President Obama issues an executive order to lift the ban on federal funding for ebryonic stem call research.
Mr. Obama called his decision a "difficult and delicate balance," an understatement of the intense emotions generated on both sides of the long, contentious debate. He said he came down on the side of the "majority of Americans" who support increased federal funding for the research, both because strict oversight would prevent problems and because of the great and lifesaving potential it holds.
Let's get some facts straight:
1) President Bush never banned embryonic stem call research; he banned the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.
2) Embryonic stem cell research isn't the only kind of stem cell research; there are forms of adult stem cell manipulation that have flourished in the last few years. (This should be pursued more vigorously).
3) Thus, the statement that conservatives want to constrain science and the healing of many diseased people is fallacious. Science always operates better when unconstrained by the civil authorities, yet scientists clamor for grants like they're candy. In sum, science wants the government out of its institutions and rule-making, but it does want the government's money. Obama is okay with that. There's a double-standard here with non-profit faith-based organizations and government aid, but I won't get too into that right now (ie if an organization wants money to feed the poor, it has to operate by the government's rules like inter-faith hiring policies).
4) The quote above illustrates Obama's moral compass. Since when does majority rule ever determine what's right or wrong? This is a logical fallacy called the bandwagon- "Everyone thinks it so it must be right." The principle here is that an embryo is a growing human life. Some say it's "potential human life" and that it isn't real life until placed in a woman's embryo. I'm not so sure that it's that gray, and I don't think the government should allow such morally hazy (or downright obstructive) practices to resume on its dime. The destruction of human embryos might be murder (I think it probably is), but in the very least we are dealing with another Mexico City policy in that the government shouldn't fund this stuff. Endangered species are more protected legally than the unborn.
Here are some morally comparable areas to what is going on:
1) Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal. Due to the starvation, poverty, and overpopulation in Great Britain in the 19th century, we should take to eating babies. It would a) decrease the population and b) eradicate the problem of a lack of food. Swift provides an overtly ridiculous satire, but is the justification for government funding of embryonic stem cell research any different?
2) Social Darwinism. Humanity is on an ever-increasing track of improvement. If we want to eradicate most communicable diseases from humanity, why don't we just kill all the people that have them so we can alleviate human suffering? The Nazi's did it, why can't we? We could rid the world of AIDS, Malaria, and other major world-killers.
Here's the point: whenever the destruction of one life is used for the propagation of another, we haven't acted justly. The blind adherence to alleviating human suffering should not be achieved by any means necessary.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Posts
4 comments:
It's almost as if they just gave up on stem cell research outside of the fetus. Maybe not entirely but as you point out, when there is no moral compass guiding your science then science is guided by the almighty government grant and "bandwagon" popular opinion.
Sickening.
Finally, after almost a decade of limiting taxpayer money for research president Barrack Obama has lifted the restrictions on federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research today. Let's think of how many Americans are suffering from ailments and what this research can do for them. I'm sure everyone reading this knows someone important to them that is affected by one of these maladies such as Parkinson's, repairing spinal cord injuries as well as treating diabetes, cancer, heart disease, multiple sclerosis and many more defects.
Looks like old Voicedup doesn't have the courtesy to actually engage with the arguments. Instead, he lifts a paragraph directly from his/her own blog directly into the comments section. That's pretty cowardly, sir/madam.
My primary point in this post was to assert this fact: it isn't moral to alleviate suffering by any means necessary. If we frame the argument solely by what anything can do for anybody in suffering, then we have no moral compass. Allow me to demonstrate:
I saw this homeless guy on the street the other day. I think we should kill all the people that drive by him everyday and give him their money so that his suffering is over. After all, we all know someone who is homeless.
Doing something for the sole motivation of alleviating suffering without proper discernment of the cost is a moral fallacy. Reductio ad absurdem.
Dave,
Well said. Moreover, you made an important distinction between 1) supporting the alleviation of suffering while striving to protect all human life and 2) striving to alleviate suffering at the cost of less conspicuous human lives. The former is truly concerned with the welfare of all life, and respects human dignity while seeking to do what it can within that moral boundary, while the latter is merely seeking the alleviation of suffering that we can directly see. Human dignity is either non-existent or it equally egregiously takes a back seat to the quest for "the greatest good for the most conspicuous." God help us.
Post a Comment