random thought of the moment:
Everyone sees what you seem to be, few perceive what you are; and those few don’t dare oppose the general opinion, which has the majesty of the government backing it up. … The masses are always impressed by appearances and by the outcome of an event — and in the world there are only masses. The few have no place there when the many crowd together.
— , The Prince
October 3rd, 2004 by Funky Dung
I am here today to go on the record with my bewilderment with opponents of embryonic stem cell research.
Here's how I understand stem cell research: Fertilize an egg and let it divide a few times. Take the resulting clump of cells and use them to see what kinds of tissues you can grow on command. Repeat until you get something useful. Put cotton in your ears while Christians scream at you for being a genocidal maniac.
So who wants to respond to this?
Funky Dung
Popularity: 2% [?]
Possibly Related Posts:
Comments 23
I sure as hell wouldn't want to be his wife….or worse, his daughter.
If he even has a wife, I bet he won't have her for long.
Next!
+0
Posted 03 Oct 2004 at 1:30 pm ¶Not quite the response I was fishing for.
+0
Posted 03 Oct 2004 at 2:47 pm ¶Nor I. (Furthermore, as I have said many times before, I have no problem if people want to disagree with me, but they had better disagree with good reason–and those good reasons had better be out in the open. They should also refrain from making scurrilous personal remarks like that. That is, unless Alexa would like me to read her blog and use it as leverage to make rude comments about her personal character.)
In other news…
Funky, I don't know what happened, but starting a couple days ago your blog no longer displays correctly for me. There is a blank space where the sidebar should be, and the sidebar is floating on top of the left side of your posts.
+0
Posted 03 Oct 2004 at 4:25 pm ¶If you take that same 'clump of cells' and let him or her grow in a natural environment- a mother's womb- you get a baby. Every single human being alive started out as a 'clump of cells', and if we are permitted to kill a newly conceived human being, why not an elderly person? A severely disabled person? A member of a minority group we despise? The only difference is age…
+0
Posted 03 Oct 2004 at 7:51 pm ¶Theo,
What browser do you use? I had a bear of a time getting things to look right in IE.
Everyone else,
Are you having problems viewing my blog? Are you a HTML guru that can point out what to fix? If so, let me know. Thanks in advance.
+0
Posted 03 Oct 2004 at 8:48 pm ¶It looks fine for me in FireFox 1.0PR and the XP SP2 version of IE 6.
+0
Posted 03 Oct 2004 at 9:02 pm ¶Regarding, Alexa's comment:
Let's keep things civil here, folks. Before commenting, please think about whether your words will draw others to Christ or cause scandal.
+0
Posted 03 Oct 2004 at 9:04 pm ¶Donna– You might be interested in the rather lengthy comment I left on my own blog this afternoon. I raised exactly the same issues you raise. See here.
Funky– I am using Safari 1.2 on Mac OS X. Your blog displays fine in Firefox, but it annoys me that I have to fire up a second browser just to see one site (or rather, just to see the far left side of one site).
+0
Posted 04 Oct 2004 at 6:31 am ¶Theo makes some good points about the habit we have of placing relative value on various human lives (usually based on proximity, publicity, or an ability to elicit sympathy). In part, he concludes: So what's the big deal about placing a relatively low value on a human organism (my term not his) that is merely a clump of cells?
I come to the opposite conclusion: That we ought care deeply and equally for all losses of human life. We should care for ~3000 dead Haitian hurricane victimes at least as much as we care for ~20 dead Floridians. We should care about the ~35,000 US highway deaths per year at least as much as we care about ~3,000 dead in a terrorist attack. We should care about the Iraqi body count as much as the American… more probably since most of the Iraqi dead didn't volunteer for a dangerous job that could involve war-making.
That many opponents of embrionic stem cell research do not have a consistent view of the sanctity of human life is no argument for embrionic stem cell research. It is a convincing proof of the stupidity of certain people, but surely there is some similar inconsistency on the other side of the debate that could be thus exploited, which is, of course, is what I intend here.
I think this debate is fundamentally unresolvable. Either you believe that each human life is intrinsically valuable and deserves equal protection or you don't. If you do, then attempt to force your political will. If you do not, then attempt to force your political will. I don't really see any compromise in the positions. As an opponent of embrionic stem cell research, I can only hope that the cause might be aided by my fellow opponents adopting a more internally consistent view on the sanctity of human life.
Cheers
+0
Posted 04 Oct 2004 at 4:29 pm ¶Oops… hopefully it is obvious that I meant:
"… surely there is some similar inconsistency on the other side of the debate that could be thus exploited, which is, of course,
not what I intend here."
Cheers
+0
Posted 04 Oct 2004 at 4:32 pm ¶Steve is exactly right when he says:
"That many opponents of embrionic stem cell research do not have a consistent view of the sanctity of human life is no argument for embrionic stem cell research."
However, my point is that no one has a consistent view of the "sanctity of human life," and furthermore that such consistency is probably impossible.
For instance, to place as high a value on lives that are separated from us by "proximity, publicity, or an ability to elicit sympathy" would be to first create an abstraction of those people in our minds and then to value the abstraction. Are we then valuing the people, or the valuation itself?
I know, that's kind of philosophical hair-splitting, but my point is basically that human beings are not really "wired up" to value people that they do not experience as people. Most of us do not subjectively experience all the Iraqi dead as people but instead as objects or abstract projections of what we think people are or should be. That's not to say I can't say innocent Iraqis are valuable–I think they are–but ultimately I can do do little better than give them lip service, which is what I just did. Either that or physically go over there, which would be good, but not everyone can do it so we're hitting up against an impossibility again.
Personally, if I am going to be valuing people who are separated from me by "proximity, publicity, or an ability to elicit sympathy," I have an easier time valuing Iraqis than clumps of cells in the embryonic stage of development.
In other words, I think we can't help but put all human life at whatever stage of development along a value continuum, and that we will not all share the same arrangement. From there the problem becomes one of political philosophy and how the power and funding of our government should interact with controversy amongst the population.
+0
Posted 04 Oct 2004 at 6:03 pm ¶Whether we value people on a continuum or not is the wrong question to be asking. The fundamental question, as Steve points out, is whether every human life is intrinsically valuable or not. If the answer is yes, then we should strive to protect every human life, wherever and whenever possible. When protecting some lives puts other lives at risk, the problem gets a bit hairier, and that's where Theomorph's continuum may come into play. However, it's not a scale of objective value, but rather subjective value, relative to given the situation.
+0
Posted 04 Oct 2004 at 10:11 pm ¶I'm not sure if Theomorph is distinguishing between feeling subjective attachment to a stranger and whether deontologically we should value them in a moral, objectieve sense. Both of these things can coexist, though in practicality, humans having to prioritize limited time and resources, it is easier for us to help those to whom we are close (physically and temporally as well as purely subjectively. E.g., it is much easier for a Pittsburgher to directly help a flooded neighbor than a Jamaican–I do think, though, that a monetary contribution to Jamaica would be more needed.).
I do not know quite how the moral theology works, but the Church is insistent that killing is never good. It may be permissible in some sense in terms of self-defense. Likewise, warfare may be just in a sense of the word. But in no way that denies the value of the persons on either side.
This ties in with Theomorph's blog entry regarding Nazis and so forth. Whereas a Nazi is complicit in terrible evils at some point, an embryo can't be BLAMED for anything. An embryo does not choose to be conceived by a poor couple or whatever. Nor does it choose to be born with cystic fibrosis.
Christ's mercy is avaiable to all people, and even soldiers in an evil cause have that dignity. Has anyone seen "Das Boot"? It's about a German U-boat crew, and painted a very realistic picture of submarine warfare. My father saw this movie on the big screen in Skokie, Illinois, which is a major Jewish enclave. He recalled that whereas the audience was booing the crew at first, they were cheering for them in the end.
Therefore, even aside for just objective moral statements about whether it is right to do X, we can find subjective reasons for treating people nicely or at least regarding them fully as human beings, even in cases such as soldiers of an unjust regime. The reason why this does not always happen is because the newspapers etc. don't always take such a tack–and when some, like the NY Times, do try a "sympathy for the devi" piece, they're often too sanctimonious–and people are often distracted or lazy.
Which brings us back to Steve's comment that just because people can be lazy or stupid (heck, I've been lazy and/or stupid at times, so it can happen to anyone ;)), doesn't mean that the lowest common denominator should rule. Just because person X pushes my buttons and I cannot so much as look at him without sneering doesn't mean that I should treat everyone else like dirt in the name of consistency. Rather, I should try to treat X more like I would another fellow human being.
Consistency is a necessary condition for making rational judgments, but it is not an end unto itself insofar as Himmler and Mother Teresa both lead lives consistent with their beliefs.
+0
Posted 04 Oct 2004 at 11:14 pm ¶Theo writes:
… my point is basically that human beings are not really "wired up" to value people that they do not experience as people.
and, more generally (if I may be permitted to generalize), doubts that to value (to care or to love) an abstract (or hypothetical or distant) person is the same as to value an actual person. Hence, if I've got this right, since it is impossible to actually care for every one equally, we, for all practical purposes, do care for all humans on a relative scale.
First off, Theo is absolutely right to doubt that mere words or sentiment is equivalent to caring. This agrees precisely with Christian Scripture, which states:
"Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead."
(James 2:15-17, NIV)
Recognizing an overarching principle (lets call it a "theory") that people should be concerned for all people equally, and implementing it perfectly are two different things. The governing principle is what should guide our behavior in all (even theoretical) cases. Theomorph seems to suggest that since no one can live up to the theory, then the theory is meaningless–as if we somehow divide by zero. At risk of caricature, what Mr. Morph seems to suggest is "In the same way, faith, since it is not equivalent to action, is dead." I would suggest it is faith that informs our action. And to the extent that our actions live up to this high-falutin' theory, then the better those actions are judged to be.
If we grant that people are not really wired up to value others at a distance, then how do we explain those who manage to do so: to care enough, at a distance, to sign up for the Peace Corps or Doctors Without Borders in the first place, for example. Moreover, why is it that when we see such "caring", people almost universally identify it as an heroic act? I.e., why is it that we "value" so highly people who are capable of valuing others… even (and especially) at a distance? And why is it that those who are most capable at valuing at a distance are those that are often deemed the most heroic?
I guess I would answer that we are just exactly wired up to care… even at a distance. And that it is only self-interest (greed, lust, gluttony, envy-n-all) that keeps us from doing so in a more perfect way. And these heroes, who manage (much better than the rest of us at least) to care so deeply, are applauded because they remind us what could potentially be true in every one of us. And if it (this self-sacrifical heroism that most folks admire) were really true in all of us (… no, that isn't "We Are the World" fading in from a distance), then maybe, just maybe there would be enough caring (love, charity, whatever) to go around.
Cheers!
+0
Posted 05 Oct 2004 at 5:33 am ¶And so… getting back to the complex case at hand: Embrionic Stem Cell Research… I say complex because the Christian duty to care (to love, etc.) extends to all people (Jew/Gentile, male/female, young/old, friend/enemy). So here we have embryos, whom I am obligated to love, and folks with parkinsons, alzheimers, diabetes, etc., whom I am obligated to equally love.
Well, my "theory" is all human life is sacred. A corrolary is: it is wrong to force one person to lay down their life to benefit another (though, ironically, it is the highest good to voluntarily so lay down one's life).
Ignoring for the moment the obvious implications on the draft, slavery, abortion in the case of a tubal pregnancy, &c., the obvious implication for embrionic stem cell research is that it violates the rule. The good news (pointed to Funky in a post(s) about a month?? or so ago) is that much progress is being made with adult (voluntarily donated) stem cells.
Like I said earlier, there really isn't a compromise position available on this topic. But that's the view from this computer.
Cheers!
+0
Posted 05 Oct 2004 at 5:50 am ¶Steve,
The post you mentioned is this one:
http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/arc20040801.html#BlogID1336
(I think it's a really worthwhile piece, by the way)
And I whole-heartedly agree with the idea that we shouldn't be bound by the precedents set by our worst actions. We need to strive for the better ideals of compassion, whether or not they come naturally to us (because often they won't).
+0
Posted 05 Oct 2004 at 11:26 am ¶Hmm…
I too agree that "we shouldn't be bound by the precedents set by our worst actions."
But then I start to think about how different people define "worst actions" and I wonder whether I'm agreeing with something that means anything at all.
One of the points I was trying to make in some of my previous comments it that human values are remarkably varied. Maybe we all say that murder is wrong or evil and that gives the impression of something "universal," but we don't define murder universally. We don't even define the subjects of murder (other humans) universally.
To try and pull a universal definition from all our varied societies, or to impose one on them, is difficult. Getting universal definitions from people who do not behave universally requires one to exercise judgment that, because it is subjective, cannot be universal itself. Similarly, before imposing a universal definition one must first have a universal definition, and the question becomes Where did you get it?
The religious tack on this one is to pull the definition from divine revelation or something along those lines. But divine revelations have unfortunately not addressed the current concerns directly. Scriptures make no mention of embryos or zygotes or eggs or sperm, except maybe poetically or obliquely, which means there will always be interpretation involved. But when you're doing interpretation, where are you getting the ability to interpret correctly?
Again, the religious tack is to say the interpreter is guided by the Spirit. But interpreters are guided individually (i.e., the Spirit does not speak via objectively observable means) and hence are still confined to their own personal islands of subjectivity. Which puts the problem back where it was before. (For instance, different people with different religious beliefs can claim to be guided by the same Spirit to different conclusions. One in my position is left scratching his head and wondering who/what is doing the deceiving, and whether he/she/it knows it.)
I am not going to argue that there isn't an objective reality, or that there aren't objective facts, or that nothing can be objectively known, because I don't believe any of those things. But when it comes to human behavior I do not see any simple answers.
As someone recently commented on my blog, I clearly have my own ideas and definitions, as we all do, but I am more sure of my skepticism about the truth of any belief than I am about my own ideas and definitions. To me this is nothing more than honesty. Sure, there are reasons why I think the way I do, and reasons why other people think the way they do, but simply having reasons for the way you think is not tantamount to knowing that what you think is objectively true or correct.
+0
Posted 06 Oct 2004 at 5:52 pm ¶"Prophecy is not a matter of personal interpretation"–a quote from one of the letters of Peter. I'll get the chapter-and-verse later, but it's one of the readings for the Roman Rite Divine Office (if some other reader one on hand…). Scriptural interpretation has been a matter of councils and the cumulative meditation and debate of the Church–the subjectivity issue cropped up with the Reformation, but the 1500 years of Church history preceding Luther and the majority of modern-day Christians (Orthodox and Catholic, plus maybe even some high-church Anglicans, etc.) would deny it.
Yes, the debate is the fruit of individual subjects reading and praying over Scripture, but the reasoning that ultimately binds Catholics and Orthodox to a particular assertion is public and may be found in any number of books and records.
+0
Posted 07 Oct 2004 at 12:51 am ¶So because the reasoning exists it must be sound? Or because it was reasoned by a small group of people instead of by an individual, it's more valid?
+0
Posted 07 Oct 2004 at 1:37 am ¶Funky, as per my comment (above), I was going to just let it slide because I felt that my comment did reflect my response to the post "Theomorph" made on his blog. My response was to you, since you asked. I honestly felt that I would never want to marry someone who considered any human being at whatever stage of life "a blob of cells"… And I presumed it also meant he was pro-abortion and contraception, which to me also would indicate (and statitstics show it) that a marriage that condones those views has a smaller chance of survival. I don't even know this character, so I would never have made this remark on his blog. Perhaps I should have refrained from commenting at all? I don't know. I know that you apologized for me on his blog…Had I even thought that he was going to read my comment (which I truly didn't even consider) I wouldn't have made the comment as I don't like hurting anyone's feelings. It doesn't mean I don't feel the way I described though.
I don't think that you can separate a person's character from his beliefs though.
I apologize to you only for having put you in the middle.
+0
Posted 13 Oct 2004 at 6:17 pm ¶With regard to Theomorph's last comment; just having a debate on an issue does not mean that it is valid, but it can separate a purely internal experience or a mystical event from something that could be tied to doctrines on existing topics and Scripture. The Ecumenical Councils made the Church's reasoning fully public rather than falling back on a revelation. The Mormon Church, interestingly enough, still permits public revelation–i.e., I guess bishops can have a vision that revises Mormon doctrine. The orthodox attachment to an existing body of decisions from the Councils along with the Scriptures, lives and writings of the saint may not separate us fully from subjectivity (especially from an outsider's perspective), but it is more grounded that the purely personal, subjective experience that you had described.
+0
Posted 13 Oct 2004 at 7:34 pm ¶Alexa,
A consequence of my points is that we must be aware that posts and comments on blogs are a matter of public record. Even if they might not be, we must understand that our true identities are better reflected by who we are when we think nobody's watching. This is an important topic to me because I know I'm frequently guilty of preaching one thing and doing another.
I hope I didn't hurt your feelings by critiqueing your comment. I value your opinions and hope you continue to read and comment here.
+0
Posted 13 Oct 2004 at 10:56 pm ¶No, you didn't hurt my feelings at all, Funky. I know where you come from and trust it.
God bless.
Alexa
+0
Posted 13 Oct 2004 at 11:19 pm ¶Post a Comment