A court has enjoined the federal government from funding embryonic stem cell research under the Obama policy, as it most likely violates the Dickey Amendment. The Dickey Amendment is a budgetary law passed each year that bars federal funding of destructive research on embryos. Bill Clinton sought to get around the law by requiring the actual destruction to be privately paid for, and then funding ESCR thereafter, knowing that the scientists would destroy the embryos in anticipation of funding. So did the Obama policy. But the court, apparently, isn’t buying. From the story:
A U.S. district court issued a preliminary injunction on Monday stopping federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research, in a slap to the Obama administration’s new guidelines on the sensitive issue. The court ruled in favor of a suit filed in June by researchers who said human embryonic stem cell research involved the destruction of human embryos.
Judge Royce Lamberth granted the injunction after finding the lawsuit would likely succeed because the guidelines violated law banning the use of federal funds to destroy human embryos. “(Embryonic stem cell) research is clearly research in which an embryo is destroyed,” Lamberth wrote in a 15-page ruling. The Obama administration could appeal his decision or try to rewrite the guidelines to comply with U.S. law.
One way to do that–and I admit, I find this juicy–would be to copy George Bush’s policy, thus avoiding the legal impediment of Dickey by only funding ES cells created before a certain date. (Bush’s date was August 9, 2001, the day his policy became effective.) In that way, no embryos would be destroyed in the expectation of then receiving federal money, and the Dickey problem would be solved. (Gee, it looks like Bush knew what he was doing, after all. Almost $200 million was spent on human ESCR by the NIH during the Bush policy years.)
No doubt, there will be an appeal. But if Obama decides not to yield, this could go to the Supremes. In any event, this ruling could set up a big fight in Congress next year over whether to continue the Dickey limitations. Buckle your seatbelts, it’s going to be a bumpy ride.
August 23rd, 2010 | 8:06 pm
Miss THAT imbecile? You must be kidding.
August 23rd, 2010 | 9:41 pm
It sounds like it’s perfectly ok under this law to take the thousands of unwanted frozen embryos and pitch them into an incinerator, but not ok to destroy them to do potentially life-saving research. Have I got that right?
August 23rd, 2010 | 10:53 pm
padraig,
The tired hyperbole of life-saving research notwithstanding, if what you want to convey is that keeping potential people in refrigerators is problematic, you might be on to something.
And as for HistoryWriter’s bumperstickerism, consider Pres. Obama’s anti-intellectual act of replacing “philosophical guidance” in the president’s counsel on bioethics with a focus on “practical policy options.” Thinking is hard work.
August 24th, 2010 | 1:25 am
Wesley, do you have any thoughts on how far along Direct Reprogramming (iPSCs) and other alternative pluripotent stem cell research would be if Obama hadn’t revoked Bush’s Executive Order 13435—Expanding Approved Stem Cell Lines in Ethically Responsible Ways? That was quite a program he instituted. Has that revocation lessened funding and the inquiry and study that Bush was instituting for Alternate pluripotent stem cell research?
It’s interesting that a scientist, James Sherley was part of the suit. I think you once mentioned that there would be protests from the scientific community on the amount of ESCR/SCNT funding if ESCR/SCNT started to get too much money and focuse since there is only so much money to go around and it would eventually take money from other scientific projects. Sherley is opposed to ESCT/SCNT because he thinks it’s wrong and won’t be productive, but he is complaining about it taking away from his funding. I wonder if others in other areas of science will do the same given that the nation is bankrupt and their will have to be funding cuts.
Over $2 billion in private and public funds were given to or spent on ESCR/SCNT by the time of your NR artcile alerting us to this in 2007 before BHO took the purse strings http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/222885/bush-bears-fruit/wesley-j-smith. Maybe that’s not a lot of money compared to the $6 billion the SFO Bay Bridge eastern connector will cost, or the $3 billion allocated by the state of CA for ESCR/SCNT that you get to pay for living in the IOU state, but it sure seems like a lot of money has already been given to this. Some eligible federal spending has gone unspent.
August 24th, 2010 | 3:06 am
Craig Henry,
One small correction:
Not “potential people”, but “people with potential”.
Cheers.
August 24th, 2010 | 7:33 am
HW,
Seriously. Is that the best you can do? No, he was not perfect. He was certainly not the Messiah. But an imbecile? Oh, that’s right, Karl Rove and Dick Cheney were the ones *really* in charge. Why, didn’t you know, GWB doesn’t even know how to read? That’s what Paul McCartney (that towering example of intellect) says. How about trying some independent thinking instead of regurgitating all the popular media “talking points”?
Padraig, care to cite specific examples of “life-saving” research that has come from ESCR? I mean specific cases that actually help people.
August 24th, 2010 | 8:33 am
Padraig,
If you are concerned about pitching unwanted embryos into the incinerator (and you should be, after all human life is deserving of protection, no matter what age or location), why don’t you join others and ask that at least IVF treatments are required to implant every embryo created? Let’s solve the problem that way once and for all, no more destroyed embryos.
August 24th, 2010 | 9:24 am
Blastocysts (what you all call embryos) are made in IVF clinics for treatment of infertility. Because it is such an expensive and painful (for the woman) process to harvest the eggs to make the blastocyst many extras are generated. These blastocysts are not all used, except by Octomom. Then they are trashed in almost all cases- in literally millions of examples over the last 20 years. Where are your tears for these “embryos”? You have none, because this is not a real ethical concern for you people. You worry about several hundred (thats right, several hundred) freezer burned blastocysts made into potentially live saving treatments.
When a human being is cured of a spinal injury, spinal muscular atrophy, blindness, heart disease, liver disease, or diabetes by human ES cells (and it will happen within the next 2-3 years) this will all be forgotten and you will all switch to the newest lame talking point intended for the idiots who always vote republican (or Tea Party) even when they don’t know they are being robbed blind and poisoned by their own flag wrapped elected officials under the guise of “free market and judeo-christian ethics”.
August 24th, 2010 | 10:19 am
Ummm…if you insist on calling them blastocysts, what are ES cells? Wouldn’t BS cells be what you mean?
August 24th, 2010 | 10:42 am
“It sounds like it’s perfectly ok under this law to take the thousands of unwanted frozen embryos and pitch them into an incinerator, but not ok to destroy them to do potentially life-saving research. Have I got that right?”
It’s currently legal to do both. Under the current law, however, neither qualifies for federal funding.
August 24th, 2010 | 11:45 am
Wow, I feel like a mosquito in a nudist colony with that one… They make several not specifically because it is painful, but because not all of them implant successfully, or for eugenic abortions or they want to perhaps have future treatments. A lot of people have said it is wrong, but apparently you don’t believe them or they are just tea party idiots anyway. Actually, it’s more like thousands, not hundreds of frozen embryos. Adult stem cells have cured patients in at least experimental applications in every medical situation you have discussed, and we’ve been told ad naseum for at least 5 years that all these cures are 5-10 years away, only if we open up our wallets and the public treasury spigot…
But apparently the above points are all talking points and your comment about all the tea party idiots is the rational, objective truth.
Geez, even those “flag wrapped elected officials” in those “free market and judeo-christian ethic” obsessed countries like Germany have put reasonable limits on IVF.
August 24th, 2010 | 11:54 am
JustChris, there are hundreds of thousands of embryos, or blastocysts as PharmedOut more correctly calls them, already frozen with virtually no chance of ever being implanted. Sooner or later they go in the incinerator. That’s what I’m talking about.
As for the future, the success rate on IVF has been going up, so there’s less motivation to make excessive numbers of blastocysts.
But if you want all of them to be implanted anyway, then the Octomom would like to talk to you about babysitting services. I understand she’s still got a few on ice.
August 24th, 2010 | 12:26 pm
Actually there aren’t that many “unwanted” embryos. There was a RAND survey of US IVF clinics in 2002 that noted of the roughly 400,000 embryos then frozen, the vast majority (about 88.2%) were being held for family building. Only a very small fraction, about 2.2%, were slated for destruction. And only about 2.8% were designated for research. So really only 11,000 or so could be used to obtain embryonic stem cells. The RAND study generously estimated that perhaps 275 lines could be obtained from that number. Dr. Barry Behr of Stanford University noted that, “By far, by far, the vast majority of embryos that are frozen are not good. If we thawed 10,000 embryos, we would get 100 or so that are viable blastocysts.” Note that Big Biotech has claimed a need for millions of embryos, not hundreds.
The May 2003 issue of the journal Fertility and Sterility, published by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and likely available at http://www.asrm.org, also discussed these numbers.
But there’s no reason that the so-called “leftover” embryos at IVF clinics have to be unwanted. In a nation where there are upwards of 2.1 million infertile couples according to the National Center for Health Statistics (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/fertile.htm), it seems we could probably find plenty of couples who could adopt and implant them. In fact, the Snowflakes Adoption Service (www.snowflakes.org) actually specializes in identifying those families who want to implant and raise currently-frozen children.
August 24th, 2010 | 2:15 pm
I’m with US court! I think this should’ve been done before. I’m also against those who say “boy or girl? you choose”, you know what they do? if parents want girls the kill the boys before they’re born. and if parents want boys then they kill girls before their birth. This is absolute crime. I don’t know how people openly practice this horrendous crime and no-one stops them.
Aurangzeb
http://takht-e-sulaiman.eseaf.com/311-research-funding-stem-cells-research-blocked-by-us-court
August 24th, 2010 | 3:57 pm
Hey David, here is what 1 Corinthians 7:4 really says: “The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.” The idea is that marriage is a unity of body and spirit of two into one, and the verse in question was to discourage celibacy within marriage and encourage married couples to have tons of sex/give each other affection so they wouldn’t be tempted outside the marriage. It has absolutely nothing to say about my tax dollars being appropriated by Congress to go to kill other human beings. Nice try though. Please read the material before selectively quoting it.
We protest against both IVF abuses and embryonic stem cell research, but unfortunately it’s society and the media which frowns on any attempts to debate propriety in fertility treatments and just denounces us as religious zealots and calls it a day. That’s somewhat like Stalin saying he never read anything critical of him in Pravda. Nadya Suleman’s eight children were the first time the issue became acceptable in public to have an opinion on.
You ask “which monsters here would like to see more children die from Batten’s disease.” I ask who would require some to give their lives in order for others to live as they wish? Shall we specially abort one child for every child with Batten’s disease? Will we keep abortion legal for the spare parts available? Human enough to be used as spare parts, but not human enough to be part of society?
I would also ask if we arbitrarily decide not all human beings are “persons,” what’s to stop you from being lumped into the non-person category when it becomes convenient some day?
August 24th, 2010 | 5:07 pm
JustChrist,
How can two bodies become one? That sounds pretty cool. Is there video footage demonstrating this phenomenon? Is it like The Matrix when Neo jumps into Agent Smith and starts controlling him? How about when spirits merge? Is it like a matter/anti-matter collision where they can annihilate each other into a burst of photons? Man, that mythology stuff sounds awesome.
Can this mythology explain why so many blastocytes fail to implant and/or develop into a fetus?
So, if these blastocytes have moral worth, then it is imperative that we begin NOW to spend all research efforts investigating ways to stop spontaneous abortion, right? I mean, we have millions upon millions dying every year. Oh, the humanity! Because, nearly 50% of fertilized eggs/zygotes get spontaneously aborted. All those women out there having all those spontaneous abortions – they deserve god’s curse of pain in childbirth!
A blastocyte is a bunch of cells
cells are not human beings, only certain cells arranged in a certain way and operating a certain way make a human being
it has no moral worth as it’s not a human being
no one is being killed – no one is asking someone for a life
In biology class we all should have looked at eukaryotic cells under microscopes – never once did they speak back and say, “please, please, don’t end my cellular processes with that nasty bottle of bleach”
Actually, it took just one abortion to generate a cell line of the selected stem cells, it’s not one abortion per one patient with Batten’s. Even if it were, so what? If women aren’t forced to get abortions to treat Batten’s, use the aborted fetus how you choose; I doubt it cares.
How is determining that a blastocyte is human NOT arbitrary? Just because some people claim(ed) a blastocyte is a human does not make a blastocyte a human. I claim Obama’s a muslim (or christian), therefore he is. Hmmm, seems to me like carefully considering the properties of something might be a better way to determine what it is. A blastocyte cannot cognitively feel, think, respond, analyze, regulate, sense, etc, etc. Yet people in “persistent vegetative states” can – little doubt they are humans. Isn’t it hysteria to start the non-person argument over this? Do women who have had abortions start killing poor people? Do ESC researches start killing children? Of course not, Republicans (and Dems) start doing this and justify it as “war”.
So, what I will do as a person with cognitive function, is make sure such definition of “human being” remains, and I won’t be scared of being harvested for my parts – because I’m a person.
And, yes, the big chief upstairs allows husbands to control wives, he told me so himself – who are you to say otherwise, and he wrote it in Ephesians 5:24
“Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.”
For all you reincarnationists out there – tell us if you were aborted in a past life. We’d love to hear about your experiences.
August 24th, 2010 | 6:17 pm
Wesley,
I just finished reading the judge’s decision, and it seems to me that on the judge’s reasoning, Bush’s policy also ran afoul on the Dickey Amendment since Bush funded research (not a piece of research) on cells that were obtained from killing embryos. What am I missing?
It seems that the judge’s opinion rests entirely on the definition of “research.” Do you think it is clear that “research” is as broadly defined as Judge Lamberth claims? From a layman’s perspective, I have always read the Amendment to merely and specifically prohibit government funds from being used to destroy human embryos; not that they could not be used to fund research on any “product” of embryos previously destroyed by others using private money. Re-reading it, I can see how Judge Lamberth is interpreting it the way he is. I’m just not convinced that his interpretation is the clear and unambiguous interpretation of the text. Your thoughts?
August 24th, 2010 | 8:41 pm
The argument that available embryos/blastocysts destined for destruction should instead be used for potential good is shortsighted, perhaps intentionally so. For some, the outlook for ESC research is damaged by its failure thus far. For others, it is tainted by the chance of future success. It’s not hard to envision a scenario where because of its success, ESC research reinforces, perhaps even cements, an escalating demand for raw materials. The means-to-an-end argument is problematic if the end stands a very likely chance of resulting in demand for more of the means.
August 24th, 2010 | 9:53 pm
Nerina: “Padraig, care to cite specific examples of “life-saving” research that has come from ESCR? I mean specific cases that actually help people.”
Nerina, please get a dictionary and look up the word “potentially.” It’s an adverb. Modifies adjectives.
Also, look up “research.” It doesn’t always aim to produce immediate results. It produces data, which produces insights, which lead to more research, and on and on until MAYBE someday you get effective results. If ESCR promised immediate results, federal funding wouldn’t be an issue; private pharmaceutical companies would throw all the money in the world at it.
And yes, ESCR may lead to, say, growing somebody a new pancreas, which would be lifesaving for, say, my sister the diabetic. Although it most likely won’t happen in time for her.
Plus, IPSC’s, which may have even better potential, derive from ESCR.
August 24th, 2010 | 11:31 pm
Wesley, I’ve just read a pass post that Joe Carter wrote explaining what Stem Cells was about. Does that make me an expert now?
I hear ya!
He only touched the surface of “IT” Victor!
Really? :)
Peace.
August 24th, 2010 | 11:51 pm
Victor:
On this thread, that makes you not just an expert, but an unimpeachable authority.
August 25th, 2010 | 12:17 am
David: “A blastocyte is a bunch of cells”
As are you. As am I.
As I’ve explained only fifty-five times.
August 25th, 2010 | 2:06 am
Ignorant judges pose no threat, right? I like how Lamberth claims that obtaining ESCs destroys the embryo. Newsflash, Roy, sometimes it does, sometimes it don’t.
Anyways, the Dickey-Wicker amendment is appended to various PLs as a rider.
As such, the Dickey amendment is applied to bills involving the departments of Labor, HHS, and Education. So, no federal money from those departments can go to ESC research. (define research, define embryo) Anyways, the DW amendment says, “None of the funds made available from Public Law XXXX may be used for…”
But, the NSF, because it is not part of the HHS, Labor, Education, or any other agency, can spend ‘all the money it wants’ on ESC research.
So, one can continue to pull out their little Dickey amendment, but ultimately it will prove utterly impotent for erecting ESC research barriers.
August 25th, 2010 | 8:36 am
David,
Hmm. Would that be the same verse that continues: “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.” Now, you can disagree with traditional gender roles, but I believe St. Paul’s point was that wives should respect their husbands and husbands should sacrifice for their wives; implying wives sometime disrespect their husbands and husbands sometimes refuse to love their wives as much as they love themselves. I don’t know about you, but I think that’s a fair generalization of the different tensions I and my wife deal with, as do many couples.
Someday maybe you’ll put away all that bigotry you have for people of faith and we can have a reasonable, tolerant discussion together about the issue at hand, with facts at hand and not pull quotes out of context. Did you even read all of that letter or even that chapter, or did some website tell you what quote to put? Tell me you take more time to consider other issues you talk about, and don’t just let Google do your thinking for you. Sigh…
August 25th, 2010 | 9:38 am
bmmg39, if you live in a Petri dish, then you have a very valid point.
August 25th, 2010 | 3:25 pm
JustChrist,
Allah, Thor, and Osiris be praised! You have shown me the light. I am now sanctified and made holy in his mighty name to be a living testament to the peace and life that flows from the living waters of his holy sacrifice, where in faith I shall receive, as a child of the king, the eternal rewards of his righteouness unto the father at the right hand of his eternal throne, whereby his blood has cleansed me and made me whole again, that I might present myself a living sacrifice to accomplish his will on earth as a living vessel filled with the new wine of redemption and blessings which flow mercifully from his abundance and goodness.
In other words, word vomit means nothing to me.
I deal with evidence and data.
Present evidence and data that an embryo is a human being. Define “human being”, then defend said definition, then explain how an embryo fits such definition. This isn’t difficult.
bmmg39,
poor implied argument. if i take a human primary oocyte, throw into a test tube with the following human cells: osteocyte, hepatocyte, erythroctye, glial cell, fibroblast, and secondary spermatocyte, do I have a “human being”? It’s a bunch of cells. They are even specialized cells. They are all human cells. Must be human, right?
What makes human must be more – like, a mind.
August 25th, 2010 | 4:40 pm
>>SparcVark said
Victor:
On this thread, that makes you not just an expert, but an unimpeachable authority.<<
Go on?
Really, Go on, says sinner vic! :)
Peace
August 25th, 2010 | 5:08 pm
The WORLD BOOK ENCYCLOPEDIA defines “embryo” as “an animal or plant in an early stage of its development.” I notice the authors didn’t add “unless living in a Petri dish, in which case all bets are off.” Can’t wait for the 2011 edition to come out. We’ll see if things look better for your point then.
August 25th, 2010 | 5:10 pm
Wesley,
Maybe it would be a good time to review exactly what Mr. Bush’s policy was, and how Mr. Obama’s differs. I’ll bet a lot of people don’t understand the distinction.
August 25th, 2010 | 7:16 pm
David, what about biology says that human beings in the embryonic or blastocyst stage is not human, a unified human entity/organism? As far as I’m aware, personhood theorists (gerenally speaking) and those who think those in the womb are disposable, don’t deny their humanity, they deny that they are persons or have the moral status that grant them the right to life. They are human non persons. The human embryo is clearly a whole, unique, self organizing human being on the self directed path of their own development by their own internal resources.
August 26th, 2010 | 7:20 am
David reminds us of a very important point.
Someone please discuss the fact that more than half of conceptions result in spontaneous abortion, almost always without the potential mother even knowing. Why are they not given the same consideration as their few day old brethren in a cell culture hood? Worldwide, nearly 100,000,000 embryos are spontaneously aborted annually. That’s nearly 1 billion human babies lost during Mr. Bush’s terms alone! These precious embryos are unknowingly flushed down toilets and tossed into trash cans!
How are these blastocysts/embryos different?
August 26th, 2010 | 1:04 pm
Don Nelson,
Firstly, biology says nothing. It is simply a discpline using science that investigates certain physical qualities and properties of organisms, or from organisms, in Nature defined as being “life” – and in some cases asking questions of those chemicals at the boundaries of life (viruses).
Nothing in “biology” that I’ve encountered definitively declares the physical reality of personhood. If such a claim was presented, I would be HIGHLY skeptical. It appears, instead, to be an attribute humans must confer to other humans – ie, it’s a human construct. Similarly, nothing in biology can declare whether tort law is correct or not. You may have noticed my continual use of “human beings” as being placed in quotes.
It depends which stage of the human emrbyo you are referring to. Definitive determination of the embryo’s fate (even genetically) is not achieved at the 8 cell stage of a zygote, for example. It would appear blastocytes, as oppossed to morula or zygotes, would be more determined – but not so fast. Remember, the cells within the blastocyte are not determined, so, one has to define “determined”, “directed” and “unique”, etc, etc. Further, the existence of human chimeras (like hermaphrodites and some odd 10% of non-identical twins) suggests that being a blastocyte does not definitely determine a unique organism (key word, unique). (for religious people who contend life begins at conception and a spiritual soul is generated – does this mean that people with Blashko’s lines have two souls – can one go to hell and the other to heaven, alternatively, does this mean many twins share a soul?)
I actually strongly disagree with the many (typically, but not always, older) textbooks claiming that human development begins at fertilization. I’d contend that human development is continued with meiosis and fertilization is just an intermediate step in such development (in other words human development begins much early, like 100s of millions of years earlier). A significant minority of biologists I speak with agree with this idea. Nature is constantly evolving (fact closed to rational debate) and chemicals (which is what we are) are combining at different times and different places in different ways. So, I see fertilization as just a critical step in that continuum of life – yes, life.
I don’t see how any of this matters for moral worth and personhood. An object that is chemicals lacking any level of consciousness, as it lacks the biological structures necessary to confer cognitive abilities is a “person”? Hundreds of years from, should the species continue to exist, it’s conceivable a human body lacking a brain (say, someone died from a bullet pulvarizing the brain and brain stem in a war zone) may hooked up to a machine that regulates its endocrine system, circulatory system, etc, etc. The purpose for this artificial brain is to keep the thoracic organs and limbs biologically viable for a transplant to another war casualty. Is that a “human being”?
If people are concerned with this personhood at conception issue, then they should be just as outraged/seeking reform over other issues: IVF industry and spontaneous abortion. Yet, people are focused on ESC research (and elective early abortion) – both of which affect far fewer embryos. Weird.
bmmg39:
I also noticed that definition doesn’t say anything about whether an embryo has any moral worth, consciousness, or is a “human being”. I realize it’s very difficult to pull up definitions and not think about them, so I appreciate your efforts.
JustChris,
Throughout my posts, I have presented and implied several questions and dilemmas regarding embryonic stem cell research. These are the following:
1) if a blastocyte or zygote is life, shouldn’t we immediately pursue all reasonable efforts to limit spontaneous abortion by developing rules for copulation or a therapeutic agent, to prevent the killing of millions every year?
2) there are at least, if not more, 500,000 frozen embryos around the US – should the IVF industry be targeted for reform? What should be done with these embryos – if they are human beings, should they be saved and how?
3) what about blastomere transfer as a means to obtain ESCs? should this be pursued and “lobbyied” for instead – despite it’s imperfections (efficiency, guarantees, etc)?
4) what about the fact that stem cells from aborted fetuses seemingly have been used to save the lives of children, while a 9 year old girl who did not get them in time died? this suggests that ESC, which are easier to obtain and known to be pluripotent, hold tremendous capacity as stem cells from fetus and ESC may not be so different, does the anti-ESC community acknowledge this capacity? is it an attempt at emotional misdirection to (correctly) claim ESC haven’t cured anything – I’m suspcious it is – prove me wrong.
5) the failure by the anti-ESC crowd to address those issues above with aggression leads me to suspect they may be arguing from a false point of view, ignorant, being mislead by a socio/political football, or are anti-science. Would I be wrong in drawing any such conclusion? Why?
6) I contend that claiming a blastocyte is a human being is a poor definition for “human being”. I will not rehash the arguments. What are the good arguments for claiming a blastocyte is a human being? Claims of genetic uniqueness, dictionary definitions, determination, etc, are not very convincing to me (one need not rehash them for me) – yet they are easy and simple to make.
I find it interesting and telling that despite all these issues raised, both directly and by implication, you address my selection of mythology quotes instead…
(Numbers 31:1-18)
August 26th, 2010 | 11:31 pm
Jeffery,
David reminds us of a very hackneyed point. Natural vs. artificial death, that’s all. Intentional vs. unintentional. We do give consideration to these embryos, and many doctors try to assist in preventing these miscarriages. Among other conditions, a large portion of them are from Turner’s syndrome, as best we know. If we found a way to allow these persons to live longer, then sirs like you would find a way to kill them as they would put a burden on our society, as they are so unfit. If you have had a chance to love a wife through a miscarriage, you would know how painful emotionally it can be for the mother, mourning this blob of cells.
Further, if a pregnancy test is positive from an embryo, is the woman still pregnant since an embryo is a non-person?
David deals with evidence and data (not much with love, it seems), and doesn’t understand the foundations of evidence and data, e.g., semantics, self-evidence, and qualitative science. These are needed before quantitative science. What is “data”? What is an “apple”? What is a “person”? You can read off definitions all day from varied sources, but those definitions were agreed upon not from data, but from a culture, philosophy, morals, truths–quite unscientific things. So if I come along and say we are wrong, those are not apples!, who can stop me? Prove that it is an apple, I want evidence and data! You can’t just look at one and say it is an apple! Hence, we have one side who defines all human life as persons, and one side who has 572 conditions to deny bestowing of personhood. Why? Just to kill. It is easy to kill an embryo, you sissies. It is hard for you to love them.
August 27th, 2010 | 7:57 am
Jeffery,
How many people starve or die of disease today? Yet, we still give money during cancer cure walks and still fund aid programs overseas. Millions of people die of “natural causes” when they are old. Does that mean it’s of no moral consequence to execute everyone over 85? Because many children accidentally drown in pools doesn’t mean we can drown others if they are using too much of the family budget. Your reasoning is that because not every child manages to survive their development in the womb, it gives us a moral right to take life when we see fit, or create it for the sole purpose of destroying it for our gain? The point is, those embryos in that petri dish were put there by people who know full well what they are doing. They are not given a chance to see if they can “take root” and grow. Unlike some of their fragile brethren which perish by accident, they are willfully destroyed to please the selfish desires of others.
August 28th, 2010 | 3:24 pm
David: “I also noticed that definition doesn’t say anything about whether an embryo has any moral worth, consciousness, or is a “human being”. I realize it’s very difficult to pull up definitions and not think about them, so I appreciate your efforts.”
David, try to stay with me here. If an embryo is an animal in an early stage of development, then it’s not too long of a walk to get to “a HUMAN embryo is a HUMAN BEING in an early stage of development.” It’s then on us to point out that every human being has “moral worth,” whether currently possessing “consciousness” or not.
“there are at least, if not more, 500,000 frozen embryos around the US – should the IVF industry be targeted for reform? What should be done with these embryos – if they are human beings, should they be saved and how?”
The vast majority of embryos “left over” from IVF are being reserved for future attempts at pregnancy. There simply aren’t 400,000 or 500,000 embryos waiting around to be destroyed…
August 28th, 2010 | 6:18 pm
David:
JustChris gives a good rebuttal to your natural miscarriage = willful embryonic destruction (outside of the fact that they know what they are doing, because the people that do the technical work often don’t think beyond the techniques they employ to the larger implications).
I have a couple of further comments:
So essentially what you are saying is that because it hasn’t been definitely proven to be a human being, it isn’t? Yet, until we know this wouldn’t you agree it is better to approach this recognizing not ‘what we know thus far’ but what we have yet to find out? I, for one, take the cautionary approach. There are far too many historical examples of discrimination upon ‘scientific’ or otherwise evidence for me not to take this position.
Just because science has allowed us to dissect the human being into scientifically definable stages doesn’t make any one of those stages unnecessary in human development, and hence any less human. I take the position that the human being begins with conception because that is the only line that is not arbitrarily drawn and without any doubt in the sense that you had to be conceived to exist, as did I, and as did every other human being on this planet (heck, even Peter Singer admits that any human being is ‘clearly a human being’ from conception, which as an aside makes his philosophy all the more alarming in many ways). The scientific delineations serve nothing but science, and give a justification for destruction without actually knowing the truth of the matter. Furthermore the language used (i.e pluripotent cells, blastocyst etc) removes the reality of what it means to be a human being (including the necessary role of conception) because it allows it to be transformed in our consciousness as such.
And yes, we are comprised of chemicals as well…but what of it? Depending upon what sphere of scientific study I can virtually be anything you want me to be. Rather than telling us what it is to be a human being it actually begs the question. What it is to be a human being is something which we do not yet know. Any particular specialized realm of study ultimately (and necessarily) fails to take into account all of that which constitutes the human being and thus can never even purport to answer this question definitively.
August 28th, 2010 | 7:43 pm
Thanks for the comments, especially the hateful insults, but no one answered my question.
Why do you consider the several tens of millions of spontaneously aborted embryos to have less moral value than other embryos?
My guess is that it’s much easier to protest than to actually try to solve a difficult problem.
August 28th, 2010 | 8:38 pm
This thread reminds me of the time I walked into the middle of a movie about our future human race. The movie focused on a well to do family who had purchased a so called robot to replace their child who had gotten into an accident and was not expected to survive but later did survive.
I could never forget what this purchased so called non human child suffered before having to be returned. To make another long story short, at the end of the movie, sinner vic laughed at this woman because she felt sorry for “IT”.
What’s your point?
Wesley, I’m now wondering if maybe this woman knew something that sinner vic didn’t know or was she just being silly?
I hear ya! “IT” was just a movie Victor! :)
Peace
August 29th, 2010 | 12:04 am
Jeffrey:
Speaking for myself, to answer the question “Why do you consider the several tens of millions of spontaneously aborted embryos to have less moral value than other embryos?” I would have to say there isn’t a distinction in moral value between the two. Spontaneous abortion is outside of our control and thus the best we can do is attempt to decrease the chances of such occurrences.
August 29th, 2010 | 11:21 am
I presented 6 questions; I’m finding few takers.
The issue of iced embryos is relevant to ESC research for the following reason:
Both entail the generation of embryos, for different purposes, but very, very often with the same ultimate fate – human destruction – whether intended or not. I can already hear the conservative gears grinding, “but, but, they aren’t intended to be destroyed in IVF”. Go back, re-read the second sentence of the paragraph: it says “the same ultimate fate… whether intended or not”. One could argue in ESC obtainment they do not “intend” to destroy the embryo – it just, usually, happens as a consequence. Just like a woman (or transgendered male in rare cases), usually, doesn’t “intend” to have a spontaneous abortion.
Jeffery,
I will answer your question.
I do not consider embryos that are spontaneously aborted to have different moral worth than ones generated specifically for research or IVF, for example. If, due to developmental similarities and age, they possess the same essential structure and are different only, essentially, in genetic composition, then I do not consider an an embryo in the blastocyte stage to have moral worth (see arguments prior and below explaining why).
See, folks, this isn’t difficult.
Avdoyta:
We could do “better”, or at least differently. the following are options:
1) ban IVF, which has a low chance of success
2) decrease cryo-embryos by making the IVF procedure one-to-one (one egg, one attempt, good luck to the couple)
3)invest in research to develop a therapeutic agent(s) to stop spontaneous abortion
4) develop artificial wombs with a high chance of success
Have you not considered these?
I already questioned an arbitrary line – I said life is a continuum that began millions of years ago and is constantly changing form and composition. It seems every line is arbitrary, including fertilization. Fertilization is a pretty critical one, though, for sure. (critial does not equal arbitrary) However (legal issues aside), soon we won’t need fertilization (see cloning) – so it seems like fertilization IS an arbitrary line, too.
TXW:
I assure you, from first-hand experience, that many doctors do not make extensive efforts to prevent spontaneous abortions. For starters, many physicians do not specialize in OB/GYN.
I recommend reading up on spontaneous abortion. Be sure you know what it fully entails (it’s not just 3rd trimester miscarriage, for example). Further, plenty of fertilized eggs/zygotes do not even implant for starters (this is not a miscarriage as the women was never pregnant) – they are literally flushed down the toilet, thrown in the trash, scrambled in fluffy Charmin, or out with the Tide laundry detergent in the Whirlpool – literally*.
Today, approximately one zygote/embryo will be spontaneously aborted for every one baby born.
If these are human beings with moral worth, we therefore have a moral imperative to save the lives of these humans. We are doing virtually nothing.
And yes, we should love our way to solutions, with our hearts – the great organ of love, the one that produces all the estradiol, proopiomelanocortin, oxcytocin, vassopressin, ghrelin, and aldosterone. Unicorns, balloons, puppies, and kittens are clearly the solution to all moral, medical, and technological dilemmas.
bmmg39:
yes, I understand, you define an embryo/zygote as a human being with moral worth. And, yes, I understand it is an argument from extrapolation – I often do the same thing. But you need to bring out heavier ammo.
You indicated that consciousness (including only brain-stem?) is NOT a requirement.
What then, is?
Is an egg cell or sperm cell (secondary or primary) a human being with moral worth? Why or why not? It lacks consciousness. It’s only missing some key chemicals. Parthoneogenesis occurs in the broader animal kingdom. (I contend this is how Mary had Jesus) Therefore, can fertilization be the requirement in eukaryotes?
What is the determining line and why is it chosen? (my determining line is possessing cognitive function, as: 1)prior I don’t see how one can distinguish the uniqueness of a person – DNA is not enough – see arguments on chimeras and twins and 2) it seems the mind – the condition enabling function, however elementary, in the world – is what confers moral worth to humans and without a brain-stem, there can be no mind)
Further, it is claimed the embryos are being saved for future womb implantation. If this is the case, why is the number of embryos in cryopergatory growing, rather than shrinking? (the expense of IVF, Baumol’s law applied to healthcare, shrinking middle class, and present rate of embryo incineration 5-10yrs after generation, in future decades, may cause a decrease in our little frozen friends, but until then…)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18025028
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19700150
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18166188
Be specific, bmmg39, how should we deal with the 500,000 and growing frozen embryos, assuming they have moral worth – many of which are chucked into a fiery furnace 5 to 10 years later? Is our present policy fine? Should we ban IVF? Should we develop artificial wombs? Tax incentives to get women to start accepting them? Ban all embryo destruction after generation? What? Be specific and THOROUGH.
(I contend the present policy is fine and frozen embryos are no problem because they have no moral worth at that stage as they lack consciousness because they are devoid of a brain stem – see, this isn’t difficult)
*I hold no affiliation with mentioned name brands and associated corporations. I declare no conflict of interest.
August 29th, 2010 | 12:25 pm
Jeffery: “Thanks for the comments, especially the hateful insults, but no one answered my question. Why do you consider the several tens of millions of spontaneously aborted embryos to have less moral value than other embryos?”
I don’t believe anyone argued that they do. Miscarried embryos are ones who die of natural causes. Born people die of natural causes, too. It does not follow that we consider their lives less valuable than those of the people who are willfully killed by others, though.
August 29th, 2010 | 10:37 pm
David,
I understand how spontaneous abortions work, I do not need a primer from you. In fact, it is common knowledge on this blog. I didn’t state anywhere about 3rd trimester losses, but it wouldn’t matter to me anyway since personhood doesn’t depend on age or sentience or whatever criteria a reproductive endocrinologist or some other profiteer decides to to bestow. According to the criteria of cognitive function, I am a non person when I am sleeping. A newborn’s brainstem may be all that is functioning, no mind is working perhaps, hence a non person. Level of development is one common way to try to demand who lives and who dies.
Sperm and egg cells are specialized somatic cells, as you know, but when fertilization occurs, something new is created, which is neither a sperm or egg cell and is not part of another person, even though his or her location is inside another person. I was never a sperm or egg cell, but I was a zygote and therefore, a person. I am not surprised that you have defined that a woman is not pregnant before implantation. By such criteria, we need to change the gestational age of Homo Sapiens, and further begs my question: if a pregnancy test is positive before implantation, is a woman pregnant? You will need to convince a lot of Sissy Jupes out there that they are not pregnant, but keep changing the definition of pregnancy according to evidence and dat. . . no wait, according to your utilitarian whims.
Thanks for the endocrine review, reductionism is always helpful to keep up the destruction, Mr. Gradgrind. Carthaginians and Aztecs and Mayans and ancient Romans all had some reason to sacrifice other persons, I haven’t seen anyone from those cultures in a long time.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact