Episode 14: Alta Charo on Bioethics and the Law
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 вер 2024
- Blog post with show notes: www.prepostero...
Patreon: / seanmcarroll
To paraphrase Ian Malcolm in Jurassic Park, scientists tend to focus on whether they can do something, not whether they should. Questions of what we should do tend to wander away from the pristine beauty of science into the messy worlds of ethics and the law. But with the ongoing revolutions in biology, we can’t avoid facing up to some difficult should-questions. Alta Charo is a world expert in a gamut of these issues, working as a law professor and government official specializing in bioethics. We hit all the big questions: designer babies, birth control, abortion, religious exemptions, stem cells, end of life care, and more. This episode will give you the context necessary to think about a host of looming questions from a legal as well as a moral perspective.
Alta Charo is currently the Warren P. Knowles Professor of Law and Bioethics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She earned a B.A. in Biology from Harvard, and went on to receive her J.D. from Columbia University. Charo served as a bioethics advisor on the Obama Administration transition team, as well as working as a senior policy advisor at the Food and Drug Administration. She has been a Fulbright Scholar, is a member of the National Academy of Medicine, and was awarded the Chancellor’s Distinguished Teaching Award at UW-Madison.
Sean, you're killing it. Bless.
Yay! Another podcast from Sean!
Sean, this was a very interesting podcast! Alta is very knowledgeable and I learned a great deal!
If you're a checker and you refuse to do that job, you risk losing your job. If you own the place and you only serve vegan food, you should not be forced to serve meat, because it goes against your morals. This is essentially the same issue with the cake baker. The owner did not refuse to sell plain cakes that were already on the shelf. He just didn't want his speech compelled to decorate a cake for a ceremony that went against his morals.
Speech is not cake.
He provided a service. You do not get to discriminate against a class of people.
If ever you're unsure, replace 'gay' or 'trans' or whatever with 'black.'
If it sounds racist, then you're on the right track.
"I don't support black weddings. No custom cake for black people.'
Getting it yet?
@@antediluvianatheist5262 If it's something that's already on the shelf, then they have to serve it. If he or she is being asked to convey a message that goes against his or her beliefs, that is compelled speech and violates the first amendment. That includes interracial marriage. I was upset that the lawyer for Phillips didn't acknowledge that and tried to make a distinction between race and sexual orientation. I thought that was a mistake and hurt their case.
@@antediluvianatheist5262 just to be clear, it's the message, not the cake that's speech
@@antediluvianatheist5262 btw, a lot of states don't include anti discrimination laws for sexual orientation. Those states can do what the fuck they please.
You realize that sexual orientation isn't protected in every state from discrimination right? Second, it wasn't his job, he owns the place. Had it been a worker, he could've been fired if the owner disagreed with him. This is in part because it's a private owner or manager punishing him and not the government. Third, anti discrimination laws can't violate your Constitutional rights. Being forced to convey a message you don't agree with is compelled speech, whether it's spoken or written. Serving people general items and making custom items is different. I would agree that anti discrimination laws could prohibit the former, even though I'm personally against that, but it doesn't violate anyones rights. The court will get this case again and go further the next time.
Saving my Monday morning! I can't wait til next week.
Privacy is in the 1st, 3rd and 4th Amendment. The court erroneously extended those privacy rights that were never contemplated by the founders and therefore should be left to the states. The idea of a living constitution is idiotic. Originalism is the proper interpretation method. I wish this woman would've given an example of where Scalia didn't use originalism when it came to an outcome he didn't like. I would point to Texas v Johnson to refute that. I'm sure there are more.
Thank you Sean!
My favorite one so far! Great episode
Is the podcast on Spotify or SoundCloud yet?
Sean, you should watch the confirmation hearing of Robert Bork. It's 5 1/2 hrs and an education.
I am watching this 8+ months after publication and there are now nine or so states completing bans on abortion, if a fetal heartbeat is detected, which means you have six weeks or so to determine you are pregnant and make a decision on abortion. My comment is on Justice Scalia and his originalist and textual position on the interpretation of the Constitution and statues. Attitudes on Antonin flip dramatically when they read his comment that neither the 14th Amendment nor the Constitution's authors would have considered a fetus as a person, at the time they were passed. That statement, taken alone, would deny the fetus protected rights under the 14th Amendment and Bill of Rights, following an originalist perspective. I am only saying nothing more than if anyone believes Justice Scalia would automatically have voted for the upholding of such state bans they may be incorrect, for him and, perhaps others.
Ps, In Sarah Weddington's second oral argument before the Supreme Court she made some strong statements about the health and safety risks to women undergoing back room abortions by ill equipped or trained personnel.
Speaking about rationality, Eliezer Yudkowsky would be a great guest.
couldn't agree more
Two parents have cancer. Would the resulting child only have an increased chance of the cancers, or would genetics eventually help to protect against this? What about the children in 10 generations time? I guess we just don’t know as it is too hard to say, and I have no idea about what data we have on this, but it seems an interesting thought.
Natural selection does not care what happens to you after you breed.
That's why cancer is such a big deal now.
We live long enough to get it. Back in the day, we were all dead before 40.
Cancer? what's that?
Q, Episode: Naturalism Vs Evolutionism. (solo or Bret Weinstein) And , E8 emergence theory just cause the golden ratio is cool and everywhere. And thanks for the Mindscape podcast all episodes are interesting.
Griswold and Roe had no legal reasoning.
52:58 what does the german nation has to do with plants and sperm 😋
"There is a world of difference between the things that are right and wrong and the things that should be legal and illegal." I disagree with this strongly. You seem like a great law professor, and I wish I could have picked your brain in school, but this is why the US is in the predicament we are in. What about all of the people who have no families, and don't believe in the existence or even the remote possibility of a creator. Where are these Americans going to get their moral compass from? Reading Jane Austin and Shakespeare? How about a little Goethe or Berthold Brecht? The point is, we have to get together and agree on rules for right or wrong, because otherwise the US legal system will continue to be ineffective in making sure everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I see the glass way more empty than you do (lots of filling to do).
Or maybe you don't believe in the non-relative nature of morality? Isn't there always a decision that will lead to the least harm to the lowest number of people? Is there any "rule of morality" other than that?