|
Even
as Thrasymachus blushed before Socrates, friends of wisdom had long pondered
the great questions that confront the human community in every age.
Even
in the days of Ancient Greece, methods had arisen to facilitate meaningful
exploration of questions of morality, ethics, justice, art, truth and beauty.
Ideas were proved under an umbrella of rules that helped separate the valid
from the fallacious.
Sadly,
we of the 21st Century, faced with such
questions, resort to sound bites, talk show hosts and the party line more than “thought
filled" dialogue.
Instead
of a refining examination of questions of morality surrounding today’s divisive
issues (war, capital punishment, abortion, stem cell research, poverty,
cessation of artificial life support, etc.) confronting us, we are inundated
with:
· Argumentum ad Populum: “70% of
Americans Support Stem Cell Research"
· Ad Consequentiam: “Tragic diseases
will be cured" or “The stem cells will be destroyed anyway"
· Ad Hominem: “He’s a conservative
Christian fundamentalist"
· Argumentum ad Baculum: “Several dozen
students supporting abortion rights encircled the sign-bearers, shouting
pro-choice slogans into a bullhorn. Some tried to bar a photographer from
access to the gruesome pictures." Seattle
PI, October 26, 2006
“At The Evergreen
State College in Olympia, young people spray-painted and punctured
their signs, scrawling "Sick lies, lies, lies" over a poster showing
a bloody fetus, its head caught in forceps and, apparently, screaming." Seattle PI, October 26,
2006
· Vincible Ignorance "These people
are not wanted. This is a pro-choice campus, and there isn't a place for them
here." Grant Mandarino quoted in the Seattle PI, October 26, 2006
"This is not going to change my mind, it's just
pissing me off." Dara McClary quoted in the Seattle PI, October 26,
2006
Much
of our society is ill prepared to participate in the exchange of ideas in a
manner worthy of the questions being asked. Unfortunately, rather than raising
the level of discourse, the 100 hour agenda set by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
short circuits the time tested methods of addressing issues of such
importance. Even as we rush to judgment
on the morally unaddressed questions of embryonic stem cell research,
scientists at Wake
Forest and Harvard
University Medical schools report success in harvesting stem cells from
amniotic fluid. Others report promising
results in collecting embryonic cells without destroying the embryo (Stem Cell News Could Intensify Political
Debate, Nicholas Wade, New York Times, August 24,2006).
Frequently,
those most vocal in advocating embryonic stem cell research misrepresent the
position of those opposing it. Being
pro-life I can still, consistently, support several forms of fetal stem cell
research including the previously mentioned techniques of recovering stem cells
from amniotic fluid or from an embryo without destroying it.
Being
pro-life I can, consistently, support in vitro fertilization, with strict
limits, such as fertilization and implantation of a limited number of embryos
for each attempt. (rather than fertilizing numerous eggs and discarding or
freezing the excess). I believe that
the excess blastocysts that now exist should be allowed to die as natural and
dignified a death as can happen under the current circumstances. They should be allowed to thaw and die
naturally or die of old age, but they shouldn't be used as the subject of
experimentation. Allowing a natural
death (again, as natural as can be accomplished under the circumstances)
proclaims the dignity with which we hold human life. Would you have supported experimentation on
Terri Schiavo, because of the good that might have derived from it?
The
strident pro embryonic research advocates need to discontinue mischaracterizing
the pro-life proponents by creating fallacious arguments. If you find that you need to resort to
arguments constructed with logical fallacies doesn't it suggest that you should
reconsider your premise?
Yes,
I fervently wish that Michael J Fox and others could be healed of their diseases
and injuries, but using "the good that could result from stem cell
research" as the justification for experimenting on and with human embryos
is well intentioned, it is also, never-the-less, an Ad Consequentiam
argument. That some small or large measure
of good is derived from an act doesn't necessarily justify the means of
achieving it.
Consider
the following hypothetical. Imagine that
I am the parent of a 6 year old boy who just lost his eyesight on the 4th of
July due to a fireworks accident. Now imagine that the doctors have told me
that I can spare my son a lifetime of blindness through a new miracle medical
technology involving corneal transplants. This new technology requires an
almost perfect genetic match to succeed and to accomplish the necessary degree
of genetic matching the doctors have proposed that my wife and I conceive a
child, carry it to term and a week before it's due date we surgically harvest
the corneas from the 39 week old fetus. We have the option of aborting the
fetus at that time or allow it to live minus any chance of sight.
Is it
moral to save my 6 year old son from a lifetime of blindness through the
proposed procedure? Is it more or less morally acceptable to abort the fetus or
allow it to grow up blind?
OK,
this is a bit extreme, let's say instead that they can perform the procedure on
the fetus at 38 weeks? Is it now morally acceptable?
OK,
still a close call, what about at 30 weeks? 20 weeks? At what point in time
does it become morally acceptable and what is it that occurs at that point in
time that sways it from being morally unacceptable to morally acceptable?
Recently,
we learned that The Abraham Center of Life in San Antonio is offering customized human
embryo’s for sale. Perhaps we have
avoided discussing the hard moral questions just a little too long.
We
need to raise the level of the discussion.
The masses once believed the earth was flat, and that slavery was moral. Just because the masses believe that embryonic
stem cell research is moral....doesn't make it so.
|
