Hypothetical question about the Pro Life stance

[Plissken]

Plissken, I don't think even Dennis would give you the response you're looking for.

Anyone, regardless of their beliefs, is going to save their child first. I'd go as far as to say I'd save my daughter before my wife, you, Einstein, the Pope, Marie Curie, or Jimmy Page. I'd mourn their deaths and my inability to save them, but I wouldn't hesitate to save my daughter every time.

Even given the fact that I believe that the embryos are life, call me selfish, but my daughter's more important to me.

Gotcha. I asked the wrong question to begin with. Trying to make things a bit more interesting just made everything more complicated.

I should've just asked, "Hey, what's more important and why? A living, breathing human, or a tray of zygotes?"

My bad.

There were a couple of thoughts that went along with the whole, "What would you do if..." bit, among them:

- If, as the general consensus seems to be, saving your own child is more likely than a tray of your zygotes, is this because the zygotes are actually less valuable, or because you're responding to a more primal or emotional drive?

- If it is a base drive that motivates your choice, how does that square with the stated position that, once the chromozone hoe-down has begun, it's a baby in need of society's protection?

- If it isn't in conflict with the above stated view to let your zygotes "die" in order to save your child, what about the children (or parents, or neighbors, etc.) who belong to other people?

Please understand, these are questions that come up quite a bit when us Libs are trying to figure out how hardcore Pro Life proponents (Hi Av!) create a consistent worldview. Because most of the Cons on the 'Watch are capable of making better arguments than, "Well, you can say what you want, but my God doesn't give a rat's ass about your opinion..." I figured this would be a good place to have a conversation about it.

[Cail]

Even that question is problematic. What's more important and why, your daughter or John Wayne Gacy? It's possible to believe that the tray is populated with several lives, but still value someone else's life more.

[Plissken]

I understand that the question is problematic - or at least I assume it would be - for you. (See the above edited post - Sorry, didn't realize you were actually here!) It's the answers you've come up with that I'm interested in.

[Cail]

It's clearly due to emotional drive. I can't think of any (good) parent that wouldn't gladly lay down his or her life to save his children's lives. Hell, I wouldn't even have to think about it, it's reflexive.

Now the 3rd question is a bit interesting. If I was in said doctor's office with your child and was presented with the same choice, I'd save your child. Why? Because I wouldn't be able to live with myself, not to mention explain what happened to you, if I allowed your child to die.

I'll offer this up as well for the collective skewering. If the choice was the embryos or John Wayne Gacy, the tray survives. In that case, I am clearly making a value judgement.

[Plissken]

I don't think you'll get skewered for putting the life of a rock ahead of Gacy's.

But here's a question: Are you actually committing a crime when making the emotionally-based value judgement to let a bunch of little lives go for the sake of one life?

[Cail]

No, of course not. If you were on a bus that crashed and you only had time to save yourself and your daughter, and everyone else died you wouldn't be considered a criminal, would you? I'm unsure on the law, but I've never heard of anyone being prosecuted for that, and they shouldn't be.

It's only natural to put the lives of our loved ones ahead of the lives of strangers.

[Plissken]

Okay, I'll tell you what got me thinking about this - my brain often likes to take the long way around, so bear with me.

I've been to two funerals this year, and there's a third on the horizon. The third one will be for my Grandmother, who has been a constant source of love and humor and cookies in my life. She's old, and has outlived her husband, and has seen her great-grandchildren begin the path to adulthood. She's at peace with the approaching end of her life and because she is, so are those who love her.

About two or three years ago, Grandma began "forgetting" things. Then she began to become confused about what people were telling her. About six months ago, my Father said, "Son, the next time you see your Grandmother, don't make jokes - not even small ones. She takes everything anyone says seriously now - a bit of light-hearted sarcasm can worry her for weeks, every time she remembers it."

Everyone, including her doctors, just thought she had Alzhiemer's.

Recently, she was diagnosed with lung and stomach cancer. Because the cancer went undiagnosed for so long, it is to late to save her from it. However, because of the diagnosis, her new doctor gave her a blood transfusion.

Before she left the hopsital, Grandma was back. Her own blood was so oxygen-depleted from the undiagnosed lung cancer that her "Alzhiemer's" was really oxygen deprivation.

Went up to see her last week. I walked in and she said, "Pipsqueak," (She calls me 'Pipsqueak' - I calls her 'Old Woman') "You've gotten fat! You need to take better care of yourself!"

Believe it or not, our family considers this to be a drastic improvement from the tired, confused, unhappy woman from months past.

Bringing this home: I consider the doctor who diagnosed her properly, and then brought Grandma's mind back to us to be a hero. (The less said about her previous doctors, the better.) I would consider him to be a hero whether he had used fresh blood, stem-cells, or fairy-dust to do it. Fortunately for me, this doesn't alter my worldview one bit.

In my worldview, Our President is a callous, unfeeling moron for blocking stem-cell research and denying millions of Americans and their children a chance at the gift our family has been given.

I really need to know that there is a consistent, logical worldview in play for those who support the Our President in his opposition to this research.

[Cail]

Well, per the topic in the Tank, I'm all for the kind of stem cell research that doesn't involve human embryos.

I'll admit, this is very difficult for me, because I'm all for advancement of the species and advancements in medecine.

But here's the problem I have. Medical advances were made by Nazi scientists/doctors experimenting on the Jews, who were not people. Medical advances were made by experimenting on Blacks here in the good 'ol USA, and the blacks weren't considered people. I have a problem dehumanizing anything, even for a good cause.

Now remember, Bush isn't trying to ban this research, he just won't federally fund it. Colleges and corporations can research to their heart's content. Don't get me wrong though, I understand your frustration.

[Plissken]

Well, per the topic in the Tank, I'm all for the kind of stem cell research that doesn't involve human embryos.

I'll admit, this is very difficult for me, because I'm all for advancement of the species and advancements in medecine.

But here's the problem I have. Medical advances were made by Nazi scientists/doctors experimenting on the Jews, who were not people. Medical advances were made by experimenting on Blacks here in the good 'ol USA, and the blacks weren't considered people. I have a problem dehumanizing anything, even for a good cause.

Now remember, Bush isn't trying to ban this research, he just won't federally fund it. Colleges and corporations can research to their heart's content. Don't get me wrong though, I understand your frustration.

Thanks for that. It is consistent, to a point. The reason I have trouble with this argument is illustrated by your answers to the original question, because we're talking about what our Executive Branch is deciding for the entire nation. Setting aside the conversation about the difference between Blacks and Jews, and zygotes (spinal cords, brains, etc.), there's still the issue of deciding that you have the ability to make these value judgements on case-by-case basis (saving one child you know vs. a bunch of zygotes you haven't met yet), but that on a larger scale, others (scientists, doctors, etc.) shouldn't.

Because of the goals of those putting pressure on Bush to be more aggressive in blocking embryonic stem-cell research than he already has, and because of what has already been accomplished in their name, this is an important discussion to me.

[Cail]

Er, I'm not sure how you're connecting the original question with this. To clarify my response, I believe that if possible, the embryos should be saved, but I'm making a value judgement based on the "rules" you laid out in the question. That is, one or the other, but not both. It's the old Kobayashi Maru scenario; the no-win.

I also think (justifyably so perhaps, given your closeness to the issue) that you're reading a bit too much into my response, and in fact, as I re-read the question and your responses, it seems that you were looking for a specific response from me so you could wheel out your last post. That's OK, you've got a very legitamate, personal gripe about stem-cell research, but I think that your gripe is too far separated from the original question.

If it was, "Would you be OK with stem-cell research if you knew it could save the life of an ill loved one?", then I think we'd be on the same page, 'cause when it comes to my daughter, my hypocracy knows no bounds.

[Plissken]

Er, I'm not sure how you're connecting the original question with this. To clarify my response, I believe that if possible, the embryos should be saved, but I'm making a value judgement based on the "rules" you laid out in the question. That is, one or the other, but not both. It's the old Kobayashi Maru scenario; the no-win.

I also think (justifyably so perhaps, given your closeness to the issue) that you're reading a bit too much into my response, and in fact, as I re-read the question and your responses, it seems that you were looking for a specific response from me so you could wheel out your last post. That's OK, you've got a very legitamate, personal gripe about stem-cell research, but I think that your gripe is too far separated from the original question.

If it was, "Would you be OK with stem-cell research if you knew it could save the life of an ill loved one?", then I think we'd be on the same page, 'cause when it comes to my daughter, my hypocracy knows no bounds.

Actually, when I started this thread, I was fairly determined not to mention my Grandmother. However, since the situation with her was what got me thinking hard about the question, to say that it colors my responses would be putting it lightly. I did, in fact, try to remove the hypothetical as far from my situation as possible, but the connection is this: It is the equating of the value of a zygote with the value of a fully developed human life that created this mess. It is the act of making that rather nebulous value judgement for everyone else, without an honest examination of how easily that judgement would be abrogated in your personal experience that galls.

The vast majority of people who are dying of degenerative diseases, cancers, faulty organs, etc., belong to someone. To expect that they and their loved ones accept decisions made by people who wouldn't be able to withstand the rigor of accepting that decision in their own lives is rather appalling, don't you think?

[Cail]

I thought about that after I typed it, and nearly removed it.

I simply don't know what sorts of stem cell research provide which results. I also, thatnkfully, am not in that situation yet. I was overly flippant in my reply (been reading more P.J.), and for that, I sincerely apologize.

But I also don't see the connection with your grandmother. A bum diagnosis (which does happen, medical science is far from perfect), and O2-depleted blood....Would she have benefited from stem-cell research (it sounds like no)? You didn't mention her age, but had the cancer been caught in time, would it have made a difference to her longevity?

Bush has botched a lot of things, and his approach to stem-cell research is a case in point. He is passionately against it, so much so that it's pissing you off, yet by watching the news and reading Newsweek, I know very, very little about the subject.

But I do know that there is no ban on the research. I think where the majority of your frustration comes from is the fact that the feds aren't funding it. Quite frankly they should be funding all but the embryonic research, because that is consistant with the "culture of life".

Now, as far as my smart-assed answer. You nailed me down a few weeks ago vis-a-vis stem-cell research and in vitro fertilization. Here's where I stand. A buddy of mine (his wifew, actually) just lost his third in vitro baby. They go two or three weeks, then spontaneously abort. Apparently, this is not uncommon. I was on the fence before on in vitro, now I'm not. His wife is borderline suicidal because she's blaming herself for the loss of the children (twins, the last ones). He's rapidly drinking himself into a coma. The technology isn't there. Moreover, in vitro is akin to playing God, and the results can be rotten. I'm beginning to believe that when your body tells you you can't have kids, it's best to listen.

The best compromise I can give you on stem-cell research is that the existing embryos ought not go to waste. All other research should continue. Right now, the government choses not to fund it. So be it, the research isn't banned, and won't be. I don't know what I'd do if I had to make a life-or-death decision about a loved one, especially my daughter.

I do know that you and I define life differently. Even though I don't agree with your opinion, I understand where you're coming from, and I respect your opinion, hopefully you understand and respect mine as well.

[Plissken]

Oh, I see the disconnect - The connection for me are the feelings I had upon seeing my Grandma "whole" again - at least as far as her mind goes. Watching her shuffle around, quietly confused, with her Alzhiemer-like symptoms, and being helpless to do anything but watch her deterioration - that was awful. Having her back, sharp as a tack is is much better.

Much of the benefit of stem-cell research is found with the treatment of Parkinson's and Alzhiemer's patients - but cord and marrow stem-cells are too far along their "decision-making process" (please understand - I'm a layman, so much of my description of the science would probably make a scientist cringe!) to be teased into becoming brain-cells. By holding up the creation and experimentation of embrionic stem-cells, we are effectively increasing the numbers of people who have to suffer from these types of diseases.

My limited understanding is that embryonic stem-cells haven't yet differentiated as to what type of cells they're going to be, making them the most useful type of cell to treat delicate brain-related issues. I suppose our most basic argument goes back to the one on whether or not a collection of cells that haven't even decided if they're going to be a bit of toenail or a synapse could be considered a person, but regardless: There's good information to be found on NPR - there are regular reports on this science, especially on the "Science Friday" program. (Try it out before the new Bush Appointee Chairman of Public Broadcasting makes good on his stated pledge to make PBS news reporting more "Fair and Balanced." Growl.)

As for your apology, as far as I'm concerned, please don't bother yourself about it. I think we've been doing this long enough to know that the mutual respect is assured, no matter how flippant we get.

Besides, can you imagine how crippled my posts would be if I couldn't get a little flippant every now and again? I'm not about to berate you for the same thing!

I'm sorry to hear about your friends loss. Losing a hoped-for child is a horrible burden. To bear it repeatedly must be maddening.

[Cail]

I still think I'm missing something. Your grandmother doesn't have Alzheimer's, the symptoms of her Cancer were mimicing it, correct? That being the case, the research wouldn't have helped her, an earlier, correct Cancer diagnosis would have. Unless you're saying that embryonic stem-cell research will lead to a cure for Cancer.

Am I misunderstanding you?

As I think I said in the topic in The Tank, I'm really torn up on this issue. I hate to come down with the Fundies on this issue because curtailing science, especially medical science just seems so counter-intuitive. I just can't reconcile the fact that we're taking some lives, some completely innocent and unaware lives, for the greater good.

I cannot get over that hurdle, and therefore am forced to support a position that I don't agree with 100%.

[Plissken]

Stem-cells won't save Grandma, but the sooner we make it so that those families who are actually afflicted with diseases such as Alzhiemer's never have to spend years feeling the way my family has, the better.

I'm sorry for not being more clear. I have a tendency to shy away from any phrasing that sounds to Hallmark Channel-y, and "I want to make sure that no-one else has to feel like I did, or suffer the way Grandma has!" seems embarrasingly near that zone.

[ur-bane]

Cail and Plissken.....I hate to break up the flow like this....but I must say that the last 2 pages of this discussion have been great. Thank you both for a most enlightening and civil conversation.

Plissken...I am glad to hear that your Grandmother was properly diagnosed at the last, and you can spend quality time with her now.

Sorry for the off-topic blurb, but I thought it deserving.

[Brinn]

This thread has taken an interesting turn. I applaud you both for some insightful comments that got me thinking. After thinking this through some and trying to follow certain trains of thought to their logical conclusions it seems to always come back to the same question: At what point is a life a "life" and worthy of protection?

Hypothetically again, If the only way to save a loved one was through the harvesting of certain organs, cells, body parts etc...from a fully developed living clone, would that be permissible? If so why? I assume the answer would be because said clone is out of the womb and functioning thus qualifying it as human life. Now scale this back and answer the same question but instead of a fully formed clone substitute an 8 month fetus. Is that permissable? How a bout a 2 month fetus? And so the progression continues until we're talking about the twenty zygotes.

IMHO it's always that slippery slope argument. I don't think there's any way the two sides can be completely reconciled but that doesn't mean that a compromise can't be achieved. Just my $.02.

And thanks again for the interesting reading.

[Fist and Faith]

(After all, more zygotes could be "made" that would potentially have the ability to offer possible cures for that same wasting disease.)

A very telling point, as far as I'm concerned. More zygotes can always be "made". More people, more individuals, can't.

Sure more individuals can be made; by letting zygotes grow.

Actually, I do know how you meant it, but I can't help thinking that every single zygote is an individual, and that each would, given the opportunity, grow into a unique person.

And I suppose, as Brinn was saying, we could all debate endlessly on exactly when it stops being a zygote, and becomes a human. My stance in these matters is that we should always start by giving anybody or anything equal rights and privileges, and then, if anyone thinks it should be otherwise for some group, let them try to convince us. The aliens in AlienNation; the genetically enhanced folks in Dark Angel; homosexuals; etc. I don't want to know why we should protect the obviously-not-yet-human zygotes, but why we shouldn't protect the only things that can become humans.

Personally, I don't know where to draw the line with this. Unlike the other groups I listed, zygotes are not aware, thinking beings. OTOH, they hold a completely unique position in the universe - a position that humanity absolutely cannot survive without.

[Avatar]

Wow. Just wanna add my (appreciation/enjoyment/approbation/all that good stuff/whatever) and say that those were really fantastic posts guys.

Glad you knew what I meant Fist, which was, obviously, that they wouldn't grow into the same people as the ones who were lost.

And for me, that is, and always will be, the thing. Humanity cannot survive without zygotes, without embryo's and foetus'. That's absolutely true. But only in the sense of them as a biological process. The process, absolutely, of becoming a human being. But the loss or destruction of any one existing zygote/embryo will not affect the survival of humanity per se, and nor is it the loss of an individual.

Every single zygote, holds the potential to become an individual. That's unarguable. But they are not individuals yet. They will not be individuals without the successful completion of numerous other process, under just the right conditions, ect.

Is humanity purely biological?

--Avatar

[Plissken]

Then there's the whole question of the "humanity" being attributed to all zygotes - every day, thousands of zygotes fail to complete their processes and their potential ends. Even in married, moral, Pro Life relationships, this end is often marked with this conversation:

Her: "Guess what, honey! I finally got my period!"
Him: "Oh, thank God! I was just starting to get worried!"

Am I wrong for finding irony in the fact that many of the same people who flush these budding cell collections down the drain with a sense of relief will show outrage when confronted by the news that scientists are using even less-developed cell collections, which have never even seen the inside of a womb, in the quest to save human lives?

PS - Thanks for the kind words, all! I know I'm at my best on this forum when Cail and I really start picking these issues apart. Also, thanks for thinking about Grandma. There are times when the sense of community feels especially strong here.