Science’s Rightful Place Redux

_{Donald McLaughlin

March 7, 2009

Biology, Chemistry, Constitution, Culture, Darwinism, Laws, Legal, Philosophy, Religion, Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Back in January I posted this comment to ask what is science’s “rightful place.” Now it seems we’re getting a clearer picture of the answer as far as the President is concerned. Fox News is reporting that President Obama to issue an executive order on Monday that would lift the restrictions on embryonic stem cell research put in place under President Bush.

Regardless of one’s opinion or position on this issue, there are a couple points of concern with respect to this story. First is this comment from the new story that “Obama’s move is expected to lift that restriction. The official said the aim of the policy is restore “scientific integrity” to the process.” I don’t know who this official was, but exactly what is “scientific integrity” and who gets to decide it?

Apparently the answer to that question is found a little later in the article: “But leading researchers consider embryonic stem cells the most flexible, and thus most promising, form — and say that science, not politics, should ultimately judge.” In other words science ought to be the arbiter of its own morals and ethics and government can keep its moral and ethical opinions on scientific practice to itself!

I find this to be the height of arrogance and, frankly, its a bit scary. A science morally and ethically unrestrained by government will ultimately take the mentality that anything that is possible should be.

Comments

Well, as most of you know, the annoucement and Executive Order did come today as promised. But in what I can only describe as complete philosophical confusion, the President said that he "would not open the door to human cloning." So, on the one hand, science does get to set its own moral and ethical boundaries; but on the other hand it doesn't. I would love to know what moral argument justifies retaining a restriction on human cloning while allowing lifting it on embryonic tem cell research. So, we can destroy life for the sake of research, but not create it. This is serious moral confusion! And for the record, I am opposed to both!DonaldM_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT}

vjtorley [77], your thought experiment is very fine. I'm not sure what I'd do, but I might decide to save the embryos in that case. I'd sure be glad somebody decided to cultivate those embryos though. Whew! [wipes brow]David Kellogg_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT}

vjtorley: Thank you for comment #76. You have made me think long and deeply about the issues raised here, and I have indeed changed my mind about some of my positions as a result. I guess it's not so surprising, given that David Hume was a fellow Scot, but you have convinced me that his position on the "grounding" of ethics is the most realistic: that ethical decisions ultimately flow from our emotions, not from our reason. As an evolutionary psychologist by profession (and not an ethical philosopher) I suppose I should have known this, and so I thank you for helping me come to clearness on this point. Your story was very touching, and all the moreso because it almost exactly matched what happened to my wife and me. We, too, lost a child: our third. She lived long enough (almost six months inside her mother) that we were pretty certain she was a girl: we named her Cynara. However, the first time we saw her on ultrasound, she was already dead and had started to decompose, so we didn't have to agree to having her "killed" to save her mother's life. She was "born" two days later via emergency D&C. Like you, we were never able to hold her, only to say goodbye. And like you, we were blessed with another, her little brother, Draco (we celebrated his second birthday this past weekend). And so you see, it's not rationality at all that makes us human, nor sentience, nor chromosomes, nor any of those other "inhuman" things: it's our emotions and who we care about, and why that makes us who we are. And now to your questions. You ask:
What about zygotes and blastocysts that ARE able to survive outside the mother’s body – are they human beings?
Not yet, as I believe (as the result of your post and the clarity it has helped me find) that the definition of a "human being" is not based on science or rationality, but on sentiment. If it becomes possible to maintain them in an artificial womb, then they can develop until they can become "human"...or, as I would prefer to refer to them, "persons". However, this means (to me) that the decision to carry them to term in an artificial womb should be entirely voluntary and limited to the donors of the egg and sperm which were used in their conception. Governments should have no say in this either way, IMHO.
And do they cease to be human beings when they implant, and become dependent on the mother?
At that point, and until the development of a technological means to bring them independently to term, they become part of their mother, and she therefore has the ultimate choice as to their survival. If it were my wife, I would hope that she would choose to bring them to term, but that would be her decision, since its her body, not mine. She takes all the risks (up to and including death), so the choice is hers.
And what about medical advances? Are you saying that a 22-week-old premature baby that can be kept alive in an American hospital is a human being, but that a 22-week-old fetus whose mother happens to live in a Third World country without hi-tech medical facilities, is not a human being?
See my explanation of what I believe about the term "human being", above. If you were to ask me, would I do whatever I could to help the premature baby in the Third World survive and have a rewarding life, yes I would. Who wouldn't? but that would be based on my emotions – my sentiments, if you will – and not some absolute rational criterion, unaffected by sentiment.
Hypothetically, if a baby could survive outside its mother’s body, but still had to be attached to her body by an external tube, would you regard it as a human being?
Not an independent one, and so the same answer I gave earlier applies here: until the development of a technological means to bring them independently to term, they become part of their mother, and she therefore has the ultimate choice as to their survival. If it were possible for a surrogate to substitute for the mother (which your hypothetical technology would seem to allow), then if someone wanted to substitute for the mother, that would be my choice. If I could do it myself, I most certainly would. But I would never force someone else to do what I either would or would not do.
Well, what about a baby born in a Third World country who is allergic to any milk but its mother’s?
This isn't even hypothetical; there are lots of babies like that right here. In this case, if my wife and I had a baby like this, I believe we would do what we could to keep it alive. If it were someone else's child and we could help (for instance by donating mother's milk, which my wife did during one of her pregnancies - she made a lot that time!), I believe we would (I would want to, and I believe my wife would as well). But once again, I believe that this should be up to us, not up to a law enforced by the government.
If and when scientists ever create an artificial womb (and I hope they never do), would you then regard the embryo and fetus as human beings with rights
Unlike you, I hope that artificial womb technology does become possible, as I know many couples now childless who would avail themselves of it, and I believe that they should be given the choice to use it (or not; it's up to them, not to me, and certainly not up to the government). And the answer to your question is easy this time: Yes. Indeed, I believe that a fetus in an artificial womb should be recognized to have the same rights as a premature infant in an incubator. That is, to turn off the incubator or to otherwise intentionally cause the premature baby's death should be treated as homicide; the same for a fetus in an artificial womb. Again, vj, thank you. I will henceforth do what I should do as a member of the Society of Friends: I will hold you and your wife all of your children in the Light. And so, to close: I have been faithful to thee, Cynara! in my fashion...Allen_MacNeill_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT}

CORRECTION POST Concerning Allen Mac Neill (#47). Your attempt to downplay and/or whitewash the meaning of eugenics and the fact that Darwinian “scientist” R.A. Fisher was a practitioner is explained by the fact that you are a Darwinist attempting to conceal the racist history of your evolution theory. Anyone can search the Internet and easily discover that the so called "greatest scientist since Darwin" (R. A. Fisher) was Professor of Eugenics (= white superiority). He had much in common with the KKK. It's better to just admit and face these unpleasant facts, Allen: evolution gave white men the "evidence" to justify their pre-existing racism. RayR. Martinez_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT}

Concerning Allen Mac Neill (#47). Your attempt to downplay and/or whitewash the meaning of eugenics and the fact that Darwinian "scientist" R.A. Fisher was a practioner is explained by the fact that you are a Darwinist attempting to revise the racist history of your evolution theory. Anyone can search the Intenet and easily establish that the so called greatest scientist since Darwin was Professor of Eugenics (= white superiority). RayR. Martinez_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT}

I found the following a bit ironic: ""Medical miracles do not happen simply by accident," Obama declared."Phinehas_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT}

OK, now to the other comments. Atom (23)
Do you have a paper that repeats what you’ve written here, in a form I can possibly pass along to others?
Not yet, but I'll set one up tonight at http://www.angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/prolife.html so you can access it. David Kellogg (21)
You are the only adult in a burning building. In the building with you are two week-old human babies and two portable freezer cases with 100 zygotes in each.
Yeah, I guess I would save the babies. The thought of letting newborn babies suffer the agony of being burnt to death would be too terrible to contemplate. The zygotes would not suffer that agony. But that's not really a fair question. Let's try this one. The human race has been almost wiped out by radiation from a nearby supernova explosion. The radiation killed all the children living on the Earth, and sterilized all the surviving men and women. But in an underground nuclear bunker, there are two babies who have escaped death, as well as 100 embryos. There are also 100 fertile women who escaped the force of the blast (unfortunately, however, there are no fertile men). These women are willing and able to carry the embryos to term, and it so happens that there is a doctor on hand who can implant the embryos. You are the head of the community. I'm not asking you to make any life-and-death decisions here. Just tell me this: would you consider the embryos any less worth saving than the newborn babies? Wouldn't all the children count equally, in this case? And wouldn't the death of the 100 embryos be even more tragic for the community than that of the two babies? Charlie (35)
Are you saying that an adult stem cell, the cell itself, can be "regressed" (as Allen says) into an embryo? Or can it be "regressed" into a cell, which, when implanted into an egg or a blastocyst, would be an embryo?
I'm not a scientist, but I'm assuming, for argument's sake, that an adult stem cell can actually be regressed into an embryo by resetting its epigenetic switches. George L. Farquhar (48)
If abortion became illegal what punishment should be given to women who have illegal abortions? The same as for first degree murder, potentially the death penalty?
That would be ridiculous. Pregnant women who have abortions are often acting under duress. According to one survey by the Guttmacher Institute, 34 per cent of women reported that they felt pressured into having an abortion - and that's in relatively affluent America. The figure must be far higher in Third World countries. Additionally, it makes no sense to charge a woman who had an abortion with murder in an age when many people hold so many different opinions about when a human being comes into existence. You can't commit murder unless you know you're actually killing someone. At a future date, when the humanity of the unborn child has been unequivocally recognized by law, it would make far better sense to go after those doctors who defy the law and continue to perform abortions for any and every reason during the first few months of pregnancy. For these doctors are not helping women; rather, they are harming them emotionally, in a terrible way.vjtorley_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

Allen_MacNeill:
If you were married and wanted a child, but could only have one via IVF, would you attempt to do so, and if so, would you consider that you were at least an accessory to murder?
As a staunch pro-lifer, I have faced exactly that decision. My wife suggested that we at least research why conception wasn't taking place. My response was simply, "the Lord gives, and the Lord takes away, blessed by the name of the Lord." Ie, if God wants us to have children we will. If not, I trust his best. When my wife finally came to the point of acceptance, a friend phoned us up and asked if we wanted a baby. 'Seems her daughter was pregnant with a child she couldn't keep. We had not advertised our desire for children, and had not advertised our struggle, so we accepted that God had spoken. We now have two children from the same birth-mother. They are wonderful. Jehovah Jireh. ----- We live in a society that kills babies because they are not "wanted" by us. We live in a society that kills 9 to make 1 because we desparately want a baby. We live in a murderous and schizophrenic society.bFast_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT}

Hi everyone! Thanks for the comments. I've just come home from a long day at work, so I'd like to address the various comments that my post has attracted, one by one. Allen MacNeill (41)
As David Hume pointed out, our ethical decisions are usually not made as the result of rational deliberation, but rather on the basis of emotion and sentiment.

[U]nlike many of the people that I have encountered who have made assertions like vj, Domoman, and charlie, I actually know (and care about) someone who has had to make decisions like this. Indeed, I have myself made similar life-and-death decisions as a 20-year EMT and emergency medical and fire responder in my local volunteer fire department.

If you were married and wanted a child, but could only have one via IVF, would you attempt to do so, and if so, would you consider that you were at least an accessory to murder?
Well, Allen, I've had to make a life-and-death decision too. You're not the only one. I have a long story to tell, so here goes. My wife and I got married on my wife's 40th birthday. (That means if I forget our wedding anniversary, I'm in double trouble!) At the time, I had no idea whether my wife was still fertile or not, but we both thought it would be nice to try for a baby. So we did. And about three weeks after we got married, my wife conceived. When I found out that my wife was pregnant, I was over the moon. We both were. And if you ask me what emotion I instinctively felt towards my unborn child, it was simply love, Allen. You quoted Hume as saying that our ethical decisions are usually made on the basis of emotion and sentiment. That may well be true, and I have no problem with that, as I regard natural human impulses as God-given, and hence generally trustworthy. If you have children, then I'm sure you also loved them long before they were born, or even viable (which seems to be your criterion for having a right to life). So here's my challenge to you: on your own reckoning, you would have to say that my feelings of parental love towards my unborn child were misplaced emotions - and that your own feelings were too, if you experienced the same emotions as I did. But if this is indeed what you would assert, then you are now saying that we should not always trust our feelings when making ethical decisions - which is contrary to the thrust of your quote from Hume. In that case, you are no longer making emotion the criterion for ethical judgements; you are placing something above it: namely, reason. Now, I have no problem with using reason to justify my ethical judgements, and I have already advanced arguments for the humanity of the unborn child. All I'm saying is: since you are evidently not a consistent emotivist, you will have to defend your own ethical position at the bar of reason, too. You write:
None of these ethical dilemmas happen if one defines a human being as a developing baby who can survive outside of its mother’s body.
Allen, I've got some news for you. Not ONE philosopher in the world today would agree with that yardstick. I've heard philosophers defend all sorts of cut-off points - conception, implantation, brain waves, sentience, birth, self-awareness - but no-one defends viability. Why? Well, for one thing, it's utterly illogical. The proposition, "A is not able to survive outside B's body" simply does not entail that A lacks human rights. At most, all it entails is that A has no claim to exercise its rights in a way that harms B. For another thing, what about zygotes and blastocysts that ARE able to survive outside the mother's body? Are they human beings? And do they cease to be human beings when they implant, and become dependent on the mother? And what about medical advances? Are you saying that a 22-week-old premature baby that can be kept alive in an American hospital is a human being, but that a 22-week-old fetus whose mother happens to live in a Third World country without hi-tech medical facilities, is not a human being? Hypothetically, if a baby could survive outside its mother's body, but still had to be attached to her body by an external tube, would you regard it as a human being? Well, what about a baby born in a Third World country who is allergic to any milk but its mother's? If and when scientists ever create an artificial womb (and I hope they never do), would you then regard the embryo and fetus as human beings with rights? I'm curious. Anyway, back to my story. The early weeks of my wife's pregnancy were blissfully happy. I would often squat down in front of my wife's tummy and greet my unborn child when I came home from work, and say goodbye to it when I left for work in the morning - even though I knew perfectly well that it was not yet sentient. Talking to my child just felt like the appropriate thing to do. Then things started to go wrong with the pregnancy. My wife had to go into hospital for a few days. After that, the doctors let her out again, and for a while, all seemed well. We passed the end of the first trimester, and I breathed a sigh of relief. Everything should be OK now, I thought. We're out of the woods. We weren't. Around week 15, my wife started leaking fluid from her amniotic sac. There was a perforation in the worst possible place: at the opening of the womb. The doctors told us things did not look good. We were shocked and appalled. I was incredulous. This is the 21st century, I thought to myself. Why couldn't the doctors fix a problem like this, I wondered. Why didn't they have an amniotic fluid bank, just like the blood banks we have in our hospitals? Why couldn't they stitch up my wife's amniotic sac, and replenish it with fluid? I wanted to ask the doctors these questions, but living in a foreign country (Japan), I couldn't. However, I did talk to one of my brothers (who is a nurse) and he advised us to prepare for the worst. It got worse. Doctors put the chance of our baby's surviving at 5 per cent. And then it was zero. My wife and I were both in tears. I had seen our child's ultrasound, but I had never had a chance to listen to its heartbeat before, as I had been far too busy juggling part-time jobs and making ends meet. So I asked a nurse in the hospital to let me listen to my child's heartbeat, for the first and last time, before my child died. You wouldn't think it could get any worse, could you? But it did. The doctor told us that he wanted to perform an abortion. I asked why, in my broken Japanese. With the aid of a diagram, he explained. If an abortion was not performed, he said, the child would not die right away. It would die a slow death, over a period of two weeks, as the last of the amniotic fluid drained away. Hearing that, I was still inclined to let nature take its course. Better a slow death than a violent one through abortion, which I wanted no part of. But there was something in the doctor's explanation that I had missed, and I found out a day later: if the baby died naturally, it would rupture my wife's internal organs when it eventually came out, leaving her unable to have another child, in all likelihood. The doctor said the only alternative was to abort the child, and bring it out as soon as possible. Before, I had been resigned to our child's impending death. Now I was horrified that I was being asked to give my approval to such a hideous deed - for in Japan, they ask both the husband and wife to give their consent, before performing an abortion. My wife felt that we had done all we could to save our little child. And as her husband, I felt that I should put my wife's interests first. I could not allow her to be ripped apart on the inside, and the doctors had told us there was absolutely no way to save our child. So with a heavy heart, I agreed. Some might say I committed murder, by bringing on the death of a child. I'll let God be the judge of that. All I will say is that our child was already doomed to die, despite our best efforts to save it, and my intention in aborting it was not to kill it, but to expel it as speedily as possible from my wife's body, before it could rupture her organs. Our unborn child died at the age of 17 weeks. It weighed 170 grams. We never knew if it was a boy or a girl, but we held a funeral ceremony for it afterwards - for that is the custom in Japan. That felt right too: we were farewelling a child, not a blob, or a potential life. Almost seven years have passed since our child died, but I still visit its grave every year, on the anniversary of its death. My wife and I felt drained after all that. But we still wanted to have a baby, so we didn't give up trying. For a long time, nothing happened. Did either of us consider IVF? No. It struck us both as absurdly unnatural. After all, what does it entail? For a woman, it means having her ova extracted; for a man, the cold, clinical procedure of ejaculating into a test tube; and after all this, some lab technician brings a sperm and an ovum together. You want to make a child like THAT? Are you serious? But if you asked me on a rational level why I object to IVF, I'd say: because the actual procedure whereby the child is created is a mechanical one - and hence, a loveless one. Sure, the parents-to-be might plan the procedure lovingly, but that's not the same thing. The actual process itself is an inhuman, loveless one. I'm not throwing stones at anyone here, Allen, and I mean no disrespect to anyone in your family. I wish them well. But you asked me what I thought of IVF, so I'm telling you. An additional reason for objecting to IVF is that it often involves the destruction of spare embryos - but as I said, even if it didn't, I'd still be against it. You write:
Using your criteria, the parents of IVF babies – who became such because they wanted a child so fervently they were willing to go through with what is often a fairly arduous and very expensive process* – are guilty of murder if they agree to have their unused, frozen blastocysts destroyed.
Murder is commonly defined as intentional killing. Killing with intent presupposes that the killers have knowledge that they are indeed killing someone. Before a couple who destroyed their spare blastocysts could be charged with murder, one would have to establish that they were fully aware that they were killing someone. Otherwise, in a just society, homicide would be a more appropriate sentence. Ditto for the doctors involved. You write that that "ignorance of the law or a mistake of law is no defense to criminal prosecution" under American law. I'm from Australia, so I can't comment, but I would have thought that ignorance of the pertinent facts (in this case, that the blastocyst being destroyed is indeed a human being) is clearly a different thing from ignorance of the law. You also write:
If you [italics mine - VJT] were married and wanted a child, but could only have one via IVF, would you attempt to do so, and if so, would you consider that you were at least an accessory to murder?
Short answer: yes, if that meant destroying surplus embryos, since I am fully aware that they are human beings. Well, what happened after that? Two-and-a-half years went by after the death of our first child, and my wife and I were more or less resigned to not having another child, but we never entirely gave up hoping. From time to time, we talked about adoption - but that's not easy, in Japan. And then we were visited by another miracle. My wife became pregnant again. This time, our child lived. As our child grew inside my wife's womb, I thought about how much we take for granted in life. We really have no right to expect a fertilized ovum, which is the size of a full stop, to develop into a bouncing baby who can smile back at you - but it does. That's an everyday miracle. We take the laws of nature for granted all the time, without ever asking why they keep working the way they do. After all, these laws are utterly contingent. They don't have to be that way. Use your imagination. When you think about it, so many things could go wrong between conception and birth, that it is a wonder that any babies are born at all. And yet they are. I had felt bitter at God after our first child died, but this time, we were truly blessed. My wife and I knew that our new baby was a gift from God. And when our son was born in 2005, the first thing I did when I held him in my arms was to say: "Thank you, God." It's a beautiful world we live in, but it's also a world filled with suffering. Children, born and unborn, die all the time. Why? I don't know. But the death of these children shouldn't prevent us from thanking God for the ones that do make it - and the ones that don't. I feel privileged to have loved two children of my own - one in this owrld, and one in the next. I hope I can be a good father to the son God has given me to take care of.vjtorley_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT}

Allen MacNeill answered a question:
Q: “How many times have you invoked Godwin’s law on this site in the past couple years?” AM: Almost as many times as some commentators at this website have “played the Hitler card” to shut down rational debate.
You don't know that that is the reason for comparison to Hitler. In fact, since you invoked Godwin 50 comments later you demonstrate two things: 1) debate was not shut down, and 2) you weren't concerned that it would be.
Contrary to what some regulars at this blog seem to believe, character assassination, guilt by association, and <ad hominem argumentation are not part of rational discussion nor scientific debate.
As opposed to the ad hominem of suggesting those who disagree with you are not thoughtful, or the ad bloginem arguments such as your chastisement that the blog itself violates Godwin before any comments are logged, or guilt by association by suggesting that those making rational arguments will lead to terrorism, or trying to shut down debate asking that we guarantee that no terrorists will bomb fertility clinics, or goading ("come on, you can do it, make another ad hominem..."). Why is it that so often when I see you debating you are posing as some kind of paragon of rational and courteous debate while violating your own admonitions? Back to my unanswered questions: Do you have a statistic demonstrating that most thoughtful people agree with you that one becomes a human being when one is able to survive independently of the mother's body?Charlie_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT}

"And what, precisely, does the 'rabble' (i.e. the majority of the United States electorate) 'really' want?" The rabble I invoked were the radicals of The Sixties, and what they wanted they largely got.Rude_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT}

critiacrof asks me:
What if YOU were a serial killer?
What do you mean "what if"? How do you know I am not? But anyway if I were a serial killer and had to choose between saving two other serial killers or the embryos I would still choose the embryos. Ya see I hate competition. ;)Joseph_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT}

And so it is now. Should a responsible leader attempt to put some tiny break on our slide into the moral abyss, the outraged change the subject and hysterically scream: It’s a war on science! Never, no never, address what you really want. No, keep the argument in the gray areas. And so we pretend that the issue is just some fertilized, frozen embryos that will have to be destroyed anyway, and not about what those who don white robes and pontificate in the name of “Science” might ultimately do with those frozen embryos … and aborted babies and other euthanized unwanteds. No, we can never admit that what we want is no restraint at all. Or, at best, the only restraint we accept is that of the shifting sand of our own moral confusion.Rude_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT}

In #66 rude wrote:
"The rabble out there whimpers over the extremes, incest, rape, not what they’re really after, and so the court complies (whoever heard of responsible leadership?), and what do we get? What the rabble wanted all along."
And what, precisely, does the "rabble" (i.e. the majority of the United States electorate) "really" want? Come on, you can do it; make another ad hominem argument and make my point for me (yet again).Allen_MacNeill_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT}

@Joseph 65: What if YOU were a serial killer?critiacrof_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT}

In #58 jerry asked:
"How many times have you invoked Godwin’s law on this site in the past couple years?"
Almost as many times as some commentators at this website have "played the Hitler card" to shut down rational debate. And I will continue to cite Godwin's Law every time they continue to do so. Contrary to what some regulars at this blog seem to believe, character assassination, guilt by association, and <ad hominem argumentation are not part of rational discussion nor scientific debate.Allen_MacNeill_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT}

Allen MacNeill 55:
That may very well be, but that isn’t the case here. The SCOTUS in Roe v. Wade didn’t assert that there was a moral or legal “gray area”, they were very specific: legal protection under the Constitution of the United States accrues to infants as soon as they can live independently from their mother ...
You make my point precisely. Those jurists were into eliminating the gray areas. The rabble out there whimpers over the extremes, incest, rape, not what they’re really after, and so the court complies (whoever heard of responsible leadership?), and what do we get? What the rabble wanted all along. Those who want no restraints whine over extreme cases that might elicit sympathy from the masses, the court then—finger to the fickle wind—obliterates the gray areas, moves the boundary and legalizes crime. And then this outrage: “… legal protection under the Constitution of the United States …” Why even mention the Constitution? Why cannot the court be honest? Why not be truthful and just say, “Damn the Constitution … we’re gonna make the law.”Rude_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT}

If I had to choose between frozen embryos and two serial killers the serial killers would lose. I say that because they- those two serial killers- already made their choice.Joseph_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT}

One question, perhaps off-topic: Do men have reproductive rights also? That is the Court case I would love to see. That is a woman conceives, wants an abortion but the father says "No way!" and gets a Court order to stop the abortion. My point is it seems a little one-sided if only the woman gets to "choose". And it means that men do NOT have any reproductive rights.Joseph_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT}

Clive Hayden post #59 Excellent post and directly to the point of my OP. The question of what exactly is science's "rightful place" in our culture and how limits on scientific practice are placed and for what reasons is a vital question for any culture. The issue this time around happened to be the lifting of the restriction on stem cell research. What will the next issue be and who or what will inform where the moral boundary is to be drawn to Justify either limiting or expanding the scope of scientific practice? If we allow science to define its own moral boundaries, then how will that influence the structure and implementation of science education, particularly in the public schools? As a society, do we want our children to be taught that science creates its own moral codes and ethical boundaries? I have no doubt that if such a question were put in a poll the vast majority would say "NO"! From the public statements coming from the current Administration, it seems clear that they hold that science gets to deal its own hand, and even stack the deck!DonaldM_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT}

Stem Cell research is important science and embryos aren't people. I am surprised at the attitude of people here, this is a science site.GSV_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT}

If it lives then it must have been a real human. If it dies then it must not have been a real human. Can't you see the barbarism of that argument?tragic mishap_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
12:42 AM
12
12
42
AM
PDT}

Allen: "None of these ethical dilemmas happen if one defines a human being as a developing baby who can survive outside of its mother’s body." "I haven’t asserted that adult cells can be regressed into embryos today. Rather, I have suggested that it is very likely, given the pace of research in this field, that this will be accomplished in the very near future." Well Allen, I haven't asserted that fetuses can survive outside the mother's body today. Rather, I have suggested that it is very likely, given the pace of research in this field, that this will be accomplished in the very near future. Oh wait, it happens all the time. So are you suggesting that if the baby lives, it has a right to life, and if it doesn't live then it had no right to life to begin with? Isn't this sort of a modern version of a trial by fire? What if the baby is born underwater and can't breathe? Are you suggesting it has no right to life simply because it's outside it's mother's body and can't survive?tragic mishap_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
12:24 AM
12
12
24
AM
PDT}

Hi David, Not quite. If you scroll to the next chart you'll see that 68% believe abortion ought to be illegal even in the second trimester. The next chart shows that those who think abortion ought to be legal in all cases number only 36%. That means almost twice as many want it limited. If they didn't think that the fetus was a person worthy of legal protection (as per Allen's most thoughtful people) prior to viability why would they offer such protections? Why would the number who think abortion ought to be legal only to save the woman's life, only in the case of rape or incest, or not at all, outnumber those who feel it ought not be restricted? If you keep scrolling you find:
A June 2000 Los Angeles Times survey found that, although 57% of polltakers considered abortion to be murder,
In fact, continuing down the page, we find a very even split on the question at three months of pregnancy - obviously well before viability:
In general, do you favor or oppose this part of the U.S. Supreme Court decision making abortions up to three months of pregnancy legal?", to which 49% of respondents indicated favor while 47% indicated opposition.
---
This is just not true.
I think I've shown that it is true- with your own source. Here's mine:
Most Americans disagree with the part of Roe v. Wade that denies protection to fetuses all the way up until viability, believing instead that the fetus should be protected earlier in pregnancy. Viability, of course, is the point between five and seven months' development when a fetus becomes strong enough to survive a premature birth. Applying the doctrine of prior restraint in the abortion context would protect fetuses before viability, without undue infringement of women's privacy and liberty interests. ... Such criminal laws reflect a consensus that fetal life should be legally protected, even if the fetus is too weak to survive on its own. Indeed, a Gallup poll two years ago showed that sixty-nine percent (69%) of Americans believe abortion should be illegal months before viability, and a more recent Los Angeles Times poll showed that seventy-two percent (72%) of women share this same belief.
http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/commentary/20020613_hyman.htmlCharlie_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
09:01 PM
9
09
01
PM
PDT}

Harold Varmus, who co-chairs Obama's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, had this to say about insulating science from political influence: "We view what happened with stem cell research in the last administration as one manifestation of failure to think carefully about how federal support of science and the use of scientific advice occurs. This is consistent with the president's determination to use sound scientific practice, responsible practice of science and evidence, instead of dogma in developing federal policy." As if lifting the ban on stem-cell research is not itself a dogma of federal policy. "Again, the new oligarchy must more and more base its claim to plan us on its claim to knowledge. If we are to be mothered, mother must know best. This means they must increasingly rely on the advice of scientists, till in the end the politicians proper become merely the scientists' puppets. Technocracy is the form to which a planned society must tend. Now I dread specialists in power because they are specialists speaking outside their special subjects. Let scientists tell us about sciences. But government involves questions about the good for man, and justice, and what things are worth having at what price; and on these a scientific training gives a man's opinion no added value. Let the doctor tell me I shall die unless I do so-and-so; but whether life is worth having on those terms is no more a question for him than for any other man. On just the same ground I dread government in the name of science. That is how tyrannies come in. In every age the men who want us under their thumb, if they have any sense, will put forward the particular pretension which the hopes and fears of that age render most potent. They 'cash in'. It has been magic, it has been Christianity. Now it will certainly be science." C.S. Lewis, Is Progress Possible? Willing Slaves of the Welfare State. http://www.onthewing.org/user/CSL_God%20in%20the%20Dock%20-%20CS%20Lewis.pdf Obama is showing that he is that puppet that Lewis predicted.Clive Hayden_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PDT}

Allen, How many times have you invoked Godwin's law on this site in the past couple years?jerry_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
08:49 PM
8
08
49
PM
PDT}

Charlie, "most Americans think abortion is murder and most think it should not be legal, even before viability"? This is just not true. Most polls show a close split on the issue with the pro-choice side usually getting the higher numbers. See here.David Kellogg_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
08:35 PM
8
08
35
PM
PDT}

re: Allen's #55 Godwin's law says nothing about a thread going over a cliff and it is impossible to meet the criteria of Godwin's law "in the lead-off". Godwin's law is about as over-used as the comparison it was meant to highlight.
Indeed, it is those who insist on granting identical moral rights and legal standing to frozen blastocysts that have muddied what to most thoughtful people is a very clear-cut issue,
Please, let's see the statistic on what most thoughtful people believe on this issue. Also, please show what they think about conflating adult stem cells and embryos. In fact, most Americans think abortion is murder and most think it should not be legal, even before viability.
and which can lead to such atrocities as the bombing of an IVF clinic. It hasn’t happened yet, but can anyone reading this thread assure me that it won’t?
What's the point here? That we shouldn't discuss the issue or apply logic to the question because we can't guarantee there are no insane people willing to carry out such acts? This argument is at least as hyperbolic and fallacious as any comparison to Hitler.
Does anyone seriously think that there would be such rancor around this issue if we adopted the position that “human beings begin with independent viability”?
Yeah, if the rest of us would just shut up and agree with you everything would be fine. But maybe you aren't right and maybe all the thoughtful people don't agree with you. Maybe your logic and arguments require proper discussion. Still unanswered from my first comment:
Why are you equating the stem cell itself with the embryo/ blastocyst as though implanting a stem cell in a mother’s body would somehow result in the birth of a human being? ... What is it about “regressing” adult stem cells to something of similar potency to that found in an embryo somehow the equivalent of destroying the embryo? ... Why are you equating the stem cell itself to a human being? ... Are you not greatly exaggerating the irony? If so, why?
Charlie_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
08:24 PM
8
08
24
PM
PDT}

In #50 Rude wrote:
"The way to slip past all moral bounds is to argue the gray areas, which if you fall for it always results in moving the boundary to legalize more immorality."
That may very well be, but that isn't the case here. The SCOTUS in Roe v. Wade didn't assert that there was a moral or legal "gray area", they were very specific: legal protection under the Constitution of the United States accrues to infants as soon as they can live independently from their mother (or surrogate mother, nowdays), which happens around the end of the second trimester. Yes, the exact time varies from person to person (and gets pushed back steadily with new neonatal medical technology), but the legal principle is sound. Furthermore, applying the same standard to the issue under discussion here makes crystal clear what several commentators have asserted: that there is an emotional, moral (and legal) difference between a frozen blastocyst and a crying infant. Terminating the former is not murder, but terminating the latter is. Indeed, it is those who insist on granting identical moral rights and legal standing to frozen blastocysts that have muddied what to most thoughtful people is a very clear-cut issue, and which can lead to such atrocities as the bombing of an IVF clinic. It hasn't happened yet, but can anyone reading this thread assure me that it won't? Does anyone seriously think that there would be such rancor around this issue if we adopted the position that "human beings begin with independent viability"?Allen_MacNeill_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT}

Yeah, according to Godwin's Law, this thread had already gone over the cliff by comment #3. If this were any other blog I would claim that this is some kind of new record, but there have been threads on this site that have won a Godwin Award in the lead-off post, before even one commentator had chimed in.Allen_MacNeill_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply