| « | All The Acidulous Penetration With None Of The Profanity! |
»
|
|
Monday, June 27, 2005
Research Without Moral Limits Is No Better Than Government Without Moral Limits
Glenn Reynolds seems not to have realized this:
As I've noted before, this [developments in the understanding and exploitation of adult stem cells -- FWP] only eliminates one class of ethical objection to stem cell research, but it's still important. It would certainly be good news for the Bush Administration, which is dreadfully out of step with public opinion on this topic. However, the article notes that adult stem cells can't do everything, and I suspect that research with embryonic stem cells will be required in order to learn how to get more out of adult stem cells, though of course I could be wrong.
Time was, a fellow by the name of William Lloyd Garrison was "dreadfully out of step with public opinion," too. What time? 1832. Look it up.
Either the deliberate creation of human embryos to be destroyed in research is morally objectionable, or it's not. President Bush feels that it is; others disagree. But it's hardly an argument capable of touching a moral conviction that one side is "dreadfully out of step with public opinion." Especially since Dubya is the first president since Grover Cleveland who actually pays attention to his conscience.
Beyond that, since embryonic stem cells have so far proved useless -- outside a living embryo, that is -- why ought we to assume that they'll be "required" for any purpose whatsoever?
Not your best stuff, Professor.
Comments
Is it possible to get stem cells from puppies in blenders?
Posted by Joseph Hertzlinger on 06/27/2005 at 12:32 PMDoes anyone else see this as step towards human cloning?
Or rather, by hoping to create cures and solutions on embryonic steams cells the need to do human cloning will be next. I may be wrong, but I thought a problem with embryonic steam cell solutions is that the host has to have the same genetic material? Ergo, clones?
Perhaps not, but I can see the push towards cloning coming from embryonic steam cell research.
Posted by Rusticus on 06/27/2005 at 01:17 PMReynolds seems… axiomatic about the idea that “...embryonic stem cells will be required...”, period, regardless of what they would be required for. If they’re too unstable to use in actual cures (they are, so far), he decides they will be required to get the most out of adult stem cells.
Rather an article of faith for him, so to speak. It’s unlikely he’ll ever admit to a day when embryonic stem cells are a bad, wrong, and impractical idea (all evidence points to at least the first and third, regardless of your opinion on the second), with no “but...” attached.
Posted by Dave on 06/27/2005 at 04:01 PMAt this point, believing in the efficacy (however nebulous) of embryonic stem cell research plays the role of wearing the right brand of clothing. It’s simply a signal that “I’m in the club--not one of those anti-scientific, anti-progressive fanatics.”
There is no reasoning behind it (ironically?).
MJ
Posted by Meta-jester on 07/02/2005 at 11:25 AMFor the (like me) ignorant and lazy:
Douglass believed, along with Lysander Spooner and Gerrit Smith, that the Constitution mandated emancipation while Garrison burned copies of it publicly, calling it a pro-slavery document.
I can’t say I agree that this man is the best example of your point.
MJ
Posted by Meta-jester on 07/02/2005 at 11:31 AMBut that’s because you’ve missed the point, MJ. Garrison was the founder of the Abolitionist movement—at a time when sentiment throughout the country was that nothing much could be done about slavery. I wrote nothing to imply that he was some sort of omni-topical paragon.
But come to think of it, the Constitution as originally ratified was a pro-slavery document. It explicitly guaranteed that the federal government would not touch the institution of slavery any sooner than 1808. (Article I, Section 9, and Article IV, Section 2) Nor did any of its provisions authorize Congress to legislate on the subject thereafter! The very first Constitutional provision made to oppose slavery was the Thirteenth Amendment, passed thirty-four years after Garrison founded The Liberator.
Posted by Francis W. Porretto on 07/02/2005 at 11:57 AM
Comment Form
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
