Stem Cells

[David Sklansky]

I don't understand why people seem to be afraid to simultaneously acknowledge that using the embryos is homicide even as they are at the same time in favor of the research. This isn't like abortion where the upside to it is not enough in most people's minds to condone killing, if that's what it is. Stem cell research could benefit humanity at least as much as winnig the war in Iraq or Vietnam. And in those cases people were willing to accept the killings of thousands of innocent cognizent humans for the supposedly greater good.

Stem cell research has a greater good, involves killing not yet cognizent humans, and in much smaller numbers. Why can't people just say it's killing, but its worth it?

[Jbrochu]

It’s a good question. For one, a decent argument can be made regarding when an embryo becomes human. Many people in favor of abortion do not believe abortion is homicide. Clearly, those people would not believe stem cell research constitutes homicide.

Secondly, human beings have an amazing ability for contradictory thought. For example, many Americans (I believe the majority) do not support euthanasia, yet they do support “pulling the plug.” Rather than end a life mercifully when all hope is lost, we often prefer to let one suffer for hours or days on end until dehydration or hunger takes its toll. Amazingly enough, we do not inflict this treatment on our pets. Almost all Americans prefer putting a beloved pet to sleep rather than have it suffer.

[David Sklansky]

"For one, a decent argument can be made regarding when an embryo becomes human."

My post was directed to those who believe an embryo is human.

[David Sklansky]

"human beings have an amazing ability for contradictory thought."

They better lose that ability when they join this website.

[Jbrochu]

[ QUOTE ]
My post was directed to those who believe an embryo is human.

[/ QUOTE ]

In that case, see my second point regarding our amazing capacity for contradictory thought.

[BigSoonerFan]

[ QUOTE ]
In that case, see my second point regarding our amazing capacity for contradictory thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand and agree with your point, but not particularly a good example. DS's point was in dealing with human lives. We have shown as a country that we have no regard for animal lives (60 million cats and dogs are euthanized yearly for non-medical reasons), so we can't draw a good comparison between our behavior with human lives and animal lives.

[BigSoonerFan]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand why people seem to be afraid to simultaneously acknowledge that using the embryos is homicide even as they are at the same time in favor of the research. This isn't like abortion where the upside to it is not enough in most people's minds to condone killing, if that's what it is. Stem cell research could benefit humanity at least as much as winnig the war in Iraq or Vietnam. And in those cases people were willing to accept the killings of thousands of innocent cognizent humans for the supposedly greater good.

Stem cell research has a greater good, involves killing not yet cognizent humans, and in much smaller numbers. Why can't people just say it's killing, but its worth it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure comparing war to stem cell "killing" is valid. WAR is a calculated risk that results in an unknown amount of deaths. The goal is to have zero deaths. Stem cell research obviously requires death as part of the process.

Who is your first line intended for anyway? The left or right?

[andyfox]

"Stem cell research could benefit humanity at least as much as winning the war in Iraq or Vietnam. And in those cases people were willing to accept the killings of thousands of innocent cognizant humans for the supposedly greater good."

First, I don't think your last sentence is accurate. Governments routinely lie and dissemble about war, especially about the innocence of its victims. Maybe some of our leaders are willing to accept the kilings of thousands of innocents, but I don't think "people" in general are.

Second, people routinely value some human lives as more important than others. As you have pointed out about African children, out of sight, out of mind. We were often reminded during Vietnam, for example, that the "Oriental" didn't value human life as we supposedly did; they were less human/humane than we westerners. And our government has certainly not tried to make the information about how many civilians have been killed in Iraq readily available so that it will be discussed on the daily talk shows.

To acknowledge that killing embryos is homicide would be to publicize what those in favor of the research would not want publicized. Take a look at the speech Harry Truman gave after the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. He claimed it was "an important Japanese army base." He said, "The Japanese began the war from the air at Pearl Harbor." His original draft spoke of the target being "destroyed" but that was stricken, fearing it would look like we were expressing too much satisfaction. In fact, the original draft didn't even contain the name of the city, but it was added when it was realized people would ask about it.

You want the truth? People can't handle the truth.

[Jbrochu]

[ QUOTE ]

"For one, a decent argument can be made regarding when an embryo becomes human."

My post was directed to those who believe an embryo is human.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have not studied this in depth or anything, but my guess is that most people who believe embryos are human do not support stem cell research. Those that do believe embryos are human yet continue to support stem cell research often only support stem cell research using leftover embryos since they believe that these embryos were created for "the greater good" and that they're going to die anyway. They do not support creating embryos for the sole purpose of stem cell research.

An example of somebody holding this belief is Mitt Romney. However, if I had to take a guess, I would guess that Mitt would not call this homicide. We need somebody like Mitt to come answer your question.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
"For one, a decent argument can be made regarding when an embryo becomes human."

My post was directed to those who believe an embryo is human.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't believe an embryo is human but if I did I would be against stem cell reseach for the same reason I would be against torturing babies even if it was for some common good.

It may help you to understand if you understand that I'm not into utilitarianism.

chez

[Jbrochu]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand and agree with your point, but not particularly a good example. DS's point was in dealing with human lives. We have shown as a country that we have no regard for animal lives (60 million cats and dogs are euthanized yearly for non-medical reasons), so we can't draw a good comparison between our behavior with human lives and animal lives.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point was not regarding the animals we euthanize for non-medical reasons. I was speaking to our practice of putting a cherished pet to sleep rather than have it suffer for no reason.

I was arguing that we treat our animals with GREATER mercy than we treat our fellow humans when we don't have the intestinal fortitude to euthanize our fellow humans but would rather "pull the plug" and prolong their suffering.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Why can't people just say it's killing, but it’s worth it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Finally, an easy one. - Because the question is totally dependant on a false premise, and suffers from assuming an arbitrary distinction being treated as factual. Being alive and being adult and being dead and being animal exist on a continuum not in distinct leaps. There is no magic moment when some boundary is crossed and ‘poof’ the next state is reached. Like the transition from child to adult, we set an arbitrary line to bring order to this slow change even though we know that if we defined ‘adult’ from the attributes it has we would see one person be an adult at 15 and another at 24.

If we define ‘oak tree’ by it’s properties, we wouldn’t make the mistake of calling an acorn an oak tree and it would also be totally arbitrary when we choose the ‘moment of oakhood’. If we define ‘human’ so we can tell them from chimpanzees and crash-test dummies, by the attributes a human has , then we arrive at the oak tree situation and realize that we ‘become human’ slowly and cross no line of demarcation.

Say we watch a 24 frame for second film of the progression from a sperm nearing an egg until we witness somebody voting for the 1st time. We see the fertilized egg become two cells, then the two cells break apart, then they drift together and rejoin. To ask, “did a human die?, and which one?” suffers from the same flaw as the OP question .. we haven’t defined human and we’re denying the continuum we are witnessing before our eyes.

Back the film up a bit and watch the frame from when the sperm touches the egg until the egg splits divides and answer .. which frame is the ‘moment of conception’ and why isn’t it the frame before or the frame after? It’s not the When part that’s important, that just illustrates the arbitrary nature of the claim, it’s the Why part that is key. It’s the Why that is left in clouded, vague, undefined terms that we wouldn’t tolerate in any other rational discussion.

‘Being human’ is easier to see from the just as contentious ‘time of death’. If we remove one brain cell at a time from Hortense, ‘when did he die’ and ‘why do we say that’ depends on him reaching a state which no longer fits our definition of human. He won’t cross a ‘moment of death’ in this case either and our views of when he arbitrarily did have changed over the years.

So, “ using embryos is homicide” first needs a useful definition of human that we can apply to Hortense both when he is dies and when he is being formed. “Why can’t people just say it’s killing..” because it’s intellectually and morally dishonest to lie.

I’m not for or against abortion, I’d just like to hear the topic put in a logically sound frame before I agree to anything about it. ( it’s like the silly, “do you believe in god” questions when no definition of ‘god’ is given.).

luckyme,
if I thought I was wrong, I’d change my mind ( doesn't an “I” need one?)

[Jbrochu]

[ QUOTE ]
So, “ using embryos is homicide” first needs a useful definition of human

[/ QUOTE ]

DS defined this by stating that his question was directed to those who believe embryos are human.

[Borodog]

I think a lot of people are missing David's point.

The post is directed specifically towards those people who believe that abortion is murder. These are (often) the same people who oppose stem cell research. Yet these same people are (often) in favor of foreign wars (like Iraq), where they feel that the inevitable taking of innocent human life is justified by a greater good. David's question for these people is why can't they just say, yes abortion is murder, but emryonic stem cell research leads to a much greater good, so it's justified?

[Jbrochu]

[ QUOTE ]
The post is directed specifically towards those people who believe that abortion is murder. These are (often) the same people who oppose stem cell research. Yet these same people are (often) in favor of foreign wars (like Iraq), where they feel that the inevitable taking of innocent human life is justified by a greater good. David's question for these people is why can't they just say, yes abortion is murder, but emryonic stem cell research leads to a much greater good, so it's justified?

[/ QUOTE ]

Embryonic stem cell research does not require aborted fetuses. Many people oppose abortion yet support embryonic stem cell research on surplus embryos produced by in vitro fertilization.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a lot of people are missing David's point.The post is directed specifically towards those people who believe that abortion is murder.

[/ QUOTE ]

I replied to the original before seeing the clarifying memo. On rereading the original, I'd still answer it the same. I should have twigged to the fact that DS wouldn't have asked such a dorky question. jeez on me, apologies DS.
To answer the new question which I'm taking as ..
' Stem cell research has a greater good, which some may say involves killing not yet cognizent humans, and in much smaller numbers. Why can't those people just say it's killing, but it’s worth it? '

Because that would mean coming up with clear definition of terms which would then go counter to what they'd like to be true in other issues in contention. If you keep things murky and undefined you can argue several conflicting viewpoints and have it very tough to be shown to be using doublethink. Whether it's justifiable homicide, or birth or death issues, just pull up the spin you need unfettered by the hobgoblin of consistency.

luckyme,
if I thought it was wrong, I'd change my mind

[RJT]

I think the difference is that one is reactive (war) and one is proactive (research). Your question is “why the difference?”

To more directly answer your question I’d have to do some research to when our Church “allows” for the justification for war. I am sure there are very few instances. Perhaps Bluff and for sure Bigdaddy would be able to better address this particular case.

For the non-believer: If this ever is an issue, I would assume a good argument against it is opening to the door and setting precedent for moving the line further towards Hitler type experiments (or even odder things given the advancement of science since his day). This argument could even be used for the believer.

Personally, I don’t see that the embryo (as used here) is human yet. I am not sure that this can (will) ever be determined theologically, though. This just might be one of those examples of the conflict (dilemma) between reason and faith.

Now, it would seem to the “layman”, the atheist, that the point of view is obvious to choose science. This is where the believer relies on the Holy Spirit for guidance. In the short-run this might seem a bad thing. In the long-run (moving the line) are you confident that it out weights future “bad” science - things that might be considered cruel now? Or does that matter? That is, if things are cruel now (not stem cell research, but somethings that now might seem "goofy") and wouldn’t be in the future is that at all relevant. What does that say about man? The question comes down to whether emotion getting in the way is always a bad thing or not. Although, I am not a Trekky, I have in mind Spock here as we view this issue. Spock would say one must choose the research, right?

Dawkins it seems would choose science, too. But, his line to not cross is whether it is “painful” I believe is the word he uses. I am suggesting that his arbitrary line of “painful” is not always apparent if one looks at the long-run. Should decisions be made soley for one point in time - the present?

[Zygote]

I started a thread with pretty much the exact same argument here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=3806653&page=)

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe an embryo is human but if I did I would be against stem cell reseach for the same reason I would be against torturing babies even if it was for some common good.

[/ QUOTE ]
If I believed that spiders were human, I would still be in favor of squashing the one that keeps making a web in my shower.

"Human" is just a label. What matters isn't the label. What matters is that, human or not, spiders lack cognizance. So do stem cells.

Killing stem cells would be bad if we only had a few of them and they were essential to creating additional cognizant humans. But that isn't the case. They are a dime a dozen.

[KenProspero]

[ QUOTE ]
Stem cell research has a greater good, involves killing not yet cognizent humans, and in much smaller numbers. Why can't people just say it's killing, but its worth it?

[/ QUOTE ]

To start with, I don't believe the stem cell is human, and therefore don't go down the path that David is taking us.

That being said, if you believe the stem cell is human, why does it make a difference whether the human is cognizent or not?

Once you take the position that it's ok to sacrifice one human being to save others, you're heading down a slippery slope. The hyperbolic example (which I hope that no moral person would ever suggest) would be to randomly select a healthy person and tell him that by harvesting his organs we can save half a dozen lives, so we're going to sacrifice him for the greater good.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe an embryo is human but if I did I would be against stem cell reseach for the same reason I would be against torturing babies even if it was for some common good.

[/ QUOTE ]
If I believed that spiders were human, I would still be in favor of squashing the one that keeps making a web in my shower.

"Human" is just a label. What matters isn't the label. What matters is that, human or not, spiders lack cognizance. So do stem cells.

Killing stem cells would be bad if we only had a few of them and they were essential to creating additional cognizant humans. But that isn't the case. They are a dime a dozen.

[/ QUOTE ]
In the context of this thread, human is not just a label but is saying an embryo is equivalent to those other things we call human.

Not something I believe but if I did then would not advocate killing them for some supposed greater good.

chez

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
That being said, if you believe the stem cell is human, why does it make a difference whether the human is cognizent or not?

[/ QUOTE ]
Assume that humans, instead of being conscious, were just mindless zombies. Would their "lives" be as valuable as those of normal (conscious) humans?

The fact that humans can think, feel, experience pain and joy -- that's what gives our lives value (and it's why we can break up rocks and boil water without feeling guilty about it).

And that's why cognizance matters.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
Stem cell research has a greater good, involves killing not yet cognizent humans, and in much smaller numbers. Why can't people just say it's killing, but its worth it?


[/ QUOTE ]

Most people believe that their god would frown upon this.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
Who is your first line intended for anyway? The left or right?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's intended for the left since they are the ones who tend to favor the research.

As to why the lefties don't like to admit it's killing, the only reason I can come up with is that it's probably advantageous politically to concede as few points as possible. Why admit it's killing if you don't have to? There is some fuzzy ground there after all.

[BigSoonerFan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who is your first line intended for anyway? The left or right?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's intended for the left since they are the ones who tend to favor the research.

As to why the lefties don't like to admit it's killing, the only reason I can come up with is that it's probably advantageous politically to concede as few points as possible. Why admit it's killing if you don't have to? There is some fuzzy ground there after all.

[/ QUOTE ]

It looked like it was meant for the left and you gave the somewhat easy answer, so I thought maybe I had missed something. Both sides are always afraid of that slippery slope...

[David Sklansky]

"Why can't people just say it's killing, but its worth it?"

OK I should have said,

Why can't people just say EVEN IF it's killing, its worth it?

I guess I have to be careful about every word. As to the idea that the deaths in a war are random but the embryos killings are not, that would have some validity only if the numbers were comparable.

Ditto for the slippery slope argument. In fact as a general rule the whole slippery slope argument about anything is ridiculous. You draw lines where they should be drawn. Not far above that because of sliding worries. But again in this case the numbers are so different that even slippery slope advocates have no leg to stand on.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
In fact as a general rule the whole slippery slope argument about anything is ridiculous. You draw lines where they should be drawn.

[/ QUOTE ]
In theory maybe but in practise the lines do not get drawn where they should.

[ QUOTE ]
But again in this case the numbers are so different that even slippery slope advocates have no leg to stand on.

[/ QUOTE ]
but if we let you reject the slippery slope argument here ... /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

chez

Mr. Sklansky, I apologize but I do not understand your post. In a war a country is protecting itself from a danger either real, hopefully, or imagined. Other than protection of a state there is no greater good. In looking for cures for human suffering, stem cell is killing one living cell group in the hope of helping a more complex cell group. This means the more "complex" cell group wins,at the expense of the less complex, because they can, and this is ok. Is this what you are saying? thank you for your time.

Sklansky,

Ron Reagan Jr., who is one of the biggest and most high profile advocates for stem cell research, has made your exact point before on TV and used a just war anology to do so. I agree with it.

In answer to your question about why people don't make this argument more, I think it's for two simple reasons. One is that most people in favor of stem cell research don't think of embryos, especially at such an early stage of development, as humans. And certainly not the embryos that are collecting dust at fertility clinics. So your comparison never occurs to them. The second reason is simply because they believe it won't go over well with the public. Even though a sound logical argument can be made to compare it to a just war, that doesn't mean that the general public will perceive it that way.

The most intelligent and logically sound arguments that might be most persuasive to an intelligent person like yourself are not necessarily the ones that will most persuade the general public. So stem cell advocates don't touch it. For the sake of their cause, this may be a wise choice. Take a look at the reaction to your premise on this forum so far. Most people don't see your logic for a whole slew of reasons that I would contend with.

[KenProspero]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that humans can think, feel, experience pain and joy -- that's what gives our lives value (and it's why we can break up rocks and boil water without feeling guilty about it)

[/ QUOTE ]

Accepting your argument completely. I don't think that this means that those we accept as human, whether pre-cognizent or post-conginzent lose their are without rights.

I think the argument comes down to whether the stem-cells meet the definition of humanity or not.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
but if we let you reject the slippery slope argument here ...

[/ QUOTE ]

chez ... you made my day

[BluffTHIS!]

HYPOCRISY is the reason. Same with why people who are in favor of legal abortion deny a fetus is human even to the laughable extent of of partial birth abortion in which a possibly viable fetus is actually partially delivered so that its head can be crushed. They have to deny the fact of what is happening in order to justify it.

[AAAA]

Perhaps the correct person to ask is the person who thinks it is murder, but would benefit from the process?

Something about darned few athiests in foxholes?

I don't think we should be able to stop the research, but it is certainly up to people to choose not to benefit from it.

I must admit, i do come into a bit of a moral quandry when i consider the research Hitler started during world war two on twins, and babies and Jews. The things they did to people who definitely were sentient makes my skin crawl, but somehow, i just cannot quite get into the mindset of people who really believe embryos are people, so the correlation is not too strong.

The "its killing but it is worth it" argument will come from people who change their mind to say it isn't killing when it becomes a family member or loved one, rather than admit that it is killing and worth it!

[Darryl_P]

I think I understand Sklanskyese quite well, so let me summarize what I think he's trying to say...

In the case of war, people say: it costs lives but it's worth it because there is a greater good.

He's wondering why people don't say the same in the case of stem cell research because on this very simple level the two can be compared.

My answer is that most people are in one of two camps:

Liberals, who say:

-- stem cell research is worth it but it doesn't even cost lives.
-- war costs lives and ISN'T worth it

Conservatives, who say:

-- war costs lives and is worth it
-- stem cell research costs lives and ISN'T worth it

Each camp is being logically consistent IMO so I really don't see the point of the question. I don't see who is being "afraid" to admit anything.

[Rockatansky]

[ QUOTE ]
Conservatives, who say:

-- war costs lives and is worth it
-- stem cell research costs lives and ISN'T worth it

[/ QUOTE ]

It's true that these two positions aren't necessarily inconsistent. However, and correct me if I'm wrong, it seems that many who are against stem cell research take the position that "stem cell research costs lives; therefore, I am against it no matter the potential benefits."

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
It's true that these two positions aren't necessarily inconsistent. However, and correct me if I'm wrong, it seems that many who are against stem cell research take the position that "stem cell research costs lives; therefore, I am against it no matter the potential benefits."

[/ QUOTE ]

I think some do say that but when they say "no matter the potential benefits" I don't think they mean it literally, ie. I don't think "saving our nation from hostile attackers" would be among the possibilities. They only mean the most optimistic scenario among the ones reasonably conceivable. And yes, this means they may even reject doubling human life expectancy to save some embryos, which to some may seem illogical but to others (like me) is not.

[tolbiny]

His point (i believe) is this- individual citizens can support a war, making arguments about its necessity and importance whiile knowing it will cost human lives. They are in essance accepting the trade off which is Human lives -> greater good for the citizens of the waring state (in a democracy). Stem cell research would (likely) improve the lives of a lot of people in this country- in a much more tangible way at a cost (in terms of human lives) which is much less than that of a war.

[chezlaw]

I think you're on the right track here (apart from the political labels).

-- war costs lives and is worth it
-- stem cell research costs lives and ISN'T worth it

assuming stem cell research is killing humans (which it isn't) then this is a very reasonable view.

DS wants to assume that the two scenarios are equivalent, so its just a matter of doing the maths, but they are not.

One is about how a civilisation should operate and the other is about what should be done to preserve civilisation. (I use the word 'civilisation' loosely).

chez

[David Sklansky]

-- war costs lives and is worth it
-- stem cell research costs lives and ISN'T worth it

Everybody seems to forget that I specifically alluded to the Vietnam and Iraqi wars. Not too many people think that the benefits of those wars equals the benefits of stem cell research.

Personally I believe that those who oppose the resarch but not wars, have an illogical gut reaction related to the apparent randomness in one case but not in the other. Put another way, I bet a lot of people would be opposed to a war if they had to watch the faces of each innocent person as they died. Which makes those people, contemptible.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
-- war costs lives and is worth it
-- stem cell research costs lives and ISN'T worth it

Everybody seems to forget that I specifically alluded to the Vietnam and Iraqi wars. Not too many people think that the benefits of those wars equals the benefits of stem cell research.

Personally I believe that those who oppose the resarch but not wars, have an illogical gut reaction related to the apparent randomness in one case but not in the other. Put another way, I bet a lot of people would be opposed to a war if they had to watch the faces of each innocent person as they died. Which makes those people, contemptible.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with that but just because many are stupid or contemptible doesn't mean they are wrong. They may have the right answer for the wrong reason.

If stem cell research was killing humans (ludicrous) and the iraq war was about saving civilisations (dubious) then I think their conclusion would be correct.

chez