« The Politics of Stem Cells | Main | Quote of the Day »
July 19, 2006
Follow-Up
In what sort of moral philosophy does conducting research on unfeeling blastocysts slated for destruction rank as ethically off-limits while conducting research on feeling, sentient, higher-order animals is totally fine? I recognize that some folks see the very potentiality for humanhood as a categorical difference from man to animal, but really, thinking about it, would they rather see some scientists fiddling with a test tube or a monkey wasting away from an excruciating, induced cancer?
July 19, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d834d8638769e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Follow-Up:
Comments
Dude, it's in the Pentateuch. Genesis 1:26-28:
26 God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over the livestock, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."27 God created man in his own image. In God's image he created him; male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them. God said to them, "Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
Biblical literalism demands that we do as we please with the animals.
Posted by: paperwight | Jul 19, 2006 12:54:06 PM
Even when I was a church goer, I never thought that "dominion" meant to abuse living creatures or to pave over every inch of the Earth. I always kind of took it to mean that we should be good stewards of nature and to really appreciate what we have. Still feel that way, actually.
But paperweight has a point - there are a whole bunch of $$$ evangelists out there who prefer to think that the planet is just a warehouse of merchandise to be used up.
Posted by: sprocket | Jul 19, 2006 1:03:32 PM
I don't really think it's that way, though. Many Christians are interpreting that passage as forcing us to be good stewards, much as we are good parents. I just don't think folks have thought it through.
Posted by: Ezra | Jul 19, 2006 1:08:58 PM
That's a great point, Ezra. The stem cell / lab animal comparison hadn't occurred to me before.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Jul 19, 2006 1:10:25 PM
In what sort of moral philosophy does conducting research on unfeeling blastocysts slated for destruction rank as ethically off-limits while conducting research on feeling, sentient, higher-order animals is totally fine?
It's in modern conservative philosophy, at least of the Ann Coulter/Rush Limbaugh/Dick Cheney variety. That is to say, if liberals are against it, it must be good. Liberals against bans on extracting stem cells from blastocysts? The ban must be good. Liberals against vivisection? It must be good.
Posted by: Dr. Squid | Jul 19, 2006 1:56:48 PM
How much more simple does it have to be for you to get it, Ezra? Monkeys don't have souls. Humans, alone, do.
("Unfeeling" is irrelevant -- is it okay for me to murder you if I get you stinking drunk passed-out first?)
Posted by: Allen K. | Jul 19, 2006 3:19:43 PM
Once you have committed yourself to the belief that a human life begins when a sperm meets an egg, and you take it to the most extreme conclusion, there isn't even a dichotomy. The difference in the minds of those who hold this belief is one between a human life and an animal -- human life always trumps.
What I don't get is how you can have the same folks think that human life is so important that even a single cell of it is considered human, yet they seem to be simultaneously fine with the destruction of those cells in fertility clinics every day. This isn't a choice between making cells and not making them -- this is a choice between using already made cells for research or throwing already made cells aways. THAT'S the paradox that I can't wrap my head around at all.
Posted by: NonyNony | Jul 19, 2006 3:22:48 PM
Its interesting that we let one religious viewpoint so dominate our governmental decisions, that presumably works for the benefit of us all in a somewhat unbiased manner. (haha)
This decision isnt for the benefit of us all. It is a moral decision, which inherently is 'correct' only in the religious viewpoint that decided it. It doesnt look to the benefit of our society, or to the greatest good. The only positive that can come from this decision is in the moral victory for those in power, no other good thing comes from this decision.
Part of this dilemma comes from a lack of philosophical sophistication on the part of modern american christians. I was impressed by a multi-faith panel speaking on C-span last month. It included members of several christian faiths, a rabbi, and a musliim cleric.
When asked about abortion each gave their views, but the most clearcut answer came from the muslim cleric. He stated there was no dilemma about abortion in Islam, because the soul isnt imparted until the 100th day. Before that abortion is fine, afterwards it is not. According to him the 100th day thing is laid out in the Qoran. So its simple for them.
Christians fall back on vagueries in the bible to explain a concept which was foreign to the authors of the bible. So to make up for the lack of philosophical sophistication in this regard they fall back on the science to justify their positions. Without science they would have no knowledge of blastocysts, embryos, or the intricacies of conception.
Taking an embryo would be the same as the taking of any other cell in the body without the benefit of scientific understanding. But thats only taking 1 piece of the science out of context, that life didnt begin with the egg and sperm. The cycle could be followed backward through the parents, back through their ancestors, all the way to single celled organisms in the ocean. So the killing of any life should be sacred by their logic.
But instead they choose an arbitrary point of the scientific explanation and choose that as sacred. Thats the most convenient answer for them.
What happens when through cloning any cell in our body becomes a 'potential human life'?
Posted by: david b | Jul 19, 2006 3:55:59 PM
DavidB, not all Christians buy the life-begins-at-conception party line; in fact, it's only relatively recently (in the last 100 years or so) that it's become an issue at all. A lot of mainline Protestants go for the idea that life begins at 'quickening'--i.e., when the baby starts moving of its own accord--and some don't really have a hard and fast rule.
This may seem like a pedantic point, but when we use the term 'Christians' to refer only to authoritarian Christians, we strengthen the authoritarian Christians' campaign to redefine 'Christian' so that it excludes everyone but them.
Posted by: Tom Hilton | Jul 19, 2006 4:20:39 PM
I've been wondering the same point. I've also been wondering why people can on one hand scream about the sacredness of the blastocyst and let horrible things happen in areas of the world, such as Darfur. And on the God thing- didn't God create all the creatures? Of course, these same people who believe that life is so precious at the beginning, don't seem to have much regard for those who have been living productive lives and could use the help that stem cell technology promises. Then again, I've never understood why people who are anti-choice aren't also strict vegetarians, if all life is sacred.
Posted by: Baaaa | Jul 19, 2006 4:44:54 PM
A lot of mainline Protestants go for the idea that life begins at 'quickening'--i.e., when the baby starts moving of its own accord--and some don't really have a hard and fast rule.
Note that the (Highlander ][?) rule mentioned is hardly hard and fast itself, in that it depends on your measuring device; ultrasound detects a moving fetus weeks earlier than daddy's ear. This Saletan series goes into much, much more clinical detail on these issues, and is quite interesting.
Posted by: Allen K. | Jul 19, 2006 6:31:41 PM
It is only a very loud mouthed minority of Christians who believe the earth and creatures on it are ours to do with as we please. Most Christians - including evangelicals - believe that we are to be stewards of the earth. I would even argue that most right wing Christians believe that. And they would also support military actions to stop genocides. The problem is that most of them live in boxes of ignorance and misinformation. Case in point; the Marianas Islands. Ralph Reed flat lied to a lot of people to get them to quash a bill that would have ended activities beyond moraly reprehensible. But if you ask those who supported that effort they would claim they were fighting an effort to prevent the Chinese from leaving communist China for a better life in the Marianas.
Posted by: DuWayne | Jul 19, 2006 6:32:42 PM
Let's not blame this on "Biblical literalism," paperwight et al.
Jewish law usually forbids abortions, but there is no objection whatsoever to using embryos for medical research. On the contrary, saving human life is seen as one of the highest virtues under the law.
Of all the bills for President Bush to veto, he had to pick this one. What a myopic man he can be.
(This myopia works in our favor when he is fundamentally right on an issue, as I believe he is much of the time. But jeez…)
Posted by: Mastiff | Jul 19, 2006 9:02:14 PM
Let's not blame this on "Biblical literalism," paperwight et al.
Jews are not generally Biblical literalists in the way that was meant.
Posted by: paperwight | Jul 20, 2006 2:45:43 AM
Thank-goodness for for Schwartzenagger on this one--the ten billion dollar California initiative for stem cell research. Its alive and well in the golden state. And many other countries--South korea, China, Sweden, on and on. All the fundamentalists, I'm sure, won't refuse the benefits when they become available in the future.
Posted by: Steve Mudge | Jul 20, 2006 10:49:35 AM
"How much more simple does it have to be for you to get it, Ezra? Monkeys don't have souls. Humans, alone, do.
("Unfeeling" is irrelevant -- is it okay for me to murder you if I get you stinking drunk passed-out first?)"
And yet the soul is immortal, so surely killing a monkey should be worse than killing a human.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | Jul 20, 2006 12:04:08 PM
"DavidB, not all Christians buy the life-begins-at-conception party line"
Absolutely true. The problem is one of publicity however. Just like the vast majority of muslims are not extremist. When the microphone is big enough, the quiet people dont count much for the public face of an organization.
We criticize moderate muslims for not sanctioning their extremist elements. Perhaps we should take some of that medicine ourselves and work on keeping extremist christians from being elected or making policy.
The problem is that we've (the U.S.) started allowing people like Bush to make stands on issues solely because thay are 'right'. 'Right' is one of the most relative terms that can be used, yet its used as the sole justification for their policy. They do this now without explaining who benefits from the decision they are making.
It makes Bush's job really easy when he just has to worry about what is right and not the effcts it may have.
Posted by: david b | Jul 20, 2006 12:59:07 PM
'Right' is one of the most relative terms that can be used, yet its used as the sole justification for their policy.
Isn't that the same arugment made when denouncing the protection of marriage movement? Why bad no, good then??
Posted by: Fred Jones | Jul 22, 2006 12:27:45 PM
And here comes Good Ol' predictable Fred with your daily dose conservative nonsense....
Posted by: Sonny | Jul 22, 2006 5:52:24 PM
Sonny can't answer the question. Why now and not then?
It's a simple question, Sonny. Don't feel bad, no one else here can answer it either.
It's the hypocrisy that drips off of those chanting 'will of the people' until it comes to an unpopular cause they like.
Anyone else like to try? I think Sonny is done.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Jul 22, 2006 7:48:31 PM
I'm looking for great Xmas present ideas, just found this web site:
Belt Buckles
Also I check sites like amazon, ebay, but need some uniques ideas
Posted by: puteraszakx | Nov 8, 2007 6:58:49 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
