Stemcells and Soldiers

I acknowledge the moral question and debate about when life begins. For those that truly believe that a distinct human life begins at conception, or before, I can understand their argument that this life should be protected. Personally, I don't view a human embryo the same as a crying baby. This doesn't necessarily mean I am pro-abortion. I think that the issue is complicated. It's a debate I don't often like to have, because so many people have emotional feelings about the issue that the arguments soon become irrational.

This being said, I am confused about the argument that the federal government should not be spending tax dollars on stem-cell research where the destruction of an embryo would be required. In a nutshell, which is a dangerous way to phrase such matters, the argument is that we should not take one life to save another. When I heard this on a news program tonight, the irony suddenly struck me. Aren't our tax dollars, much more of them, being spent on a war that necessitates casualties in the name of saving others? If it is immoral to destroy an embryo in an effort to save more advanced human life, why is it not immoral to destroy a soldier's life, or an innocent bystander's life, in the name of ideals such as freedom and justice.

Look, I am not saying that all war is always morally wrong. However, I find it ironic that the current administration is willing to sacrifice over 1000 American lives for freedom, but is unwilling to sacrifice a frozen embryo for a chance to cure hideous disease. Now, I know that President Bush walks a thin line on this issue. He has given federal funding to existing lines of stem cells, or something to that effect. But, to use the argument that we must not destroy life to save life when the life being destroyed is a frozen embryo (keeping a life frozen would seem to be quite immoral also), smacks of bitter irony when juxtaposed next to gratitude for those that give their life for their country. We can use that cold term of collateral damage to describe the thousands of innocent lives lost in war, but a frozen embryo is a precious form of life?

Then again, politics is rife with such contradictions.

Comments

Sean Meade said…
you're right, of course: an embryo is not the same as a crying baby.

however, the main concern is ontology: is an embryo human life or not? the pro life people want to protect that. i happen to agree.

ethically i think one of the major fears is the slippery slope: our society already wrestles with fetal life. pro life people want to hold the line here. in fact, they want to take back some territory they view as lost.

also ethically, the argument is: how can you choose one human life over another? you shouldn't if you don't have to. sometimes choices must be made (eg, medical risk to mother), but these are to be avoided when possible.

i've often seen the argument that conservatives care more about embryos than soldiers, Iraqis, or poor Americans. i'm somewhat persuaded by this rhetoric, but i'm sure they wouldn't view it as fair and i would want to hear their response. part of it in this case would be: what about the millions of Iraqis who were living in tyranny?

i think part of the conservative world view is that, since people are often bad (maybe including original sin), strong defense and fighting are necessary. one liberal worldview is that people are basically good, so hopefully we won't have to fight. (these ideas have been simplified in the extreme by me here.)

i heard the other day that the best source of stem cells has proved to be something else (i forget what). also, embryonic stem cells can be harvested from placentae, which seems like the best solution to me.

i don't find the tensions achieving irony. conservatives wouldn't want the embryo harvested and frozen in the first place. i would say a frozen embryo is precious form of human life.

i'm not making my case very well or forcefully here. i actually feel a little stronger about it than i am communicating. so file the whole post under: for what it's worth (and please excuse the length).
4:30 AM
Eric said…
Sean-

Thanks for commenting. I appreciate your thoughts and viewpoint. Personally, I had not heard this ethical argument before, i.e. that conservatives value embryos more than soldiers. It's a difficult question for me. I like to think that I value life, and I am adamantly opposed to the death penalty and non-defensive war (unjust war). Yet, I have trouble giving the same value to embryos. It scares me a little that I may be wrong on this issue, and that fear is often pounced upon by an attacking conservative. Maybe I am trying to see the problem with logic, when I need to look at it from more of a faith perspective. It's hard to explain. I guess it is always dangerous territory when people discuss what is and is not life, and what life should be valued. Yikes!
2:33 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The agony of victory....a.k.a. picking my jaw up off the floor

Allright. I've now had nearly 24 hours (although its taken me a couple of days to complete this post) to calm down, reflect upon and digest the improbable gut wrenching game yesterday in which the heavily favored Colts lost to the Steelers 21-18. I wrote last year of not being as emotionally attached to the Steelers as I have been in the past. I wrote last week of how I thought that I might be spending too much valuable time following the Steelers, especially since I have absolutely no control over the outcome of their games. Let me just say this: yesterday's game was probably in the top five emotionally draining, and ultimately gratifying, experiences of my life. Ouside of my wedding and the birth of my two sons, I can't remember being as nervous, deflated, joyful, stunned and exhilirated as I was yesterday----all withing about a ten minute stretch of seemingly neverending time! What could have been a devestating loss to live with in the offseason (and, forever, for Jerome...
Read more

"The Axis of Evil and the Doctrine of Preemption Three Years On"

Jerod and I attended a lecture by Brookings Institution fellow Michael O'Hanlon last night at Park University in Parkville, MO. The lecture was part of the Jerzy Hauptmann Distinguished Guest Lecture series. As a Park University M.B.A. alum, I received an invitation to the 13th annual lecture in the series. I like going to events like this, especially since I was interested in the content of this particular lecture, of which the title was the title of this post. Dr. O'Hanlon described himself as a Sam Nunn Democrat at the beginning of the lecture. It's always difficult to prevent political feeling from entering into objective analysis, and I don't know how you measure the "objectiveness" of analysis, but I feel that most Brookings scholars are at least "fair", and Dr. O'Hanlon was no exception. His analysis of the doctrine of preemption was focused on the effectiveness of the doctrine, as opposed to any moral righteousness or implications of the...
Read more

Removing a password that was created in a previous version from an Access 2007 database

Earlier this week I was banging my head against the wall trying to figure out how to remove a password from an Access 2007 database (file extension .accdb). The database was created in a previous version of access and subsequently "upgraded" to the Access 2007 format. I believe some type of a wizard was used to perform the "upgrade." The security model is evidently different in Access 2007 than in previous versions. It doesn't appear that you can set/unset database passwords. Instead, in Access 2007, there is an option to Encrypt with Password. I'm not sure if this is supposed to be logically similar to the earlier version password architecture, but there was no way that I could find to easily remove the password that had been created in the earlier version when using the Access 2007 interface. Access security has always been confusing to me, and I need to take the time someday to understand how the security model is supposed to work in Access 2007. An...
Read more