Re: [asa] Worthy of response?

> 1. there are only certain conditions likely to benefit,
>
> This does not seem to be a useful argument. No medical treatment can
> treat ALL diseases.
>
> 2. the possibility of undesirable side effects,
>
> This seems to also not be a useful argument. Most all medications have
> some undesirable side effects.

I agree that these apply to any medical procedure; conversely, not
carrying out a medical procedure has its own costs and benefits.
However, the rhetoric of pro-embryonic stem cell research often
neglects this point. It is highly likely that embryonic stem cell
research would yield some medical benefits, but even that is not
absolutely guarenteed, and it certainly won't solve everything.

> 3. and the real ethical question of the moral standing of the embryos
> destroyed in the process.
>
> Here seems to be the real issue. Do these entities (I use this neutral
> term rather than "embryos) possess a moral status? This is a difficult
> question to argue, but I think that it is the only real argument at
> issue.

I agree. As you pointed out, there are many difficult questions
related to determining the ethical status of early embryos (which
seems the biologically appropriate term). What greatly frustrates me
on this is that advocates of such research generally ignore this
point. It's really an example of different ethical opinions, not
science versus religion.

-- 
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.