Moderator’s Note: Please don’t make accusations of trolling on the boards. Use the “Report bad post” button or otherwise contact a mod or admin.
The proof will be in the puddin’, so to speak. You talk as if definitive statements one way or the other can be made. They can’t. The answers to the myriad questions that have been posed in this line of research will be gained through experimentation. Some of it directed toward well-defined applications, some of it “mere tinkering around”. As often as not, the tinkering, which is done best in the academic realm, since the funding for highly speculative and exploratory research can not, and should not, be tied to expectations for profitable return, yields as-great or greater rewards than the applied research. Those who’s work is to develop the knowledge revealed by the “tinkerers” into therapeutics are often quite lost without it.
Simply pulling the plug on an entire branch of promising research, using the specious sorts of arguments you have made, and citing narrow theological objections as if that amounted to substantive and justifiable objection, throws a giant spanner in the works, and renders many of the questions about what approach is better or worse essentially unanswerable, at least here in the US. Arguing that adult stem cells are better or worse than emryonic stem cells, with our current level of knowledge, along the lines you are taking, is asinine. The simple answer is we don’t know yet. Not being able to do the research to get the necessary answers certainly doesn’t help things.
You religious conservatives may prefer your brand ignorance, and your welcom to it; but why must you taint and slander science by drawing from the body of knowledge it provides with criminal selectivity to support your sophistry? Couldn’t you simply be honest, state clearly that you object because you believe embryos have souls, and not pollute the waters of public discourse any further with your rhetorical poison? If you wish to instate a theocracy, that have at it, but at least be forthright about it, rather than hiding under a cloak of “scientific” skepticism about the potential efficacy of embryonic stem cells. Your methods of obfuscation, distortion, and outright lies, will not provide the public, nor the medical community, with the necessary facts to decide on that currently unsolved puzzle. Let the fact-finders do their jobs, let the ethicists debate the matter in an ecumenical democratic fashion. And last of all, be honest about your postition: You have no scientific basis for you objections beyond the conjecture of some experts in a burgeoing field of research full of questions, controversy, and few hard answers. Since you do not wish to see questions answered by the honest application of the scientific method, state your intent openly: To forbid the practice of therapeutic embryonic stem cell reasearch outright, be it an efficacious approach or no, because you find it sinful. We who do some of the reasearch try our best to represent ourselves honestly and accurately, and to state our aggenda plainly: To attempt to find ways to treat thus-far incurable ailments using safe, effective, and what society deems is ethical methods.
If folks such as yourself could simply be as forthright in turn, you might at least earn our respect, if not agreement.
The problem I see with this analogy (if that’s what it is) is that drilling for oil and/or nuclear energy have tangible, quantitaive benefits and costs. Even though the rhetoric against both is often couched in wildly emotional terms, allowing for the facile labelling and marginalization of opponents as “tree-huggers” or whackos, no one can debate that there is a downside to both. What fuels the debate is whether the magnitude of the costs (environmental damage-let’s not forget that there are economic benefits to a healthy environment, costs of building/decommisioning nukes, radioactive waste storage/disposal, etc) outweigh the benefits (a short-term energy “fix”).
What is the tangible, quantitative downside to the use of embryonic stem cells that can be leveraged against their potential benefits? You can list them for nuclear power or drilling in the Arctic. Can you do it for embryonic stem-cell research? As Loopy Dude has said, these are religious arguments disquised in scientific clothing. The decision should be made rationally, as Mr. Moto has often averred. Unfortunately, the argument against embryonic is anything but; you can’t have it both ways-bring in the science and logic when it suits your argument, then deny them when faced with the cold, clinical conclusions they lead to. As I’ve said, icky…but true.
Sorry, but I think that potential cures for real people (like my brother) trumps no cures for potential people. Unfortunately, that’s a sacrifice that others appear willing to make. Thanks, guys!!
ok…a little hyperbole toward the end…
The downside might be if we throw all the money into embryonic research and end up with uncontrollable cell regeneration, frequently producing teratomas, as Mr. Moto cites show. At least that is where we are now. Meanwhile, there are amazing concrete results brought about by using adult stem cells, which receive very little public attention. However, there is so much noise about embryonic research, sometimes it appears that there are no alternatives. I’d even say that people that make the loudest noise are mostly politically motivated, using another chance to stick it to the ‘Rednecks’, regardless how much real scientific worth there is in embryonic research.
I wonder, is it just a coincidence that Germans are quitely achieving tangible results with adult stem cells, while in US we are too busy arguing about embryos?
I don’t think I or anyone, for that matter is suggesting that we abandon work on adult stem cells and divert all money and effort solely into embryonic stem cell research. I’m saying, explore both.
The Manhattam project required large amounts of enriched Uranium. Two methods were proposed: Gaseous diffusion and electromagnetic separation (preparative mass spectrometry). Both technologies were crude and not well established, so there was no way of knowing which would be better suited for the task. Gen. Groves made simple decision. He set up two facilities, one for mass spec, one for diffusion. Both worked, but diffusion proved itself to be the superior technique.
If embryonic stem cells prove to be inferior to adult stem cells, then the issue will solve itself. I’m just saying, “Let’s see.”
Pure speculation on your part. One could make the same argument against embryonic research opponents. Much heat, little light.
You lost me here…what, exactly is the “coincidence?”
That’s what I’m saying, too. I started by saying that politicizing the issue will be only counterproductive.
Meaning, are we wasting time arguing about theoretical possibilities while other nations are getting ahead developing real cures?
I will be surprised if you have the courage to post in this thread again. You have clearly reached a point where the disingenuousness of your argument is exposed. Whether you think they are humans, potential humans, or Evil Chunks of Satanic Evil has nothing whatsoever to do with this simple fact: They will either be destroyed or they will be used for research; there is no third possibility. Why do you find using them for research any more objectionable than destroying them? In one case, what you think of as a human is destroyed and nothing good comes of it. In the other case, something you think of as human is destroyed and something good might come of it.
Speaking as a human myself, if I ever come to a place where my future possibilities are those listed, I would much prefer that what remains of me is used for research–after all, it could help my kids or grandkids one day. This is why I have selected to be an organ donor on my driver license and told my wife of my wishes. To my way of thinking, trashing human life when it could have been used to help other humans is immoral, and whether you mean a “human” or a “potential human” doesn’t really have anything to do with it.
The ONLY case I can understand would be one in which the parent of the cells in question does not want them used for research, whether for religious or other reasons. In this case, I would say tha their wishes should be honored. However, in cases where the parent is okay with the cells going to research, I just don’t see where you have any moral standing to argue against it.
Why don’t we all agree on such a compromise system where the parent of the cells may choose whether or not they should be used for research or just destroyed (or taken home in a jar)? Unless you have some religious reason to impose your views on the rest of us, I think this should be acceptable to everyone.
Nonetheless, I am waiting for you to explain how it is preferable to just destroy these humans than it is to try to benefit other humans with what remains of them? Where is the moral good in this deliberate waste?
Even if we stipulate that the bundles of cells in question are actual humans, I find your arguments against embryonic stem cell research to be morally repugnant.
Please, enlighten me.
-VM
Sure, let’s stipulate for a second that they are human.
New reports from the North Korean gulag detail some of the horrible things that go on there, justified by the fact that the people involved were condemned to death anyway.
The regime seems to think that any time they need to test a new poison gas or radiological weapon, they have a handy pool of test subjects available.
Now we claim moral superiority over the butchers of Pyongyang, right to the point where you make an identical argument to justify your political stance. Since they’re going to die anyway, it doesn’t matter what we do to them.
The real dividing line between regimes like North Korea, or Stalinist Russia, or Nazi Germany is a belief in the worth of every individual human life, and an unwillingness to sacrifice such for mere social utility. It is in this light that many, including myself, look at the implications of this use of embryonic stem cells as being one more retreat from this view of individual rights.
Add to that the fact that embryos are not the only source of stem cells, and the line becomes clearer yet.
Lots of people without any inkling of the scientific principles involved have turned embryonic stem cell research into a kind of cult. Note John Edwards’ remarks that if Kerry were elected, people like Christopher Reeve will walk again. What can be behind this fervor involving research very few understand fully? Could it be a desperate attempt to claim moral superiority from the side of the abortion debate more and more are seeing as immoral?
I like this. It’s reasonable and logical. So reasonable and logical that I have no doubt that it will be completely ignored by those who claim to seek a reasoned and logical answer to the “controversy.”
You reference to organ donation reminds me of the analogy I proposed concerning this very topic. Unfortunately, it’s much more fun to talk about Stalinist Russia, North Koreans and Nazis.
Sorry; didn’t quite twig to that. In that case we’re agreed. However, I think it works to some peoples’ advantage to have the issue “politicized” and controversial.
It goes like this:
Take something that is pretty much a slam-dunk when considered dispassionately.
Add a religious agenda and generate a “Controversy.”
Then they say:"we cannot go on with this controversial issue until it is solved by reason and logic.
Then ignore any reason and/or logical argument that might possibly go in a direction other than yours.
Add Nazis and shake well.
I am trying very hard not to answer this in an insulting or condescending way, but the outrageousness of this argument makes the task a bit daunting. I have to say that I am absolutely stunned by this analogy. Are you suggesting that a live, conscious human with a fully developed brain is no different from one with no brain? Do you see know difference between a human who is conscious and capable of feeling pain and one who is not?
Consider this example: I am in a gruesome car wreck in which a large piece of metal pierces my skull and scrambles most of my brains. Thanks to this injury and the resulting swelling, the outer portions of my brain die, leaving only the stem intact and functioning. At this point I would be at least as human and alive as the clumps of embryonic stem cells we are discussing. However, my life would be of no use to me and, for as long as it continued, would be nothing more than a source of pain and anguish to my family. I would feel no pleasure or pain. I would not know my children or be able to speak their names. Now, suppose the doctors tell my wife that I have not taken good enough care of my body for it to be useful for transplant purposes, but that certain of my parts might be useful for research. However, there is no way of knowing whether this research would ever produce any useful results and it would result in destruction of a great many of my parts. Do you think that my wife should choose to allow this to happen or insist on keeping my body alive as long as possible because of the sanctity of human life. Speaking for myself, I think that the more moral decision would be to at least try to get something good from what remains of my life than–even without a guarantee of success–than to waste resources trying to maintain a life that is of no value whatsoever to its original owner. What choice would you want YOUR family to make in that situation?
Or, suppose that I don’t have enough brain function to move or speak, but that I am experiencing excruciating pain every moment that I live. Do you think that respect for human life demands continued efforts to prolong this life of suffering? To me, this would be senseless torture.
Do you think that torturing prisoners who have thoughts, feelings, and desires, who can experience pleasure and pain, is really analogous to experimenting with undifferentiated stem cells that have no consciousness (or brain to keep it in), that cannot experience pleasure or pain, that cannot worship, deny, or even consider the existence of God?
I think that your dogmatic attachment to the “sanctity” of human life arrogantly dismisses the things about human life that give it value and meaning, things like joy and sadness, striving and failure, love and hate. You value the biological existence of human life in a way that includes no respect for human dignity or personal meaning. If there is a God, do you think that He is more interested in the presence of human life or in the use to which it is put by those who are lucky enough to have it?
This argument is nothing short of absurd. Suppose that the people in question are to be killed by beheading and a scientist has a way of keeping the body alive for a short time after the head has been removed and wants to experiment on it. What do you think of this idea? Suppose he wants to experiment with poisonous gases that he wants to weaponize? What about if he wants to experiment with an idea he has for curing cancer?
I don’t know where you got your ideas about what is ethical behavior, but it seems obvious to me that experimenting on living, thinking people is wrong because it is cruel and causes pain. Experimenting on living body parts (which includes removed organs, adult stem cells, and embryonic stem cells) is not, in and of itself, immoral because it is not inflicting suffering on a human that is capable of feeling or experiencing it.
It seems obvious to me that, if there is any “sanctity” in human life, it exists in the thinking, feeling consciousness of the human, not in the presence or absence of life in a particular collection of human cells. And I don’t see how you see any difference between a collection of embryonic stem cells that are slated for destruction and a living body with no high-level brain functions.
This is a blatant misrepresentation of the argument in front of you. The stem cells are going to be destroyed regardless. The question that has been asked of you repeatedly is how it is less moral to try to use them to help humanity than to just throw them in the incinerator. You have not even acknowledged this question, much less responded to it.
Another blatant misrepresentation. You argue here as if there were no difference between adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells, as if experimentation with one will yield the same results and therapies as experimentation with the other. Earlier, you pointed out ways in which stem cell therapy with one must be different from therapies using the other. You even pointed out difficulties that may prevent us from ever deriving useful therapies from embryonic stem cells. You cannot have it both ways. If they are the same, you cannot win your argument that one type of experimentation is acceptable and the other is morally wrong. If they are different, you cannot argue as if the availability of adult stem cells negates any need for experimentation on embryonic stem cells. Trying to do so is transparently disingenuous.
I would ask the same question of you. Note your remarks that experimenting on embryonic stem cells, which have no consciousness or ability to feel pain or pleasure, is morally equivalent to experimentation on conscious human captives.
Could it be a burgeoning disgust with the swelling ranks of people who, while not understanding the science involved, are increasingly eager to set federal policy based on religious dogma?
-VM
I’m not sure how the Nazis are supposed to improve your recipe, but I think you will find the results to be disappointing. Nazis, like gin, are bruised by vigorous shaking.
If you want the full effects, they should be stirred.
-VM
And again, you cannot make your point, Smartass without formulating your argument in the exact same way.
“Since they’re going to die anyway, it doesn’t matter what we do to them.” Isn’t that what you’re saying, regarding the people in comas and the embryos alike?
I’m happy you’re so disgusted by my analogies, since they aren’t examples any moral person can support. You seem to be drawing lines somewhere, though. On one side the destruction of a human life cannot be justified, on the other it can. And you base this secision on the value of the life in question, totally missing the point that the Nazis and the North Koreans also have a notion of what constitutes a valuable life.
I can understand why you choose to draw the lines as you do, basing your definition of personhood on the existence of consciousness. I don’t regard this as quite so clean cut, though, based on the biological processes at work in the growth of the embryo and fetus. Since no clear marker exists regarding when “life” begins here, I believe it should be respected from the earliest point. The failure to do so is a tragedy on a grand scale, so comparisons to other tragedies arising from a fluid definition of life seem apt.
I feel bad that my comparisons have led to the tone of this debate deteriorating as it has. Please note, though, that I’m not making these comparisons to inflame the debate. I’m making them because I believe these are tragic examples of societies that did not value life and did not apply human rights equally. Any steps we make that take us down that path, whatever distance we go, I won’t favor.
No, that is not the way I’m formulating my argument, and this should be clear by now. If you would actually address all of the examples that I gave, you would not be able to pretend otherwise. If I have control of a tree and a dog, both of which are living, and I light both of them on fire, there is a meaningful difference between the effects. In BOTH cases I am destroying life. However, in the case of the tree, there is no nervous system and no evidence of anything resembling consciousness. It cannot feel pain or suffer in any way that we are able to recognize or understand.
In the same way, if I have control of a fully healthy adult and a vegetative one with no brain activity, both of which are living, and I light them on fire, there is a difference of effects. One of them will suffer; one of them will not.
Being human, we place a unique value on human life. You give every evidence of respecting this without giving any thought to why. The key issue is not the presence of life or human DNA or a biological definition of “humanness”. You like to reduce this to a matter of defining a human, and you refuse to even acknowledge, much less consider, my attempts to point out that the issues at play here are not merely definitional.
When we talk about the “value” of things, our discussion can only be subjective. A well-prepared steak may be of great value to me but of no value to a vegetarian. The lives of most humans are of no direct value to me, but my own life is of extremely high value. It is the only thing in the universe that is uniquely mine, and without it I cannot do or have any of the other things that are associated living, pleasure, pain, or personal fulfillment. When we talk about respect for human life, or the value of it, we are talking about a uniquely human understanding of the value that life has for the person who owns it. I respect your life, and I refrain from needlessly taking it from you, not because of some value that it has for me or some “objective” value that it has for the world, but because of the extremely high value I assume that it has for you.
Once I am dead, nothing (including my life) will be of any value to me any more. Without a functioning brain, I will not even be able to conceive of the idea of “value”. If you were to light me on fire right now, it would be extremely cruel because I would feel the pain and because you would be depriving me of “living time” that I otherwise would have had. I could, however, have a massive stroke which destroys all the functioning of my briain. Once my brain has died, a great many of the cells in my body will remain living for some minutes, hours, or even days. Any time after my brain has died, you may light me on fire without having done me any kind of cruelty–even if there are millions of living human cells destroyed in the process. Your definitional approach to “respecting” human life does not make any distinction between the two actions.
I am telling you, as a living, breathing, thinking and feeling human being, that if my situation were different, if rather than being born in the way that I was, I had instead been nothing more that a collection of embryonic stem cells that no one intended to implant and grow, that I would WANT my “life” to be used for research instead of just wasting it. If I were the stem cells in question and I was able to make and communicate a preference, I would ask you to use me for research instead of throwing me in the incinerator. Does this fact not give you pause of any sort? Do you not recognize the astonishing arrogance of your presumption to be able to place a “value” on a human life more accurately than the human to whom it belongs? You want to claim to know what a human life is worth, what it is for, and what gives it meaning, and you have the unmitigated gall to suggest that your attitude is respectful.
I am a living human at least as much as you are. No other person is more qualified (or morally entitled) to place a value on my life than I am. And I am telling you that, with no functioning brain, my life is of no value to me whatsoever, whether this be the case before my birth or after my death. Without my brain, the notion of “me” does not even make any sense. In such a case, if there is a way that my life can have value for another human, then that is what I would actually prefer. Based on these facts, your proclamations about the value of human life are, in fact, offensive to me.
Thanks. Being condescended to is especially satisfying when it comes from someone with the level of “respect” for humans that you claim to have.
Inflicting pointless suffering on humans cannot be justified. Inflicting any suffering on humans is difficult to justfy. Taking something from a human that is his and has value to him is very dificult to justify. A human without a functioning brain cannot meaningfully have anything and certainly cannot want anything. You can perform experiments on a prisoner against his will because he has a will. You cannot perform experiments on stem cells against their will because they do not have one. Try as hard as you like, you wil never be able to torture a tree.
So, now you are ready to equate stem cell research with the Holocaust, huh? I’m the libertarian here. Isn’t it supposed to be me who brings up comparisons to Nazis?
Just to be clear, I am saying the only valid measure we (those of us who aren’t God, anyway) can make of the value of a human life is the value placed on it by its owner. Without being implanted in a mother and grown, a collection of stem cells cannot have a brain, a will, or even a meaningful identity. There is no addressable consciousness to evaluate this life. However, to incinerate it is to say that it is of no value to anyone and does nothing good for this human or any other human. To use it for research is to say that it is valuable to all humans and while it does nothing good for the human in question, it might do some good for others. In neither case is there an option to meaningfully help or harm the human in question.
Look, we can argue over definitions with respect to “life” or “human” or “person” indefinitely. Let’s try another approach. What the hell do you mean when you use the word “respect”? If you have a collection of embryonic stem cells, and you think of them as a human life, how in any moral framework known to man is it more respectful to incinerate them than to try to learn from them? Scientists are seeing these cells as one of the keys to the existence of human life. They believe that they could become a key to lessening human suffering and enabling humans to have longer, healthier, and happier lives. You continue to claim that your “respect” for human life leads you to believe that it would be better to just incinerate them. How can you claim that such pointless waste is respectful? How can you claim that attempts to increase the length and quality of human life are disrespectful?
This is offensive in a lot of ways, but I’ll just pick the most glaring one: On what basis do you claim that I have a fluid definition of life?
If I had never debated a religious zealot before, I could claim shock that you feel comfortable comparing health researchers to Nazis in the same post where you are mourning the deterioration of the debate. I have learned, though, that this is not the exception; it is the rule.
Ah, so you now want to claim that your argument stems from a deep respect for human rights, eh?
Let’s say that my wife and I combine some of my sperm with one of her eggs to create a collection of embryonic stem cells. Based on the way you have framed the debate, these cells would either be our property or our unborn child. In either case, you have no moral standing to dictate the decision in question. If my wife gave birth to a child with no brain, would you launch a crusade to force us to keep it alive? Would you insist that we make sure that every cell in its body be dead before we could bury it? Would you claim that we should not be allowed to donate the child’s body for scientific research?
The level of this debate has deteriorated because of your willingness to twist logical arguments and moral positions (such as a support for human rights) in whatever way you feel necessary to support your completely unreasoned religious position. This produces emotional responses because your cavalier disregard for honest debate is repulsive.
-VM
It’s funny, but, being “from the side of the abortion debate (And what exactly is the “debate” again?) more and more are seeing as immoral,” I can’t count the number of times I’ve urged people to run right out and get an abortion.
Okay, I can. Never.
See, that’s the thing. I’d rather let people make their own decision as to what’s right and what’s wrong when the issue is as ill-defined and personal as it is. I don’t presume that my beliefs are inherently superior or that I have the right to make such a decision for others. No one but Terri Schiavo’s husband had the right to choose her ultimate fate, except those nitwits who felt that they had a claim to “moral superiority.”
Long answer short; “I’ll make my own decision, thank you very much.”
Your claim that this has nothing to do with religion rings hollow. To paraphrase H.L. Mencken, “When the other fellow says it’s not about religion; it’s about religion.”
You think it’s wrong, based on your faith? Bully for you. You’re entitled to your opinion. By all means, feel free to not participate.
You think it’s wrong and wish to dictate national science policy on religious (yours, of course) guidelines? That’s crazy-talk. That’s as crazy as crafting a national energy policy based on the input of petroleum executives and defrocked energy traders.
oh…wait…
Trying to reconcile what you and Mr. Moto are saying. I agree with you to a point that embryos may be used in experiments. I agree with Mr. Moto that government cannot dispose of embryos as it wishes, and so should stay out of this.
First, isn’t that exactly where we are now? Bush didn’t prohibit embryonic research, only withheld federal money from going to it. Research may go on. California will subsidize embryonic research, for example.
Just think about the principle involved: if gov’t can’t violate embryos, what life can it violate? Conversely, if gov’t can violate embryos, what life can it not violate? If you think this is a bunch of spiritualistic nonsense, consider the reaction to gov’t openly subsidizing experimentation on animals.
Well, I have maintained all along in this thread that opposition to embryonic stem cell research is primarily based on the morality of the research, along with the fact that adult stem cells present a possible solution avoiding both scientific and ethical pitfalls associated with embryonic cells.
Now, said moral opposition need not be religiously based, although often it is. And the expression of moral principles in law is a well-eatablished tradition that in no way offends the principle of church-state separation.
I have no truck with witholding federal monies, if that is what the people demand. I do have a problem with setting government health and science policies on arbitrary personal opinions instead of a dispassionate weighing of the potential benefits against potential dangers to society.
What Mr. Moto has explicitly stated is that he would like to see a complete blanket ban on this research, which is a different kettle of fish entirely.
So, I’m perfectly ok with a a ban on federal funding of stem cell research, provided it also halts all federal subsidies of the pork industry (After all, pigs have cloven hoofs and don’t chew their cud), a ban on all federal subsidies to the beef and dairy industries (Cows are sentient creatures who should not be treated as disposable “product”), and and end to all research on organ transplantation.
Are we all agreed then?
“A refutation of a caricature can be no more than a caricature of a refutation.” – Amos Tversky
IOW, strawman.
What’s the term for arguing primarily via allusion to Nazis?