Mario Cuomo spoke on the stem cell debate in a NY Times editorial. He's reaching for a rational reconsideration of the religious and ethical issues Dubya says motivated his decision to limit federal funding of certain lines of research. This is offered as a favor to Mr.Bush, as he's backed himself into a moral corner.
Although Mr. Bush believes that destroying an embryo is murder, he refuses to demand legislation to stop commercial interests that are busily destroying embryos in order to obtain stem cells. If their conduct amounts to murder as the president contends, it is hardly satisfactory for him to say he will do nothing to stop the evil act other than to refuse to pay for it.
Mr. Cuomo suggests a panel of "respected scientists, humanists and religious leaders" be assembled to review the relevant material. This, of course, will fail miserably to resolve the issue. Each side...and sadly, this time there are sides rather than a spectrum of positions...would have to be open to reconsidering their current position. Those on the science side of the debate do so as a matter of course. Those on the faith side of this particular debate refuse to do so as a matter of course, and this is one of the rare times where I will say the religious side is wrong...as in incorrect, not evil..for doing so.
The belief that ensoulment happens at the moment of conception is more than challenged, it is denied by in-vitro fertilization technology. This thought first occurred to me when I found out fertilized eggs are examined for defects by removing a cell at a very early stage of development.
Fertility doctors have known for years that early embryos seem unfazed by the removal of any one of their eight virtually identical cells, called blastomeres. In fact, it is common today to remove a single, representative blastomere from a laboratory-conceived embryo and test that cell for disease genes before deciding whether to transfer that embryo into a woman's womb.
My immediate, rather cynical, reaction was, "Wow, how do you get into heaven with one eighth of your soul gone?"
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Victor Plenty
Your arguments here do not prove anything, especially not to people who believe in the soul.
Removing one of the eight cells from an early embryo proves nothing. If my legs had to be amputated for some reason, more than one-eighth of my body mass would be lost. Nonetheless, every person who believes I have a soul now will believe I'd still have a soul after losing my legs. So they will never interpret the loss of one cell from an eight-cell embryo to be the same as having "one eighth of your soul gone." Only a person who doesn't believe in souls would interpret it that way.
Freezing embryos proves nothing. Future technology may enable us to freeze, and then later thaw out without harm, adult human beings. Yet every person who believes in souls will believe these frozen adults continue to have souls. So it's no challenge at all for them to believe frozen embryos still have souls.
If these questions could be resolved by arguments as simplistic as the ones you make here, they would not be controversial.
2 - TBJ
Hey, I got a question. Why should "religious leaders" be allowed into any of these meetings? What happened to the division of church and state?
I am being sarcastic.
3 - P6
Like I said, people will insist the physical reality doesn't matter.
I'm perfectly willing to accept that life begins when a sperm cell touches an egg cell at all. But you, in turn, must accept that thousands, at least, of human souls are trapped in frozen corpses, never to experience life, and your president does nothing to prevent the commercial exploitation thereof. You must accept that every religion,every church that doesn't openly combat the freezing of embryos and demand the bringing to term of every cell fertilized in an in vitro process is accepting murder on a grand scale. And that every person who was involved in an in vitro fertilization the ended with a single disposed fetus is a murderer or accomplice to murder.
THAT is simple, and undeniable repercussion of the combination of life beginning at conception and in vitro fertilization. Fortunately, the science doesn't put you all in that position.
That's an argument? That science fiction may come true?
When an embryo is frozen, the suck out water and replace it with antifreeze. If they did not freeze it at that point,all biological activity would cease irreversibly anyway.
This is all controversial because people cling to positions developed with a lack of knowledge. And as I said, there's nothing in the facts that requires anyone to give up or change their behavior.
Unless truth is a problem.
4 - P6
And please note: the "one eighth of a soul" was a snark, not an arument...hence "my first, rather cynical, thought."
5 - Victor Plenty
Ah, someone claiming their own personal and poorly supported opinions as the sole source of "truth."
For some reason this tactic doesn't persuade me any more easily when it's used in the name of science than when it's used in the name of religion.
6 - P6
What did I write that was opinion, much less unsupported?
7 - P6
I could do the religious argument, you know (like, what was created first, Adam's body or Adam's soul?) but there would be all manner of head explosions. My saying the Pope is fallible (can you say Gallileo children?) is bad enough.
8 - Terri
I'm curious if all these "life begins at conception" & "IVF leads to murder" people have ever experienced infertility.
I grew up and was raised Catholic. As an adult, I have pretty much renounced my Catholic faith for several reasons, too numerous to mention here. I consider my self pro-choice and pro death penalty if the situation warrants it - so no hypocrisy there. I also suffer from infertility.
If it weren't for research on embryos, millions of women today would be childless. When I went through IVF (twice), I gladly signed the consent form to have any spare embryos donated for research. So, go ahead and label me a murderer. I can live with that if it gives someone else a better chance to have a child.
If you start the argument that life begins at conception, what do you say to the person who has several miscarriages? Are they murderers too?
When the sperm meets the egg, what is formed is a blastocyst - a jumble of undefined cells that have the capacity of life. It does not have organs, it does not have a brain - only the possibility of those things. If we adhere to the belief that these jumble of cells are a living entity because of their possibilies - then shouldn't the sperm and egg itself adhere to the same belief - each one has the possibility to create life. So are men murderers of possible life every time they wank off? Are women unkowing murderers every time they menstruate? If you follow the "logic" then these are possible conclusions. Do we really want to go there???
9 - P6
I would never do that.
My own position is that a fetus is not an individual life until it can support life independently. And religions can declare abortion an abomination, they just have to do it on the basis of faith, not some pretense of scientific objectivity.
10 - P6
Frankly, yes.
Let people deal with their contradictions or resolve them...but no one should expect me (in particular) to ignore them. They always have the option to ignore me.
11 - Nancy
I have a question I hope isn't too personal, & does NOT involve religion at all: what was the impetus to breed, yourself, instead of considering adoption as a viable alternative? Why did you feel impelled to go thru all this just to end up having a child of your own genetics? Are your genetics that good? Was there family pressure? I'm curious why this particular venue & not another. Please excuse if it's too intrusive. Thanks.
12 - P6
The question is personal, but the answer isn't. Reproduction is one of life's imperitives. It's a demand created by the very structure of your body, an amoeba's body and every living thing in between.
The details of my personal case are straightforward too. I was 19, in love with (no exaggeration) one of the five most stunning women it the world at that time. We had sex, she got pregnant and chose to keep the child. We raised the kid.
But yeah, my genetics are that good.
13 - P6
I need to not push that post button so fast.
Because as annoyed as any number of folks get with my drive-bys there WILL be serious responses. Because the site is visible enough. And I have chosen other venues...my own site, for one (I had to fix the link in the post, I didn't realize it was broken...) and at The Ametican Street (same as the item posted at my site, so you only have to click one,and only if you're curious.)
14 - Nancy
No, no: sorry. Misunderstanding. I was under the impression you had problems w/infertility. Therefore, I wondered why you went thru all the business of the tests & jumping thru all the hoops in order to have kids yourself, when plenty are available for adoption or fostering.
15 - Nancy
The 'venue' I was referring to was the venue of artificial implantation or in vitro, as opposed to simple adoption.
16 - P6
Maybe I picked up a question directed at someone else.
17 - Victor Plenty
Your opinion: "... ensoulment requires a physical vehicle capable of supporting life."
You have given no compelling reasoning to show this statement must be true. All you have stated are reasons you feel it would be emotionally disturbing if anything else turned out to be true.
Your arguments to support those emotional reactions, no matter how effective they may be for bolstering your own personal beliefs, do not have any relevance to the underlying truth of the matter. The question of whether or not humans even have souls at all, much less the question of when they get their souls, remains completely unresolved by anything you have written here.
18 - Dave Nalle
Who cares if embryos have souls or for that matter if souls even exist? Well, some deluded people may care and argue for as long as scholastic philosophers argued how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. But you're never going to be able to prove it one way or another, and in the absence of proof the issue falls into the secular jurisdiction.
As for when life begins, we've been overvaluing life for years now. In the ancient world when abortion was difficult people just left their unwanted babies out in the wilderness for wild animals to eat - or occasionally adopt - as soon as they were born. Abortion is at least an improvement over that practice.
Dave
19 - Shark
re. Dave chimes in --
heh.
Just 'heh.'
=======
VIctorPlenty: "...whether or not humans even have souls at all, much less the question of when they get their souls, remains completely unresolved by anything you have written here."
...or will ever read anywhere, anytime.
BTW: One has to define "soul" -- which ought to lead to an infinite downward spiral into a linguistic sorta hell.
20 - Duane
Shark says: One has to define "soul."
"Soul is fundamentally rhythm and blues, which grew out of the African-American gospel and blues traditions during the late 1950s and early 1960s in the United States. Over time, much of the broad range of R&B extensions in African-American popular music, generally, also has come to be considered soul. Traditional soul usually features individual singers backed by a traditional band consisting of rhythm section and horns."
21 - Silas Kain
From Genesis: "...then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being."
I don't believe that a spirit dwells within the body until the first breath is taken in. Perhaps I am being naive. I've always felt that a fetus was just something biological until separated from the mother and able to be an individual.
22 - P6
I didn't try.I said "most likely."
What I did was layoutthe inevitabilities. Other folks said it was "emotionally disturbing."
I invite YOU to give a possibility other than those I described.
23 - P6
Dave, next time someone says you're an extremist, send them to me.
24 - Shark
Duane, thanks for defining 'soul'. I guess that implies it's okay to kill Cher -- but not okay to kill Keb Mo.
I LIKE IT! I LIKE IT!
[Shark running to fetch his gun...]
25 - Shark
BTW:
The great Bill Hicks said:
"A fetus isn't a person until they're in my phone book."
Hope that helps.