Comments on: Ross And ESCR

By: conradg

conradg — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 17:54:31 +0000

For what it’s worth, I’m deeply religious, but I don’t consider the body or its cells to be “sacred”. I consider the soul to be sacred, and I don’t equate the soul with the body, much less with tiny undeveloped cells and embryos. I’m not a spiritual materialist. Spiritual materialists have a right to their views, but not a right to impose those views on either the debate about abortion, or public policy. In my view, they have made a wrong moral calculation about what is sacred, and even about what constitutes a human being, and what the significance is of human biological development (and evolution for that matter).

By: conradg

conradg — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 17:43:02 +0000

Isn’t it just pointlessly redundant to object to spending one’s tax dollars on something one already opposes, for whatever reasons? I mean, if one opposes some government policy, doesn’t that automatically mean one opposes spending tax dollars on it? What is added to the argument, rhetorically, by not just opposing a policy, but by opposing the notion that tax dollars be spent on it? Is there some reason we should afford extra weight to opposition arguments to some government policy by pointing out that it means tax dollars will be used to support something opposed by the same people who already oppose it? What kind of sheer nonsense is this?

By: jTh

jTh — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 18:11:42 +0000

Yeah, that’s what interests me too.

On one hand, the opponents’ argument could be “stem cell research ‘tempts’ us to create life (that will never come to term) for some other purpose, and therefore we must keep the door firmly shut against that temptation, lest we disrespect the sanctity of life.”

But we’ve already got that door open, and it IS being exploited for IVM, with no prevalent moral objection whatsoever. How can one object to stem-cell research withOUT objecting to IVM practices?

So there’s where I’d like the illumination from an opponent, in my own good faith attempts to understand a position that I don’t share.

By: Jake - butnottheone

Jake - butnottheone — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 13:53:20 +0000

Kinsley also spoke of the odd reluctance of religious conservatives to address the actual destruction of embryos not implanted. That is the more telling discussion – why is it a problem to use embryos for research but not to simply destroy them? And, if their destruction is in fact a problem, how is it that IVF is not adamantly opposed by said religious conservatives, on the grounds that many, MANY more embryos are created than will ever be implanted?

By: jTh

jTh — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 11:58:50 +0000

I DO get your opposition to stem-cell research. I don’t share it (other than in sort of a vague theoretical way, that to my mind is far far FAR outweighed by the potential benefits), but I do “get it.”

I just don’t share the “sacredness of the embryo” view generally, but since it’s your blog, I’m not inclined to tussle at length over it. (You’re religious, I’m not, end of story?) Rather, I find your reasoning very solid generally, but in that one point that implied a certain causality (about a less contentious issue generally), I thought it bore questioning or clarification. (Otherwise I wouldn’t have spoken up.)

I’m still reviewing Kinsley’s argument. My apprehension at the moment is that it’s not as weak (overall) as you regard it, but I’ll keep pondering. However, your broad view seems internally consistent and understandable.

By: Daniel Larison

Daniel Larison — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 03:06:26 +0000

Well, it’s obvious that you opposed it, as I did, because it was wrong. That’s taken as a given here. And I assume you don’t like subsidizing what we both regard as an immoral war. Now try to imagine, just for a moment, coming from the perspective that destroying embryos for scientific research is also morally wrong. If you couldn’t ban it outright, wouldn’t you want to have as little to do with such a thing as possible?

The point is that war opponents rejected a certain policy, just as opponents of ESCR reject a policy of government funding of something they regard as abhorrent. Kinsley’s rebuttal on this point is incredibly weak.

By: jTh

jTh — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 02:56:33 +0000

Actually, I opposed the invasion because it was *wrong*, not because my tax dollars had anything to do with it. And I (knew I) had a moral basis to oppose the invasion by any simple moral basis whatsoever, regardless whether my tax dollars were paying for it.

I.e., my tax dollars had nothing to do with “why I opposed the invasion.” You seem to be drawing a causality that’s total foreign to me, and I expect to a lot of people (of some undetermined number).

On the pro-embryonic-life stuff, of course, we remain perpetually at odds.