Stem Cell Debate at Harvard

Freedom's Ring ^ | February 23, 2005 | Leroy Garrett/Cecil Hook

[hocndoc]

Of course, the Princeton professor is Robert P. George, one of the true geniuses of today, and a member of the President's Bioethics Council.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

One professor insisted that since the embryo has neither a heart, lungs, brain or nervous system it is irrational to view it as a human being.

What an ignoramus bonehead. And people actually take out mortgages to pay for this as "education"? Amazing. What liberal garbage!

[hocndoc]

Please read and ping!

[PaxMacian]

Psalm 139:13-16
For thou hast
possessed my reins:
thou hast covered me
in my mother's womb.
I will praise thee;
for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works;
and that my soul knoweth right well.
My substance was not hid from thee,
when I was made in secret,
and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect;
and in thy book all my members were written,
which in continuance were fashioned,
when as yet there was none of them.

[Mr. Silverback]

ProLife Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Genocide ping.

[MHGinTN]

Reading this ... will be back shortly.

[edsheppa]

and is not to be used as a means to an end, not even good ends such as curing diseases or saving other human life.

Mr. George makes many good arguments, but on this one he is wrong. Taking life can be justified. One cannot be pro-life and conclude otherwise. Anyone who, for example, would not sacrifice one person to save ten isn't pro-life IMO. Certainly it would be an agonizing decision, but to do otherwise is moral cowardice.

But the key point is that taking life (or any other action for that matter) must be justified. All outcomes and alternatives must be weighed. IMO, embryonic stem cell research is not justified at this time except on existing cell lines as the president has determined.

[edsheppa]

BTW, do you know of any books or articles by Mr. George? I search Amazon but didn't find any.

[TAdams8591]

Ping!

[hocndoc]

I disagree. That way lies polgroms, genocide and the tyranny we face in abortion on demand and unrestricted (except in funding) embryonic research.

The only legitimate reason to kill is to prevent the one killed from killing, and then only if there is no other way to prevent the killing. No "ifs," "ands," and "buts." That is the meaning of "inalienable."

However, we humans are not perfect. We do not have omniscience, and often do not see the present as it is. So, we make mistakes, there is "collateral damage," and even the death penalty and war can be justified (as well as condemned) by our fallibility. Our fallen-ness.

[jwalsh07]

Personally, I would have saved the little girl and the embryos, the idiot professor would be on his own.

[jwalsh07]

Mr. George makes many good arguments, but on this one he is wrong. Taking life can be justified. One cannot be pro-life and conclude otherwise. Anyone who, for example, would not sacrifice one person to save ten isn't pro-life IMO. Certainly it would be an agonizing decision, but to do otherwise is moral cowardice.

He addresses your hypothetical in the article by making distinctions between social and moral choices one may have to make. ANd he does it quite well.

[hocndoc]

Professor George wrote "Clash of Orthodoxies." He is also quoted quite a bit on the website of the President's Bioethics Council.

I first became aware of Prof. George when he debated stem cells with Ron Bailey (and with the aide of Patrick Lee) in National Review.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-george072001.shtml

Here's a page with more links and reviews:

http://www.ajgoddard.net/Writers/Robert_P__George/robert_p__george.html

[Lizavetta]

Is there anyone here on FR who believes non-embryonic stem cells will eventually lead to a cure for diabetes? This is not a firebomb question....I really want to know.

[hocndoc]

Here's another argument that Professor George makes well, from a "First Things" symposium on "Killing Abortionists: A Symposium."

http://www.ajgoddard.net/Writers/Robert_P__George/robert_p__george.html
""I am personally opposed to killing abortionists. However, inasmuch as my personal opposition to this practice is rooted in a sectarian (Catholic) religious belief in the sanctity of human life, I am unwilling to impose it on others who may, as a matter of conscience, take a different view. Of course, I am entirely in favor of policies aimed at removing the root causes of violence against abortionists. Indeed, I would go so far as to support mandatory one-week waiting periods, and even nonjudgmental counseling, for people who are contemplating the choice of killing an abortionist. I believe in policies that reduce the urgent need some people feel to kill abortionists while, at the same time, respecting the rights of conscience of my fellow citizens who believe that the killing of abortionists is sometimes a tragic necessity-not a good, but a lesser evil. In short, I am moderately pro-choice.

Robert P. George is Professor of Politics at Princeton University and author, most recently, of Making Men Moral: Civil Liberties and Public Morality.""

[The Mayor]

Great article, Thanks for the ping!

The Mrs will want to read this..

[TAdams8591]

"He could hardly believe that some scientists keep saying that the embryo is but part of the mother's body when there is no scientific support for such a view."

Remarkable. Even those versed in only the basics of Biology KNOW this. I suggest the professors also know but choose to lie about it to achieve their personal political agendas.

[edsheppa]

That way lies [pogroms], genocide ...

Well, I suppose such could be justified but the conditions would obviously have to be most extreme. One could imagine, for example, a religious sect given to terror tactics and who have demonstrated the capacity to do it. A pogrom against this sect would be justified. But perhaps not - you need to look at the alternatives.

[The only legitimate reason to kill is to prevent the one killed from killing] vs. [and even the death penalty and war can be justified ... by our fallibility]

That is an incoherent argument.