Embryo ethics: 400,000 Bush Babies

In an article in the Boston Globe, Michael J. Sandel discusses the implications of the Bush administration's policy with regard to stem cell research. He states that the stance the president takes in this debate is morally inconsistent.Some quotes may be in order.

quote:

---

"Opponents [to stem cell research] argue that the research is unethical, because deriving the stem cells destroys the blastocyst, an unimplanted human embryo at the sixth to eighth day of development. As Bush declared when he vetoed last year's stem cell bill, the federal government should not support 'the taking of innocent human life.'"

---

quote:

---

"[...] it is a striking feature of the president's position that, while restricting the funding of embryonic stem cell research, he has made no effort to ban it."

---

quote:

---

"But if embryos are human beings, to allow fertility clinics to discard them is to countenance, in effect, the widespread creation and destruction of surplus children."

---

quote:

---

"Rather than simply complain that the president's stem cell policy allows religion to trump science, critics should ask why the president does not pursue the full implications of the principle he invokes."

---

I think the answer to that last question is pretty obvious. Namely, it would mean that Bush would have to commandeer the wombs of 400,000 women, to order doctors to implant the embryos into those wombs, and to have the women carry the babies to full term. On top of that, he'd have to think of a way to explain all that to the tax payer.Anyway, that's what the president would have to answer if he had thought things through. But I suspect he hasn't. This anti-science president isn't used to thinking things through, or else he would have seen the possible benefits of stem cell research for thousands, if not millions of people - real people that is, not blastocysts with the mere potential to become people - who presently have to battle with diseases that may in the future be cured thanks to this research. Instead, all this president sees is a petri dish with "innocent human life". I wonder how he regards his comb in the morning.Is president Bush right in opposing stem cell research? Is he consistent? Is it even possible to take his position and still be consistent? I think no, no and no.Discuss.("Social Issues and Creation/Evolution" possibly?)Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Change "Embyo" to "Embryo" in topic title.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

content deleted, see "General discussion..."Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.

I will anyway. Since someone put this topic in the Coffee House there's much more leeway to get a little off-topic. Do I sense a conflict of interest here? Naaa.By the way, do you know of a way to correct a spelling mistake in the topic title? That would be a nice way to redeem yourself.

I found the argument Michael Sandel put forward in his article quite compelling: he said that though Bush doesn't want to fund stem cell research, he doesn't ban it either, and that's what he should do if he wants to be consistent in his position against it. At least, that's the easy way to be consistent. My own deliberately over the top extrapolation is a much harder way to be consistent, but it hammers home the point more forcefully, I hope. In an ideal world, I wouldn't have made that mistake. But alas, this isn't an ideal world. Shit happens.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

By first creating a surplus of blastocysts. Some of them are used for in vitro fertilization, and the remaining ones are stored in cold suspension, with little chance of being used as such. They can be used for stem cell research though. If you think that a blastocyst is "innocent human life", in a certain sacrosanct way, then the whole practice of in vitro fertilization results in the destruction of human life.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.