Today, the Memphis newspaper had this article about reactions to President Obama's removing of restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.
This particular passage moved me to write in the comments section:
Quote:
But there are many religious supporters of this research, including those who oppose abortion, said physician and United Methodist pastor Dr. Scott Morris.
Morris, director of the Church Health Center of Memphis, said it's incorrect to equate stem cell research with abortion.
Embryonic stem cells reproduce themselves, Morris said, noting: "One of them could potentially bring about enormous benefits."
My comments are in red, and those of some of the other posters are in blue.
Posted by mromer1 on March 11, 2009 at 11:42 a.m.
Scott Morris' comment denying the equation between embryonic stem cell research and abortion completely mystifies me. The stem cells may "reproduce themselves", but they have to initially be harvested by killing a human being in the blastocyst stage of development.
A really sad thing is that so many people want to compartmentalize issues like embryonic stem cell research, abortion, contraception, and IVF when, in fact they are all facets of a single issue. The issue is: is it right to treat our children like things that we can use for whatever purpose we want? Should we be able to kill our children in the womb? Should we be able to artificially conceive a dozen children for the purpose of bringing one to term and killing the rest? Should we treat children as an evil consequence of sex rather than the primary purpose of it? Finally, should we be able to give our children away to be ripped apart in the lab, all for some amorphous concept of a possible good to come later? Do we do evil so that good may come?
Posted by rcoleman72 on March 11, 2009 at 11:48 a.m.
Contraception is in there because it treats children like things. Sex has two purposes: it creates an intimate communication between a man and a woman, and it leads to the conception of new people. The use of contraception hinders both purposes and attempts to boil sex down to a recreational activity. Contraception treats children as an evil to be avoided, rather than as a natural result of sex. That's why it's part of the continuum of issues including abortion, cloning, IVF and embryonic stem cell research.
Dr. Morris and other abortion opponents who support embryonic stem cell research are the ones who are confused. Abortion kills a human being. The harvesting of embryonic stem cells kills a human being. You can't say that killing an innocent human is good depending on what the purpose is. It's wrong in all circumstances.
Well, I respect your view that the frozen embryo is a "human being", but I simply don't agree with you -- obviously Dr. Morris, Rabbi Greenstein, Rev. Danforth and millions of other good, ethical people don't agree with you on this.
You're welcome and let me again say I completely respect your view on this. And I don't agree with anybody who makes fun of people for having serious concerns about research using embryos. I think President Obama and Congress need to work on safeguards that prevent unethical uses of them (such as human cloning).
The point is that we ought to be able to agree to disagree without either of us telling the other one that this means you are basically a "moron" or a "tool of Satan". What does that accomplish?
Depends on how you define 'human being', doesn't it?
"Harvesting of embryonic stem cells kills a human being."
Depends on how you define human being, doesn't it?
What is a human being? 15 to 20 percent of all recognized pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion. That's of "recognized pregnancies." The rate of spontaneous abortions among unrecognized pregnancies is unknown and unknowable, but guesstimates are as high as 60% of all successful fertilizations end in spontaneous abortion for one reason or another. Nature seems very profligate with human existence -- well, come to think of it, Nature aborts 100% of us eventually. What defines a human being? How would you define "human being"? What criteria is there that might possibly satisfy all cultures and belief systems? For that's what's needed in a pluralistic, democratic society. The Supreme Court wisely (in my opinion) drew an arbitrary line at viability outside the womb. Prior to that stage of development, there is no individual existence, until then, we're just parasitic things, a kind of very specialized 'cancer' growing in a uterus. How would you define "human being?" Leave your religion at the doorstep, how would YOU, not your preacher, not your interpretation of a book you think God wrote, but coming only from your own experience of life -- how would you define a human being?
Posted by Arkitekt4040 on March 11, 2009 at 2:12 p.m.
So the way I see it, if you are against the stem cell research (as described in the article) you cannot be for IVF. Do you see where you are going wrong here? These embryos would have literally been incinerated and disposed of as medical waste. Why not let them serve some purpose, such as saving a life?
If I were to rely only on my own opinion or experience, I could easily define "human being" as anything, from "any living creature" to "me and only me". My own proclivities tempt me to declare any violent criminal as outside the human race. But what does embryology tell us about when we start being human?
When a human egg cell and a human sperm cell fuse, they cease to be an egg cell and a sperm cell and become a new cell with its own undeniablly human genetic makeup that, if given sustenance and allowed to grow, will grow into a human blastocyst, a human fetus, a human infant, a human child, a human adolescent, a human adult, and finally into a human being whose body breaks down and dies. Human growth and development is a continuous process that starts at conception and ends at death. There is no logical place other than conception to put the dividing line from "not a human being" to "a human being". Viability? That makes no real sense, because all of us are nonviable in the right circumstances. A newborn is no more "viable" than a blastocyst, if no one cares for it. I'm over 40 years old, and if you put me alone out in the wilderness I would be pretty nonviable.
Spontenous abortions are completely irrelevant, because they are not a conscious decision by one person to kill another.
BTW, I don't think I've mentioned religion so far. Even if I had, there would be no point in asking me to leave my religion behind and use only my experience. My religion is part of my experience, and as such it guides my actions and shapes my opinions.
<<So the way I see it, if you are against the stem cell research (as described in the article) you cannot be for IVF>>
Precisely. That's the only really consistent view.
<<These embryos would have literally been incinerated and disposed of as medical waste. Why not let them serve some purpose, such as saving a life?>>
There is another option. The Snowflake program matches people with "extra" embryos with couples who want them. I personally know a couple who adopted an embryo and had it implanted, and they now have a beautiful little girl. We can give them a chance for life rather than destroy them.
"If I were to rely only on my own opinion or experience, I could easily define "human being" as anything, from "any living creature" to "me and only me".
Perhaps I should have asked you to define "human being" in the manner in which definitions are generally taken to be: that is, by "genus" and "specific difference", such that the genus might be: "sentient being" and the specific difference might be "rational". Those terms might in turn need defining, and maybe even open to debate, but that's another story. Idiosyncratic definitions, such as you suggest, do not carry much weight in the world. Words have meaning (most do) and the meaning is generally agreed upon within the community of speakers, else babel. However, in specific utterances such as: "a fertilized ovum is a human being," I am curious to know why one would say that. I myself would say that a fertilized ovum is a fertilized ovum and that fertilized ovum have the potential of becoming a human being, just as all ovum -- fertilized are not -- are potential human beings. Potential meaning: there are conditions to be met. Conditions for an ovum stepping beyond potentiality into the reality of being a human being include fertilization, implantation in the uterus, the successful series of innumerable mitoses, and ten thousand other contingencies before the "thing" is able to function as an organism outside the uterine environment. Certainly it has the POTENTIAL of becoming a human being -- as every ovum does -- but a potential human being is not a human being. It's only a POTENTIAL human being. There's a big, big difference.
"no point in asking me to leave my religion behind and use only my experience. My religion is part of my experience"
Touche. I should have said don't use your religious beliefs as evidence or proof or your rational arguments. Beliefs are not evidence, not proofs of anything.
I really have to take issue with the notion that an unfertilized ovum is a potential human being. No matter how it is cared for, an ovum will never grow into anything other than a single egg cell. Once fertilization occurs, the sperm and the ovum no longer exist--they fuse and become a zygote. That zygote doesn't have to be acted upon to have it transform into a human. It grows on its own.
My definition was given strictly from the point of view of embryology and genetics, not from religion.
I would say that using such terms as "sentient" and "rational" opens a real can of worms, because such a classification would, for example, leave out most children under two years old. From what I can tell, Peter Singer is comfortable with dividing it like that, but I wouldn't want to go there. How would you reliably test for it, anyway?
Thank you for the respectful conversation. I think I need to wrap it up.
Today, the Memphis newspaper had this article about reactions to President Obama's removing of restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.
Commercial Appeal - Stem cell decision sets off ethics debate in Mid-South (When did newspapers forget how to capitalize titles?)
This particular passage moved me to write in the comments section:
But there are many religious supporters of this research, including those who oppose abortion, said physician and United Methodist pastor Dr. Scott Morris.
Morris, director of the Church Health Center of Memphis, said it's incorrect to equate stem cell research with abortion.
Embryonic stem cells reproduce themselves, Morris said, noting: "One of them could potentially bring about enormous benefits."
My comments are in red, and those of some of the other posters are in blue.
Posted by mromer1 on March 11, 2009 at 11:42 a.m.
Scott Morris' comment denying the equation between embryonic stem cell research and abortion completely mystifies me. The stem cells may "reproduce themselves", but they have to initially be harvested by killing a human being in the blastocyst stage of development.
A really sad thing is that so many people want to compartmentalize issues like embryonic stem cell research, abortion, contraception, and IVF when, in fact they are all facets of a single issue. The issue is: is it right to treat our children like things that we can use for whatever purpose we want? Should we be able to kill our children in the womb? Should we be able to artificially conceive a dozen children for the purpose of bringing one to term and killing the rest? Should we treat children as an evil consequence of sex rather than the primary purpose of it? Finally, should we be able to give our children away to be ripped apart in the lab, all for some amorphous concept of a possible good to come later? Do we do evil so that good may come?
Posted by rcoleman72 on March 11, 2009 at 11:48 a.m.
in response to mromer1
You threw contraception in there, may I ask its relevance or your views...
Posted by cfrober on March 11, 2009 at 11:50 a.m.
in response to mromer1
A really sad thing is that some people want to try to connect stem cell research to abortion when there is no connection - like your post for example.
Now I understand if you also think stem cell research is wrong (and perhaps you think IVF was wrong in the first place). I'll respectfully disagree.
But it's clearly NOT the same thing as abortion, as Dr. Morris said and as many other abortion opponents have made clear.
Posted by mromer1 on March 11, 2009 at 12:14 p.m.
in response to rcoleman72
Contraception is in there because it treats children like things. Sex has two purposes: it creates an intimate communication between a man and a woman, and it leads to the conception of new people. The use of contraception hinders both purposes and attempts to boil sex down to a recreational activity. Contraception treats children as an evil to be avoided, rather than as a natural result of sex. That's why it's part of the continuum of issues including abortion, cloning, IVF and embryonic stem cell research.
Posted by mromer1 on March 11, 2009 at 12:18 p.m.
in response to cfrober
Dr. Morris and other abortion opponents who support embryonic stem cell research are the ones who are confused. Abortion kills a human being. The harvesting of embryonic stem cells kills a human being. You can't say that killing an innocent human is good depending on what the purpose is. It's wrong in all circumstances.
Posted by cfrober on March 11, 2009 at 12:30 p.m.
in response to mromer1
Well, I respect your view that the frozen embryo is a "human being", but I simply don't agree with you -- obviously Dr. Morris, Rabbi Greenstein, Rev. Danforth and millions of other good, ethical people don't agree with you on this.
Posted by mromer1 on March 11, 2009 at 12:40 p.m.
in response to cfrober
Obviously I don't expect to change your mind in this venue. Thank you, though, for being thoughtful and civil.
Posted by cfrober on March 11, 2009 at 12:43 p.m.
in response to mromer1
You're welcome and let me again say I completely respect your view on this. And I don't agree with anybody who makes fun of people for having serious concerns about research using embryos. I think President Obama and Congress need to work on safeguards that prevent unethical uses of them (such as human cloning).
The point is that we ought to be able to agree to disagree without either of us telling the other one that this means you are basically a "moron" or a "tool of Satan". What does that accomplish?
Posted by atlas on March 11, 2009 at 1:38 p.m.
in response to mromer1
"Abortion kills a human being."
Depends on how you define 'human being', doesn't it?
"Harvesting of embryonic stem cells kills a human being."
Depends on how you define human being, doesn't it?
What is a human being? 15 to 20 percent of all recognized pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion. That's of "recognized pregnancies." The rate of spontaneous abortions among unrecognized pregnancies is unknown and unknowable, but guesstimates are as high as 60% of all successful fertilizations end in spontaneous abortion for one reason or another. Nature seems very profligate with human existence -- well, come to think of it, Nature aborts 100% of us eventually. What defines a human being? How would you define "human being"? What criteria is there that might possibly satisfy all cultures and belief systems? For that's what's needed in a pluralistic, democratic society. The Supreme Court wisely (in my opinion) drew an arbitrary line at viability outside the womb. Prior to that stage of development, there is no individual existence, until then, we're just parasitic things, a kind of very specialized 'cancer' growing in a uterus. How would you define "human being?" Leave your religion at the doorstep, how would YOU, not your preacher, not your interpretation of a book you think God wrote, but coming only from your own experience of life -- how would you define a human being?
Posted by Arkitekt4040 on March 11, 2009 at 2:12 p.m.
So the way I see it, if you are against the stem cell research (as described in the article) you cannot be for IVF. Do you see where you are going wrong here? These embryos would have literally been incinerated and disposed of as medical waste. Why not let them serve some purpose, such as saving a life?
Posted by mromer1 on March 11, 2009 at 2:37 p.m.
in response to atlas
If I were to rely only on my own opinion or experience, I could easily define "human being" as anything, from "any living creature" to "me and only me". My own proclivities tempt me to declare any violent criminal as outside the human race. But what does embryology tell us about when we start being human?
When a human egg cell and a human sperm cell fuse, they cease to be an egg cell and a sperm cell and become a new cell with its own undeniablly human genetic makeup that, if given sustenance and allowed to grow, will grow into a human blastocyst, a human fetus, a human infant, a human child, a human adolescent, a human adult, and finally into a human being whose body breaks down and dies. Human growth and development is a continuous process that starts at conception and ends at death. There is no logical place other than conception to put the dividing line from "not a human being" to "a human being". Viability? That makes no real sense, because all of us are nonviable in the right circumstances. A newborn is no more "viable" than a blastocyst, if no one cares for it. I'm over 40 years old, and if you put me alone out in the wilderness I would be pretty nonviable.
Spontenous abortions are completely irrelevant, because they are not a conscious decision by one person to kill another.
BTW, I don't think I've mentioned religion so far. Even if I had, there would be no point in asking me to leave my religion behind and use only my experience. My religion is part of my experience, and as such it guides my actions and shapes my opinions.
Posted by mromer1 on March 11, 2009 at 2:55 p.m.
in response to Arkitekt4040
<<So the way I see it, if you are against the stem cell research (as described in the article) you cannot be for IVF>>
Precisely. That's the only really consistent view.
<<These embryos would have literally been incinerated and disposed of as medical waste. Why not let them serve some purpose, such as saving a life?>>
There is another option. The Snowflake program matches people with "extra" embryos with couples who want them. I personally know a couple who adopted an embryo and had it implanted, and they now have a beautiful little girl. We can give them a chance for life rather than destroy them.
Posted by atlas on March 11, 2009 at 3:41 p.m.
in response to mromer1
"If I were to rely only on my own opinion or experience, I could easily define "human being" as anything, from "any living creature" to "me and only me".
Perhaps I should have asked you to define "human being" in the manner in which definitions are generally taken to be: that is, by "genus" and "specific difference", such that the genus might be: "sentient being" and the specific difference might be "rational". Those terms might in turn need defining, and maybe even open to debate, but that's another story. Idiosyncratic definitions, such as you suggest, do not carry much weight in the world. Words have meaning (most do) and the meaning is generally agreed upon within the community of speakers, else babel. However, in specific utterances such as: "a fertilized ovum is a human being," I am curious to know why one would say that. I myself would say that a fertilized ovum is a fertilized ovum and that fertilized ovum have the potential of becoming a human being, just as all ovum -- fertilized are not -- are potential human beings. Potential meaning: there are conditions to be met. Conditions for an ovum stepping beyond potentiality into the reality of being a human being include fertilization, implantation in the uterus, the successful series of innumerable mitoses, and ten thousand other contingencies before the "thing" is able to function as an organism outside the uterine environment. Certainly it has the POTENTIAL of becoming a human being -- as every ovum does -- but a potential human being is not a human being. It's only a POTENTIAL human being. There's a big, big difference.
"no point in asking me to leave my religion behind and use only my experience. My religion is part of my experience"
Touche. I should have said don't use your religious beliefs as evidence or proof or your rational arguments. Beliefs are not evidence, not proofs of anything.
Posted by mromer1 on March 11, 2009 at 4:30 p.m.
in response to atlas
I really have to take issue with the notion that an unfertilized ovum is a potential human being. No matter how it is cared for, an ovum will never grow into anything other than a single egg cell. Once fertilization occurs, the sperm and the ovum no longer exist--they fuse and become a zygote. That zygote doesn't have to be acted upon to have it transform into a human. It grows on its own.
My definition was given strictly from the point of view of embryology and genetics, not from religion.
I would say that using such terms as "sentient" and "rational" opens a real can of worms, because such a classification would, for example, leave out most children under two years old. From what I can tell, Peter Singer is comfortable with dividing it like that, but I wouldn't want to go there. How would you reliably test for it, anyway?
Thank you for the respectful conversation. I think I need to wrap it up.