Statistically speaking, any hacker who is skilled enough to rig the elections will also be smart enough to select politicians that believe in . . . oh, let’s say for example, science. Compare that to the current method where big money interests buy political ads that confuse snake-dancing simpletons until they vote for the guy who scares them the least. Then during the period between the election and the impending Rapture, that traditionally elected President will get busy protecting the lives of stem cells while finding creative ways to blow the living crap out of anything that has the audacity to grow up and turn brownish.
Now, I realize Scott Adams is a humorist, but similar assertions are a regular part of our discourse.
Since almost all of the opposition to embryonic research comes from religious groups, most prominently the Roman Catholic Church, which has made some serious missteps in its relationship with science, the debate can be framed as religious luddism vs. scientific progress, with an obvious conclusion.
But there's a significant difference in the motivations for opposing Galileo in the Middle Ages and opposing embryonic research today. Galileo was opposed because those in power saw his conclusions as dangerous -- a heliocentric solar system was a direct challenge to the Creation narrative, and thus to the authority of the Church. The same goes for evolution.
In fact, some who challenge the Church's position on embryonic research point back to Aquinas and other Church scholars putting personhood at "quickening," which is several weeks into pregnancy. But the Church's position has developed since then based on what science has taught us about the early stages of development.
The driving force behind opposition to embryonic research is not fear of its conclusions, but opposition to the methods involved. The Church was wrong to suppress Galileo. However, if Galileo's research involved launching condemned criminals into space,the Church would be correct to oppose this method.
This isn't another round of the same religion vs. science fight. The sides may have the same general names, but we're playing a different game.
14 comments:
Galileo was opposed because those in power saw his conclusions as dangerous -- a heliocentric solar system was a direct challenge to the Creation narrative, and thus to the authority of the Church. The same goes for evolution.
Hmmm. I conclude that a fetus who lacks a central nervous system more sophisticated than a flatworm should be afforded no more legal protection, on it’s own right, than a flatworm. I’m very glad for you that such conclusions don’t enter into the debate here – I have a hard time seeing how you’d counter them.
The driving force behind opposition to embryonic research is not fear of its conclusions, but opposition to the methods involved.
So, are we talking about abortion? Or are we talking about redirected biohazard material from yon abortion clinic? Because, again, in the second scenario, I’m having a very hard time seeing how it’s the conclusion, not the method, that creates all the angst and unease on the part of yourself and the Catholic church.
Feel free to link me elsewhere, rather than address my reactions - I know they make you uncomfortable.
I think you should've excised the last sentence to make your point, John. Adams is doing more than pitting religious luddites against the enlightened, he's also pointing out the hypocrisy of the people who exploit religion for political gain. I mean, what kind of logical disconnect does it take to say (a) that embryos are people, and therefore inviolate, but (b) cluster bombs are hunky-dory. He's calling bullshit on convenient morality by decree. As it happens, the Catholic church has came down on the right side of this war (more or less, though they've some historical inconsistencies about wars in general). The Catholics may indeed have thought Real Hard about this too, but I don't think that's true of the evangelical politicians nor the rubes that listen to them.
There are reasonable moral arguments against stem cell methods, but I don't think they're so clear-cut as all that. It's hard to define personhood, but it's encumbent on us to think it out. And deferring to politically-interested religous authorities is a bad way to make difficult moral assessments. Scott Adams is right.
K
I don't disagree with the main thrust of Adams's point; I take issue with his using the embryonic research issue as shorthand for people rejecting sciece.
TK, there are moral questions, and there are scientific question. A moral question is what factors determine the moral rights a being is entitled to. A scientific question is determining what factors are in place at different stages of development.
By bringing in your tapeworm evidence, you are in essence, asnwering both questions. I do not dispute the scientific conclusion that an embryo's nervous system is as developed as a tapeworm's. I do dispute the implied moral assertion that central nervous system development should determine what rights a being is entitled to.
Hey John. Here's the problem with the analysis. The only embryonic stem cells anyone sane is talking about using are those from fertilized eggs created in vitro to help couples with difficulty conceiving, which otherwise would simply be discarded. I don't see the church screaming that you have to keep the eggs inviolate forever, so if they would only be flushed away, what's the problem with allowing them to be used for research?
(By the way, quickening, I recall, was when the baby moved, in Augustine's time. But I could be wrong about that.) In a way, science has made the church worse -- more hypocritical than before. It's life at a fertilized egg? At a particular cell split? Please.
First John, thanks for responding.
I do dispute the implied moral assertion that central nervous system development should determine what rights a being is entitled to.
So, what do you think does determine what rights a being is entitled to? I actually agree that the tapeworm example is unfairly extreme, btw.
When I commented on your entry before, I was asking whether or not it is possible to separate your religious beliefs from your secular beliefs on the related topics of abortion and stem cell research. If you think it is possible, I’m very interested in your thoughts on the matter. This question you pose today draws a distinction between conclusions and methods I think is demonstrably artificial, which is why I mention the post-abortive material that could be used for research, that otherwise goes unused. The implication, of course, is that it’s a short step (perhaps backwards) from unused post-abortive material at up to, say, 12 weeks gestation to a 32-celled organism in a test-tube.
It’s difficult to come up with objective criteria sans underpinnings in religious conviction that argue convincingly against embryonic stem cell research – a much more difficult argument to make than, for instance, arguments against first-trimester abortions. And this really both speaks to the crux of your argument and highlights the artificial nature of your distinction between method and conclusions.
The reason the Catholic church (and you) object to embryonic stem cell research is because abortion is involved. The reason the Catholic church objects to very early abortion is because arguments against undermine conclusions they prefer to maintain involving ensoulment.
I’ve both witnessed and participated in prolonged debates that attempt to circumvent this underlying conclusion, but I've never seen it done convincingly. I really would love to see you pull it off, if you can – debating this thorny issue would be much more productive without the religious aspect of the objection.
TQM:
I’m curious what you’d think about the statement “The only things that really scare us are the things we’re afraid might be true.” Would you agree?
If so, do you really stand by your statements about the opposition to Galileo?
TK,
I don't have the time today to get into this as much as it deserves today. I would be reluctant to embrace using aborted fetuses for research because it would likely result in an increased demand for fetuses and incentivize abortions.
I would consider that an objection to the methods rather than the conclusions, since my concern is not what such science would find out. I don't think this answer will suprise you, but you seem to think my objection would be to the conclusions. I supect we are then working from differing definitions of methods and conclusions.
Sorry - I've been lurking on this one but this line pulled me in.
"because it would likely result in an increased demand for fetuses and incentivize abortions."
That's a piece of errant nonsense that cheapens the very real problems that underlie each and every abortion.
I'm sorry, but do you have any idea WHY people get abortions? I doubt it. Because you'd realize that what happens with the aftermath that they never even are allowed to see has absolutely nothing to do with the decision to do it in the face of the huge issues that drive the decision.
Or are you suggesting that somewhere a person facing an unintended pregnancy on their own with all the problems that it presents their real life is going to altruistically decide to go ahead and have the abortion just so they can donate the dead child to science?
Give me a go ram break.
If you're really worried about it, just make it illegal to pay for the aborted fetus or any of the other materials. While you're at it, make it illegal to pay egg donors. That's another can of worms that someone's popped the top of.
Ms,
I am not denying that on the micro level, most abortions are the result of terrible circumstances, and that it is unlikely that the possibility of the fetus being used for research would weigh terribly heavily for an individual decision of whether to abort.
My concern is at the macro level -- if abortion is perceived as a valuable source for scientific materials, it would increase society's toleration of it, which, in my opinion would be a bad thing.
I'm not sure that this concern is sufficient cause to stop such research, and thus I'm not advocating that my personal reluctance should be translated into policy, but that's my concern.
TMQ,
On your first point, you are probably more correct on the particlars of the Galileo case than I am, though I'm not sure what your point is. I think most opposed to embryonic research think the promise of such research is a bit overhyped, but do not dispute that it could possibly deliver on those promises. Would the Church have opposed Galileo's methods if his conclusions were consistent with Church orthodoxy? I don't think so. The Church's current opposition to embryonic research is not conditioned on its conclusions.
On your second point: tough. I have no doubt that scientists are working for noble goals, and that I and other laymen might not completely understand what they're doing. That does not entitle them to an ethical carte blanche. I probably couldn't grasp the ins and outs of the miltary's strategy in Iraq. I have no doubt that the men and women in our armed services at least believe that they are pursuing noble goals over there. But if I read about them blowing up a school full of children, I'm going to object, and I'm going to get more suspicious if I get, "Shut up, don't you want to be safe from terrorists? Leave us alone -- we've got a war to win!" in response.
John,
Thanks for taking the time, but you're still not getting my point.
The fact that someone somewhere might find a use better than upper atmosphere pollution or fertilizer for the result is simply not a motivator for people when it comes to this. It also has nothing to do with other people's reaction to the issue.
The stigmatic effects your post implies that you think are stopping people have nothing to do with what happens to the aftermath. It is all predicated on the choices that put you in the situation that this might be a solution, and the way they deal with the choices about the responsibility.
Or, to use a more pointed vernacular. You're still going to be seen as a murdering slut in some people's eyes even if you donate to science in the process. And I don't think that donating to science will change that percentage any. It's all set up before the procedure has even started.
Ms,
It is my opinion (or perhaps more accuratley, hope) that most people know in their hearts that it is not a good thing that we're doing abortions in this country at about 1000 a clip.
Where we disagree is in how to address it. To many the proposed cures are worse than the disease, so we pretend that the disease isn't so bad.
If aborted fetuses are used for research, it will give people one more reason to think that abortion isn't such a big deal. After all, if it weren't for abortion, Uncle Jimmy would have died of cancer.
Let's say that intead of gas prices going up, they went down in the last few years, and the cause was traced to the Iraq War. Might this delay us reckoning with the disaster this war has been?
I acknowledge that this isn't an airtight rigorous argument for a particular policy, but I was asked how I feel about this question, and that is my response.
Stop! Let's head back to reality for a moment, shall we? No one, not even the people who support embryonic stem cell research, have suggested that we need to make more embryos in order to make it work. Rather, it is only eggs fertilized outside of the womb sitting in a freezer who will otherwise be discarded that will be used, and even then, only unless and until there's a way to make adult stem cells every bit as malleable.
I just don't get the brouhaha.
John,
That swan isn't going to turn black no matter how many words you spit at it.
I don't think we disagree that abortion is bad. I vehememently disagree that any discussion of the aftermath has anything to do with the decision to have an abortion. Nor do I believe external social disapproval has all that much to do with the decision.
Here's a thought experiment. In the last several years it has become "fashionable" among the rich and famous to have babies, adopt babies, you name it. Flagrantly and publicly. We have people posing naked pregnant famous people in magazines.
What has this done for abortion rates? There has been a downward trend for the last fifteen years or so, but is there a sharp one to go with TomKat and Brangelina's spawn? I haven't been able to find one in any statistics I've seen.
If your argument had any teeth, then they would have gone down since all these trendsetters are jumping on the mommy wagon.
I believe that making any policy based on your assertion is not only useless, but damaging in that it diverts attention and resouces away from solving the actual problem at hand.
Post a Comment