Not at all. While there are undoubtably some uninformed laypeople who don’t recognize any difference, the prime movers who oppose fetal and embryonic stem cell research DO recognize a difference. That is PRECISELY why they advocate the use of stem cells from alternate sources, e.g. from umbilical cords and adult bone marrow.
If anything, it is their critics who misrepresent their position. It is their critics who claim that these people oppose all stem cell research, when in reality, they only oppose research on fetal and/or embryonic stem cells.
Did I miss the official statement of the national Democratic Party that called for a banning of Ann’s latest dribbling? Or do you seriously want to start the argument that a few folks belonging to an organization speak for all of its members?
I guess we can add to that “or whether or not the death penalty is appropriate considering the unfair nature of the current justice system.” As I said, my point is NOT to debate any of these issues. They would each require their own thread, and we could go round and round about them until we filled up the internets!
I am trying to explain some of the general principle behind the concepts. I can’t necessarily explain it in extreme depth, as I am not an expert in these matters. I am merely trying to demonstrate that the philosophy is not as simple-minded as some try to imply that it is.
I am not going to argue for or against any specific war. Warfare changes over the years, and I don’t believe you can compare the current war to the way that WWII was fought. Obviously, there are always some civilian casualties. The point I was trying to make is that in war, civilians are not necessarily killed. Theoretically, an entire war could be fought with no civilian casualties. Certainly, wars are never fought with only civilan casualties. In fetal stem cell research, on the other hand, innocents are necessarily killed in order to do the research; that specific type of research cannot be conducted without doing so. It is not a situation where we are going after the cause of the disease, and the fetuses are accidentally killed “in the line of fire” so to speak. And certainly, the embryos/babies are certainly not responsible in any way for causing the diseases that might be cured.
Actually, I don’t know how strongly I feel about fetal stem cell research. None of the premises I listed are necessarily based on my own personal opinions. I do think that any other possible method of conducting research to fight disease should be exhausted before going in this direction.
And I never said that researchers don’t have good intentions. I believe my statement was that curing disease is “a noble purpose.”
So?
Obviously. I never said that all wars are completely justifiable. This was my point about the Pope coming out against this war, even though the Church does not condemn all wars. Some wars may be justified based on an imminent threat to humanity. Some are obviously not. This entire war was based on the idea that Saddam had a stash of WMDs somewhere. Congress, representing the citizenship of the US, was unanimous in their agreement that, faced with possible annihilation of mankind, war was justified. Now that there is doubt about the WMDs having existed, some people feel very differently about it. On the other hand, others don’t, because they have different ideas about what justifies war.
Perhaps I did not think that word through enough, but I think most people would get my meaning.
Again, you are asking about my personal feelings/opinions, which are not really relevant to this thread. I would say that a case could be made either way. And by the way, this is exactly my point. In no way are these black-and-white issues. It would be so easy to say, “all killing, for any reason, is wrong.” Take a look at it from another point of view. In the title of the OP, the question is, “Is it contradictory to support the war in Iraq, but not stem cell research?” I could turn this around and say “Is it contradictory to support stem cell research, but not the war in Iraq?” In both cases, some innocents will die, but there will be lives saved in the long run. Can you explain to me why it is not a contradiction to support stem cell research, but not the war?
Please note: this is a rhetorical question. I do not need an answer, as I already understand all the reasons that someone might feel this way. It would be foolish for me to lump the two situations together as if they were completely analagous, because it would show that I have spent no time trying to understand the point of view of people who disagree with me. I would assume that anyone who has formed an opinion on these types of issues has thought through their reasons for the opinion that they hold, and resolved these kinds of possible contradictions to their own satisfaction. If they haven’t, no matter what opinion they hold, they should certainly go back and re-think it.
I just want to second this. In no way do any pro-lifers who know anything about the issue oppose non-fetal stem cell research. In fact, we strongly ENCOURAGE it as an alternative to fetal stem cell research.
Part of the concern is that some embryos will be deliberately created and sacrificed under the table, if embryonic stem cell research is allowed and/or encouraged. I’m sure there are other concerns as well. Either way though, my point remains… **It is patently false to say that the opponents of fetal/embryonic stem cell research want to ban ALL research on the use of stem cells. ** People bandy this claim about, but they are either speaking ignorantly or they are deliberately misrepresenting their opposition.
Why didn’t Jon’s interviewee respond, "No, in the same way that you can denounce the war in Iraq but support fetal stem-cell research. " ? It makes about as much sense.
– Skammer, who is against both the war and fetal stem-cell research, and smirks in his ethical consistency.
And no one wishes to discourage it. Fetal stem cell research seems much more promising, and we who support it don’t want to see generations of people suffer for very spurious reasons if adult stem cell research does not pan out. Research is always a gamble, and you can’t afford to throw away the most promising opportunity.
Perhaps you should concentrate on the lack of implantation crisis first.
It might be a different story if fetal stem cell research hadn’t been hobbled by the likes of you. Let the best technique win is the scientific way. I live in California, where the will of the people to proceed on this is being delayed by lawsuits by those who won’t accept that will.
If you read the article I cited, you would learn that both ESC and ASC research have been around for 50 years or so. ASCs are being used for all kinds of treatments and therapies. ESCs…none. Maybe ASC would be used to treat even more conditions if it weren’t hobbled by the likes of YOU, who are more concerned with being sure the law protects ESC research than whether or not ESCs do anyone any good.
Thats because adult stem cells have been researched since the 1960s. Embryonic stem cells were only first isolated in 1998. So Adult stem cells have 30-40 years of research ahead of them.
I personally don’t mind the federal funds ban a whole lot. I don’t think it is a good idea and I’m opposed to it, but its not like singapore, south Korea, the EU, California, Japan, etc. aren’t going to pick up the slack and research the issue anyway. Besides, by banning federally funded ESC research more money is spent on other forms of stem cell research. So down the road perhaps the world will get more diversity in its stem cell research as the US will have to take different paths.
Cite? (I ask this, because the cite I gave states that both kinds of stem cell research go back 50 years.)
It is true that various other countries have been doing ESC research, but my understanding is that in these countries, ASC research is also much further along that ESC research.
Look, I’m pro-choice, pro-fetal stem cell research, anti-war, and anti-death penalty, but even I can see that these are four different things. The conservatives’ reasoning isn’t inherently contradictory.
I disagree with all four of those statements to varying extents, but if you do believe them (and many people do), then there’s no contradiction here.
Maybe you should try talking to some conservatives who aren’t fascists. This kind of ridiculous vitriol hurts the liberal agenda a lot more than it helps.
You are so right about that. What some people don’t realize (no names here), is that there are fascists on both sides. Anyone who desires to get their own way or push an agenda without reasonable debate or at least acknowledging that there are genuine arguments pro or con is a fascist. It is very easy for both sides to demonize the opposition by make sweeping statements about what the other side supposedly believes, or worse yet what their motivations are, without anything to back it up.
Sure, you can SAY that conservatives (or liberals, for that matter) are hypocritical, but all it really shows is that you don’t understand anything about their argument. IMO, it’s not too smart to take a side without having this basic understanding…how can you have an opinion if you haven’t REALLY looked at the arguments and justifications for both sides? Sure, you can decide that one set of beliefs works better for you than the other, but I don’t think any reasonable person would look at the other side and just brush it off as if it hasn’t been thought through and has no merit whatsoever.
Innocent people have been executed. It’s one of the reasons I’m against the death penalty.
I agree that the moral situation is complicated. But any statements we make to back up our views should be accurate.
Aren’t these contradictory?
‘there are always some civilian casualties’
‘in war, civilians are not necessarily killed’
Of course a country could surrender without a shot being fired. But history shows there are huge risks to civilians. Especially today, when most warfare is conducted using artillery, bombs and missiles.
Tha country is not morally justified in fighting the war. This is why I am against war.
I think you are charmingly naive if you think Iraq was about WMD’s! (See other threads for details on the oil and safely removing US bases from Saudi Arabia.)
I also don’t understand where you get your idea that ‘mankind faced annihilation’.
The British Prime Minister stated that there was danger that Saddam could hit UK bases (in Cyprus). Hardly the end of the World.
I know this was rhetorical, but I don’t think you appreciate that the war in Iraq was not fought for some noble purpose and **certainly not to save Iraqi lives. **
The possible repercussions of continually meddling in the oil-rich Middle East are frightening, and bear no resemblance to the motivation for stem cell research.
Me too, actually. Again, I am not trying to argue the practicalities of administering the justice system so that this does not happen. I am not even arguing for or against the death penalty.
I don’t think I am being inaccurate. I am talking about philosophy.
No, I don’t think they are. When I say that there are always civilian casualties, this is because of the manner in which war is currently waged. My point was that although sometimes civilians are killed, it is not necessary to the engagement of war. In ESC research, it necessarily requires not only the destruction of embryos, but the creation of said embryos in the first place. My point wasn’t exactly that one is OK and the other isn’t, my point was that they are 2 different things.
And this is true as well. I would like to point out again that the premises I used do not constitute comprehensive overview of the pro-life position. Another justification someone might use for war is that it is believed to be in the best interest of the entire population of the world (again, given modern weaponry), and therefore some loss of civilian life is justified. With this premise, ESC research, being in the best interest of a fraction of the population, would not be justified.
I am not sure I get this reasoning.
Whatever. The point is that Congress believed at the time that WMDs were at issue. Whether or not they were was totally beside my point. The point was that if you believed that WMDs were in the hands of Saddam, you might justify a war based on that belief. If you then decide that Saddam did NOT have WMDs, you might change your attitude about the exact same war.
Again, whatever. I never made any such statement. In fact, I was deliberately using vague, sweeping statements to illustrate a point. If you want to use this to get on a soapbox about the war, then fine, but don’t put words in my mouth about what I believe or don’t believe about this particular war. I was merely trying to point out that if you use false or misguided premises, it is easy to mischaracterize what the “other side” believes or doesn’t believe.
You’d have a point if I was saying that ASC research should be stopped, or even that ESC research should be conducted at the expense of ASC research. I’m not - in fact funding should be increased for both.
I do research (not medical research) and I’m not one expecting therapies next year or even in 2010. There weren’t an awful lot of DNA therapies in 1953, and not a lot of applications of the transistor in 1952. But ESC is a horse well worth putting money on, I think. The way you decide funding decisions is by peer review by other scientists, not by religiously motivated politicians.
Wesley Clark is quite correct that research will continue. Since I live in California, a big boom in biotech research in Silicon Valley will keep driving up the value of my house. I don’t mind if we grow at the expense of yahoos in Oklahoma. But I do mind that there is the possibility that US scientific leadership be degraded by this nonsense. What would have happened if some politicians, convinced that God was against machines “thinking” decided to ban research on computers and advanced electronics? Where would our economy be then?