Monday, June 06, 2005

The professor strikes again.

Also, I think he's absolutely right about the new stem cell developments.

I oppose freely dispensed government funds for embryonic stem cell research, but I endorsed the Bush compromise—on pro-life grounds. My argument all along was, pretty simply, that embryonic stem cells could result in drastic medical advances—and they might not. As such, we should proceed carefully and figure out if they will, before we just open the floodgates. If it turns out that we can save thousands of lives by creating and destroying a few embryos, I'd probably be inclined to support that—I just want someone to be able to show a significant likelihood of that outcome before I endorse government sponsorship of the research necessary to reach that point. Accordingly, we allow some progress on the government's dime, but restrict it appropriately.


Dave Justus said...

I think your reasoning is a little backwards on this.

IF destroying embryoes is immoral, it is immoral whether or not useful cures are found by it. Nazi expiriments on concentration camp victims were unjustified even if they developed techniques that would save millions of people. Indeed, I recall that the research they did was pretty much just thrown away by the medical community to prevent this from becoming any sort of precedent at all.

You can certainly argue that embryoes at this stage are not human life, and destroying them for any purpose is not immoral. You can also argue that embryoes that are going to be destroyed anyway (extras from fertilization clinics) could be used for a higher purpose without causing in additional destruction. To argue though that if a good enough end results, the means become justified is a very bad moral precident.

RFTR said...

I disagree. I think that you're assuming I follow the same controlling moral philosophy as you.

I tend to be something of a utilitarian—an action that may be reprehensible in one circumstance can sometimes be permissible in another.

I also think there are exceptions to this. What I have yet to decide is if embryonic stem cells falls in the former or the latter category. As I said, I might likely be inclined to support further research if we could show that it would save mass numbers of lives (and I admit that's likely). I also might not.

Furthermore, you still owe me an explanation of why you support therapeutic cloning...

jj said...

As I said, I might likely be inclined to support further research if we could show that it would save mass numbers of lives

Research is in its initial stages so you want conclusions before the research that is backwards.

New Scientist

RFTR said...

And, JJ, you're an idiot.

I said quite clearly that I want the research to progress slowly, so we can sort out what's what, rather than assuming that we should run full-steam ahead. Not once have I said that stem cell research of any kind should be banned.

Read before you waste my time with innane comments picking and choosing between my words.

JJ said...

Name calling? Nice.

I read your comment and you want to go slow. Make sense? We can wait and see how it turns out and buy the technology from foriegn countries if it works out.

We do not have time to go slow we have lost almost four years already.

I would rather the U.S lead the world. You would rather go slow.