In the hopes of figuring out the issue of the ethics of stem cell research, it sometimes helps to analogize. Here’s one I thought of. Let’s say there’s a lake somewhere that for some reason is seeing too many frogs reproducing. Bear with me. These frogs are making it hard for other species to breed and exist. So the environmental authorities decide to kill off the frogs to save the lake and rescue other species. Now what would the ethical difference be between killing these frogs as tadpoles when they spawn or later as grown frogs? Obviously, killing the tadpoles might be easier and less messy. But would anyone dispute that they are being killed as surely as the frogs or that by killing tadpoles, we are effectively killing frogs? The death of potential frogs compared to grown frogs seems to me to be a distinction without a difference. So if it’s meaningless for frogs, why do we have lower standards for humans?
SALON RESPONDS AGAIN: To their credit, Salon has answered my question about pharmaceutical ads. Patrick Hurley replied that, to the best of his knowledge, no drug company has advertized in Salon ever. Somehow I think they won’t in the future now either.
The Dish 