Not too long ago, on The Daily Show, Jon Stewart had Ramesh Ponnuru on as a guest, and they had the following exchange:
STEWART: Well, let me put it to you this way, and I apologize. The President said--let's talk about stem cells, since you don't want to talk about abortion--the President said, "I do not condone the taking of innocent life to save life. And I assume that's your position on stem-cell research.
PONNURU: Yeah, that's right.
STEWART: But couldn't you say that that was the exact justification of the Iraqi war?
...
STEWART: But this is--what they consider "collateral damage" in that war somehow is not acceptable when it might lead to a cure for Parkinsons.
How do you counter that? The guest basically stammered; he didn't have a satisfying answer. Now, I love Jon Stewart, but certainly he didn't come up with an indefensible argument. I can't think of any rebuttal but surely one must exist. Can anyone else think of one, even if you don't agree with it?
2006-09-18 00:50:55 · 11 answers · asked by . 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Also, just to note... Don't label me a liberal or conservative or Christian or atheist or whatever. I have political and religious opinions, obviously, but I also like to see both sides of an argument before I make that opinion, which is exactly why I'm asking this question. Thanks for your help.
2006-09-18 00:51:05 · update #1
Just a thought.
One purpose of stem cell research is to find new ways of treating illnesses. But this field of research has been a subject of much controversy because the process of extracting embryonic stem cells essentially destroys the embryo.#
New genetic technologies raise yet other ethical issues. Consider, for example, preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). This technique involves submitting embryos to genetic screening and then selecting the one—perhaps of the desired gender or free of a certain disease-causing gene—that is to be implanted into the uterus. Critics warn that PGD could lead to gender discrimination or that it might eventually be used to let couples choose other genetic traits for their children, including hair or eye color. PGD raises the ethical question, What happens to the embryos that are not selected?
Will Science Create a Perfect Society? This could be a problem here-if used by the wrong people .
War is a different matter--I don't approve it-but I know no way to stop it seems to continue. On the other hand I can see a way to stop a killing here (if that is how you view stem cell research)
I have no problems personally with stem cell at this time. And maybe it could help many. I have become more aware since a family member-might benefit from it.
Your question asked for a rebuttal--I feel there is a difference they could not compared on the same level. Boardrunn has a point as well as some others.
2006-09-18 05:47:35 · answer #1 · answered by *** The Earth has Hadenough*** 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Of course the guest haven't had any logical rebuttal, because there is just none. It is simple bigotry. The Bush junta doesn't care for life that is already born, because they cannot control anyone nor invade anyone's privacy with that already born life. The collateral damage in Iraq or any other war for profit for that matter, has no meaning nor impact on the decisions of the Bush junta. Human resources mean nothing to this regime. It means so little human resources might as well be renamed to human material; and the best thing about it: it regrows, so why worry about hundreds of thousands dead while the oil dollars are flowing into the pockets of the Bush backers?
Dead humans that lived before have already sinned in the minds of the right wing bible thumps, so their life isn't precious at all anyways and it is most likely a blessing if they are dead, especially if they pray to the "wrong" god.
Embryos on the other hand are yet without sin and must be born, no matter what. Although, right after they are born they again fall into the upper category of sin and are neglected; hence the underfunding of the no-child-left-behind-act. Yet this underfunding comes handy when those youngsters make it to their 16th year, because then they can be coerced into joining the military and securing more oil dollars.
Another side effect shouldn't be neglected, and that is CONTROL. How wonderful it is to tell a becoming mother that she is a murderer of her own child when she has an abortion. How convenient to control a woman by guilt. The males, the ones who exert this control, have a lot easier job. They impregnate the woman and in most cases bolt as soon as they find out. So the woman is left with the burden of the child and guilt.
Good going bible nuts...
2006-09-18 08:18:41 · answer #2 · answered by The answer man 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I'll take a stab at it. The Iraqi war is NECESSARY to preserve our way of life. It is an ABSOLUTE. Stem cell research is NOT NECESSARY. It is not an absolute. The analogy is flawed. The war is HERE. Stem cell research is not here as I type. To justify pursuing stem cell research because of the loss of lives in a war is the same as saying that the terrorists cut innocent people's heads off so we should also.Comprendo?
2006-09-18 09:15:22 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Collateral damage is bad but unintentional. Stem cell is life and research deliberately and in a planned scientific protocol. threatens that life. We can stretch the logic to say animal experiments for new drugs also is planned , but different people draw the line at different distances. Your point is valid and not easy to counter.
2006-09-18 08:04:37 · answer #4 · answered by J.SWAMY I ఇ జ స్వామి 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Since I do not know who this person Stewart is ,it would be difficult to be sure you have given the full and complete text of the exchange.
People have a tendency to put their thoughts to what others say.
Since you have just given and excerpt of and interview and asked for a counter augment,you must realize most will consider this vague at best.If you wish to ask a question please just state it and not try to hide in the dialog of your representation of someone Else's excerpt of a conversation.
2006-09-18 08:04:16 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
How is a child that is completely dependent on everything for its very survival compare with people dying in a war zone. I under stand that "sometimes you have to compare watermelons to blueberries just to get people to see the differences in apples & oranges", but don't go so far as to compare those two. CHOICE does make a difference.
2006-09-18 07:59:55 · answer #6 · answered by DS143 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you'll understand that most of these guys are just every day idiots holding an unnecessary position to rob Americas working class' tax money for wages then you'll understand that most of these arguments are fabricated to make dumb Americans think these positions are necessary.
2006-09-18 08:06:03 · answer #7 · answered by frank s 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Stem cell researchers won't kill you for no reason, a Muslim will!!!
Allah akbar!!!
2006-09-18 07:57:01 · answer #8 · answered by El Pistolero Negra 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I see no reason to rebut this. Sounds valid to me.
2006-09-18 08:22:23 · answer #9 · answered by planksheer 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I didn't know , it was still on the air.
2006-09-18 07:59:07 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋