Re: Stem Cells
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]

chez ... you made my day

Re: Stem Cells
 

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.

Re: Stem Cells
 

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!

Re: Stem Cells
 

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.

Re: Stem Cells
 

[ 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."

Re: Stem Cells
 

[ 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.

Re: Stem Cells
 

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.

Re: Stem Cells
 

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

Re: Stem Cells
 

-- 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.

Re: Stem Cells
 

[ 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