I agree, if you oppose abortion/embryonic stem cell research, you should oppose war as well. There are very, very few cases where war is somewhat more morally acceptable than no war. These are in instances of true self-defence and/or in cases of defeating some sort of evil enemy, where the effects of war are not as bad as allowing this enemy the unbridled right to continue. (Please note, I absolutely do NOT include the Iraqi war in this category). However, even these cases can be quite complex, and they are much more rare than our politicians would have us believe. The question is, if we can risk lives in even this most extreme form of war to prevent further harm, why not destroy embryos in the hope that one day we might be able to find some sort of treatment to a number of illnesses? I think the prolifers would answer, because soldiers and rebels have a choice as to whether or not they are willing to risk their lives to defeat some sort of enemy. Embryos (seen as real human beings) do not.

I'm always amazed when people try and make this argument.
There is a moral difference between an intentional killing of a (defenseless) life (which is also illegal in war) and an accidental death (in war or otherwise). You equivocate on this point when you restrict the objection to ESC to being "a desecration of human life, never to be allowed." (Although many people on both sides simplify it to this, the context is almost always in terms of intentionally killing an innocent and defenseless life.) The topic is a lot more grey than you would have us believe.

Just as a person who says that war in some circumstances is justified, is not inconsistent to oppose torture.

Also, You seem to be arguing on consequentialist grounds against a moral stand that is almost always deontological. You cannot claim this is a contradiction or inconsistency when you do this.

Finally, in cases where one force locates itself within civilian areas, the geneva conventions are clear that it is their moral culpability in what follows.

Why there is even debate on this is a mystery to me. It's not like anyone is proposing a policy of terminating pregnancies for the purpose of harvesting stem cells. The embryos in question are going to perish in any event, quite legally, as a result of our present abortion laws.

Only a spiteful moron, or someone who has never seen medical tragedies up close, could make high handed moral arguments against finding cures and remedies for so many of the ailments which plague our species

I will get this out of the way I support stem cell research and I oppose the Iraq war.

I have to say though that this seems to me a silly argument. Soldiers are volunteers who know that they may be called on by Governments (duly elected) to serve in hostile territories, and possibly for causes they do not personally believe in. I am not sure a foetus has that capacity to choose and that much knowledge or information.

Also supporting a war for a just cause seems to me morally sound. Whether Iraq is a just cause is the problem.

I think that the article is quite reasonable. Even amongst the Judeo-Christian religions there is total disagreement on the state of the embryo - is it complete human life or just potential life? We probably will never know. The different groups which quote God's words on the subject have surprisingly different views on what God actually was supposed to have said.

Surely a fully formed soldier is more alive than any embryo or foetus? Thus killing an embryo which possibly is not yet human in the expectation of saving humans must be morally better than killing a soldier who is definitely fully alive.

Alan Grey, I think the objectors to stem cell research are more often adherents to natural law theory, drawing inspiration from Aristotle (as adopted by Aquinas) than deontologists. Their arguments depend on the doctrine of double effect, which forbids the intentional doing of an objectively wrong action, whatever the consequences. As you'd be aware, the doctrine permits doing an objectively right action, even if there are evil consequences, provided those consequences are not intended (but merely foreseen), and provided that they are proportionate. The account of a just war that is derived requires not only that the cause be just, but that there is no alternative, better, means to the end, that the end is achievable, and that the good obtained is not outweighed by the harm caused. It used to be argued that a just war had to be declared by a legitimate prince--a position which I think translates in the modern world to a requirement of proper processes in the declaration of war.

Notoriously, none of these applied to the declaration of war against Iraq.

The DDE and deontological theory would both require the rejection of shock and awe tactics, wouldn't they? So I think there is a problem of consistency.

Objecting to stem cell research on the grounds that it is the destruction of human life suppose that what makes us of moral significance is already present in the pre-implantation embryo. The view requires that the pre-embryo will become a person, rather than that it will produce one. (Otherwise, the thing that consists of a sperm in one body and an ovum in another would have the same moral status--an absurdity no one wants to accept.)

There are two very strong arguments that deny that any pre-embryo ever becomes a person. The blunt assertion that destroying pre-embryos is the destruction of human life ignores these arguments.

Here are rough versions. The first holds that we are whatever it is that has thoughts and desires and the like. And it is pretty clear that that is the brain. Hence, when the brain dies, we hold that the person is dead, even though the body may be kept alive. I began, therefore, when an implanted embryo produced a brain. I was never a pre-embryo. In the relevant sense, a pre-embryo is no more a living human being than a hydatiform cyst is.

The second depends on two facts: that pre-embryos can split or be split, with identical twins resulting, and that every pre-embryo divides into what becomes (or gives rise to) the embryo proper, and what makes the umbilical cord and the extra-embryonic membranes. No coherent account of identity will allow the conclusion that the pre-embryo becomes an implanted one. Thus again, I was never a pre-embryo. There is nothing wrong with destroying them.

The first trimester...

http://www.nswrtl.org.au/first_trimester.html

A reputable site, I'm sure. Read it trying to filter out the emotion, but apart from the way its expressed, I'd say its pretty medically accurate.

Thoughts?

Ben there is a huge difference and it is very very basic.

1. Soldiers are consenting adults
2. Unborn (or born) children are innocent lives incapable of consent.

Your argument is like a pedophile saying "well adults like it, why not kids?" - It is just ridiculous.

Daniel06, an embyro is not alive, it is a potential life - if all things go well. One third of fertilised human embyros are spontaneously aborted.

A soldier may have been conscripted in the army to fight.

Thats amazing Billie!

I think you are next in line for the Nobel Peace Prize. You are obviously a medical scientist, yes?

And not only that you have discovered a "non-living" organism with human DNA that can somehow grow millions of "live" cells to resurch and yet it is not alive! This is the greatest scientific breakthrough of all time.

It is truley amazing! And it was all discovered here on Online Opinion.

Which medical lab do you work for? I need to call Ray Martin right now.

Daniel06 its a a very dirty debating tactic to accuse people who disagree with you of being "paedophiles".

Another dirty debating tactic is belittling the arguments of the opposition. As I stated in the earlier post nature doesn't regard human embryos as anything precious. In fact mother nature spontaneously aborts about a third of fertilised eggs. The state of human society is such that we can ensure survival of the species by rearing two eggs to adulthood, perhaps 3 eggs. If women rear 15 eggs to adulthood we will deplete the earth's resources at an even faster rate than we are presently and more people would be living in hunger.

As I said in the previous post armies often conscript their soldiers. You ask troops in any European Union country or Russia whether they want to be in the army or whether they are just completing their national service.

And Daniel06 I suggest that you have a look at patients suffering from long term debilitating conditions and tell them that you want to see them suffer because that's more palatable than permitting stem cell research to continue.

And don't use puerile debating tactics.

billie, What about the tens of thousands of civilians in Iraq that have been killed - do they make a conscious choice? if you value life then you cant accept that along with arguing against stem-cell research.

I think the argument is more about justifying the means to an end. If you accept that the means justified the end in Iraq then you must also accept the same argument for stem-cell research.

Whoops - I meant Daniel06 not billie.

Billie I never said Ben or anyone else was a pedofile. I simply compared the warped logic being used.

Billie if you were in fact correct then the whole stem cell/abortion etc debate would not even be an issue. No one would think twice about it. Why do you think it is such a big issue?

It is such a big issue because the scientific proof simply cannot be dismissed out of hand as you have.

The fact is science has never ever declared that an embryo is not human.

UN Declaration of Human Rights Article 2: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, "BIRTH" or other status.

UN Declaration of Human Rights Article 3: Everyone has the right to "LIFE", liberty and security of person.

I would love to know which scientific evidence you base your sweeping claim to know that embryo's are neither human nor alive? What are they then? I can't draw any other conclusion that if something has human DNA and is alive then it can not be anything but a living human life by definition.

Simply lacking consious thought does not mean you are not human - people in comas have no conscious thought but are still human in every respect. Should we kill them also?

Clarification...

The embryo is indeed alive and is a homo sapien. Therefore it is a human being with potential, not just a potential human being. The embryo's own DNA clarifies the issue that it is not just another part of the mother.

The argument that nature spontaneously aborts 33% of embryoes does not mean we should. Did you know that 100% of adult humans eventually die? That doesn't mean we should kill them for scientific research.

I think stem cell research is a little more broad than the whole pro life/pro choice issue but I think the above points are still relevant.

And why has no one mentioned that NO CURE has been found through embryonic stem cell research but already over 70 have been through adult stem cells?

One more thing- this whole debate about an embryo needing "conscious thought" is a little ridiculous, it is little more than a secular attempt to define a "soul". Religious arguments that the embryo has a soul are discarded by the secular population, and I think, so should this "nonreligious" one.

YngUn

"And why has no one mentioned that NO CURE has been found through embryonic stem cell research but already over 70 have been through adult stem cells?"

Where is your evidence for this statement, apart from right to life websites who urge research into adult stem cells to ease there collective conciences.

Apart from hematopoietic stem cells transplants which have been researched for over 30 years and still have a 50% treatment related mortality rate, what other CURES are you waffling about.

Ozbib I liked your post but I think you could go further and argue that it is impossible to have a just war today given the destructivness of modern weapons. needless to say that nuclear weapons are immoral by their vary existence.

Steve,

Sorry for my very sloppy language, that was very misleading of me and I didn't mean to imply "cure" on purpose. Perhaps this statement best summarises what I meant to say
"Based on the published science, there are 72 maladies for which human patients have received some benefit (which is not the same as being ‘cured’) from adult stem cell or umbilical cord blood interventions. Meanwhile, embryonic stem cells have yet to demonstrate any human therapeutic use" by Wesley J. Smith.

Look I'm not against stem cell research, I think adult stem cell research is great and I think embryonic stem cell research, where the embryo is not harmed, is great too. I'm just wary of the idea of all-out embryonic stem cell research on the assumption that one day we'll be able to cure a lot of diseases.

I think the issue of when life begins is complicated, but I personally believe an embryo is a life, so I don't like the idea of terminating one human life on the possibility of saving another.

We can respectfully disagree though.

YngN'

Of course we can agree to disagree. The main issue is of course the termination of human life.

I am sure that embryonic stem cell research and the safety of the embryo are not mutually exclusive. I cannot say the same for IVF where many embryos are stored only to be discarded as medical waste.

I bit from a friend of mine who is having a stem cell transplant next week.


"Non-Myeloablative Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant

Non-myeloablative is a medical term meaning not wiping out your marrow. "Myelo" is from the greek meaning marrow. "Ablate" means to remove or destroy. And of course "non" is from the ancient Hobbit language meaning don't do that.

So put it all together and you have "don't wipe out the bone marrow". Only the hematologists know what hematopoietic really means, and they won't tell anybody.

Then you get some donated stem cells from somebody else. The donated stem cells develop into new types of immune system cells in your body and begin to reproduce. As always, when you get some foreign cells floating around in you, the various cells start a up a violent competition trying to get rid of the unrecognized foreign invaders.

GvHD

Here is where the miracle occurs. In all transplant cases, the donated cells think they are still in their donor's body. They attack everything they can't recognize. So most patients experience what is known as Graft versus Host Disease, or GvHD. It is also known as Graft versus Tumor Effect or Graft versus Leukemia Effect.

While waiting for the new cells to establish a new immune system, the patient must be ever watchful and diligent to avoid infection. The treatment involves immune suppressing drugs to minimize the dangers of GvHD going a little too far and attacking the patient's good cells.

The usual prognosis is that it takes at least a couple of years before things get back to normal and the patient can relax and enjoy activities that are too risky in the beginning. The patient must avoid things like gardening ( too much bacteria in the soil), mingling with crowds ( too many viruses floating around), eating at buffets, and all kinds of other things until the new immune system is up to full strength."

This is why we need more research

Thanks for your posts Steve. I've mentioned before that I'm doing a biomedical science degree, so I find these things very interesting.
Re: what you mentioned about the body attacking the donated stem cells: I've read that getting a person's own stem cells and then reinjecting them into the body as the type of cell sought, can help overcome this problem. Perhaps we should put more research into this sort of thing as well.

YngN

Two reasons for using a matched donor in my kind of leukemia.

1. The GvHD is the reaction that kills the existing cancerous stem cells, it is desireable if it can be controlled (eg not causing death).

2. By the time a decision to transplant stem cells is made the patients bone marrow has usually failed and they are transfusion dependent. There are too few stem cells to harvest.

By the way this is still not a cure, in chronic lymphocytic leukeamia the cancer will return. :(