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

Charlie, who knows? I might tell the guy in the wheelchair to shut up and start wheeling himself out. On the other hand, I might help him because it would be easier to get us both out and the second guy is more difficult. But again, it would be a hard choice, a relative judgment, and I'd feel guilty about letting the other guy die. The other choice is trivially easy, because there are no "tiny invisible humans" in the vials. You have to stretch your imagination to make them human, and they return to being frozen cells at the tiniest pressure. I dare say you wouldn't even feel guilty about having sacrificed 200 lives to save 1 -- because you'd know that, in reality, nobody died. I went to high school with a guy who was in Marines in Lebanon went that truck bomb went off. Many of his friends died. I heard recently the whole story: how he came back come and killed himself. Survivor's guilt, I suppose. It's understandable. But a person who has survivor's guilt because he let 200 embryos die -- that person was plenty messed up already.David Kellogg_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT}

Rude, you're a striking one to be complaining about hysteria, what with your
The point is whether Materialist Science should be restrained any at all?
and your
Should the high priests of our new religion be allowed to do anything they want?
The original post refered to the new regs as "scary," and Hitler was invoked by the third comment. There's hysteria here, all right, but it's pretty much on the side of the original post.David Kellogg_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PDT}

Hi Allen, I asked,
Since eugenics was mentioned upthread, we can analogize to that. I am certain no doctors felt they were doing evil by performing involuntary sterilizations or enforcing miscegenation laws. But they were wrong, were they not?
You answer, and then some,
I agree that some of the eugenicists of the early 20th century were wrong*, and I base this on two crucial words in your next-to-last sentence: “involuntary” and “enforced”.
So we agree that good intentions, soul-searching, and lack of malevolence do not make an act right. So we can discard the emotional appeal to knowing people who have made such decisions and deal with the logic and the conclusions. --- Hi George, I think that issue is quite irrelevant to the question at hand. Legislators and jurists can worry about that. I was discussing Allen's concern that arguing against ESR would somehow obligate one to take a moral stand against drinking hot coffee or scratching his dermatitis. --- Hi David, You don't need a pre-existing attachment to make a choice. And making a choice does not, contrary to your assertion, provide prima facie evidence that the chooser has determined that the unchosen is not human, or less valuable, or that it can be morally destroyed. As Allen pointed out, such decisions are likely to be emotional rather than rational, and one will certainly have more emotional consideration for a cute, soft, crying infant than for invisible humans in vials. Let's try another. Will you save the man in the wheelchair pleading for help or the comatose man in the bed? If you have to save one person will you save the one that you would see and hear suffering through a glass partition or the one completely sealed off from you behind a steel door? What if you had reason to believe the not visible man will not suffer? Again, did your decision say anything about the personhood or humanity of the person left to die? Does making a decision mean you would not consider it murder to purposely kill that same person?Charlie_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT}

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. Truth is the law needs gray areas. Don't bring up the doctor who finally administered "euthanasia" to the guy screaming in unbearable pain and agony. Don't legislate the gray areas, ever legalizing more evil, rather leave it to the courts show some mercy. The point is whether Materialist Science should be restrained any at all? Should the high priests of our new religion be allowed to do anything they want? And why all the hysteria, all the deceptive blubbering about the President making something illegal when he had only declined to force me to pay for it?Rude_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PDT}

Charlie [45], you're missing my point. You don't have any previous attachment either to the frozen embryos or the 2 babies. If they have the same moral status, the only salient difference is that there are 200 of the first and only 2 of the second. If I have the choice to save 200 people or two, I'm going to save 200. But if I have a choice to save 200 embryos or two people -- what the heck, let's say two serial killers! -- I'm going to choose the people, because deep down, no matter what we say philosophically, you and I know that frozen embryos are not people.David Kellogg_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PDT}

Charlie, 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? What do you say?George L Farquhar_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT}

I agree that some of the eugenicists of the early 20th century were wrong*, and I base this on two crucial words in your next-to-last sentence: "involuntary" and "enforced". This is what made eugenics the way it was often practiced prior to 1945 morally wrong: it was based on forcing people who were supposedly "undesirable" to not have children (or, in the case of Nazi Germany, simply killing them). Ergo, it was the use of force that made this kind of eugenics immoral. By contrast, genetic counseling today (i.e. "neo-eugenics") is predicated on exactly the same kinds of genetic arguments that pre-1945 eugenics was. However, there is a huge and fundamental moral difference: eugenics today (which goes by the name of "genetic counseling), is both voluntary and generally "positive". That is, people are not forced to do anything, but rather decide on their courses of action on their own. Furthermore, most genetic counseling consists of suggesting to people what they can do under certain circumstances, rather than what theyshould or shouldn't do. * I do not include R.A. Fisher or J.B.S. Haldane in this group, however, as their version of eugenics consisted almost entirely of encouraging people with what they considered to be "positive" heritable characteristics to have as many children as possible. Fisher even put this into practice, having an unusually large family, especially for a devout Anglican and university professor.Allen_MacNeill_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT}

Hi again, Allen,
Ergo, people who through their actions caused the death of frozen human embryos (i.e. parents of an IVF child) could indeed be charged with murder, using vj, Domoman, and charlie’s criteria.
But first it must be recognized that they are killing a human being. They have to recognize this in order for there to be intent, and the law has to recognize it in order to charge murder. So the fact that we don't, or won't prosecute does not weigh at all against the logic or truth of the case.
And the reason I brought up the case of my brother-in-law is that, unlike 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.
Your emotional stake and my supposed assertions make no difference to the truth of the argument. One can have searched his soul thoroughly, be ignorant of facts, or fully intending to do good and still be wrong and be doing wrong. Since eugenics was mentioned upthread, we can analogize to that. I am certain no doctors felt they were doing evil by performing involuntary sterilizations or enforcing miscegenation laws. But they were wrong, were they not?Charlie_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PDT}

Hi David,
The point is, those are tough decisions because we know that all the examples are humans with rights.
Let's substitute "serial killer" and "infant son" into your previous answer:
I think anybody who says he should choose 100 embryos over his own life is probably lying or deluded.
I don't think the decision is a tough one at all and I doubt anybody else does. I think the point is plainly made, against your last assertion, that to make a decision is not to determine that one potential victim is less a human being deserving of rights than the other. As Allen wisely said, the decision s more an emotional one than a rational choice.Charlie_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT}

Also, in response to another of charlie's questions, the general rule under U.S. law is that "ignorance of the law or a mistake of law is no defense to criminal prosecution." See Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991). Ergo, people who through their actions caused the death of frozen human embryos (i.e. parents of an IVF child) could indeed be charged with murder, using vj, Domoman, and charlie's criteria. And the reason I brought up the case of my brother-in-law is that, unlike 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.Allen_MacNeill_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT}

Hi Allen,
But, if one follows this line of reasoning and uses vj’s criteria, then prospective parents who avail themselves of IVF are guilty of murder if they choose to have their unused embryos destroyed (which most of them do, BTW).
Since we both accept that intent is a necessary factor then the ignorant are not murderers.
My answer to charlie’s question would be, I would decide which to save on the basis of my emotional connection to the person(s) in jeopardy and the circumstances that put them there, and not on whether I considered them to be human or non-human, and therefore without rights to life.
Exactly. So in not saving the 100 embryos we have not determined that they are not human beings and we have not determined that it is ethical to kill them.
So, charlie, how about you: if you had to choose between the life of your infant son and the life of a serial killer, how would you choose, and what rational criteria would you use to do so?
I'd save my son. And in so doing I would have said nothing about the personhood of the serial killer or about the ethics involved in killing him. I would have rendered the entire "burning building" thought experiment moot, and mute, on this question.Charlie_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

In #36 David Kellogg observed:
"I further think think anybody who actually would choose 100 embryos over his own life is probably insane."
And dangerous, too. Would you want someone who would choose a freezerful of frozen embryos over a crying infant to babysit your kids? Indeed, would anyone put a person who would make this decision in a position of responsibility over anyone, under any conditions?Allen_MacNeill_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT}

In #38 charlie asked:
"If you make a decision in any of these cases which of the potential victims did you deem to be non-human and without rights to life?"
This rhetorical tactic is what is known in logic as a "forced choice", similar to the question "Have you stopped beating your grandmother yet?" My answer to charlie's question would be, I would decide which to save on the basis of my emotional connection to the person(s) in jeopardy and the circumstances that put them there, and not on whether I considered them to be human or non-human, and therefore without rights to life. 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. So, charlie, how about you: if you had to choose between the life of your infant son and the life of a serial killer, how would you choose, and what rational criteria would you use to do so?Allen_MacNeill_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT}

Charlie, I'd probably make a relative judgment in each case. I'd include such things as how many I could save, who I love (my mother), who is likely to live longest afterwards, etc. The point is, those are tough decisions because we know that all the examples are humans with rights. On the other hand, "100 frozen embryos or a baby" is an easy decision, because we know -- no matter what philosophy we claim to hold -- than an embryo is categorically different from a human being. In all those other cases, you might make a different decision than I would. But in the embryo case, we'd make the same decision, because neither of us really believe a frozen embryo is a person.David Kellogg_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT}

In #35, Charlie asks:
"Do you not allow the element of “intent” in your finding of murder?"
Indeed I do, and so does the American legal system, which requires that the prosecution in a murder case prove intent (i.e. the mens rea of legal guilt). But, if one follows this line of reasoning and uses vj's criteria, then prospective parents who avail themselves of IVF are guilty of murder if they choose to have their unused embryos destroyed (which most of them do, BTW). Ergo, if one adopts vj's criteria, then IVF must be outlawed as involving the "murder of unborn humans".Allen_MacNeill_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

To Allen MacNeill and David Kellog, Who would you save, your infant son or a serial killer? Your mother or an Asian grandmother with epilepsy? Two handicapped albinos or Richard Dawkins? If you make a decision in any of these cases which of the potential victims did you deem to be non-human and without rights to life? If you make a decision which of the above do you have the right to murder?Charlie_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT}

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. Indeed, there is nothing in the biology of stem cells that makes such regression impossible, and recent discoveries make it much more likely that it will eventually be accomplished.Allen_MacNeill_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT}

I think anybody who says he should choose 100 embryos over his own life is probably lying or deluded. I further think think anybody who actually would choose 100 embryos over his own life is probably insane.David Kellogg_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT}

Hi Allen, You seem to admit now that ASC are not embryos and neither will they be made to become embryos (as opposed to contributing to the creation of embryos). Ergo, destroying, or allowing the destruction of cells, even ASC, is not equivalent to creating and destroying embryos.
And, if adult stem cells can eventually be artificially regressed to the point that they can be inserted into the inner cell mass of a blastocyst, which can then be implanted and brought to term? There is no reason to think that this cannot be done, and lots of reasons to think that it can. What then?
Here you acknowledge that the creation of an embryo utilizing ASC would require a positive action - i.e. , the "potential" does not reside in the ASC alone, and, more to the point, the ASC is not a human being. You continue the acknowledgment here:
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
ASC are not blastocysts so you can't draw a conclusion about one from the other. Ergo, the equivalence is specious.
Shall we charge the majority of the voters and all of the taxpayers in the United States with accessory to murder?
The ridiculousness and procedural difficulties with charging the millions of ignorant with murder does not argue against the logic or truth or make your purported ironies valid. Do we charge every smoker with reckless endangerment? Or every polluter or funder of pollution or partaker of the fruits of pollution? Does that alter the rightness or wrongness of their actions? Isn't it possible that there are wrongs which are not prosecuted by the American legal system?
Nothing – and I do mean nothing in your argument convinces me that they were wrong, and most of the implications that I draw from your argument convince me that they were right.
As suspected.
BTW, this would include my brother-in-law and his wife. Keep that in mind when you assert that, by participating in IVF (they now have four children), they should be considered to have committed the moral equivalent of murder.
Why should we keep this in mind? I doubt that your brother-in-law, very likely a fine fellow, is incapable of error and that his every action is, by necessity, a moral one. Does ignorance not mitigate in such judgments? Do you not allow the element of "intent" in your finding of murder? And how does this argue at all whether or not the destruction of embryos is the equivalent of destruction of cells? The answer to the moral conundrum raised by your question, "what then?": Don't insert the hypothetically regressed ASC into a blastocyst to form a human embryo. Don't make human beings slated for destruction, experimentation or harvesting.
Which leads me to ask one more question, vj: 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 I said, this is where your actual moral conundrum lies. And neither the popularity of the procedure nor the good intentions of the participants does anything to alter the argument or erase your equivocation. Your #2 was answered long ago and vjtorley's argument does not support your finding. In fact, vjtorley specifically contradicted this option when he said:
I maintain that any entity satisfying all of the following four requirements is a a human person with a right to life. ... In short: zygotes, embryos and fetuses do, as well as children who have already been born. Ova and sperm cells don’t. Adult stem cells don’t, either.
===== Hi vjtorley, Great posts. I have one question, however. 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?Charlie_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT}

Good question. Let me rephrase that: which choice is better: me dead or x embryos dead? I think me. But I would probably not do it because I'm weak. which choice is better: me dead or x babies dead? Definitely me. But I don't know if I have the strength to do it. x!=y, y>0, x=me, x < y? It is like an equation with two unknowns with me being one of them. The only way I can solve this is by making myself equal to zero and sacrificing myself.critiacrof_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

Domoman (and vj, too): Based on your comments here, I believe that it would be safe to say that you clearly would have nothing to do with stem cell research yourself. But, just for the sake of argument, let's assume that as the result of such research a cure for Parkinson's disease were found. Let us consider further that this cure involves the implantation of stem cells in the brain of a person with Parkinson's disease. Would you consider that people who availed themselves of such treatment were accessories to murder? If not murder, then any crime at all? How about if you had Parkinson's, would you avail yourself of this treatment, even if the alternative were death (which it usually is, and a long, lingering death at that)? Would your answer change if the treatment were developed using embryonic stem cells, but the actual treatment itself did not? Would your answer change if the disease were one afflicting your only child? I know how I would answer each and every one of these questions. Do you?Allen_MacNeill_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT}

And, speaking of eugenics, could someone please point out the ethical distinctions between eugenics and what is now rather euphemistically called "genetic counseling"? I believe that if one takes vjtorley's position, there is no discernible difference at all.Allen_MacNeill_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT}

I would give my life to save one baby, including one to whom I was completely unrelated. I would not give my life to save any number of frozen embryos. And I believe that this position is entirely consistent with the ethical criteria that I have elucidated in this thread.Allen_MacNeill_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT}

critiacrof, so you would choose the babies over the embryos. Let me pose a different question while I await vjtorley's response: What if the choice was you or the others? Would you give your own life to save two babies? Would you give your own life 100 frozen embryos?David Kellogg_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT}

Hi Donoman. I am very pro-Life. Thank you for writing interesting articles. All contributors should be applauded for their time.Platonist_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

vjtorley: I suspected that someone reading this blog would make your argument, and so I didn't even need to present it myself. Indeed, you did a very thorough job of presenting the argument for alternative #2 at the end of comment #15. 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. The staffs of such clinics are, by the same logic, accessories to murder (or the actual perpetrators, if they dispose of the embryos). So are the suppliers of the equipment used in such clinics, etc. By the same logic, the scientists who use the inner mass cells from human blastocysts are also guilty of murder, as they unquestionably terminate the "human potential" of those embryos. Their laboratory assistants are accessories to murder, and so are the people who facilitated their research, and those who funded it. Which, as of tomorrow, will include every person who has paid taxes to the federal government, not to mention everyone who voted for President Obama. How far do you want to take this, vj? Shall we charge the majority of the voters and all of the taxpayers in the United States with accessory to murder? And, if adult stem cells can eventually be artificially regressed to the point that they can be inserted into the inner cell mass of a blastocyst, which can then be implanted and brought to term? There is no reason to think that this cannot be done, and lots of reasons to think that it can. What then? 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. That's where the SCOTUS drew the line in Roe v. Wade. Nothing – and I do mean nothing in your argument convinces me that they were wrong, and most of the implications that I draw from your argument convince me that they were right. * BTW, this would include my brother-in-law and his wife. Keep that in mind when you assert that, by participating in IVF (they now have four children), they should be considered to have committed the moral equivalent of murder. Which leads me to ask one more question, vj: 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?Allen_MacNeill_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT}

Platonist, Thanks for the comments about my post @ #3. Glad you liked it. :) I'm not sure what stem cell research is heading us into, but if it's anything like what your friend suggested, or something like Hitler's eugenics, I don't want anything to do with it! (Unless, that is, aiding in dismantling such eugenics!)Domoman_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT}

Vjtorley, Wow! That is probably the best pro-life case I have ever heard of. Excellent job man, excellent! Keep up the studies! :)Domoman_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

@David Kellogg 21: You can't say x quantity of people in group A has more value than y quantity of people in group B. The value of live can not be measured scientifically and therefore you have a dilemma. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilemma I would go with 1 because the babies feel pain. This does not make their lives better, but makes their death worse IMO. Another example is the example of vjtorley. What would the captain of the titanic do? People choose children, because children are considered less less innocent than adults. This makes their death more dramatic, but it does not make their lives better. Anyway this is all about when do you consider someone alive, not what is the value of live.critiacrof_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

vjtorley, A well argued case. I have only one or two questions. Given all that you have said, do you think that women should have the right to control their own fertiliy, including abortion? If not, what punishment should be given to women who have illegal abortions, should it become illegal (as you presumably would wish if you answer no to my first question).George L Farquhar_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply