Ryan T. Anderson is back in the saddle, once again writing on his old beat, the stem cell wars:
On March 9, 2009, President Obama signed an executive order spending federal dollars—for the first time ever—on embryo-destructive stem-cell research. Yesterday, Dr. Shinya Yamanaka, the scientist who showed us that destroying embryos wasn’t necessary to produce the stem cells we want, won the Nobel Prize for Medicine.
When Obama signed his executive order funding embryo-destructive stem-cell research, I argued in The Weekly Standard that his decision was “bad ethics, bad science, and bad politics”—bad ethics because it created further incentives for the destruction of human beings in their very earliest stage of life; bad science because embryo destruction is no longer necessary for the types of stem cells doctors seek; and bad politics because it needlessly perpetuated a stem-cell war where an easy peace was available.
The core of Yamanaka’s discovery was that scientists could create stem cells with all the same properties as those derived from embryos without killing—or even using—embryos at all. (When this scientific breakthrough was first announced in November 2007, I explained the science and ethics of this new technique in “The End of the Stem-Cell Wars.” Alas, a better title would have been “What Should Be the End of the Stem-Cell Wars.”)
More here. Yamanaka’s award is a due and fitting recognition of his achievements and—not to be overlooked—a vindication of First Things’ careful, sustained critique of embryo-destructive research.
October 10th, 2012 | 4:16 pm
A great victory, now the 400,000 embryos doing nothing in fertility clinics will simply be discarded, instead of being used for science.
In the meantime, scientific advancement in this field was halted for seven painful and long years, because of a particular theological interpretation.
October 10th, 2012 | 4:38 pm
Maximilian,
I don’t normally comment on comments, but yours merits a response. How was scientific advancement in this field halted for seven years? The Nobel that was just awarded was for adult stem cell research–a 2006 discovery– not embryonic. Regarding embryonic stem cell research, Mr. Bush allowed federal funding for embryonic stem cell research (I believe Mr Schmitz is in error when he states “President Obama signed an executive order spending federal dollars—for the first time ever—on embryo-destructive stem-cell research”) though he stipulated that it be restricted to existing stem cell lines. Plenty of work on embryonic stem cells, both federally and privately funded, was conducted during the Bush administration. Mr Obama removed the restriction on stem cell lines. He also rescinded Mr Bush’s funding guarantee for adult stem cell research, the very research that has just merited a Nobel.
October 10th, 2012 | 4:38 pm
Place ‘em for adoption. There, no discarding necessary.
October 10th, 2012 | 4:39 pm
“In the meantime, scientific advancement in this field was halted for seven painful and long years, because of a particular theological interpretation.”
…involving all the arguments from reason as well as faith that we’ve already laid out before.
While the 400,000 embryos were created because of a different particular theological interpretation.
And, as been also noted several times, scientific research continued in countries other than America – and went nowhere. There’s a reason why this man has received the Nobel Prize: He made the advancement.
October 10th, 2012 | 5:20 pm
James: The Nobel that was just awarded was for adult stem cell research–a 2006 discovery– not embryonic.
Actually, that’s not true. This man apparently found a way to basically turn adult stem cells into embryonic stem cells. Embryonic stem cells are unsurpassed in their ability to grow into any tissue we want.
James: Plenty of work on embryonic stem cells, both federally and privately funded, was conducted during the Bush administration.
Private stem cell research was made impossible by publicly funded institutions, because you’d need to keep two separate sets of books, to prevent any public dime from being used for (embryonic) stem cell research. Furthermore, he allowed the lines in existence as of August 2001 to be used with public funds, but a lot of them turned out to be useless for research – and there was no way to add to the number.
Mary: Place ‘em for adoption. There, no discarding necessary.
Without the consent of the parents? So basically, my son ends up in the hands of a fundamentalist. Compare that to the very rigorous consent procedure used by universities that want to conduct research. Also, the rate at which IVF clinics produce embryos far exceeds your ability to find people willing to adopt… embryos.
JDD: And, as been also noted several times, scientific research continued in countries other than America – and went nowhere.
And in California, that’s true. Interesting how you claim that it went ‘nowhere’. If that is the case, why is this man being awarded a Nobel prize for enabling the use of adult stem cells as embryonic stem cells?
October 10th, 2012 | 5:36 pm
I’m a little unfamiliar with the Nobel process and protocols… okay, I’m a lot unfamiliar with them. Is there some reason that, of the two men who won in this category, only one is mentioned here?
October 10th, 2012 | 6:34 pm
Ryan T. Anderson says:
The Obama policy does not allow taxpayer dollars to be used on research that destroys human embryos. That was and remains against U.S. law (the Dickey-Wicker Amendment). The Obama policy allows researchers to use federal funding to do research on stem cell lines created in the private sector. Bush’s compromise was to allow federal research money to be spent on existing stem-cell lines, but not on any new lines. The Obama administration allows tax money to be spent on research on stem cell lines that have been approved by the NIH that meet the following criteria: The stem cell lines must come only from embryos created by fertility clinics for the purpose of IVF that are no longer needed. They must be explicitly donated by the “parents.” There can be no money paid for the donation.
No one receiving federal funds creates or destroys embryos. Stem cell lines are created in the private sector and may or may not be submitted to NIH for approval for use in government-funded research. The lines will not be approved for use by NIH if they were derived from any embryos other than those created for use for IVF, not needed, and donated.
Some may claim that the Obama policy encourages researchers in the private sector to destroy embryos. Whether or not that is true I have no idea, but the only embryos used are embryos that will otherwise discarded. As of today, 182 stem-cell lines have been approved by NIH. One might want to compare that number to the 500,000 frozen embryos in storage in fertility clinics.
It is interesting that no one ever suggests regulating fertility clinics, much less shutting them down, when they are manufacturing hundreds of thousands more embryos than scientists could ever use, and those embryos will just be thrown away.
October 10th, 2012 | 11:44 pm
“In the meantime, scientific advancement in this field was halted for seven painful and long years, because of a particular theological interpretation.”
In this statement I focus in on the now common formula about ‘theological interpretation.’ To call any stance theological or faith-based now is to delegitimize it in the public square. We no longer live in the era of Reinhold Niebhur or Martin Luther King Jr. What strikes me about this use of a tool at hand, a construct where avoiding establishment of religion has come to mean barring religion from the public square, is that it is used, it seems to me, without having to give an account of oneself. Science, it seems indisputable, establishes beyond a shadow of a doubt that a human embryo is alive and is human, as distinct from a aardvark embryo, for example. The ‘theological’ stance which, it is implied, is illegitimate as a social reference because it is theological, is simply that human life is sacred even to the uttermost point of conception. The negation of this point leaves only the formula that all human life is not sacred and does not clarify which human life is sacred and why. It is essentially the liberal formulation of boundlessness in one direction and what is valued is what is left for the moment unperturbed by such basically nihilistic tools. There is no deliberate grappling with the value of life in itself, as far as I can tell, nor with technology’s accountability to human conscience and prudentia. It is rather the old tale of indiscriminate adoption and use of technology, people being mastered and devalued by their tools rather than remaining masters.
The case of adult stem cell research is an example how within a framework of moral restraint science flourishes, not in spite of but engendered by virtuous thought and actions. Science has always depended on virtues such as honesty and integrity. A moral framework is not a foreign element to it, even in a democracy self-interpreting itself as anti-religion.
October 11th, 2012 | 2:30 am
Is there some reason that, of the two men who won in this category, only one is mentioned here?
JDD,
Gurdon’s work was done in the 1960s with frogs. It laid the groundwork for Yamanaka’s much more recent work on mouse cells and then on human cells. Yamanaka is getting all the attention here because one of his motives was to find an ethical way to create human pluripotent stem cells without destroying human embryos, and of course he succeeded. He discovered a way to take ordinary human cells and “reprogram” them to act very similarly to embryonic stem cells.
I think it is almost certainly incorrect to think that given Yamanaka’s breakthrough, there is no longer a need for work on human embryonic stem cells, but that seems to be the hope.
October 11th, 2012 | 9:00 am
David: To call any stance theological or faith-based now is to delegitimize it in the public square.
You agree with that, when it comes to religions other than your own. Do you think that the Muslim Brotherhood should impose faith-based laws on the Copts of Egypt? Just recently, a draft Constitution was released, in which all rights are specifically limited so as not to be incompatible with Sharia. Do you agree with this, or do you think that the Muslim Brotherhood should not force faith-based laws on the Copts? Do you agree with the Iranian pastor Nadarkhani, that studying the Koran should not be forced on his children?
David: We no longer live in the era of Reinhold Niebhur or Martin Luther King Jr.
King was hardly a sectarian on a religious quest. He conscripted religion in a civil quest, which is why he counted atheists and communists among his closest supporters.
David: Science, it seems indisputable, establishes beyond a shadow of a doubt that a human embryo is alive and is human,
“It seems” and “indisputable” are contradictory. But of course, the trick here is that my hair is also alive – and it has human DNA to boot. Organic material is not particularly rare. And positing this by no means resolves the question of whether a fertilized egg is entitled to the legal protection of an actual child.
David: Science has always depended on virtues such as honesty and integrity.
Not particularly. Science flourishes because it has the means to expose men who lack honesty and integrity. If scientists could get away with being dishonest, many more would be dishonest. The problem is that they can’t get away with it.
October 11th, 2012 | 9:07 am
James Stephens comments: “The Nobel that was just awarded was for adult stem cell research–a 2006 discovery– not embryonic.”
Maximilian responds: “Actually, that’s not true. This man apparently found a way to basically turn adult stem cells into embryonic stem cells. Embryonic stem cells are unsurpassed in their ability to grow into any tissue we want.”
My response to Maximilian, with respect (seriously): I do not think you perhaps understand the point of induced pluripotent stem cells. The point is that they can be induced–and used–without the destruction of embryos. If you want to call them “embryonic” cells, that rather muddies the issue. They are pluripotent (like embryonic stem cells are), but are derived without the use of embryos.
October 11th, 2012 | 9:31 am
Max: “Actually, that’s not true. This man apparently found a way to basically turn adult stem cells into embryonic stem cells. Embryonic stem cells are unsurpassed in their ability to grow into any tissue we want.”
Given that Max does not believe the difference matters, it is not surprising that he blurs the line here, talking to one thing while confusing it with another.
Adult and embryonic stem cells are named after their source. There is nothing we can do to force an adult stem cell to come from an destroyed embryo. And it is the source that is the point of contention.
What Max is addressing is called potency. What Dr. Yamanaka has done is induce adult cells into pluripotency, the property of interest in embryonic stem cells. In doing so, he has opened a much larger source of pluripotent stem cells. If the problems of teratomas can be overcome, these adult stem cells can side step the immune reaction by harvesting them from the person to be treated. At the heart of this issue, these cells do not come from embryos.
The real story, however, is that pluripotent stem cells have never been successful in treatment due to the teratomas they create. Biologists have also discovered that multipotent stem cells occur naturally. Teratomas are not a problem with them and the immune side step still holds. As their source is adults, they are also called adult stem cells. Tens of successful treatments are based on harvesting and culturing these multipotent adult stem cells. To repeat, pluripotent stem cells provide no treatments.
What is the difference between pluri- and multi-? Pluripotent cells can become any type of cell. Multipotent cells are limited to a few types.
October 11th, 2012 | 9:41 am
Max: “And positing this by no means resolves the question of whether a fertilized egg is entitled to the legal protection of an actual child.”
Here Max misdirects. A fertilized egg is a single cell. If that was the only thing at issue, the problem would remain but would have a different tenor. Indeed, abortion would be outlawed except for drugs that prevent implantation. Also at issue is whether embryos and fetuses are entitled to the legal protection of an actual child. And all three are human beings as is the child and unlike his hair.
October 11th, 2012 | 10:10 am
Here is a paper by Dr. Shinya Yamanaka himself titled Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells: Past, Present, and Future. He does not at all seem to me to be saying now that a technique has been developed to create induced pluripotent stem cells, work with embryonic stem cells can be abandoned, since iPSC and ESC are identical. They are not identical, but very similar, and he makes the interesting suggestion that this is so because they are both man-made. In his concluding remarks, he says the following:
ECS and iPSC research are to continue as two separate but related endeavors. One does not replace the other. He also remarks:
I take that, at least in part, to be a caution that the “stem cell wars” (if I understand the term) should be ignored and the two branches of research should be judged not by whether one is “pro-life,” but by what yields the most promising results.
October 11th, 2012 | 10:59 am
Dear David Nickol: Obviously, we are going to disagree on whether or not stem cell research should be judged purely on utilitarian grounds, or what yields the most promising results.
I am not picking on you, as I take you to be a decent and moral man, but I have read many, many bioscience and bioethics journals, and I am pretty much positive that most of the editors of these journals would cheerfully throw babies into grinders if the practice would yield “promising results.” (This is not hyperbole, despite appearance.)
Thus the good cheer here at FT over the news of induced pluripotent stem cells. But you are right in that ultimately we cannot bypass the continued moral debate over the status of ESCs.
October 11th, 2012 | 11:53 am
Obviously, we are going to disagree on whether or not stem cell research should be judged purely on utilitarian grounds, or what yields the most promising results.
Craig Payne,
You would be correct in assuming that I don’t see a moral problem with embryonic stem cell research per se. But what I was trying to get at was Dr. Yamanaka’s position. According to an article in Slate:
Here’s a fuller version of the quote:
So Yamanaka, in stating that he wants his work to be judged by science, not by politics or government or business, is speaking as someone who already has made the judgment that embryo destructive stem cell research is problematic, and should be avoided if something else can yield the benefits, but it is not morally impermissible and should not be blocked if there is no adequate substitute.
I think if Matthew Schmitz and other admirers of Dr. Yamanaka’s ethical concerns and his accomplishments believe that Yamanaka wants embryonic stem cell research to now come to an end and all further work to be done using only induced pluripotent stem cells, they are mistaken. It seems to me he clearly believes research must continue on both until iPSC can be shown to be as good or better than ESC. And if that can’t be demonstrated, it is clear that Yamanaka would support continued work on embryo destructive stem cell research. And Yamanaka supported the Obama administration’s modification of the Bush policy regulating government funding for embryonic stem cell research, which First Things definitely did not. So Yamanaka is not on the same page as Matthew Schmitz or First Things.
October 11th, 2012 | 12:46 pm
Craig: I do not think you perhaps understand the point of induced pluripotent stem cells. The point is that they can be induced–and used–without the destruction of embryos. If you want to call them “embryonic” cells,
I don’t think I did that at all. It’s just that it was argued that embryonic stem cells are useless – and that flies in the face of this discovery. Why would one want to give adult stem cells the pluripotent function of embryonic stem cells, if they are useless?
Mike: Adult and embryonic stem cells are named after their source. There is nothing we can do to force an adult stem cell to come from an destroyed embryo.
That seems fairly obvious to me. Adult stem cells aren’t Mitt Romney, that they can retroactively be made to have been extracted from embryos. My point was that this discovery gives them the same/similar function.
Mike: The real story, however, is that pluripotent stem cells have never been successful in treatment due to the teratomas they create.
Of course, for any new line of inquiry, a lot of research has to be done, before it can be applied in practice. And with this new discovery, perhaps it would be good to drop the pretense that embryonic stem cells are useless.
Mike: To repeat, pluripotent stem cells provide no treatments.
Correct, they provide no treatments. But they will provide treatments.
Mike: Also at issue is whether embryos and fetuses are entitled to the legal protection of an actual child.
But the argument that is made, is that life begins at conception. Unless you disagree with that (which I would welcome), you should not blame me for making this appropriate criticism.
Mike: And all three are human beings as is the child and unlike his hair.
You said ‘human life’. My hair is organic material with human DNA, and thus human life.
October 11th, 2012 | 1:43 pm
Max — the word “useless” only appears one other time on this page besides your own comment, and it’s in reference to a particular set of ESCs that had a particular issue. It doesn’t appear anywhere in Anderson’s article. No one claimed that “embryonic stem cells are useless” as such. What is it that you are taking issue with?
October 11th, 2012 | 1:50 pm
Max re pluripotent cells: “Correct, they provide no treatments. But they will provide treatments.”
Somehow I do not see you as a fortune teller. We cannot know.
Max writes: “But the argument that is made, is that life begins at conception. Unless you disagree with that (which I would welcome), you should not blame me for making this appropriate criticism.”
There is nothing logical about criticism that only counts if the scope is narrowed to the hair’s breath of single cell human life. The belief is that human life begins at conception (as an aside, biology agrees with that). It doesn’t end there. The logical criticism would be to point to a different point for that beginning and argue that that is a better starting point. But you blow smoke you do not argue logically.
Max writes: “You said ‘human life’. My hair is organic material with human DNA, and thus human life.”
I never imagined you as a science denier and believe you know this is smoke. Max, you are only trolling. You’re better than that.
October 11th, 2012 | 1:55 pm
David, Why does Dr Yamanaka’s morality have a say here? He can post if he wants. As for me, I’m only too aware that scientists do not make the best moralists.
October 11th, 2012 | 3:05 pm
Why does Dr Yamanaka’s morality have a say here?
Mike Melendez,
Because he is being hailed here as a hero and a savior whose work to end “the stem cell war” has succeeded, and he (and First Things) has now been vindicated. But in truth he doesn’t stand with First Things and Matthew Schmitz. This is not to say that First Things and Matthew Schmitz are wrong in their total opposition to embryonic stem cell research. It is just to say that the man Mr. Schmitz is holding up as the ethical hero who solved the problem of embryonic stem cell research is someone who supports (at least for the time being) continued embryonic stem cell research.
This reminds me of similar treatment of Dr. Edward C. Green, the AIDS researcher, who said that the pope was right about condoms. However, Green was saying that there were situations in which condoms alone were not helpful and could even be harmful. He was not opposed to encouraging condom use where it was effective, such as in the brothels of Thailand. So his agreement with the pope was limited!
October 11th, 2012 | 3:36 pm
“Why would one want to give adult stem cells the pluripotent function of embryonic stem cells, if they are useless?” –Maximilian
I think the better question is this, “Why would one waste money on embryonic stem cells when so few therapies have been developed from them, compared to the vast success of adult stem cell research?”
The answer is actually relatively simple, when one follows the money.
Embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) profits all the IVF clinics that can generate a new revenue stream by selling “the leftovers”. Think of the aforementioned “400,000 embryos sitting in freezers”. What if you could sell them rather than store them? And suddenly, we not only have the restoration of child sacrifice, but a return to selling human beings against their consent.
It is simple human greed–not a concern for
ethics or science–that motivates ESCR.
October 11th, 2012 | 5:01 pm
Embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) profits all the IVF clinics that can generate a new revenue stream by selling “the leftovers”.
Artaban,
Unfortunately for your theory, if those using donated embryos from IVF clinics offered money to get the embryos, the derived stem cell lines cannot be approved by the NIH for use in government funded research. In truth, IVF clinics generally dispose of unwanted embryos as medical waste. Even if IVF clinics could sell unwanted embryos, how much do you think medical waste would be worth when there is such an oversupply of frozen embryos?
And suddenly, we not only have the restoration of child sacrifice, but a return to selling human beings against their consent.
Again, you are ignoring the law. The “parents” of the embryos donated to researchers must give written consent in order for any stem cell lines derived from the embryos they donate to be approved by NIH for government funded research.
If you were talking about women donating eggs, that would be a much different story. But there is simply no truth at all to your theory that fertility clinics can or will make money selling embryos. If you can name any source that says differently, I would be interested to see it.
October 11th, 2012 | 8:58 pm
“But there is simply no truth at all to your theory that fertility clinics can or will make money selling embryos.”–David Nickol
David, you seem to mistakenly think that the only way to make money from the sale of embryonic stem cells is if they are “approved by the NIH for use in government funded research”.
What about privately funded research?
What about research funded illegally or internationally?
The FBI has already busted a multi-state ring in a $1.5 million scheme to sell illegally obtained stem cells: http://earthsky.org/human-world/sting-operation-leads-to-arrests-in-illegal-stem-cell-scheme
From the article: ” A common practice among stem cell therapists is to hold offices in the United States, while arranging for the patient to be transported abroad to undergo the treatment…Their indictment accuses Morales of obtaining placental material through his mid-wife/stem cell treatment clinic in Del Rio, and then later selling it to a company in Arizona, called Global Laboratories. Global Laboratories then allegedly sent the materials to one of those arrested, Vincent Dammai, who is a professor in South Carolina, where, presumably, the stem cells would be cultivated and returned. According to the indictment, Morales and Global Laboratories, in conjunction, would arrange for Morales to perform stem cell treatments to patients in Mexico. This action can be interpreted as criminal, but many companies proudly operate under similar conditions. ”
The embryonic friendly laws create the market, and everyone knows from repeated fiascos with Planned Parenthood and illegal immigration that a law is only as good as the government’s willingness to enforce it.
October 12th, 2012 | 8:19 am
Pentamom: the word “useless” only appears one other time on this page besides your own comment, and it’s in reference to a particular set of ESCs that had a particular issue. It doesn’t appear anywhere in Anderson’s article.
You need only look at Mike’s comments, if you deny the existence of people who think that research on pluripotent stem cells is useless.
Mike: Somehow I do not see you as a fortune teller. We cannot know.
Then neither do you, though you fairly authoritatively pronounced that pluripotent stem cells would yield no cures.
Mike: There is nothing logical about criticism that only counts if the scope is narrowed to the hair’s breath of single cell human life.
Which contains orders of magnitude more cells than a fertilized egg, let me point out.
Mike: But you blow smoke you do not argue logically.
Correct, that was my response to something asserted without evidence. I can either posit a counterclaim (with or without evidence), or deny the claim. I choose the latter.
Mike: I never imagined you as a science denier and believe you know this is smoke. Max, you are only trolling. You’re better than that.
What point of science did I deny? That a fertilized egg is a human person worthy of protection – something not believed by actual scientists, but only by religious people who purport to speak for scientists, something which is not actually a matter of science?
October 12th, 2012 | 8:23 am
Artaban: What about privately funded research?
That won’t work. There are lower hanging fruits for private companies, which will yield more short-term benefit than the long-term potential of embryonic stem cell research.
Artaban: What about research funded illegally or internationally?
Why would anyone fund research illegally? That would defeat the very purpose of research – to come up with cures that can be sold. What you cite is not research, it’s not even treatment, it’s pure quackery. But to want to shut down embryonic stem cell research over fraud is like shutting down Pfizer over fraud committed by others.
October 12th, 2012 | 10:25 am
Artaban,
In order to lend credence to your theory that “[e]mbryonic stem cell research (ESCR) profits all the IVF clinics that can generate a new revenue stream by selling ‘the leftovers,’” it seems to me you have to give some evidence that IVF clinics have indeed sold embryos, or plan to sell embryos, or could make money selling embryos. Instead, your story is about someone accused of “obtaining placental material through his mid-wife/stem cell treatment clinic.”
October 12th, 2012 | 10:34 am
David, you seem to mistakenly think that the only way to make money from the sale of embryonic stem cells . . . .”
Artaban,
Please recall that the discussion was about IVF clinics selling embryos, not about selling stem cells. You can buy and sell stem cells on the Internet. There is no need for some kind of black market.
October 12th, 2012 | 11:04 am
Dear Maximilian: I believe the comment about being a “science denier” refers specifically to your remarks about hair cells being “alive” and “human” and therefore equivalent to zygotes, or embryos.
This, you must admit, is just a lame argument. Furthermore, it has been refuted so many times, by so many people, in so many different ways, I think folks here on FT are just tired of expending time and energy dealing with it.
Thus the remark about science. Your “hair” comment reveals a lack of knowledge, not only of pro-life writings, but of basic scientific facts. When you begin to have developing human beings showing up in your hair, your argument will make sense–not until.
October 12th, 2012 | 1:00 pm
[Maximilian] “What point of science did I deny? That a fertilized egg is a human person worthy of protection – something not believed by actual scientists, but only by religious people who purport to speak for scientists,…?”
Except for this guy:
http://www.sfuhl.org/h_about_author.htm
And:
http://www.sfuhl.org/endorsements.htm
October 12th, 2012 | 4:02 pm
(comment has been edited)
Craig: I believe the comment about being a “science denier” refers specifically to your remarks about hair cells being “alive” and “human” and therefore equivalent to zygotes, or embryos.
I asserted no such thing. The initial argument was that zygotes are “human life”, and that they should therefore be protected. I can name any number of things that are “human life”. There are differences between zygotes and human hair, but none of them are captured by referring to either as “human life”.
Craig: This, you must admit, is just a lame argument. Furthermore, it has been refuted so many times, by so many people, in so many different ways, I think folks here on FT are just tired of expending time and energy dealing with it.
Understandable, but I am also tired of dealing with relentless assaults on women’s rights and science. Hopefully, you will also be understanding of my tiredness.
Craig: When you begin to have developing human beings showing up in your hair, your argument will make sense–not until.
That shouldn’t matter. After all, isn’t the argument that the zygotes are human beings as they are? Not just potential human beings. Hence, if we were to accept this argument, they should be judged as they are, not what they may or may not become.
JDD: Except for this guy:
The individual you refer to has a B.S. degree in chemistry. Moreover, it is beside the point. Who is or is not a human person worthy of protection is not a scientific question, as I mentioned in the full version of what you quoted.
October 12th, 2012 | 6:40 pm
“After all, isn’t the argument that the zygotes are human beings as they are? Not just potential human beings”
Yes; that is the argument. And hence zygotes are much different than any other human cells, including the cells in one’s hair. That was my point.
October 13th, 2012 | 5:56 pm
Craig Payne: Yes; that is the argument. And hence zygotes are much different than any other human cells, including the cells in one’s hair. That was my point.
None of that difference is captured in calling a zygote “human life”. And that was my point. Apparently, it was rather effective, because Mike ceased to call zygotes human life, and instead preferred to call it a “human being”.
October 16th, 2012 | 9:14 am
[Maximilian, Oct 12] “…something not believed by actual scientists.”
[Maximilian, Oct 12] “The individual you refer to has a B.S. degree in chemistry.”
[Maximilian, Oct 12] “Moreover, it is beside the point.”
So… scientist, or not? His resume can speak for itself.
The other link I posted provided eight endorsements from doctors, presumably also having some knowledge of the subject matter.
[Maximilian] “I am also tired of dealing with relentless assaults on women’s rights and science.”
Three of the above endorsements were women.
[Maximilian] “Who is or is not a human person worthy of protection is not a scientific question, as I mentioned in the full version of what you quoted.”
Then, is your answer to the question of who is a human person scientific, or not scientific?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact