I had a weird dream the other night of a sort of shady 'businessman' who was trying to draw me into his biz by challenging me to write political papers on this and that subject (and oh yeah, sell his junk door-to-door), on a daily schedule. My friend from church was warning me not to go with the guy, but I felt like I should at least write his first paper - on stem cells. So when I woke up, I had an idea for a post. I guess you could say it's inspired by a dream!
I actually just wanted to take this in a direction that I don't often hear explored.
My position, first of all - no embryonic stem cell research is justifiable. At all. Pursue other avenues of stem cells: adult stem cells like from bone marrow, umbilical cord blood stem cells, wherever else you can find them. Why? B/c I believe the only justifiable position is that fertilised human eggs aka embryos are human beings and entitled to full protection of law, human rights, and ethical behavior. If someone were inclined to object, I'd simply ask them a series of questions to ascertain when exactly a young offspring of humans becomes a human being.
Typically the answer takes one of two forms:
1) When the baby is viable outside the womb to live by himself or herself.
-Yet there are quite a few humans I know of who are not viable outside the womb.
The pro-murder person might answer that most of these people WERE viable but have become non-viable.
I ask how that matters in the slightest except in my opponent's arbitrary morality by personal fiat.
-No baby is viable to live outside the womb without help. They require things like shelter, milk, and diaper-changing. To insist that these things are merely givens begs the question.
2) When the baby begins to exhibit brain waves.
Why does this matter? Often they allege it is b/c at that point the baby is capable of experiencing pain.
A great many pro-death people have worldviews that are highly influenced by, if not full-blown, naturalism and empiricism.
I ask: How do you know, how have you observed that brain waves = now the baby can experience pain?
They answer: B/c we see human pain reflected in adult and child brain waves, so we compare them to fetal brain waves.
I ask: How have you observed that brain waves are the sole connection to someone's experiencing pain?
They answer: What else could it be? The cosmic ether? A divine miracle?
I ask: My position on this question is irrelevant. How have you observed it?
They answer: ...
I ask: Exactly. You haven't observed and can't observe whether a one-day-old embryo can experience pain. I don't remember when I was one day old, you don't remember it either, and we can't enter into the psyche of said embryo to find out. So your justification for killing this whatever-it-is is bogus. I suppose you're OK with shooting a machine gun at random while blindfolded too, b/c you probably won't hit something valuable and living.
I also ask: What makes "capable of experiencing pain" the touchstone of humanity? I'd lay down a typical dialogue on those lines, but they never answer.
I also ask: So, it's OK to kill embryos, whose consciousness and capabilities and capacities we don't understand all that well, in the interest of furthering medical research, but you'd cringe at my experimenting on and killing horses/puppies/bunnies/monkeys/chimps/elephants/golden condors for the purposes of furthering medical research? You're on board for killing the offspring of humans, but not the slightly-older offspring of elephants?
That's one of my favorite things (and by "favorite", I mean "most revolting") about the Left and pro-choicers. In general, they support pro-choice AND the general prevention of cruelty to animals. But they have no problem sticking blades into, dismembering with suction devices, and using chemical weapons on very young babies. There's no way they'd do that with animals! But with really young babies, you know, what the hell, why not? I mean, we're not sure what they are, but we DO know their mother is inconvenienced by their presence, so let's go for the gusto (and the jugular [literally])! They're DEFINITELY of less value than rabbits!
You can't observe that the conditions for your own process of moral justification are in fact so, and thus said conditions remain unproved on your own empiricist worldview. You have no justification for your discrimination. You are an age-ist bigot.
Consider an illustration in closing, in response to the common question "But what about the existing lines of embryonic stem cells, frozen and awaiting destruction or some other fate?"
These lines are extracted/enabled by a process I don't understand well, but I do know that it involves the destruction of most of the embryos in the process, much like in vitro fertilisation. Once the human egg is fertilised and develops a bit, she is deep frozen to preserve her for later experimentation. To thaw her and attempt to implant her in a living woman to bring her to term and deliver her is dicey under current technological conditions and carries a low probability of success, even with proper care.
The pro-baby-murder advocate will thus argue that, since these frozen embryos have such a low chance of survival and delivery as a baby, we should go ahead and use them for the existing stem cell research.
Let's say we had a nursing home filled with 100 people between the ages of 70 and 90 yrs, and all of them have the same terminal disease. Without any of the proper care, all of them will die of this disease within a month or so. With proper and directed, specific care, a low % of them will recover from the terminal illness and will probably be able to live years longer, not a month. Shall we conclude that it is permissible to take these terminal patients and deny them the proper and directed care, immobilise them and render them unconscious, and harvest their bodies for organs and bone marrow and brain tissue for the purpose of medical experimentation and the furthering of medical technology and understanding?
What's the difference between this and using these "existing stem cell lines"? 2 things only: the embryos are much smaller, and the embryos have no families or stockbrokers or powers of attorney to speak for them to object to this inhumane treatment by cruel and morally blind age-ist bigots.
Where's the outrage from the right-to-lifers regarding the in vitro fertilization clinics that destroy thousands of embryos each year? Where are the protests in front of IVF clinics? Where is the harassment of the doctors and nurses who work at IVF clinics? Where the thread on Rhoblogy calling IVF doctors "baby murders"?
ReplyDeleteCrickets.
Probably mostly b/c an abortuary is for the express purpose of murdering babies.
ReplyDeleteIn IVF and such, babies die as a side-effect.
Plus, an abortuary murders babies that are more fully developed, being older. It takes a certain and fuller sense of barbarism and seared conscience to dismember babies like what happens in abortuaries, and that means a greater offense to society's sensibilities.
If abortion were illegal, then it's entirely possible fertility clinics would come under fire from pro-lifers, and rightly so. It's just that there's a bigger, badder enemy to use ammo on.
Finally, I don't know if I'd call fertility stuff "murder" - the point is not to end the babies' lives but rather to try to get one to live! There's a serious category distinction here; they're almost contradictory in motivation.
Rho:
ReplyDeleteProbably mostly b/c an abortuary is for the express purpose of murdering babies.
The express purpose of an abortion clinic is to provide a service to women. As such, babies die as a side-effect.
Rho:
... that means a greater offense to society's sensibilities.
And to yours too, apparently.
Rho:
There's a serious category distinction here; they're almost contradictory in motivation.
Contradictory? They both provide a service to women. In both, babies are killed intentionally. In the case of IFV, they intentionally kill about 20 babies to maybe produce 1. What about the motivation of the stem-cell researchers?
Rho:
I believe the only justifiable position is that fertilised human eggs aka embryos are human beings and entitled to full protection of law, human rights, and ethical behavior.
Except at IVF clinics.
NAL has some good questions, to which I'll add, what about the fertilised eggs which never turn into a baby, due to natural processes ? (I've heard two thirds of fertilised eggs never cause a pregnancy, but perhaps it's a bit lower).
ReplyDeleteI think I know your answer - I just want to hear you say it. It's OK for God to kill those ones, isn't it ?
(Even if his excuse is that he did it due to the "fall").
-In the case of IFV, they intentionally kill about 20 babies to maybe produce 1. -
ReplyDeleteIt is my understanding that they would attempt to get the baby correctly established in the uterus the first time, but it usually doesn't work, so it requires multiple tries. I could be wrong, but if so, the intention is as I said. If I am wrong, all you've proven is that pro-lifers have diff priorities than what you think they should have, but I don't see why I should care about the priorities you think I should have.
Chris,
Well, I think that all fertilised eggs ARE in fact human beings; that's part of the 'from conception' position. But yeah, it's true that quite a lot never make it into a pregnancy.
I addressed this not long ago.
Yep, you addressed it as I indicated.
ReplyDeleteOne rule for God. One for the rest of us.
As I preach, not as I do, sinner.
Yep. The Creator, the judge, the Lord, has different responsibilities, obligations, rights, and privileges than we the created subjects.
ReplyDeleteThis is my first time posting here. I'm braced for whatever may come my way, since it seems a bit rough around the edges in these parts. :)
ReplyDeleteNal, I think your reasoning is somewhat flawed. You said, "The express purpose of an abortion clinic is to provide a service to women. As such, babies die as a side-effect."
A side-effect is something that was not intended. For example, there are side-effects to anti-depressants, but the intended goal is to relieve the patient of depression. There are side-effects to automobiles, one of which is exhaust. Thus, catalytic converters were made to curb air pollution. I could give a host of other examples.
In the case of abortion clinics, their "service" to women is to rid them of the fetus, the growing human being inside. Their "intended" goal is achieved when the human being's life inside the woman's womb is terminated. Ending babies' lives inside the womb is their SOLE purpose.
Now, if you want to talk about the physical and emotional side-effects of abortion, that's a different matter. Abortion done in an abortion clinic is never a side-effect, it is the GOAL.
Darlene
If anyone is interested in the IVF process:
ReplyDelete1) Giving special medication to the woman that results in the development, growth, and maturation of eggs in a woman's ovaries.
2) Extracting perhaps 24 mature mature ova (aka oocytes) from the woman's ovaries.
3) Fertilizing the ova with sperm, typically from her husband or an anonymous donor.
4) Placing the embryos in a special incubator which encourages their growth.
5) Selecting two to four healthy-looking embryos and implanting them in the woman's uterus.
6) Disposing of the remaining 20 or so surplus embryos in some manner.
Darlene:
ReplyDeleteA side-effect is something that was not intended.
Not exactly. A side-effect is peripheral or secondary effect. It is in addition to its intended effect.
Darlene:
Ending babies' lives inside the womb is their SOLE purpose.
Not according to the doctors who perform abortions. They see their principal purpose as helping women. These doctors don't like aborting fetuses, they do it because they think they're helping women. You may not agree with their reasoning, but that is their stated motivation.
And the stated motivation of a bunch of crooked baby-murderers is to be listened to closely!
ReplyDeleteWhere's the outrage from the right-to-lifers regarding the in vitro fertilization clinics that destroy thousands of embryos each year?
ReplyDeleteGood question. I think that it has to with pro-lifers picking their battles, like what Rhology said. IVF procedures are unethical IF the intentions are to destroy the remaining unused embryos, either outright or through scientific experimentation. The only ethical route for IVF is if the remaining unused embryos are placed for adoption.
Not according to the doctors who perform abortions. They see their principal purpose as helping women.
It doesn't matter if their principle purpose is that performing abortions gives them a natural high or if they think they are helping women. The end result is that babies are murdered and that is the sole means through which they are accomplishing their stated purpose.
PChem:
ReplyDeleteI think that it has to with pro-lifers picking their battles, like what Rhology said.
I think it has to do with pro-lifers suffering from age-ism, like Rho said.
The end result is that babies are murdered at IVF clinics and that is the inevitable outcome of them accomplishing their stated purpose. Freezing kills about 50% of the embryos that are not discarded. It can't be avoided.
NAL
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that right-to-lifers should oppose IVF in most cases, especially those where the stated goal is to kill any remaining embryos after the parents have successfully implanted one.
There is no difference in a parent who undergoes IVF, picks one or two "best" embryos and then kills the others and a parent who takes fertility drugs, delivers seven babies, choses the "best" one or two and has the remainder killed.
The end result is that babies are murdered at IVF clinics and that is the inevitable outcome of them accomplishing their stated purpose.
Glad to see that we agree.
Freezing kills about 50% of the embryos that are not discarded. It can't be avoided.
Going through the IVF process with the idea that you are going to trash the remaining embryos after you have your one successfully implanted is totally different from going through IVF treatment with the goal of saving the remainder for adoption, even if some die during the freezing process. The motivations are completely different. Ideally, the adoptive parents would be identified prior to beginning IVF so you do not have to go through the freezing process at all.