Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Is it hypocritical?

  1. Nov 5, 2005 #1
    Isn't it completely hypocritical for right to lifers to oppose creating a fetus to be destroyed for stem cell research yet have no problem creating fetuses (test tube babies) for reproduction where all but one will also be destroyed? (not that I expect any kind of coherent logic from the fanatacally religious in the US)

    They are also ignoring some basic facts. Stem cell research involving fetuses is only temporary and allows us to get a jump on the research. Stem cells themselves probably won't be necessary eventually or they will be able to be gotten without using a fetus. There is a rare disease where a persons bruised muscle turns to bone, eventually turning these people into immovable statues. This disease shows that a regular cell has the ability to turn into another type of cell.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 7, 2005 #2
    perhaps this post would fit better in the Morals (Value Theory) section?

    Strictly, a foetus is an unborn verterbrate in the later stage of development, which shows features recognisable in the adult form. There are no such foetuses (to my knowledge) deliberately destroyed as part of in-vitro fertilisation ("test tube babies"). I think you mean embryo, not foetus.

    MF
     
  4. Nov 8, 2005 #3
    First of all, don't catagorize all pro-lifers as fanatacally religous. I know several who are very rational and level headed, and to simply paint them all as irrational fanatics is rather insulting. Next, pro-lifers do oppose the artificial creation of test tube babies where any of them are destroyed. Its not hyporcitical, you just have your facts wrong.
     
  5. Nov 8, 2005 #4

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Well, I think right-to lifers tend to be against test-tube babies, so that wouldn't be a contradiction. The Catholic Church goes so far as to be against contraception.

    I don't see contradictions, just extreme views.
     
  6. Nov 9, 2005 #5
    I am opposed to the term 'pro-life'. There are certain 'pro-life' politicians who object to abortion and stem cell research whilst having no qualms about bombing people back to the stone age, ironically where they themselves belong.
     
  7. Nov 13, 2005 #6
    As far as I know, the pro-life camp doesn't say a word about the creation and destruction of fetuses unless they are in the context of stem cell research, in which case they would rather see them destroyed than used for research. Their main spokesperson, the idiot currently occupying the white house, is not sponsoring any legislation that I know of to stop test tube reproduction, he has stopped federal funding of using those fetuses for stem cell research. He would rather see them go to the dumpster than do something useful. If this isn't stupidly hypocritical then I don't know what is.
     
  8. Nov 16, 2005 #7
    Seems to me that there are hypocritical ideas throughout society. Phi5, you do make an excellent point when you answered your own question with the wastefulness of fetuses. The only problem is that you are making generalities about all pro-life people.

    More examples of hypocracy: Many people in the pro-choice (pro-abortion if you must) side are also against the death penalty. The argument is that life is precious, but I guess its only precious at certain times.

    Athiests believe there is in no god, however many won't concede that they are simply complex chemical reactions disguised as life.
     
  9. Nov 16, 2005 #8
    I don't know about other people but I am against the death penalty because our justice system is extremely flawed and innocent people get the death penalty. If they are dead they can't prove they are innocent. Look at all the people that DNA testing is proving innocent. Witnesses are often wrong and I think there are too many innocent people in jail to execute even the ones that there is no doubt about. Besides, life imprisonment is a worse punishment for the guilty than the death penalty. The death penalty just creates more victims, out of the family members of the people that get executed, just to make victim families happy.
     
  10. Nov 18, 2005 #9
    Then, in principle you should be in support of the death penalty...to be in support of the policy is another issue altogether that shouldn't be confused with the first

    That's a tough statement for me to accept. There are some _evil_ people out there, and I have no trouble with the idea of killing some of them. Further, I'm not convinced that my tax dollars should be wasted. Consider an island of very few resources along with a convicted murderer. To waste scarce resources on a muderer is foolish...of course, there are other issues to consider in this fairytale example.

    Respectfully, I disagree....and many others would as well. Life imprisonment can also involve a lifetime of inmate raping (but again this is a _policy_ concern). As far as more victims are concerned, it's tough to say: The families of the original victims might stay victims until "justice" is served.
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2005
  11. Nov 21, 2005 #10
    On a purely philosophical level, I don't have a problem with executing people who are guilty of murder. I just don't think it's right if even one innocent person is executed.

    As far as money goes, it costs more to execute someone than it does to keep them in prison for life.

    I think that most people who are in favor of the death penalty are incapable of putting themselves in someone elses place. They are incapable of imagining how it would feel to have someone they love executed for a crime they didn't commit. How would you feel if your father or brother was executed for a crime he didn't commit when if he was in prison for life he might eventually prove his innocence?
     
  12. Nov 21, 2005 #11

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    I'd prefer to keep this an ethical discussion, guys. If Bush is a hypocrite, that has no philosophical consequences. If you want to critique a policy decision, keep that in the politics forum.
     
  13. Nov 23, 2005 #12
    The difference their is killing innocent people vs killing people that want to kill other innocent people. Pro-life may be a little bit of a propagandous term, but that view was a little extremist.


    I think it is simply a matter of what Bort said. Society is full of hypocritical ideas and beliefs. Some people value something at different times then others.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?