If no, those embryos wouldn’t have become human beings in the first place, so there’s no respect of “individual rights” being breached.
We use them because these cells have DNAs that lead to humans, hence their products are useful in human medical treatment not because they are already human.
Some people pointed out that embryos are cheap and readily available in large quantities; the only thing that prevents their use for scientific experimentation is religious paranoia. I’d like to note that this is not an isolated phenomenon. Why are we abandoning the use of nuclear energy (no new stations built, old ones closing)? Nuclear energy is cheap and readily available, however there is a powerful movement against it. Why are we not drilling for oil in remotest part of Alaska? It’s desolate and uninhabited, however there is a powerful movement against extracting oil there. Apparently, many people have strong opinions on many different subjects, to the point of prohibiting promising developments regardless of the mere practical utility.