Came across this "editorial" (courtesy of Google) on a site called opinioneditorials.com, a branch of something called "Frontiers of Freedom." FoF appears to be a conservative site, hyping the usual conservative issues. This particular editorial is so rife with mis-statements and weak arguments that it's tempting to deconstruct it one argument at at time. But I'll leave that exercise to someone else. I just want to give you a few examples, and then you can visit the site and read the column in its entirety. (Caveat: I didn't spend a lot of time at opinioneditorials.com, so I have no idea if they ever publish anything from a more liberal (or at least "less conservative") point of view.

Kevin Roeten, August 14, 2007--Recently Bush vetoed federal monies for Embryonic Stem Cell Research(ESCR). From the response, one would believe that he dumped all hopes for curing diseases down the commode. But this demonstrates just how misinformation can provoke a visceral emotional reaction that almost borders on irrationality. With nothing to gain except eternal life, Bush seems to have demonstrated courage under fire...

...hype from actors such as Christopher Reeve(Superman) and Michael J. Fox(actor) teases a possible cure for their diseases. But no cure has been found. The fallacy that ESCR shows the most promise is a false hope. [Er, maybe no cure has been found because researchers have been too busy scrambling for funding since the federal government (and most states) have all but shut them down?]

... it’s said that with so many fertilized embryos slated to be disposed of, it’s acceptable to use them for research. Being ‘trapped’ in liquid nitrogen shouldn’t affect our decisions. Consider a radical case in which a group of children are permanently trapped in a schoolhouse. It would not be morally acceptable to send in a remote control robotic device to harvest organs and kill the children. [If they're permanently trapped, are they going to die? Sooner rather than later? Still, I'd have to say no, killing them probably wouldn't be morally acceptable. Be we are talking about living, breathing, developed, functioning children. Not a cluster of cells the size of this period.]

There's lots more. Why don't you check it out for yourself. And if, by chance, you agree with Kevin Roeten, please take just a minute to leave a comment and tell us why. Or if you disagree with him, let us know that, too.

Labels: embryo, embryonic stem cell, ethics, morality

I just found this site, "dedicated to promoting the thoughtful discussion of difficult moral issues." The welcome message says:

Ethics Updates is designed primarily to be used by ethics instructors and their students. It is intended to provide resources and updates on current literature, both popular and professional, that relates to ethics.

The content at the site is grouped by category: Ethical Theory; Resources; and Applied Ethics. For those interested in the beginning of human life and related issues, probably the items in the Applied Ethics category will be of highest interest. Sub-categories there include abortion; bioethics and reproductive technologies; environmental ethics; death penalty and punishment; euthanasia; and so on.

The site doesn't seem to be updated regularly (a cursory search turned up articles and resources dated no more recently than 2003). On the other hand, it's been around a long time -- first established in 1994. So it's important historically (at least in "Internet time"). And it's also a terrific source of information about larger issues -- those covered in the Ethical Theory category, for example, which address much of the history of the philosophy of ethics (Aristotle, utilitarianism, egoism, and so on).

Thinking about ethics and morality -- today, anyhow -- has been triggered by today's column by Leonard Pitts, Jr. As is often the case with Pitts's writing, today's version begins with a timely issue and steps back from there to ask, in a reflective way, "Hey, wait a minute..." In this case, recent remarks by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, provided Pitts his fodder for rumination:

I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts. I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way.

Whether you accept General Pace's comment as a given or not, it might be worth considering the take which Pitts has on it. To wit:

After all, to admit that a response is visceral is to admit you haven't thought it through. Ergo, frame it as a ''moral'' issue. As a practical matter, it comes out the same, but it sounds more high-minded. And never mind that it makes no sense.

Labels: beginning of human life, ethics, General Pace, Leonard Pitts, morality