Redstate

I do oppose in vitro fertilization where they create more than one embryo and discard the excess. Is that all you got? Weak, friend, really weak.

You call it pragmatism, I call it pro-choice.

They that are with us are more than they that are against us.

I was unaware of an IVF technique that did not generally result in multiple embryos. The process involves stimulating the release and collecting many eggs, and then mixing these eggs with sperm in a test tube. The resulting embryos are then screened and several are placed in the women in the hope that one of them will implant. A major risk with IVF is that of multiple births (fraternal twins, we might call them) when more than one embryo implants itself in the womb.

As for what I got, I was simply pointing out that it is fallacious to use a research development predicated on ESC research as vindication for a policy opposed to that very same research. As you will, though, far be it from me to impose my view of reality.

Aside: My opposition to IVF does not mean, however, that I think any less of the beautiful children brought into this world vis-a-vis that process. They are just as precious as any other child.
--------------------------------------------------------
"I die the King's good servant, and God's first." Saint Thomas More.

Would it be "fallacious" for the Allies to use medical data from Nazi death docs as part of their fight against the Nazis?

When you put it in those stark terms, I think its pretty clear that you're so-called fallacy is no such thing.

I have heard from real pro-lifers who are knowledgeable on the subject that there are IVF techniques that do not generally create "excess" embryonic lives. I'm more inclined to take their word on it than yours.

They that are with us are more than they that are against us.

There is no commonly used IVF technique that does not create more than one embryo - the failure rate is way to high for the cost to justify trying only one. They are now yo the point were in many cases they only implant a single embryo (thus reducing the likelihood of multiple births) but they still create multiple embryos in the test tube, implant the most viable, and discard the rest.

Your friend either confused creating multiple embryos and impanting them or you misunderstood him/her.

Like I said, I know my friends are genuine pro-lifers and genuinely knowledgeable, and I trust them a lot more than I do your wolf-in-sheeps-clothing version of pro-life belief.

They that are with us are more than they that are against us.

We're all genuinely knowledgeable. Have your friends done DNA transfections, experimented with embryos and sperm (from sea anemone), taken a dozen biology courses? I have nothing for or against IVF, I'm merely pointing out the source of the cells used for ESC research and wondering why this isn't equally reviled.

If you could find a source for IVF with only single fertilized eggs I would like to read it, it would be a huge breakthrough in the efficacy of embryo manipulation and very relevant to the work I do.

But its still wrong information (like I said it may be you misunderstand your friend and she/he is reffering to implantation rather than creation). I also don't understand why the specifics of how a medical procedure are in any way realted to ones pro-life credentials but taht's okay.

We just spent several years being lied to about the real reasons, possibilities, nature, and risks of embryo-destroying stem cell research, cloning, etc.. By scientists. Newsflash.

They that are with us are more than they that are against us.

What lies? All the research that has come out was done in plain view.

Anyway, do you have any documentation, even just the brochure, of anyone who claims to do IVF by creating only one embryo? How about we start from that - or does your friend not say that it is done only that it could be and mean doctors don't do it because they enjoy destroying embryos?

No more than it would be "fallacious" to use the results of ESC research to fund new lines of investigation aimed at making ESC research unnecessary.

Using the results of ESC research to support and vindicate a policy banning this research, however, seems paradoxical.

I invoke Godwin.

The fact is, IVF is legal and the procedure has been performed in the US since 1981 ; so there are hundreds of thousands of frozen embryos sitting in labs destined for destruction. I can see how one could have moral concerns about IVF, but that does not change the fact that it is legal, and that the procedure produces excess embryos. Also, many people that undergo IVF are open to donating the excess embryos to ESC (embryonic stem cell) research. The federal legislation, vetoed by Bush, limited federal funding of ESC research to excess embryos from IVF procedures. I am personally opposed to federal funding for embryos created specifically for ESC research and federal funding of somatic cell nuclear transfer, because the moral and ethical concerns outweigh the good that can come from the scientific research. That said, I am in favor of any ethical scientific research and welcome the recent advances in stem cell research that does not destroy embryos.

So, although I can see how one could be morally opposed to IVF, I believe ESC research limited to excess embryos produced during IVF is ethical scientific research and should receive federal funding. I think this is ethical, because the embryos are destined for destruction and the procedure is very expensive, time consuming, and often emotionally draining; so I do not foresee people abusing the procedure just to produce excess embryos.

"I believe in the sanctity of human life and support measures designed to curb abortion, etc."

...I'm curious, why do you support curbing abortion? What exactly does the sanctity of human life mean to you?
...It seems to me that if you claim to want to curb abortion because human life is sacred, then on what grounds can you then turn and support stem cell research on those embryos "slated for destruction" from in vitro fertilization? Has the nature of the embryo somehow changed?
...It matters little, to those who respect human life, HOW the life is created- either through in vitro or through, uhh, normal human relations, shall we say?- a living human embryo is a living human being. How and why he/she was created has NOTHING to do with his/her nature.
...Do you support scientific testing on death row patients? Why not? Are they not also "slated for destruction?"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
“It must not be supposed that folly is as powerful as truth,
just because it can, if it likes, shout louder and longer than truth.”

--Augustine

You would have to argue that its ethically justified to kill or maltreat innocent lives that are doomed to be killed or maltreated anyway. For instance, could one ethically pay the Chinese government to perform lethal experiments on political prisoners they intended to execute anyway? I'm inclined to think not but I suppose an argument could be made.

They that are with us are more than they that are against us.

But it is entirely possible to want to curb abortion and not view fetuses as the equivalent of born human beings. We look for ways to humanely kill animals even though we do not consider their deaths to be the same moral issue as a persons. The key question is still whether a fetus and born human are equivalent morally - just because they are not does not mean that unlimited abortions are okay.

To me life is about purpose and direction. Destruction is a necessary counterpart to creation, and both can be constructive. The sanctity of life, to me, means that both creation and destruction without purpose defies the sanctity of life.

I don't support curbing abortions via criminalization but instead via education on birth control; criminalization does nothing but drive the practice underground, education (effective education, abstinence only education does not seem to work) might actually reduce real numbers as opposed to reducing government-reported statistics. As for death row, I'm against the death penalty in the absence of perfect knowledge; with life imprisonment at least there is the possibility of reversing injustice in light of new information. Also, the death penalty is a poor deterrent against those who do not care much for life.

The right to self-determination in medicine is a very difficult one, especially in extreme cases such as with the children of Christian Scientists, babies, etc. Terminally ill adults can enroll in studies that have only scientific and no clinical value, albeit at their discretion. Also, I don't equate a single fertilized egg with a fetus; if pressed I would draw the dividing line at the inception of neural activity and the beginning of consciousness, somewhere around the 6th-10th week depending on what you'd call consciousness. If asked whether I would destroy an embryo or turn it into a stem cell line for life-saving research, I would choose the latter.

At the point we gain the ability to turn any human cell into an ESC (and hence potentially an embryo), what is the difference between a fertilized egg and what is essentially a human clone? These are difficult questions and I don't pretend to have answers, we all have to draw our own lines. I try to think of the greater good. To draw an unwanted analogy, the death of Iraqi civilians is acceptable to safeguard our own well-being, regardless of whether you agree with the Pentagon or the Lancet figures. Killing to prevent death is an unavoidable paradox in a complex world.

Criminalization does nothing but drive the practice underground.

Nonsense. This really flies in the face of human experience. Or do you think that all of our criminal laws are just touchy-feely measures?

Our drug laws have certainly worked wonders since their inception in the 1930s and their modern counterpart from 1971. As far as I can tell the most significant outcome of the criminalization of drugs is the rise of a huge black market funding criminal activity, many billions of dollars a year. Again, I support education and rehabilitation; much cheaper.

I hate the fact that I have to pay tax money to lock away drug users who do less harm than the average drunken citizen (and yes, I pay taxes; engineering grad students make some small amount of money). I want a government with clear goals that then sets about finding policies to achieve these goals and monitors their effectiveness.

I think that my statement is in fact vindicated by human experience. The deaths of thousands of women from illegal abortions also supports this fact, whether or not you think they deserved it.

I'm pretty sure that legalizing drug use would lead to increased use.

I'm pretty sure that those statistics about thousands and thousands of women dying in illegal abortions are canards.

I'm pretty sure, on the other hand, that hundreds of thousands of babies are killed every year. Maybe you think that big numbers like that are just a statistic. I think they're lives.

They that are with us are more than they that are against us.

I am certain that Prohibition helped fund the mob. I am certain that we spend some fifty billion dollars a year on marijuana offenses (when you include the cost of incarceration). I am certain that the black market funds criminal activity, and that the massive increase in the availability of heroin is due to increased opium production in Afghanistan and that this money is funding terrorism.

I am not certain as to the effects of legalization; research on the issue is funded by partisans on both sides. But hey, better the devil you know than the devil you don't.

Personally I say legalize and tax them all, with special clinics for the hard drugs. Use the tax revenue and the money freed up from fewer incarcerations to go after thieves, violent offenders, and pay teachers more.

My favorite statistic is that we could approximately double the average teacher salary in America off the revenues from marijuana legalization alone. (3 million teachers, $30,000 average salary: $30 billion cost to double; DEA budget: some $40 billion, maybe 60% of which goes to marijuana interdiction; number of people incarcerated for nonviolent drug offenses: more than 1 million).

I am all for criminalizing abortion the day we agree as a society to invest in our children via education (properly trained teachers) and health care. I would also like to abolish most forms of welfare and healthcare for anyone above the age of 18; at that point it's sink or swim, but we could rest easy knowing we've at least given everyone the opportunity to fly.

Eh, no. I've been through a variety of public schools, a private school, and have been homeschooled, and I have to say that homeschool and private school were vastly superior to the public schools I attended. Better a tax credit for parents who homeschool and parents who send their kids to private school. As for the rest, right on.

...I’m sorry, but to equate creation and destruction to me is just morally confused when dealing with the issue of human life. As poetic as your view sounds, the two are simply as different as can be. The destruction of human life- be it nascent, infant, adolescent, adult, or elderly- is just that, a destruction. If human beings have worth intrinsically, then that worth must apply to all stages of human life. We cannot pick and choose which stages we can play with and which we can’t IF we are at all concerned with intellectual honesty.
...I don’t agree with that the criminalization of abortion “does nothing” but drive it into the shadows. What it also does is EFFECTIVELY reduce the number of abortions. If it goes underground it will no doubt be harder to get, which logically drops the numbers of murdered unborn humans substantially.
...I don’t agree that education is the way to curb abortion. The mantra that education is the cure for all social evils is a decidedly Leftist view that is completely false. We now have as much education available today to people of all ages about abortion than ever before, but have the numbers dropped? Education is not morality. There are many highly educated, and completely immoral and/or evil people in the world.
...Killing civilians in a war against fascist aggressors is not equatable to the killing of nascent human beings in the search for the cure for some ailment or condition. One is NECESSARY the other, to be quite honest, is not.
...Is human life valuable? That is the question? If the answer is yes, then that value must be applied to human beings during all stages of life. Otherwise we draw arbitrary distinctions, and devalue that life. The partial birth abortion issue is a perfect example. Why is the human less valuable while he/she is still within the mother’s body? Does location decide worth?
...Does development decide worth? Are embryos more expendable because they are not as developed as you or I? If that is so, a newborn is worth less than a 3 year old, and I am worth less than my father.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
“It must not be supposed that folly is as powerful as truth,
just because it can, if it likes, shout louder and longer than truth.”

--Augustine

It is impossible to have creation without destruction. "A time to be born and a time to die" and whatnot. Or maybe "Every new beginning is some other beginning's end." Yes, I have resorted to lyrical nothings to make my case, but so it goes.

I still hold that the killing of civilians in war is equivalent to killing embryos in the search to cure some disease or ailment. In both cases we must decide what is an acceptable level of death in the present for the chance (not a guarantee, just a possibility) to prevent some amount of death in the future. Neither are necessary, both are options on the table.

We have, as a society, already made the choice that some lives are worth more than others, and this choice has been made by nearly all people on some issue or another, whether the death penalty, war, or abortion. I tried to stake out the position that all life is, indeed, sacred, but my very Southern Baptist family convinced me I was wrong. While the black and white viewpoint was comforting it was damned near impossible to achieve coherence, and some paradoxes are fundamental.

"We have, as a society, already made the choice that some lives are worth more than others, and this choice has been made by nearly all people on some issue or another, whether the death penalty, war, or abortion." ...I believe this is wrong. No one can honestly hold that a death row inmate is INTRINSICALLY worth less than any other human. His life is forfeit, not worth less. His or her life is taken out of justice, not out of inferior worth. There is a difference.
...Those who die in war, either innocent or not, are not worth less, but in a struggle against evil, it is an unfortunate reality. We do not kill fascist aggressors because they are worth less, but because it is necessary for achieving peace, and protecting others. (If they would stop if asked nicely, then that would be the way to go.)
...And abortion? You know my view.
...I am not against the taking of human life. In terms of justice, and in seeking to protect others it is the way of things. It serves goodness and morality. But I am against taking it for research, as if human life were a chemical in a tube, or (as in the case of MOST abortions) for an easier life or to escape the responsibilities of a immoral lifestyle.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
“It must not be supposed that folly is as powerful as truth,
just because it can, if it likes, shout louder and longer than truth.”

--Augustine

You believe that the government has the power to choose who lives and who dies. Death row inmates are better dead than alive; whether you call it justice, or cold economic calculation (in terms of the cost of future transgressions), or that they are worth less, the result is the same: we can and do choose to destroy for the greater good.

We disagree about where this destruction is best applied, but do not pretend that we do not share the same core belief in the value of destruction.

To ignore the reasons and only look at the result is willful blindness, and an attempt to morally equate war and scientific research. The fact is there ARE distinguishing differences in what we are talking about here.

I do not think death row inmates are "better" dead. I think that justice is served by their death. There is a difference.

Also, I place no "value" in destruction, and I pretend nothing. We do not share the same core belief. That is obvious.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
“It must not be supposed that folly is as powerful as truth,
just because it can, if it likes, shout louder and longer than truth.”

--Augustine

I know, I also find it absurd that I am attempting to morally equate war and scientific research.

Do you understand that our disagreement lies solely in the targets for destruction we find acceptable, and potentially the ends this destruction serves?

For "value" read "utility".

As for the death row comment, you are again demonstrating that you do not believe life to be ultimately sacred, that there are goals which require death; gads, man, you quibble over vocabulary while ignoring the central premise.

"I still hold that the killing of civilians in war is equivalent to killing embryos in the search to cure some disease or ailment."

...Your words. Not mine.

...I do believe life to be sacred. Yes. I never said ultimately sacred. I consider Truth and Justice to be high enough ideals that life can, and ought to be, subject to it.
...The death penalty serves Justice. If a man takes a life unjustly, then his life is forfeit. That VALUES life. The victim's life.
...But I do like your use of "gads". Sadly, you don't see such words enough. Well done.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
“It must not be supposed that folly is as powerful as truth,
just because it can, if it likes, shout louder and longer than truth.”

--Augustine

Speaking only for myself, I don't have any issue with ESC research, I just don't think it should be federally funded.

But Bush's stance wasn't to outlaw ESC research, but simply not to fund it using government money.

GWB banned the use of federal funds for research involving any ESC line other than the 60 odd lines that had already been approved for research. The source of new lines is irrelevant. The whole "he is against is the government funding of embryonic stem cell research in which embryos are created for the sole purpose of being destroyed for research" does not accurately describe the effect his policy had on ESC research in the USA.

Even then it wouldn't have been much of an issue except that any lab which obtains federal funding for any purpose cannot be used for this research, either. Almost our entire scientific infrastructure (equipment, space, etc.) was paid for in part by our government (the NIH and NSF make American science great) and so is banned from taking part in the coming revolution.

:::shrug:::

In the end we are not so special and other countries will pick up the slack. Knowledge (and its corollary, power) will march on, with or without us.