Cruelty-Free Stem Cells
Good news. We can now get stem cells from embryos without destroying the embryos. While I see the “embryos = human life” argument as a bunch of semantic nonsense, this gets that issue off the table. We can get all the benefits of stem cell research without all the messy political fighting.
We’ll soon know whether the scientific community exagerrated the benefits of stem cells to win the political battle over federal funding.
August 24th, 2006 at 12:24 pm
Not completely solved.
You’ll still need to create genetically identical cells for most of the complex stem cell treatments, unless you want to risk Host-versus-graft disease (which is why the adult stem cell treatment bone marrow transplant usually require a genetically similiar donor). You can suppress the immune system enough for muscle treatments, but doing so for treatments of the brain or spinal cord is not likely possible. Unless you plan to commit to either/both theraputic or reproductive cloning…
We still got problems.
August 24th, 2006 at 12:38 pm
“While I see the “embryos = human life” argument as a bunch of semantic nonsense”
One more reader goes poof. Sorry Uncle.
August 24th, 2006 at 12:44 pm
Because, you know, reading content only from people you mostly agree with narrows your horizons and broadens the bias.
One has to wonder how you tolerated the dissent in the comments for so long.
August 24th, 2006 at 12:57 pm
heh. after crying for a link.
August 24th, 2006 at 12:57 pm
Well, Standard Mischief, BrutalHugger did just dismiss an entire viewpoint as semantic nonsense with a single quick sentence (although I don’t understand why SaysUncle is supposed to suffer for Brutal’s viewpoint).
I’d be a little worried when someone decided not only that it was okay for the government to legislate when life is worthwhile, but that any debates he or she disagreed with were ‘nonsense’. Doesn’t exactly encourage debate.
August 24th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
I want Cruelty-Free, Free-Range and Organic-Certified embryos. Oh hell just get me a dozen of the cheapest at Wal-Mart.
–
–
–
And didn’t we just have a few comments around here about paying attention to the post’s author on a group(ish) blog?
What saves me at Say Uncle is when I post I usually check the author to see who I’m talkin’ to.
August 24th, 2006 at 1:58 pm
A) If you dont read anyone you don’t agree with… Wow.
B) When you take out one of the 8 cells “for diagnostic tests, like for Down syndrome” or for male/female verification, or for blonde hair, or whatever you like… There is a problem to me. That coupled with abortion adds up to the ability to throw away any baby that isn’t to your liking.
C) I’m not an expert, but I thought adult stem-cells were better anyway.
August 24th, 2006 at 2:16 pm
Semantic nonsense is people arguing over whether a phrase (‘human life’) applies to to a tiny cluster of cells. There’s nonsense on both sides of that argument because there is no objective definition or standard by which to judge the issue.
The sentiment we attach to those cells is a purely a product of human emotion. It’s nostalgia. And that’s not to say it isn’t important, but just to recognize that different people are going to feel differently about blobs of cells. Arguing over those feelings is pretty pointless, which is why the libertarian in me says people should look to their own feelings and stop meddling in other people’s lives.
August 24th, 2006 at 2:26 pm
BH:
Would that it were that simple, but it isn’t. If rationality were any sizeable part of people’s opposition to embryonic stem cell research, there wouldn’t be any opposition. And how do you figure such research is “cruel?” I would think that for something to be considered “cruel,” there has to be someone or something capable of suffering to actually experience the “cruelty.” It’s no more “cruel” to perform research on a blastocyst that has no self-awareness, and no nervous system of any kind for that matter, than it is to, say, prune a tree (which arguably does more damage).
Now, from a religious standpoint, I can see how one might argue that it’s immoral or unethical (I think the case even for that is pretty slim, but I can at least see it), but that’s a separate question as to whether something is “cruel.” Cruelty and morality are not mutually exclusive, at least not from a Biblical perspective.
Reason:
A) Agreed.
B) Is the slippery slope really the best you can do?
C) Not really. There’s been more progress on that front primarily because we’ve been studying them longer and there are fewer barriers to studying them further; however, embryonic stem cells show far more potential, even if that potential will likely take a decade or longer to find practical application.
All:
Every time this subject comes up, I have to ask: Why do people get their panties all in a twist about embryonic stem cell research, yet remain suspiciously silent on in-vitro fertilization? It is, after all, the latter that creates all these embryos and thus dooms them to destruction (“murder”). A total ban on ESC research would not save even a single “life.” Not one! Yet that’s all anyone seems to care about, and I just don’t get it.
Apparently, “playing God” and “destroying life” are unacceptable for the purpose of improving or saving existing lives, but are totally acceptable for the purpose of creating new life.
And while we’re at it, why does it violate “God’s will” to artificially destroy an embryo or fetus in someone who got pregnant unintentionally, but not violate “God’s will” to artificially create one for someone whom God decided should be unable to conceive naturally?
August 24th, 2006 at 3:26 pm
I am always amazed that nutty right wingers (I’m a reformed nut job by the way) are against stem cells but are more than happy to execute someone. Is a “life” not a “life”? You cant be against abortion and stem cells but for capital punishment.
August 24th, 2006 at 4:00 pm
tgirsch, the “Cruelty-Free” bit was a joke. I don’t think it’s cruel, any more than I think sending my sperm off to die horrible little deaths is cruel or immoral.
August 24th, 2006 at 4:06 pm
And I’m always amazed at how liberals and some libertarians can blithely compare a baby in the womb with a cold-blooded killer.
As they say in Texas, some people deserve killin’. A baby does not. When was the last time a fetus was arrested and tried in the justice system?
August 24th, 2006 at 4:12 pm
Yeah, that one bugs me too. Seems a bit odd.
August 24th, 2006 at 4:17 pm
tgirsch:
B) Even if it was, you haven’t addressed it, let alone refuted it.
C) The fact remains that all we have from embryonic stem cell research are “promises” while the science that is not debated is producing “results”.
D) You never heard me saying I don’t have a problem with the creation of embryos that will be discarded.
One of the very few responsibilities that I’m willing to give the government is to protect the life, liberty, and property its citizens from aggressors, or at least to punish the aggressors when that life, liberty or property has been damaged. THAT is why I do believe it is necessary for the government to have some definition of what “life” is. I say it begins at conception. You may disagree. Some say that living in a “persistent vegitative state” isn’t life either. Maybe. The point is, unless we define life, how can we define murder which is the termination of innocent life?
That leads me to the simple rebuttal of Justin’s point. An unborn child is innocent, making his intentionally-caused death murder. A convicted rapist/murderer is not innocent, and thus his killing is not murder but justice.
So when does life begin? Conception? tgirsch would scoff at the idea. But does that mean that the baby is merely a “lump of flesh” until its head emerges? I believe such an assertion to be much more absurd than the former. Not having a clear-cut step in between, I would err on the side of being “extra protective” of life and advocate that government define life as beginning at conception.
If you disagree I won’t hate you. Please extend the same courtesy.
August 24th, 2006 at 4:49 pm
Actually, there is, but most pro ESC folks dismiss it out of hand because it’s decidedly inconvenient to their argument.
Ask any biologist when a new organism is generated during the reproductive cycle, and s/he will tell you that this occurs at conception because it is at that point when a new, unique genetic template is created. Since science tells us that our genetic code identifies and defines us, then it follows that the moment a new code is created, i.e. conception, a new organism is defined. This is simple science; no need to call on concepts such as soul, or self awareness.
Ahhh, but is this new organism a person? That’s where the semantic nonsense comes in. Since we can’t really argue that the embryo is not a unique organism, we shift the focus from identity, which is based on science, to “personhood,” which is based solely on expedience.
As for me, I stick with science rather than expedience. The one hard piece of evidence we have ties identity to conception. Since there’s no compelling reason to tie “personhood” to some other nebulous event, other than expedience, I hold that identity/personhood is set at conception along with all the other factors controlled by our unique genetic makeup.
As for the relative merits of ASC vs ESC, to date, ASC, particularly autologous cells, have resulted in multiple therapies for a wide variety of problems, while ESC, despite the overwhelming clamor, has resulted in exactly zero successful treatments. Despite tgirsh’s contention that they haven’t been studied enough, the biggest drawbacks associated with ESC therapies is inextricably tied to the very factor that makes some folks think they are a powerful tool; their flexibility. Yes, ESC can be coaxed into forming a wide multitude of tissues. So can ASC. The problem is that ESC tend to remain highly flexible, and gro in an uncontrolled fashion, resulting in masses of undistinguished tissue.
We call this cancer, and it’s one hell of a side effect. “I’ve got good news and bad news Mr. Fox. The good news is we’re successfully treating your Parkinson’s. The bad news is you’re gonna die of rampant cancer in 3 months.”
The other major issue standing in the way of successful ESC therapies is that they are not invisible to the immune system. In other words, any ESC therapy will face the same rejection hazards and immunosuppression problems as other tissue replacement therapies, giving it a markedly less rosy future than the ESC touts would have us believe.
And I happen to be against both abortion and capital punishment, but for widely different reasons.
Now, having said all that, if this research proves out, and ESCs can be harvested without killing the embryo, then that does remove my objections to ESC research. I’m still not bullish on the potential for successful therapies, given the major issues that need to be resolved, but if people want to try, go for it.
August 24th, 2006 at 4:50 pm
gattsuru Says:
I was at a get-together way out in the boonies with one of those enviro-rural-granola-sustainability-earthmotherfo… Anyway I made a mistake to mention that I would always remember the road that they lived on because it was state route 803 (transpose the 3 and the 8 and you get a common ammo caliber). That started a 30 minute conversation with this guy about guns, hunting, forms of county government, taxes, Virginia taxing areas (and how towns in VA are like their own little county), elected Sheriffs vs unaccountable appointed police chiefs, open carry laws (MD vs. VA vs WV), and back to firearms. Turns out the guy (her husband) I was talking to was an ex-cop and is currently the county magistrate. Earth mother didn’t even want to be in the same room with anyone talking guns. Like words themselves could kill. Of course, being a guy under the influence of one and a half beers, I didn’t figure I was making anyone uncomfortable until I reviewed things much later. Not very polite to scare your brothers guests, even if they are clueless.
Crime is down in every state with “right to carry”, How do ignorant people such as this even exist outside the urban bubble? Hell, even my brother (the host) who I can get to shoot skeet with me once a year isn’t all there on the freedom=guns thingy.
Whoops, I just dismissed an entire viewpoint as semantic nonsense with a few rambling sentences. Sorry about that.
August 24th, 2006 at 5:24 pm
I understand the emotion discomfort of abortion. But find it fairly easy to poke holes in the arguments on both sides–which make for what I consider good sport.
Some of my favorite questions:
If you think it’s within the legitimate powers of government to forbid abortion does that mean you think it is within the legitimate powers of government to mandate abortions?
If you think it’s acceptable to abort a fetus then do you think it’s acceptable for women to make a living from getting pregnant and aborting the fetus for sale to the medical community?
I love making people squirm.
August 24th, 2006 at 5:50 pm
Rich, the question is not when an organism is created. The question is when that organism is accorded the rights of a person. There’s no objective reason why the line between ‘bits of organic fluff’ and ‘person’ should be drawn at the ability to uniquely identify that bit of fluff. So, yeah, like it or not, the argument lives in the land of semantic nonsense. Science isn’t going to save us. It’s a religious issue, which is why nobody is ever going to agree on it.
Joe, there is no reality in which aborting fetuses for sale could be profitable, which means it won’t happen, which means we don’t need to worry abou it. I wouldn’t want to be governed by anybody who requires real-world rules to work universally in fantasy land.
August 24th, 2006 at 6:53 pm
“You cant be against abortion and stem cells but for capital punishment. ”
when stem cells start capping people, I will be for killing them too…those stem cell bastards.
of course, i would like to point out that without the right this new guilt free technology would not even exits.
They right gets what they want. The left gets what it wants (assuming it’s goal was not just to kill embryos, but actually advance technology)
August 24th, 2006 at 9:50 pm
“So when does life begin? Conception?” The (some) pope used to say it was conception plus three days. Just sayin’.
August 24th, 2006 at 11:02 pm
Dang, Joe. You’re cruel. =)
I think stem cell research is a good thing, however it can cross over into illegal/immoral territory easily enough. What needs to happen is for people to get off their party line and address the issue with common sense. Yeah, I know, might as well ask for
ElvisJim Morrison to be brought back from the dead, but still.Also, I never thought this would happen, but
I agree with Tom, and I think it is a dead-on assessment. Probably not for the same reasons, but hey.
God made us smart enough to figure out how to do these things, so to me, we’re OK in doing them. It’s that dang “free will” thing that folks seem to forget. It can be used as intended, or abused in any manner of ways.
Abortion for a medical reason? No problem. Abortion as retro-active birth control? Problem. Same with stem cells. Joe mentioned folks could make a living off fetus production. That’s just wrong, but there are enough “legitimate” ways to obtain what is needed.
Sorry you lost a reader, Unc. Guess some folks like life in a vacuum.
August 25th, 2006 at 4:52 am
BH:
I kinda figured, but the point needed to be made.
Captain Holly:
And I’m always amazed at how liberals and some libertarians can blithely compare a baby in the womb with a cold-blooded killer.
You’re right. The latter is capable of suffering, has self-awareness, and may have been wrongly convicted. There’s no comparison whatsoever.
But snark aside, I don’t think that execution is the proper analog here. “Collateral damage” is. It’s not the taking of life that “pro-lifers” tend to object to, after all — it’s the taking of innocent life. Which happens a hell of a lot in wars that “pro-life” types often support, and that sort of innocent-killin’ they don’t seem to mind terribly much (because, after all, we really didn’t mean to…).
Reason:
B: Because there’s barely any substance there to address. I don’t see why it necessarily follows that embryonic research — in particular research which removes cells from embryos without destroying the embryos — must lead to (or even likely leads to) “throwing away babies that aren’t to your liking.” That burden of proof, I contend, lands squarely on your shoulders. But right now, your position is no better (and, I’d argue, even worse) than that of those who say “more guns = blood in the streets.” In fact, I’ve often said that abortion advocates (pro and con) and gun advocates (pro and con) use virtually identical slippery-slope arguments, to their mutual discredit.
C: And if scientists thought like you do here, we’d still be powering everything with coal-fired steam engines. But your point is nonsense, anyway, since nobody is arguing that research on adult stem cells should somehow cease. Both avenues should be explored.
D: No, but I’ve never exactly heard you bitch about it. Given the opportunity to bitch about a relatively new development that would destroy exactly zero embryos that wouldn’t have otherwise been destroyed, you jumped right on it. But how many times have you openly condemned the IVF process, which currently and actively dooms hundreds if not thousands of embryos per year to destruction? If you can point me to angry posts calling for IVF to be banned (independent of the ESCR subject), and letters you’ve written to your representatives asking them to ban the practice, I’ll gladly apologize. But somehow, I doubt you’ve done any such thing — very few have, after all. Fact is, while IVF continues unhindered, almost no one gives it a second thought — and certainly no ink — while the possibility of ESCR gets talked about as if it’s akin to some sort of Nazi death camp.
The point is, unless we define life, how can we define murder which is the termination of innocent life?
Truth to tell, statutes have defined life for legal purposes. You just don’t much care for their definition. 🙂 In any case, you have to be careful how you make such definitions. If you define “life” in such a way that abortion is “murder,” then I don’t see how you avoid classifying a miscarriage as “manslaughter” — at least not while maintaining moral and legal consistency.
So when does life begin? Conception? tgirsch would scoff at the idea. But does that mean that the baby is merely a “lump of flesh” until its head emerges?
It may (or may not) surprise you to learn that I find both positions absurd. I’m frankly okay with life beginning at viability, the point at which a fetus could be delivered and survive independent of the woman carrying it. That point happens to be well after the vast majority of abortions occur, which is why I don’t have much of a problem with abortion. Although I’m willing to accept higher brain activity as the key criterion for “life,” which dovetails nicely with the end-of-life dicussions, too. If there’s no activity in those uniquely human parts of the brain — the frontal, and prefrontal lobes — or, if those parts of the brain simply don’t exist, then what we’re talking about isn’t really human life any more.
Swinging back around to embryonic issues, it’s even more cut and dry — the potential for human life is even slim to none at that point. Most such embryos will never grow into people, even if inserted into a uterus. And there’s certainly no brain or nervous system to experience pain, suffering, harm, etc. Just not there. So I’m not exactly sure who the “victim” is here. No, the only possible objection I see is religious in nature: if ensoulment happens at conception, then there is potential harm. But if that’s the case, then something like 50-80% of souls are “lost” just by natural causes (it’s estimated that this is the percentage of fertilized eggs that fail to implant in the uterus naturally).
rich:
The first gaping hole in your “new unique human genetic template = new life” definition is that it precludes, say, identical twins from being separate lives. They are, after all, non-unique human genetic templates. The second hole is that if your definition is to be accepted, vastly more “human lives” end naturally within a few weeks of conception, without the woman even knowing it happened, than from all abortions and embryonic research combined. You’ve just defined yourself into a human holocaust that makes the 1930’s and 1940’s look like a picnic.
Anyway, as you allude to, I don’t think anyone seriously argues that abortion (surgical, pharmacological, or spontaneous) doesn’t end a “life.” The question, instead, is whether or not this is a problem. We end lives all the time, often without any moral qualms — even human lives, even innocent human lives. So the question is not, and has never been, “Is it okay to end a human life?” but rather “When is it okay to end a human life?” To me, the answer to this lies not in whether said life is technically “human,” but whether said being is capable of suffering, especially human suffering (i.e., beyond just the ability to feel pain, the ability to experience and comprehend it).
When the innocent human lives being taken are Iraqi or Lebanese civilians (both groups quite capable of human suffering), for example, you don’t seem to lose too much sleep over it. But somehow, ending lives that neither have self-awareness nor any ability to experience anything, much less pain and suffering (scientific fact, by the way, not semantics), then this is a horrible crime worth decrying.
Finally, I’ve never understood that hand-wringing over the fact that ESCR has not yet provided any viable treatments, primarily because the hardcore opponents of ESCR would not change their opinions about it even if it had. And frankly, I think that this is why they fight so hard to block the research. They’re already outnumbered three-to-one in America by people who support it. All it would take is one breakthrough and their support becomes vanishingly small. So the procedure MUST be banned before that can happen.
Marc:
The (some) pope used to say it was conception plus three days. Just sayin’.
Actually, as recently as the nineteenth century, the official position of the Catholic Church was that ensoulment didn’t occur until “quickening” (the point at which the mother could feel her baby kicking), and abortion prior to that point was considered non-controversial and non-problematic. And let’s not even get started about Exodus 21… 🙂
Rustmeister:
I agree with Tom, and I think it is a dead-on assessment.
Stranger things have happened. Hell, I can think of at least three times when Xrlq and I have agreed on stuff! 🙂
And I’d make an edit:
Abortion for a medical reason? No problem. Abortion as retro-active birth control?
ProblemDepends upon the stage of pregnancy.Of course, I view it as something of a continuum: Early-term abortion is in many cases preferable than giving birth to a baby you’re unwilling or unable to care for; but EC is preferable to abortion; and preventing conception in the first place is preferable even to EC. (If you’re a certain type of Christian, you’d say that not having sex at all is preferable to contraception.) None of these options are necessarily immoral, but some are preferable to others for a myriad of reasons.
August 25th, 2006 at 8:51 am
“You cant be against abortion and stem cells but for capital punishment. ”
when stem cells start capping people, I will be for killing them too…those stem cell bastards.
Wow, I didnt realize that you and the fundies on the right have declared yourselves God? Who granted you the right to take a life? I say again, you cant be against abortion and for the death penalty. You cant be a Christian and be against abortion but for the death penalty. Start squirming. Not trying to hijack the thread w/death penalty but supposedly God forgives everyone, even killers…so who gives you the right to put a man to death?
August 25th, 2006 at 9:39 am
B) “Designer Babies”
C)I’m talking about cost/benefit. If the cost is (in my opinon) a life, and the benefit is not demonstrable (but an alternative is), then it doesn’t make sense. Now you see the cost in a different way, so I don’t blame you for having a different evaluation. I agree with your contention that “question, instead, is whether or not this [ending a life] is a problem.”
D) I’ve never read a post on someone else’s blog about IVF, so I’ve never commented on it. You won’t find any inconsistency on my part there.
E) “If you define “life” in such a way that abortion is “murder,” then I don’t see how you avoid classifying a miscarriage as “manslaughter” — at least not while maintaining moral and legal consistency.” I answered this before you asked it: “An unborn child is innocent, making his intentionally-caused death murder.” Any case in which manslaughter charges would apply to a person outside the womb would apply in the same way to a person inside the womb.
F) Killing a baby for the sake of convenience – problem. Unintentionally killing civilians in pursuit of destroying an ememy who specifically targets civilians – not so much a problem.
Good discussion, I appreciate the exercise.
August 25th, 2006 at 12:50 pm
Hijack away. I’m sure Uncle doesn’t mind the traffic and extra comments, especially since he sold out with those web ads.
You seem to be laboring under the common liberal delusion that Jesus was a pacifist hippie who didn’t have a violent, judgemental bone in his body. Hardly. This was a man who not once but twice made a whip out of rope and physcially assaulted merchants who were selling things inside the Temple Grounds in Jerusalem.
Yes, God forgives people. But this same God also gave people commandments to follow, and detailed penalties for when people fail to follow them. And in some cases, the penalty was death; indeed, Jesus didn’t say one word against the death penalty per se.
The idea that a developing baby is morally equivalent to a convicted killer is ludicrous. The baby has done nothing to deserve killing other than to exist at an inconvenient time. The killer, OTOH, has been arrested, tried, convicted by a jury of his peers, and had his case thoroughly reviewed by several layers of courts. He is being put to death not because he merely exists, but because he has committed a crime for which society as a whole (and not just “fundies on the right”) has determined merits the death penalty.
You can claim that the death penalty is unjust, cruel and unusual, or poorly applied. But to say it’s immoral because God has forbidden unnecessary killing (incidentally, the phrase “Thou shalt not kill” is more accurately translated as “Thou shalt not murder”) is idiotic. Executing a murderer is not anywhere close to being the same as aborting a baby, other than a human being dies.
August 25th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
Sorry, Justin, I just don’t see the death penalty and abortion as analogous situations at all. And I would no sooner ask somebody’s god for guidance on these matters than I’d ask a three-year-old what his imaginary friend thinks.
I’m against the application of the death penalty for a variety of reasons. None of those reasons have much to do with abortion.
August 25th, 2006 at 4:23 pm
Typical fundamentalist double speak (Personally as a “cafeteria” Catholic I dont care for abortion but I believe it should stay legal…I’m also against the death penalty.) Comparing Christ getting pissed at money changers with putting a man to death is a laughable argument. I love to see you people get all fucking wired up over abortion with your conflicting doctrine re: the death penalty. Ask any educated biblical scholar that wasnt force fed the Kool Aid in a Baptist mega church about the differences between taking a life in the womb and “old Sparky”.
August 25th, 2006 at 4:31 pm
Reason:
B) Your link is no good, but I hardly think it’s relevant. You want to ban that sort of abortion, I’m all for it, just as I don’t necessarily mind banning non-medically-necessary late-term abortions. The problem in your reasoning is that you assume that if we allow anything we must allow everything. And that doesn’t get into relative demand and other cost/benefit factors.
C) The cost is a “life” that is, for all intents and purposes, dead already. And, as I have repeatedly stated, it’s a life that’s less capable of suffering than your daughter’s pet spider.
D) No, but that’s not my point. My point is that if ESCR is as grave an injustice as you seem to believe, then IVF is orders of magnatude more grave (and orders of magnatude more harmful). And if that’s the case, you don’t get to hide behind “I didn’t complain about it because nobody brought it up.” The truth seems to be that most ESCR opponents don’t even really seem to care about IVF — they certainly don’t make an issue out of it — until someone brings up the point I did, at which point, they post hoc claim “oh, yeah, I oppose that, too.” Actions speak louder than words, and the lack of action against IVF speaks volumes about the moral and ethical inconsistency of ESCR opponents.
E) Every miscarriage would have to be investigated for evidence of foul play or negligence. And women who didn’t take as good of care of themselves as they should have would, it seems to me, need to be subject to prosecution.
F) “Unintentionally killing civilians” — I think you’re far too lenient here. It’s not that the killing of civilians is unintentional; they may not be specifically targeted but the actions that result in their deaths are quite deliberate, and it’s generally known that civilians will be killed. It’s often even known roughly how many will be killed, and it’s often known that more innocent civilians than bad guys will be killed. You can call that what you want, but it ain’t “unintentional” by any stretch.
Cap’n Holly:
Jesus didn’t say one word against the death penalty per se.
Yeah, because “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” was a one-time only pardon, with no greater lesson to be learned, and no wider significance whatsoever. In fact, the entire incident was a total throwaway. In fact, with all of the dozens of incidents of Jesus advocating the death penalty in particular, and the use of violence in general, I fail to see how anyone could ever mistake Jesus for a pacifist.
/sarcasm.
Executing a murderer is not anywhere close to being the same as aborting a baby, other than a human being dies.
You’re right, of course, except that according to scripture (specifically Exodus 21), an unborn baby is not the same thing as “a life.”
You are also correct in pointing out that scripture is correctly translated as “shalt not murder.” Now, if you’ll kindly point out anywhere that scripture explicitly defines abortion as “murder,” you’ll really be on to something. I suspect you’ll find it very difficult to do, however. And I’ve already pointed to one passage that seems to say quite the opposite.
To threadjack a threadjack, you’ll find a lot of on-line debate as to the translation of that Exodus passage. The traditional translation has been “miscarries” or “has a miscarriage,” and in more recent translations, this has been replaced with “gives birth prematurely,” for what should be obvious reasons. Neither translation is quite correct, although the former is closer to accurate than the latter. The most accurate literal translation would be something like “the baby comes out,” but it’s generally agreed that this baby would be dead. Indeed, even if one grants the ill-founded “gives birth prematurely” translation, you have to remember that in Mosaic times, premature birth meant certain death. The passage, put into simple English, establishes that if the unborn baby dies, the guilty party pays a fine to the father, but if the pregnant woman dies or is harmed, a different (higher) standard applies, namely the “life for life, eye for eye” stuff.
August 25th, 2006 at 5:12 pm
While I don’t want to turn Uncle’s blog into a Bible study group, it is quite typical of liberals to pay attention to the first part of the line in this story “he who is without sin” and completely ignore what he said afterwards “Go, and sin no more.”
The incident in question was a set-up from the start, and the Savior knew it. The Pharisees had brought a woman caught in the act of adultery to Him and in effect tried to get Him to either order her stoned — thus allowing them to accuse Him of subverting Roman rule, since the Romans had claimed exclusive authority for administering the death penalty — or let her go, allowing them to claim to the people that He was ignoring the Law of Moses.
Furthermore, they weren’t following the Mosaic law themselves, as it required that both parties to the adultery be judged together. So instead of playing their game, He curtly pointed out that based on their conduct they weren’t fit to be either judges or executioners in this case — much as a modern-day judge would throw out a criminal case that was based solely on gross police misconduct.
But He didn’t invalidate the death penalty for adultery, only the corrupt application thereof.
As to your lengthy discussion Exodus, I didn’t use the Bible in my point about abortion and the death penalty. I was criticizing the moral equivalence of comparing the killing of a helpless baby to that of a justly-convicted killer. Even without the Bible, most reasonable people would admit that these two things are definitely not alike. If you think they are, then using the same logic you must also admit that killing an assailant in self-defense or going to war to save your country are the same as having an elective abortion or executing a convicted killer. And if that’s your position, good luck.
August 25th, 2006 at 5:21 pm
So, enlighten me, are you claiming that such scholars will say there’s no difference? Because if so, then you’ve undermined your own position: If executing a prisoner is morally wrong, then aborting a fetus is also morally wrong.
But then if killing a baby that in about 99% of abortions has done nothing more than be conceived at an inconvenient time is okay, why then is it somehow wrong to kill someone who has been tried, convicted, and sentenced according to laws passed by democratically-elected representatives of the people?
August 25th, 2006 at 5:37 pm
Im against the death penalty until we can somehow 100% guarantee that the person we are killing is guilty. Until that day comes I’m very much against it. I get pissed off when those who are against abortion are more than happy to throw the switch on Bubba who whacked his wife with a steak knife. They use the excuse “they knew what they were doing and had a choice” vs the biblical (hell, toss out religion and just say “moral” if it makes you feel better) belief that all life is given a beginning and end by God and only God and no man has any “say so” in the matter.
August 25th, 2006 at 7:18 pm
Captain Holly:
it is quite typical of liberals to pay attention to the first part of the line in this story “he who is without sin” and completely ignore what he said afterwards “Go, and sin no more.”
And quite typical of conservatives to completely ignore who does and does not get to make such a judgment. (Hint: As God, Jesus can; the angry crowd was chided for doing so.) Not to mention that you ignore the implicit lesson of forgiveness. Here I thought we were supposed to follow Jesus’ example. You’ll be hard pressed to find any examples of Jesus either killing someone, or calling for someone else’s execution.
The incident in question was a set-up from the start, and the Savior knew it.
A set-up which he could have easily gotten around simply by pointing out, as you did, that the commandment prohibits murder, not execution. The fact that he chose, instead, to make this a lesson in forgiveness should tell us something. Of course, all that stuff about “corrupt application of the law” is simply post-hoc rationalization. Jesus doesn’t say a word about any of it.
Your legalistic rationalizations aside, the lesson of John 8 ought to be crystal clear: As sinners ourselves, we are unfit to judge the sins of others (a message he also gives in Matt 7). And there’s no more harsh form of judgment than execution. You can try to explain that away, but your explanation is simply not supported by the scripture. Jesus’ ministry was scrupulously non-violent, and he chided his followers for resorting to violence on more than one occasion.
I was criticizing the moral equivalence of comparing the killing of a helpless baby to that of a justly-convicted killer.
I also reject that moral equivalence argument. I just come down on the opposite side of it as you. I have never argued that they are alike. And I notice that you’ve just added the “justly” qualifier. Since we are not omniscient (only God is, I’m told), we can never be sure that a killer has been “justly” convicted. Thus, every execution is potentially the killing of an innocent.
As to not using the Bible, what, then, shall we use to determine God’s will, if not God’s word? And if you weren’t using the Bible, where the hell did this come from?
incidentally, the phrase “Thou shalt not kill” is more accurately translated as “Thou shalt not murder”
Oh, that’s right, the giant stone thingy in front of the courthouse. 🙂
And you’re still missing the point that a fetus with no higher brain function and no ability to suffer is far from the same thing as a fully-formed human being, such as a convicted killer. Still less an embryo without so much as a nervous system of any kind. Hell, you’ve not only conceded that point, you’ve repeatedly underscored it in trying to dispel a moral equivalence argument I haven’t made.
Actually, I thought my position on this was quite conservative-to-libertarian: no victim, no crime. It’s pretty damn hard to describe a blastocyst as a “victim,” at least not without seriously diluting the meaning of “victim.”
August 26th, 2006 at 6:31 pm
Yeah, because we all know anyone who doesn’t advocate stoning adultresses to death must be against lethal injections for serial killers, too. And not only against lethal injections, mind you, but against any punishment whatsoever beyond giving the guy a brief time out, and telling him to go and sin no more.
August 26th, 2006 at 10:57 pm
Xrlq:
Hey, I’ll be happy to retract just as soon as you show me where Jesus ever explicitly endorses the death penalty or calls for anyone’s execution.
Cap’n Holly claimed Jesus said “not one word” about the death penalty. John 8 proves him wrong.
August 26th, 2006 at 11:36 pm
Can’t speak for the captain, but I do have a sneaking suspicion that when he said Jesus had said not one word about the death penalty, he might have meant Jesus has said not one word about the morality of having a death penalty for capital crimes as we know them today. Jesus does come close to endorsing that by omission, when one of the guys he was crucified mouthed off, and the other responded that it was perfectly just for those two to be executed, just not Jesus. Jesus responded by telling the death penalty supporter he’d join him in heaven later that day, but did not bother to correct him on his view that the death penalty was just. Then again, he probably figured it wasn’t worth the effort, seeing as the guy would be dead before the next election anyway.
August 27th, 2006 at 12:31 am
X:
Then again, he probably figured it wasn’t worth the effort, seeing as the guy would be dead before the next election anyway.
Heh.