posted
Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions and Texan John Cornyn asked for the understanding of their fellow Republicans today as they cooed, hand in hand, and revoked their previously outspoken support for the Definition of Marriage amendment.
Okay, so they didn't. I really wish they would though. It would be far better than what they ARE doing. I have been watching C-SPAN all day, and Sessions just compared embryonic Stem Cell research to the Nazi experiments during the Holocaust.
Man. I really despise those two. They are like interchangeable beady-eyed enemies of reason and conduits for the Republican party line. Every time I watch them debate on the floor, they completely ignore every point the Democrats bring up and drive home the status quo as if no objection had even been raised.
Edited to inform that these are Republican Senators.
posted
In related news, Senator William Byrd (D) of West Virginia invoked Goowin's law and the Senate was adjourned.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are they cute? That aside, I am ignorant and have no idea who these men are, but, by my limited knowledge stem cell research is NOT like Nazi research...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, I should have mentioned that they are Republican Senators. Not only are they republican Senators, but they are beady-eyed nasty Senators from the deep south who repeatedly.... ugh. Just look at their pictures. You should watch some C-SPAN. It's fun.
posted
It is similar in that many people are in support of stem cell research so they can create fair haired blue-eyed babies. That said, I am in favor of stem cell research.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stem Cell research is just the first step on the slippery slope to human cloning, eugenics, uniformity, and finally, a clone of Aldous Huxley will be manufactured to create the new Federal Reproduction Agency. Sounds fun.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is similar in that many people are in support of stem cell research so they can create fair haired blue-eyed babies.
Gee, I though that the vast majority of supporters do so because they want to treat Parkinsons, various ataxias, and spinal cord damage. Got any sources or did you just make that up?
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Look at how much people are willing to pay or a celebrity's egg. Of course, the people whose main motivation is gene manipulation aren't going to say that they want to perform Nazi-like experiments. Again, that said I'm in favor of stem cell research.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The other day my brother in law said all Republican politicians are womanizing alcoholics. Too bad there is nothing you could say about a democrat that would shame them the way this thread title tries to.
What proportion of the diseases this hopes to treat are from genetic disorders vs. lifestyle induced malfunction? You never see Dudley Moore as a spokesperson for stem cell research.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyone who is in favour of stem cell research in order to get a designer baby has got their facts severely mixed up. I'm not saying this is impossible, this being America after all, just that you'd have to be moderately uninformed.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Anyone who is in favour of stem cell research in order to get a designer baby has got their facts severely mixed up.
Considering there is no basis in fact or science for such a claim, I think newfoundlogic is making things up.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a legitimate comparison to Nazi medical experiments, though. The question of whether or not someone who believes that abortion is murder is willing to benefit from research that was made possible by past abortions is similar to the question of whether or not it’s ethical to use the results of the Nazi’s experiments. Some people believe that all their data should be destroyed. Others believe that since the experiments were conducted, the data should not go to waste. Similarly, some people believe that since abortions are happening anyway, the stem cells shouldn’t be destroyed, while others believe that it is immoral/unethical to benefit from them in any way.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
But, suppose they are not using aborted fetal tissue. Suppose they are using embryos that haven't been used by a couple having trouble conceiving that would have been thrown away. Is that immoral?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That’s exactly the question – if you believe that destroying the embryos is immoral, then is it unethical to benefit from it, even though they would have been destroyed anyway?
It’s the same question people asked/are still asking with regard to the Nazi experiments.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you, dkw. I hadn't thought of it that way (me being the later sort). I guess my thought would be that if one is willing to conduct certain kinds of experiments, one's conclusions are suspect. That is, if one were conducting experiments with an eye to ending rather than preserving life, one's conclusions might not properly be applied to the extension of life. Basically, in my view I think Bush's decision to allow some research to go on was wrong. I don't think the ends justify the means.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
dkw, you are aware that human stem cell research done in North America is done with adult cells now, right? No one was murdered to get the cells back when embryonic cells were used, either. If someone objects to the tissues of the already dead being used for research, then I'd wonder why they don't object to organ donation, blood transfusions, medical schools, most of the forensics field, and modern human biological science.
Instead of using weak links to a group who applied bad science for dubious purpose, why not compare it to the medical pioneers that led the medical field better understand, diagnose, and treat illnesses by first studying the bodies of cadavers? It would be more apt, since those men also received much trouble by the religious community. Ironically, those who enjoy the benefits of such study today seem to have little problem with it.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Justa, please don’t assume you know my position on any of this. I’m merely pointing out that the comparison, in this case, has some merit. The ethical dilemmas are complicated, and they have several points in common.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't say I knew your position. I asked if you realized what researchers are using now. I then followed with pointing out the major flaw in the Nazi equivocations. The Nazis were using bad science to fund questionable research done in unscientific conditions with little or no controls in place. Comparing that to stem cell research belies a lack of understanding of what any research of this sort today consists of. Whether you agree or disagree with stem cell research, you have to be able to recognize this.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, I do recognize that. However, I’m not comparing the research. Do you recognize that for people who for whatever reason believe that stem cell research is immoral the issue of whether or not it is ethical for them to benefit from the results of it bear striking resemblance to the historical debate over the Nazi research?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand those who feel it's immoral, but it's still a poor comparison. A better comparison to the Nazi research would be something like Freud's research on the effects of cocaine while taking it, where there was little to no objectivity and the conditions were sloppy. It's a whole different set of moral and ethical issues with stem cell research. The doctors and biologists who used the cadavers were immoral because they desecrated the bodies of the dead, just like what is viewed of those who wish to conduct research with the tissues of dead babies, which is what they picture when stem cell research comes up. Instead of cold, scientific research, an image of barbarism and cackling mad scientists like doctor Frankenstien come to mind.
I won't just accept imagery like that as valid because someone fears it. I'll instead argue that they are imagining fictional horrors.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe I see our communication problem here.
I’m not comparing the validity of the research. Yes, I know that much of the Nazi research has been discredited anyway, which makes the ethical dilemma about whether or not to use it a moot point in most cases. But it’s still used as a textbook case in ethics books to raise the more general question – is it moral to benefit from results that were immorally attained, even if you did nothing to cause or encourage the immoral action, and even if it’s in the past.
And that’s the same question that some people have about using existing stem cell lines that were started from embryonic stem cells. And about using embryos that would otherwise be discarded for research purposes.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps I should explain why I considered Sessions remarks to be in poor taste.
First, even if the comparison were completely apt, which I don't grant, any comparison to Nazis is always a primarily emotional one. It is intended to evoke a violently negative emotional reaction, not a reasoned response.
Second, he did this in response to the death of Christopher Reeve, which is the epitome of poor taste.
Of course, I anticipate that I will be accused of hypocrisy, as the title of this thread doesn't exactly conform to the highest standards of taste. In my defense, I actually live in Cornyn's district. I think I should be able to mock my own senator No, in all seriousness, there are Republicans I respect and Democrats I do not. As a C-SPAN fan, I see Republicans who care about the people their work effects and Democrats who do nothing but spout ideological arguments and the party line. I have no illusions that good and evil is split entirely along party lines. Nevertheless, Every time I see Sessions or Cornyn speak, they completely ignore any point the Democrats have made. They do not defend their position by explaining why it is better. They do not even dismiss their opponents arguments with platitudes. They simply ignore the fact that any other side exists at all! If they do refer to Democrats, it is to make vague, disdainful references to "the other side." Of all the Republican Senators I have seen, these two embody the stereotypical worst of their party, allowing ideologies to supplant people as their ultimate masters.
So today, I though it would be really fun if they announced they were getting married to each other ala McGreevey.
Sorry if I offended you pooka. But these are two bad apples.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Second, he did this in response to the death of Christopher Reeve, which is the epitome of poor taste.
It wasn't in response to Reeve's death, it was in response to people trying to use his death to advance a political agenda.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well naturally they are going to use his death to promote a political agenda. The same political agenda he spent the last ten years of his life trying to promote. But the people who were "using" his death were not introducing legislation. They were presenting their arguments in memoriam. The time for Sessions to make his argument AGAINST stem cell research would be after legislation had been introduced and such. It just seemd a petty and tactless thing to do it while Reeve's friends in the senate were still mourning his death. And then to do so with such violently negative imagery...
It was pretty much right in character for Sessions.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It just seems like a great low ball tactic to guilt people into supporting something because someone famous just died. Again, I'm in support of stem cell research, the tactics to encourage it just irk me.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's not really what was going on. They were speaking on the floor in favor of Stem Cell research yesterday, it's true. But you could tell they were doing it more in memory of Reeve's activism as a proponent of Stem Cell Research. You could tell they weren't trying to railroad anybody into supporting it because there wasn't any legislation introduced to railroad anybody into voting for.
Naturally when a high profile political activist dies, the most effective and most common tribute is a spike in advocacy for the issue they promoted.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I believe I see our communication problem here.
I’m not comparing the validity of the research. Yes, I know that much of the Nazi research has been discredited anyway, which makes the ethical dilemma about whether or not to use it a moot point in most cases. But it’s still used as a textbook case in ethics books to raise the more general question – is it moral to benefit from results that were immorally attained, even if you did nothing to cause or encourage the immoral action, and even if it’s in the past.
And that’s the same question that some people have about using existing stem cell lines that were started from embryonic stem cells. And about using embryos that would otherwise be discarded for research purposes.
I can understand where you're coming from with that explanation, I just disagree with the application. I also understand you don't believe it, and didn't mean to imply that I thought you did. What I'm saying is that from the position that hindsight gives us, it makes more sense to use an analogy that fits. Cutting up cadavers may have turned out opening many scientific doors to us now, but back when it was done it was one of the highest moral offenses to perform such a deed. Those who did were even sometimes perceived as being part of the process causing death themselves, hence stories like the Mary Shelley classic which ultimately ends in man's tinkering resulting in more death and destruction. Sure, we can look back now at such research and see the logic behind it working on a very simple level, but it wasn't always so. In fact, there are still belief systems that frown on such practices. I'm saying that stem cell research much more resembles both the ethical and moral dilemma there than it does what has mostly been proven to be poor science and sloppy work done for the purpose of creatively killing people to begin with.
I understand the view you describe. I just don't accept the use of the Nazi analogy by those who hold that view as a valid representation of the ethical and moral dilemma, especially when better examples are available. Does that make more sense? I should have tried to put it better to begin with.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But the dissection example doesn’t work, because today most people don’t consider cutting up cadavers to be an immoral act. The dilemma for opponents of stem cell research isn’t whether or not to benefit from something that someone else considered immoral, it’s whether or not to benefit from something that they themselves believe is/was immoral.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not a matter of whether people consider dissection immoral today. Comparing to the Nazis because the Nazis are the closest representation of evil to all in the modern world is not a very representative example. Using one where it was considered immoral at the time as well is more applicable. There have already been gains had from research on stem cells, whereas Nazi research has offered nothing that wasn't already tested before under more scientific conditions or that has no basis in science anyway. It is comparing something that is giving results to something that gave nothing but pain and death. That's ridiculous, and only serves to demonize something so that the people claiming it don't have to actually address the real moral and ethical issues behind it. There are real moral and ethical issues, but comparisons to Nazis tosses any real arguments both for and against out the window. Sort of like a Godwin-esqe invocation.
[ October 12, 2004, 09:29 PM: Message edited by: Jutsa Notha Name ]
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Justa, you dislike the Nazi analogy because it fails to represent one half of the situation properly - namely that something useful is likely to result from embryonic stem cell research.
What Dana is saying is that the cadaver analogy fails to represent the other half of the situation properly - namely that, to some people, embryonic stem cell research combines the worst aspects of slavery and murder and represents a moral wrong that is still currently recognized as a moral wrong by them.
If someone is more concerned about the moral aspects of the situation, then the analogy which more accurately represents the moral components will be preferred. If someone is more concerned about the medical advances likely to come from the research, then the analogy which more accurately reflects the scientific advancements will be preferred.
Which to me suggests that both analogies are probably inappropriate as advocacy devices, since the mere selection of the analogy indicates the conclusion to be reached by it. But I can't think of any reason to prefer one over the other without relying on the moral principles the analogies are meant to provide evidence for.
But I see another part of the communication problem. I don’t consider the Nazis solely as a “representation of evil.” (edit to add: I'm not defending Nazis here. Keep reading.) And if I were to use them in an analogy, it wouldn’t be because they were evil, or that I was suggesting that what I was comparing them to was evil. It would be because there were some aspects of the situation that I thought were comparable.
I don’t know – maybe the word “Nazi” does conjure up such emotional baggage that nothing done in Germany during the time they were in power can be discussed rationally. That would seem to me to be a terrible waste, though. Besides discarding their “research,” must we also discard the more subtle moral lessons to be drawn out of that time period, just because some people use “Nazi” as a boogieman? (Note, the senator in question probably was using “Nazi” as a boogieman. I really wasn’t meaning to defend him in the first place, just to point out that there are interesting parallels in the two issues.)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
No, in all seriousness, there are Republicans I respect and Democrats I do not. As a C-SPAN fan, I see Republicans who care about the people their work effects and Democrats who do nothing but spout ideological arguments and the party line. I have no illusions that good and evil is split entirely along party lines. Nevertheless, Every time I see Sessions or Cornyn speak, they completely ignore any point the Democrats have made. They do not defend their position by explaining why it is better. They do not even dismiss their opponents arguments with platitudes. They simply ignore the fact that any other side exists at all! If they do refer to Democrats, it is to make vague, disdainful references to "the other side." Of all the Republican Senators I have seen, these two embody the stereotypical worst of their party, allowing ideologies to supplant people as their ultimate masters.
