Science & Government Money - A Dangerous Mix
By dpayton Posted in User Blogs — Comments (6) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The stem cell research bill looks like it's on its way to the President's desk, and the President looks like he's going to pull out his veto pen for the first time in his two terms of office. RedState.org has taken an official position, although not all the Directors agree with it, and there's a healthy debate taking place.One of the issues being discussed is whether or not these frozen embryos are human life. Some of this I talk about in an essay I wrote years ago, "Just One Question", which asks a single question to determine the "human-ness" of the cells of a fertilized egg. One comment on the thread notes:
We are not all in agreement that the nouns "human", "person", "baby", "child", etc. apply to a blastocyst immersed in liquid nitrogen that is never going to be implanted into a woman's uterus.
Of course, if being implanted in a uterus is the measure of a man or woman, "never say 'never'" is a maxim to live by. President Bush spoke on this subject yesterday in the presence of 21 children who had previously been immersed in liquid nitrogen, as Augustine noted.
Not in direct answer to this, but to an earlier question in the same thread, another comment gives a more practical answer to that objection:
If these embryos weren't human, the researchers wouldn't want them. It is their humanity that is of value.
I don't see that their humanity is even debatable.
But regardless of which side of that debate you're on, if it's not settled by science yet, the stem cell research bill pushes things on anyway with eyes wide shut. Given the continuing advances in scientific knowledge about life, and given the tenacity with which government programs cling to their own life, a plausible future is that we determine that these blastocysts or embryos (or whatever you want to name them) are indeed human life, but we continue to put taxpayer money towards human experimentation. What's actually more plausible is that once this government program is in place, any discovery of their further human-ness will be squelched or minimized, sacrificed on the altar of "generally accepted science"', in much the same way those who don't tow the "global warming" line are getting ostracized. Once we take this direction, the ship of state (and science) will be very slow to react, if it reacts at all, to further scientific discoveries that would stop the gravy train.
Mixing government & science is typically a dangerous thing, and tends to entrench scientific thought in order to get taxpayer money. This should be enough to be against this bill, regardless of your stance on the humanity issue.
...is unwanted up until the moment someone wants it. I'll admit to not knowing the requirements for requesting one, or for granting that request, but saying that it will "never" be implanted sounds like "no one want it...yet". It's that "yet" I'd take issue with.
The other question is if an embryo is only human if placed in an environment that allows it to grow. Saying that basically places the question of its humanity on whether someone wants it. It is what it is; that doesn't change based on how it's used. If it will be human -then-, it's human -now-. Neil's response that if it wasn't human the researchers wouldn't want it is quite a good one for answering that question.
Despite what you say in the first paragraph, all five of RedState's Directors agree with this position. That is why it is official. Otherwise, it would just be another opinion.
Adam's forceful dissent (and his prolific contributions) gave me the impression he was one of the Directors. Next time, gotta click on the "Directors" link.
Duly noted. Thanks for the correction.
Either it is a life and deserves to live, or it isn't.
There isn't a fence here for you to sit on.
I hope you aren't actually advocating that we define life and the right to live or humanity by whether or not the person is wanted.
that my comment quoted above refers to those embryos that will NEVER be implanted into a woman's uterus. Those that are no longer desired for reproductive purposes and will not be donated to other couples to use for reproductive purposes but will be placed in an incinerator as medical waste.
I am all for donating embryos to other couples who wish to carry these embryos in hopes of producing a baby themselves. If all embryos were adopted in this way there would be none "left over" to use for research. And then we wouldn't need to have this discussion.