Embryonic Stem Cell Research Legalized in California

Stigmata669 writes "Against the wishes of the White House, it appears that Gov. Gray Davis has passed legislation to legalize embryonic stem cell research in California. The article sheds some light on the nature of this decision, and highlights the difference between this decision, and the continued ban on human cloning in California."

Comments

Christopher Reeve

[Alranor]

I think he summed this up very well when he said

"We've had a severe violation of the separation of church and state in the handling of what to do about this emerging technology,"

and

"There are religious groups - the Jehovah's Witnesses, I believe - who think it's a sin to have a blood transfusion. Well, what if the president for some reason decided to listen to them, instead of to the Catholics, which is the group he really listens to in making his decisions about embryonic stem cell research?" Reeve says. "Where would we be with blood transfusions?"

from The Guardian

Re:Christopher Reeve

[technix4beos]

People seem to think that their bodies do not belong to them, for some strange reason. (to me.)

It's like it's against some spiritual and holy sacrament to give blood to another person, consider donating organs, or even contemplate growing body parts from cells for various medical reasons.

What's wrong with prolonging our species a little bit to ensure a healthy future?

As an aside, I find it striking that as I read the days's news lately, and discussions about humanity's future, I can't help but recall tidbits from Star Trek's "Universe" and where we would be if not for the fertile imaginations of people who thought outside the box.

Call it what you will, but ideas and experiments in moderation are not unholy, in my eyes at least.

And with that, please have a nice day. ;)

-Chris Simmons,

Avid BeOS User.

The BeOSJournal

http://www.beosjournal.org

Re:Christopher Reeve

[goldspider]

An interesting point, but Jehovah's Witnesses do not represent a particularly large segment of the American population or their beliefs.

Now if there were 100 million Jehova's Witnesses in America, this might be a relevant (and somewhat scary) comparison.

Now I agree tha we cannot let religious dogma interfere with potentially life-saving/enriching medicine, but until there is sufficient evidence that embryonic stem cells can actually produce what many scientists and doctors theorize they can, I will be suspicious of it.

Re:Christopher Reeve

[nanoakron]

I agree, but the scientific community must not be forbidden from seeking that knowledge.

It's like saying "I'm not going to let you research a cure for the common cold, but until you can prove that one exists, I won't believe you." And this is simply an illogical stance on such an important issue.

-Nano.

Re:Christopher Reeve

[bkirkby]

Yeah. Let's use the opinions of Hollywood elite to teach us issues of morality.

Re:Christopher Reeve

[Anonymous Coward]

Christopher is the consumate liberal here again. He proves that his very short sighted and generalizing cunning/wit will be used for anything that _HE_ believes _HE_ can personally benefit from... all under some guise of world wide or societal wide benefit.

Like with the Clinton 'affair' (or fiasco if you wish), in reality sex had nothing to do with anything but the initial sexual harrassment investigation. However, the cunning media and the sheep (or mass public if you prefer) swallowed the push to confuse the issue hook, line and sinker.

Religion has nothing to do with this. Now re-read that before you get upset, because at the surface even the liberals would agree to one interpretation of that. That would be the issue of 'separation of church and state' a statement that has been as bastardized and misquoted historically as much as "handguns are only for recognized militia" has been. It says in most religious and religio-philosophical texts that murder is 'bad.' Does that mean that the governent is being led by a bunch of religious zealots since they make murder a crime? What about theft? The issue here is not about the research or the benefits nor is it about the progress we can all hope to make or stall. The issue is _HOW_ that research is conducted so its effects will be demonstrated on others. Humans grown then killed (as in life processes stopped) for the "betterment of mankind"? That is exactly the attrocities that Hitler wrapped up in similar rhetoric. Awww, poor little mentally ill or retarded person... lets either kill you or hook you into horrid experiments... its for your own good.

It is sickening when human beings can cannabalize on others, yet do so while WILLFULLY blinding themselves to that fact. I wouldn't be surprised if the liberals create a national "I CAN'T HEAR YOU" day and walk around with their hands over their ears saying, "LALALALALALA"

The issue is not about science, it is about ethics and morals. While morals cannot be legislated realistically, neither can they be stomped on. If science can find other ways (and they have) to gather stem cells, then good for everyone.

Stop kidding yourself. Either admit that you believe that your life is worth more than that of anothers, and consequently envoke a "strongest will survive" and "the weak were made to serve the strong/rich/opportunists"... just admit that and get along with your life. Stop trying to justify and convince yourself that what this is, is anything but science justified murder. Religion has nothing to do with it. There are tons of obvious and researched facts available for those that enjoy the use of logic and reason. For those that would rather justify with fancy words, that are shallow at their core (and often VERY contradicting) then just continue to cover up your face and rock back and forth erradically, while chanting your mantra of "ignore the facts, concentrate on rhetoric."

Re:Christopher Reeve

[Jester99]

Now I agree tha we cannot let religious dogma interfere with potentially life-saving/enriching medicine, but until there is sufficient evidence that embryonic stem cells can actually produce what many scientists and doctors theorize they can, I will be suspicious of it.

You do realize the irony inherent in your statement, don't you?

Let me reduce it for you: "Until scientists research stem cells and prove that they're useful, I don't trust stem cell research to be a good thing."

You're setting them up for failure!

How can they prove to you that stem cell research is a good thing, if you don't let them research it ab initio?

If stem cell research yields some technology which itself is a bad thing (I don't know. Creates an army of mutant freaks.), then that Bad Thing (tm) should be banned. However, one flawed application of a technology -- and especially the hypothesis of such an application -- does not invalidate the use of the entire class of research centered around it.

Re:Christopher Reeve

[Citizen of Earth]

but until there is sufficient evidence that embryonic stem cells can actually produce what many scientists and doctors theorize they can, I will be suspicious of it.

Hopefully European/other scientests can produce this proof for you, while they leave America in the dust. With cryptography and legislation, America seems determined not to be a techological leader in the 21st century.

Re:Christopher Reeve

[n-baxley]

It's like it's against some spiritual and holy sacrament to give blood to another person, consider donating organs, or even contemplate growing body parts from cells for various medical reasons.

The issue is not with growing body parts from cells. The issue is where you get the stem cells. The current Embryonic source requires you to end a life in order to harvest the stem cells. THAT is what people are against. There are other methods to get stem cells from adults without ending a life that have been shown to produce at least as viable stem cells. Why not go that route?

Re:Christopher Reeve

[andrew_0812]

There may be alot to gain from stem cell research, but the problem, as has already been stated, is the taking of life to obtain those cells. What we are really talking about here is the same as the abortion issue. Where does life begin? Pro-Choice and stem cell advocates would like to set the definition of life to birth (or perhaps later) so that they can do these things without it being considered Murder.

Stem Cell Researchers don't want to have to think about the morality of what they are doing, because they see the great potential in the research. That is understandable. I personally believe that life starts when you have a fertalized egg. I think that stem cell research should not be ruled out. But we need a good and morally un-controversial method of obtaining them. That should be our first priority. Once we have that, we don't have to worry about the killing babies issue.

Re:Christopher Reeve

[DavyByrne]

People seem to think that their bodies do not belong to them, for some strange reason. (to me.)

I think members of the so-called "religious right" have done a poor job of explaining their objections to such research and this has led to your misunderstanding. As someone who is against embryonic stem cell research, I would not say that your body does not belong to you. What I would say is that someone else's body doesn't belong to you. The fundamental principle behind my argument against stem-cell research is that people should not be used as means to other people's ends . I consider embryos to be people, so if you use an embryo as a means (via research) to cure someone else, I consider that an immoral act.

If you'd like to use your own stem cells, from your own body to do research, please feel free. Just don't take them from someone else without his or her consent.

As an aside, it seems to me that this is a principle many /. posters support in other contexts. How many of you fight against the limitations on personal freedoms that Microsoft, the RIAA, DMCA, etc. support? These personal freedoms all fall under the above principle.

Re:Christopher Reeve

[Arthur Dent]

Humans grown then killed (as in life processes stopped) for the "betterment of mankind"?

That statement is so loaded that I have to respond.

Are you aware that each IVF procedure produces multiple embryos? Some of which are not viable for a pregnancy? Of the ones viable for pregnancy (typically 8-10), around 3-4 are implanted into the uterus and the rest frozen. Later the parents can decide if they want another pregnancy to use the frozen embryos (which are typically available for 5 years).

In 5 years, the parents have the option of releasing the embryos to other couples (sort of like an embryo adoption).

Now what happens to the embryos that are not viable and to the frozen embryos that nobody wants to adopt?
You got it. They become biological waste.

Wouldn't it be better to use these embryos to help people instead of trashing them?

And how would using these embryos (which would end up in the trash can anyway) be killing people?

Re:Christopher Reeve

[james.bromberger]

You said:
>> People seem to think that their bodies do not belong to them, for some strange reason. (to me.)

The point with pro-lifers is that it is not the mother's body she's choosing over. It's the body of a brand-new human that has its own inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So no, it does not "belong" to the mother in that line of reasoning.

Importantly, that line of reasoning need not at all coincide with religous conviction, nor need it coincide with a luddite mentality.

Re:Christopher Reeve

[Krach42]

The Germans infects hundreds of Jews with syphilis to see how their bodies would react to it. Guess what? They reacted exactly the same as German bodies. So they killed hundreds of people just to learn that Jews are people.

Was this experiment unethical? In my opinion, yes, definately.

Is embryonic stem cell research ethical? It depends. If you're using stem cells that are cultured independant of a being that was denied life, then my opinion is yes. Namely, if you can extract stem cells without damaging the embryo, go ahead, if you can get stem cells from dead embryos which were not aborted, then yes.

Is it all right to use stem cells from embryos which are aborted? Only if the (non)mother consents knowingly, after all, it's her body right?

Why is embryonic stem cell research banned? Because there is too great a risk, that some research doctor will ignore the value of life in his embryos, and breed embryos soley to harvest their stem cells. I ask of you this: would the fertilization of a egg cell soley with the intention of harvesting stem cells from the resulting embryo be wrong? To me, with out a doubt, yes, it's wrong.

Re:Christopher Reeve

[Rutulian]

As has been said in another post, this is not about stem cell research, it is about using embryos for stem cell research. I do research of my own, so I have always been an advocate of scientific freedom. But it has also been my opinion that science can always find another way.

Embryos are a great source for stem cells and not difficult to obtain, culture, maintain, etc... That doesn't mean that there aren't other ways to get stem cells, though. Those other ways may not have some of the advantages embryos have, but they are just as useable and not as morally questionable.

It may be science, but that doesn't mean it should be free from moral considerations. Indeed, I certainly hope that is never the case. Otherwise we may someday find it suitable to do experiments on live human subjects, like death row prisoners or the critically disabled.

Re:Christopher Reeve

[Anonymous Coward]

how is that a loaded statement?

Re:Christopher Reeve

[Wavicle]

It's the body of a brand-new human that has its own inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

So why does the brand-new human's rights supersede those of the woman's? I can't pursue happiness on your property without your permission... So why should this be different? If the new human is so determined at a shot at life, maybe it should leave the womb and gestate elsewhere - or optionally it should request permission to gestate in the woman's womb.

Re:Christopher Reeve

[james.bromberger]

You said:
>> So why does the brand-new human's rights supersede those of the woman's? I can't pursue happiness on your property without your permission... So why should this be different? If the new human is so determined at a shot at life, maybe it should leave the womb and gestate elsewhere - or optionally it should request permission to gestate in the woman's womb.

In the *vast* majority of cases, the brand-new human is in the mother's womb because of a conscious decision on her part and the father's to engage in an activity they knew might result in a brand-new human. I fully support their right to engage in that activity (call me pro-choice!), but both should live up to the responsibility that goes with that right, namely that the brand-new human's right to life does absolutely supersede their convenience.

I have the right to my own body, but I can't wrap my hands around someone's neck and say after their death: "they should have asked to be in someone else's hands." That is, in my view, a logical extension of your line of reasoning, which is of course absurd.

Re:Christopher Reeve

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not prolonging the species. Your prolonging the life of an individual or group within a species. In fact, many would argue that you have the opportunity to BREAK the species line humans live in.

Imagine that--and then think about the repercussions. We had enough trouble with race and cultural relations in our short history. Imagine a superior race, whether that be by genetic reduction of some in the current population or elevation.

Or, more troubling, imagine Lessig's arguments on control structures in cyberspace and technology really applying to all technology in general, including biological innovation.

You say bodily sanctity is silly? I do not. You didn't mention this, but you hopefully would have some limitations on your body. You wouldn't want your organs harvested while you still needed them, despite if we sacrifice you, about 10 other needy individuals would live a better life.

And you're not a person who worries about dominion. Not, not the Dominion, dominion. How do I know? Your argument is so passe, simplisic, mentally uninvigorating. There are plenty of fictional as well as real life persons who have wondered whether science would save us or kill us. Whether science would replace, supplement, complement, or destroy religion. Or whether another sort of faith (I hold that science is a faith of observable, repeatable reality but not a religion) would be constructed mixing both or some new order.

You? So simplistic. Take the person's organs. Test 'em, donate them, shut up. Meanwhile, I wonder if we really do know it all.

Re:Christopher Reeve

[Wavicle]

but both should live up to the responsibility that goes with that right, namely that the brand-new human's right to life does absolutely supersede their convenience.

How did you arrive at that without religious conviction or luddite mentality? And we aren't talking "convenience" here. There's a strong possibility that carrying to term will permanently alter the woman's body for the worse, and temporarily or (very rarely) permanently alter her mind.

I have the right to my own body, but I can't wrap my hands around someone's neck and say after their death: "they should have asked to be in someone else's hands." That is, in my view, a logical extension of your line of reasoning, which is of course absurd.

No that is illogical unless a) Strangling the person was in your pursuit of happiness and b) being strangled by you was their pursuit of happiness. (note how I had a "both parties agree or go separate ways" in my sarcastic remark) Also your version implies someone losing their right to life while doing no damage to the other.

But back to my real argument... Your "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" just does not hold unless you accept that the rights of the unborn supercede the rights of the would-be mother. And that requires some sort of dogmatic position.

Re:Christopher Reeve

[james.bromberger]

You said:
>> How did you arrive at that without religious conviction or luddite mentality?

As stated earlier, religion need have nothing to do with this, and in general I am in favor of scientific advance. Now, it *certainly* is a question of ethics, and society must decide on ethical grounds.

I am positing that life must not be snuffed out but for rare and special cases. I have found no pro-abortion-on-demand argument that meets the "rare and special case" criteria. The argument of mothers that abort their children *is*, in the large majority of cases, a matter of "it's not in my best interest". It may be social stigma, economic difficulties, or loosing the body of her youth, but those reasons pale in comparison to the matter of l-i-f-e. Now, couple that with the fact that most children are conceived resulting from a consentual act by their parents, and the convenience logic above apprears ludicrously unjust.

That is taking an ethical stance, not dogma.

>> No that is illogical unless unless a) Strangling the person was in your pursuit of happiness...

Suppose it was? That doesn't make it right, now does it?

>> ...and b) being strangled by you was their pursuit of happiness.

Why "and"? But anyway, let's say it wasn't in their pursuit of happiness.

My point was that society should **absolutely** tell me what to do with my hand if I'm strangling somebody to death, and it should be a resounding "STOP!" that society responds with, because my freedom to act is **way** subservient to the other's right to live.

>> ...does not hold unless you accept that the rights of the unborn supercede the rights of the would-be mother. And that requires some sort of dogmatic position.

I invite you to point out any "dogma" in my previous arguments, and please be sure to explain how my defense of an ethical position is dogma while your defense of your position is not.

Re:Christopher Reeve

[Wavicle]

I invite you to point out any "dogma" in my previous arguments

From your previous post...

namely that the brand-new human's right to life does absolutely supersede their convenience

From the post most recent...

but those reasons pale in comparison to the matter of l-i-f-e

And there you have it. Your ethical stance requires a dogmatic definition of when life begins, and when it does the dogmatic position that the rights of the new life supercede those of its host.

Re:Christopher Reeve

[james.bromberger]

Your ethical stance requires a dogmatic definition of when life begins

And so does yours.

I think most English speakers of our day would attach some negative connotation of intolerant religous doctrine or of illogical blatherings when the words "dogma" or "dogmatic" are used. I certainly took it in that sense, and I suspect this is the sense you mean it in.

So I looked it up. I think American Heritage's 3rd definition best characterizes my ethical stance.

My arguments have been no more "dogmatic" than yours or any other poster's, and have certainly been less than some, given that I have always provided a logical argument to back them up or refute attacks on them.

Re:Christopher Reeve

[bill_mcgonigle]

It's like it's against some spiritual and holy sacrament to give blood to another person, consider donating organs

The sects which consider these things a sin are interpreting a bible phrase, roughly "that shalt not eat of thy brother," to include trans-body medical practices. Just about everybody else thinks it's an anti-cannibalism rule. There weren't many organ transplants in the time of the Hebrews.

But that's what you get for taking an elegant allergory literally.

Re:Christopher Reeve

[kellman]

Because biologically, that is how humans reproduce. If a woman is pregnant, there had to have been a certain sequence of events for her to concieve. This baby didn't just show up out of nowhere imposing its will on the mother. Unless she was raped, she did something to get pregnant. People forget the responsibility factors involved.

If I was put on your property by YOU, then I should have just as much right to 'pursue hapiness', as you put it, as you do. You can't put me on your property and then shoot me for trespassing. I was never trespassing, you put me there.

Re:Christopher Reeve

[leandrod]

> Are you aware that each IVF procedure produces multiple embryos? Some of which are not viable for a pregnancy? Of the ones viable for pregnancy (typically 8-10), around 3-4 are implanted into the uterus and the rest frozen. Later the parents can decide if they want another pregnancy to use the frozen embryos (which are typically available for 5 years).

> In 5 years, the parents have the option of releasing the embryos to other couples (sort of like an embryo adoption).

> Now what happens to the embryos that are not viable and to the frozen embryos that nobody wants to adopt? You got it. They become biological waste.

Thank you, you just stated my case against In-Vitro Fertilization. It can be even more murderous than abortion itself. Besides being apalling the egotism that makes people spend so much money in IVF while they could adopt Third-World orphans and abandoned children whose lack of real families would make criminals or condemned to extreme poverty.

Politics

[evilviper]

What Dubya did, was merely to attempt to please the Church more than he otherwise could (he could issue an all-out ban), but as a previous slashdot story has shown, his decision was just the "middle-ground" front he wanted to show to the public, and try not to alienate either side. He said, researchers can't use federal money on stem cell research on embryos other than those already started. Through the back, he snuck in a clause that said, as long as the embryos were obtained using private money, the rest can be done with federal money. (Kind of like saying: You can't have sweatshops in the US, but go crazy in Mexico, and we'll even drop the tarrifs!)

As for Davis' move, he's always been on the left. He doesn't care about alienating the Catholic Church, since they're generally against him anyhow. I'm sure this was also a publicity grab. He's lost a lot of the support he used to have across the state, and he's facing a much closer election than he's faced in many years (against Bill Simon). If you are anywhere near CA, you can smell the mud as it flies through the air at either candidate. Maybe I'm wrong, but this is an issue that has been around for some time, and signing it now is absolutely perfect timing for suporting his campaign.

Re:Politics

[Citizen of Earth]

As for Davis' move, he's always been on the left. He doesn't care about alienating the Catholic Church, since they're generally against him anyhow. I'm sure this was also a publicity grab.

Maybe he would like all of the researchers to move to California.

Re:Politics

[Bob C. Cock]

Davis has finally done something I approve of by signing this. The timing of it definately has the look of a publicity grab though. Davis's performance has been sub-par at best and all the mudslinging has only deepend my dislike for him.

Recently Davis has extended the phaseout of MTBE in our gasoline for another few years when Ethanol is widely available as an oxygenate and doesn't pollute ground water as MTBE does. Union 76 stations throughout the state all contain ethanol but the other stations don't. Anyone know if the other oil companies have lobbied Davis prior to him signing the extension on the federal ban of MTBE?

I think this election comes down to who do you dislike more Davis or Simon?

Re:Politics

[blakestah]

What Dubya did, was merely to attempt to please the Church more than he otherwise could (he could issue an all-out ban)

It is totally unclear to me that he has this power. He doesn't set the law wrt stem cell research. He does control some purse-strings, most of which he yanked.

Davis' move is quite good and I applaud it - but I think it is mostly about positioning himself for the presidential election in two years. He is positioning himself against Bush for energy deregulation in California, and now stem cell research.

Re:Politics

[fridgerater]

There is another way of looking at the consequences of the ban on Federal funds for stem cell research. It gives private companies the exclusive opportunity to develop and probably PATENT methods to clone human tissues, organs, or body parts, if not entire humans. Talk about saving the gravy for private industry.

Re:Politics

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish that this wouldn't sound like a troll, but on Slashdot, GWB can strike a reasonable balance all he likes...he's still going to be hated.

There are far too many readers here who are far more deeply indoctrinated than most religeous people I know....

Neural Repair State Of The Art.

[burbledrone]

As this article will probably have attracted some researchers with an interest in neural repair, this seems like a good opportunity to ask the following questions:

What's the state of the art when it comes to replacing brain tissue ? Are there any reasons to believe that newly added neurons can or cannot migrate to correct sites, achieve the correct functional state, and make the appropriate connections ?

Re:Neural Repair State Of The Art.

[tid242]

Are there any reasons to believe that newly added neurons can or cannot migrate to correct sites, achieve the correct functional state, and make the appropriate connections ?

Is there any reason not want to find out? Isn't the point of research to elucidate the answers to these questions? Regardless of what we find do you think that knowing the answers to these questions could make life worse for our future generations?-don't you think we owe it to our decendents to persue these endeavors?

i'm not sure that i understood the intent of your comment, and forgive me if i've misinterpreted, but it sounds an aweful lot like FUD to me... There is a huge body of knowledge growing from the very questions you have put forth, if you'd like to know what's going on a very limited lit.search pretty much anywhere will uncover a ton of publications :)

-tid242

Re:Neural Repair State Of The Art.

[burbledrone]

i'm not sure that i understood the intent of your comment

Well you got that right :->

Re:Neural Repair State Of The Art.

[JimFromJersey]

While IANANR (I Am Not A Nerual Researcher) I remember coming across an article on sciencedaily.com about knock-out mice being bred without sufficent glial cells. This prevented the mylenization(SP?) of the axons of the neurons. IIRC this caused a progressive and fatal form of MS. Stem cells were injected into the brain (may have been into the CSF), the stems cells migrated, formed into glial cells, and began the mylanization process. It has been probably over a year since I read that.

from the Research Defense Society page:
A completely new type of therapy may be possible using stem cells, possibly produced by cloning techniques. Stem cells are embryonic cells that have the potential to develop into all cell types found in the body10,11. Transplanted into the brains of mice lacking myelin producing proteins, these cells developed normally and secreted myelin, which began to cover nearby nerve fibres12. The characteristic tremor disappeared in over half the treated animals. Similarly, frozen human cells taken from nerve tissue have restored nerve function in rats with EAE13.

10. Flax JD, Aurora S, Yang C et al (1998) Engraftable human neural stem cells respond to development clues, replace neurons, and express foreign genes Nature Biotechnology 16, 1033.

11. Yandava BD, Billinghurst LL & Snyder EY (1999) "Global" cell replacement is feasible via neural stem cell transplantation: Evidence from the dysmyelinated shiverer mouse brain Proc Nat Acad Sci 96, 7029.

12. Liu S, Qu Y, Stewart TJ, Howard MJ, et al (2000) Embryonic stem cells differentiate into oligodendrocytes and myelinate in culture and after spinal cord transplantation Proc Nat Acad Sci 97 6126.

13. Kohama I, Lankford KL, Preiningerova P et al (2001) Transplantation of cryopreserved adult human Schwann cells enhances axonal conduction in demyelinated spinal cord J Neurosci 21, 944.

Re:Neural Repair State Of The Art.

[tid242]

well, now i know
}8^)-~

when in doubt-admit my igorance...

-tid242

I wonder...

[Marijuana al-Shehi]

...how much this piece of legislation cost the lobby?

When will we see full human cloning ?

[kasnol]

I think when there are enough demand - the whole Human Cloning thing will just be legalized -

I think this will be quite close, maybe next 3-5 years.

But think about it- its like you know this technology will save hundred of lifes and it cost lifes if you don't go research on it.

If you think in terms of cells - million of your cells die per day, and you are actually murdering million of cells for each day you live -

If you think on spiritual-wise - is this the eternal life we all strive for ?

This is quite philosphical I guess ~ I think eventually cloning of humans will get through ~

I guess I am too young to talk on this topic ~ haha

Re:When will we see full human cloning ?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think in terms of cells - million of your cells die per day, and you are actually murdering million of cells for each day you live

You ? You don't kill your own cells, they die when their time's up, they're programmed for this. If they refuse to die, then it's called a cancer and you eventually die.
If this technology can bring eternal life, or even just extended longevity, then it will. You can count on human greed (the more greed the more money, and the more money the more power to defy whoever stands against these researches).

Human cloning hasn't got much to do with stem cell treatments, apart from being a convenient way to produce stem cells that are 100% compatible with the donor/client.

News?

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't notice any stories about the Legislature being dissolved. Aside from that, I'm not aware of any civic mechanism by which a Governor can pass legislation.

Now a Governor can sign a bill into law, of course...

Two cheers for Calif.

[panurge]

At least the Ca. legislature seems to know its economy is largely science-based. And I suspect that, like most advances in medicine, this will be a transient phase: stem cell research will ultimately end the need to use foetal stem cells.

Why only two cheers? Because despite its advanced society, huge technical capabilities and social progressiveness, California has failed as yet to shoulder its world-wide policing responsibilities to bring about regime change in backward, religious fundamentalist places like Washington and Florida.

Re:Two cheers for Calif.

[ErikTheRed]

Umm... no, this decision has more to do with the fact that after Gray Davis' hopelessly inept handling of our electricity shortage the other year, most people would rather take a long hot bath in sulphuric acid than vote for him...

This just something to endear him to the geeks before the election. It's not like he's getting any of the Moral Minority votes anyway, so what does he have to lose?

Re:Two cheers for Calif.

[spike hay]

I know your're being humourous, but Washington has the second lowest church participation in the country, after Oregon. Utah is the highest.

In conclusion, I'm tired of these small factions of radical crazies influencing the gov't so much.

Re:Two cheers for Calif.

[sirtimbly]

By radicals you mean the left wing liberals that really seem to want to throw away any preconcieved notions that anyone has ever held and that might be of importance to other people that live in this country?

And I realize that it is easy to say that the research would be provide invaluable data that could save many many lives. Yet, what do we know? We know that this policy will raise the demand for fetal tissue, even that gained from murdered children, yet you cannot tell me that this research will without a doubt save so many lives in the future that it will outweigh its high cost in humanity. That is just blind assumption.

Re:Two cheers for Calif.

[spike hay]

We know that this policy will raise the demand for fetal tissue, even that gained from murdered children,

Murdered children!!?? Come on, let's be resonable.

High cost of humanity? Come on, it's clumps of several hundred undifferentiated cells. Not a human at all.

The "potential human life" argument is ridiculous. If one thinks it's murder to take an embryo because it has the potential for human life, than isn't it a moral tragedy that you denied your sperm (or eggs) the potential for human life because you didn't get pregnant or impregnate someone the moment you hit puberty?

Thinking about the potential for human life is ridiculous. I only care about human life, from the onset of a conscious human mind.

No ban on this research

[z_gringo]

Bush only issued a ban on federal funds being used for embryonic stem cell research. There was no effect on private resarch, nor, to my knowledge, state funded research.

It also seems that Bush only took that position to appease some of the religious conservatives whose support he enjoys...

Re:No ban on this research

[(H)elix1]

Bush only issued a ban on federal funds being used for embryonic stem cell research. There was no effect on private resarch, nor, to my knowledge, state funded research.

Having worked in the field... federal funds touch everything. The DoT would require every road, public and private, funded by local taxes, etc., to be painted hot pink if a rule came out stating all road construction must be pink if it touched any federal money.

The effect? The US is no longer the leader of the pack when it comes to this type of biology. Real research is flocking overseas for some time now.

Re:No ban on this research

[MoriarGryphon]

I'd point out that roads are of public benefit, and those who view roads as evil are quite few. However, with Stem Cell reasearch, there is a good about of debate and dissagreement. Solution? You can do it with your own money, but not with public money. Anyone willing to cough up the money can do it, but those against it arn't forced to pay taxes towards it. I'm happy.

Re:No ban on this research

[(H)elix1]

First off, there is hardly a snowball's chance in hell of getting funding. You rule out university money, NIH, NAS, DoD, and almost everything else most biotechs are funded by. The burn rate for supplies alone makes the dot.com people look good. Were there even a lightning strike on the golf course odds, I might see that.

The other part is we don't get to decide how our taxes are spent. I would _not_ pay for lifetime benefits for my congress critter, an open baseball diamond for the Twins, or other things I dislike. Someone else might say they did not care for the military, medical help, unemployment, and so on. Just like the student service fees paid out, we get very little say about supporting things we do not believe in.

All that to say like or dislike should not have an impact on funding. Pure research outside the DoD is almost non-existent, everything else (commercial and academic more often then not) has to make something that 'maximizes shareholder value'.

Misleading comment

[Comrade Pikachu]

As much as I support this legislation, the article was flawed when it said of Christopher Reeve:

"Reeve has said he has regained some feeling in his fingers and toes and urges further stem cell research as a way to treat paralysis."

Which would seem to indicate that he has somehow already benefitted from step cell research. AFAIK, he hasn't. His recovery so far has been almost entirely the result of physical therapy. The cause of stem cell research is harmed by inaccurate reporting, even when it seems to support the cause. Objectivity and honesty are the only way to go. Let the other side make the unproven, irrational claims. In the long run they will lose the fight.

Re:Misleading comment

[Anonymous Coward]

Let the other side make the unproven, irrational claims.

This is just my opinion, but so far the proponents of embryonic stem cell research are way ahead when it comes to making unproven, irrational claims.

For an example: I'll admit, claiming that stem cells from adults are just as useful as those from embryos is an unproven conjecture, but on the other hand, claiming that "adult" stem cells will never be useful for certain treatments is just bizarre.

Rational Bias

[quitcherbitchen]

The ability to arrive at a sound moral decision plays on a delicate balance of faith and reason. Some people only know how to do one or the other and thus arrive on one side of the fence without understanding how other people can disagree.

The majority of the Slashdot community includes people who are able to think objectively and logically. So it's not surprising to see most of these arguments here. Perhaps we could apply that same reason and thought to the opposing view? There must be some reason why a mass of people would oppose stem cell research...

But I'm not the guy to answer that.

I still don't get it when people explain the existence of God with "just because."

Re:Rational Bias

[tomstdenis]

/me jumps over the other side of the fence....

Its also just as easy to say "in theory".

---- disclaimer

I'm of the type that thinks both "just because" and "in theory" statements are worthless. Provide logical support [e.g. lemmas, collaries, etc..] and you shall establish a valid line of thought.

Tom

Re:Rational Bias

[mirnav]

There must be some reason why a mass of people would oppose stem cell research...

Not necessarily true. There have been numerous times in history when "a mass of people" supported certain views for no good reason whatsoever.

Example: Witch hunts of the Middle Ages. Everybody believed in witches and lonely women with moles on their faces and an effection for cats were burnt alive by the thousands. Did the fact that "a mass of people" believed there were witches around to be lit afire made their view correct or even rational? Nope.

It is sad but true - in many instances, masses of people follow leaders who are not the most open-minded and rational people on the planet. They believe, because they do not know any better.

Re:Rational Bias

[Citizen of Earth]

I still don't get it when people explain the existence of God with "just because."

It's not "just because"; God exists because The Bible says he exists. For proof that The Bible is correct, see The Bible.

Re:Rational Bias

[Anonymous Coward]

There's something wrong with your 'proof' -- I just can't seem to pinpoint what :-)

Re:Rational Bias

[mrseth]

So you've gone from "just because" to a circular argument. Nice.

Here's a question I ask people who ask me "Why do I not believe in [insert their god(s) here]?" I ask them what it would take for them to disbelieve in god. A lot of them have never even given that a thought and it sometimes makes for a good conversation.

It is my opinion that religion is from the infancy of our intellect and the sooner we discard with it, the better. I believe those of us who are not blinded by divine light are better equipped to see the world as it really is and are able to appreciate the wonder of existence in a much more profound manner.

Re:Rational Bias

[smithmc]

The ability to arrive at a sound moral decision plays on a delicate balance of faith and reason.

A bald assertion, which I'm sure you can justify (presumably with a delicate balance of faith and reason)...?

Re:Rational Bias

[teeth]

"There must be some reason why a mass of people would oppose stem cell research."

Perhaps they are ignorant and superstitious and fear the discovery of verifiable truths?

Re:Rational Bias

[Krach42]

Prove that 1 + 1 = 2... HA! I defy that 1 + 1 = 2, because you can't prove it!

Guess what? The whole world is based on axioms, and for me, one axiom in my life is "God exists." And that's what I stand by. I need no proof of his existance, because no evidence points either way, so I take it on personal faith that he exists.

Re:Rational Bias

[Anonymous Coward]

"
I defy that 1 + 1 = 2, because you can't prove it!
"

You are on crack. If you have one apple, and I give you another one, how many apples do you have?

Re:Rational Bias

[Citizen of Earth]

Prove that 1 + 1 = 2... HA! I defy that 1 + 1 = 2, because you can't prove it!

Wasn't this proven logically by some famous mathematician over hundreds of pages of material?

one axiom in my life is "God exists."

Good for you. An axiom in my life, whether or not God exists, is that all organized religion is a lie and a scam.

I need no proof of his existance, because no evidence points either way, so I take it on personal faith that he exists.

Shouldn't a devout follower be capitalizing those pronouns? I take it on faith that God may or may not exist. (Actually, in a boolean system, I guess that's not faith at all, but provable fact.) Funny how so many people's minds are too small to handle both possibilities at once and need to cling to the 'happier' one (though given the way that Christianity paints God as being such a spoiled brat, I'm not sure if that is really the 'happier' possibility).

Re:Rational Bias

[Citizen of Earth]

At some point, it becomes a matter of willful disbelief rather than, "I just need a few more facts to back it up, then I'll believe this Bible stuff." And if what we have is willful disbelief, no amount of reasoning or intellectual discussion or proof will change it.

I would say that given that the objective evidence is inconclusive (though my opinion is that it has all the markings of a scam), I would say that what you have is "willful belief", and no amount of reasoning or intellectual discussion or proof will change it (since you are acting irrationally). Unfortunately for myself, I don't know how to force myself to believe something that I don't, so I guess I'll remain one of His lost children. Of course, he knew this would happen before he created me, so it's all His fault, unless my free will trumps His omniscience.

A few interesting verses to think about are

Which is all perfectly meaningless. I'm sure that I could pull some inspirational quotations from Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Re:Rational Bias

[Saeger]

all organized religion is a lie and a scam.

I've noticed that a lot of the religious people I know aren't really religious - they just want to belong to a group so they subscribe to the group think. It's a social thing that evolved over time because there's safety in conformity; the new and different is to be feared because it could quite rightly be dangerous.

I prefer independant thought... and "suffer" for it. :)

IMO, if there's anything resembling "God", it's nature and the possibility of "higher" simulated universes (Singularity reference).

--

Re:Rational Bias

[Anonymous Coward]

I turned in a proof like that once, and the atheist bastard professor failed me!

Re:Rational Bias

[Krach42]

Capitalize schampitalize... English used to capitalize all nouns until recently. German still does, Swedish doesn't capitalize anything but the first letter in a sentence, and names. I don't let myself get bogged down in the "idiocy" of "one should capitalize all pronouns refering to God." Whatever...

I accept that some people don't believe in God, and I can have a rational conversation without resorting to "God says" because most of my beliefs are secularly grounded, (I'm a very logical person who came to Christ only 4 some years ago)

I personally don't believe that believing in God is the "happier" option, and I don't see God as a spoiled brat either. I see God as a being whose motives we can never fully understand. God gave us free-will to make our own descisions, and we do, without his interference.

The way I see it is this: God exists; God is perfect; God gave us free-will, over which he has _NO_ control or power; We are not perfect; God loves us; God can't stand imperfection; Jesus is God's son; Jesus died to atone for our sins.

If you don't believe these, then you are free to argue all you want about them, but I see them as philosophical atoms, which cannot be proven or disproven, and must stand on faith.

BTW, to think that all "all organized religion is a lie and a scam" is to believe that any organization is a lie and a scam. Governments, companies, every organization of people. Organized religion is just that, an organization of people with similar religious beliefs. As a government is just an organization of people with similar political motives.

Re:Rational Bias

[Mark of THE CITY]

Wasn't this proven logically by some famous mathematician over hundreds of pages of material?


Two of them, Russell and Whitehead. Have a look here

Re:Rational Bias

[ralphbecket]

Asking for proof is not unreasonable, nor is it arrogant. In the absence of any evidence to support the existence of a god, why should I believe in one? Physics and mathematics do an excellent job of explaining the world around us.

I would not ask a believer to offer proof, because I do not believe they can possibly do so (those that attempt to make an argument are rather forgetting the nature of faith - that is, belief without evidence.)

The only half-way-convincing line I have heard on this was from an acquaintance who said that his personal experience of God was utterly compelling and completely untransferable to anybody else. Fair enough. I cannot deny my own consciousness, although I've found nothing in science that offers any sort of explanation for the phenomenon. I don't believe consciousness is something mystical, however, but that's probably because I've never found mystical-type "explanations" at all convincing.

Finally, to those who say that their personal philosophy starts with the *axiom* "God exists" are on rather soft ground. Mathematically, I can construct any formal system I like and place any interpretation on the symbols. This doesn't mean that my interpretation or my formal system stand in any sensible correspondence to the real world. Finding working correspondences is the job of physics, but there the association is only supported so long as it is not contradicted by the facts *and* provides some useful predictive power. Without the former constraint, physics would be uselessly inconsistent; without the latter, physics would be encumbered with mountains of nonsense speculation.

Re:Rational Bias

[Anonymous Coward]

They have faith in all that surrounds them as evidence. The fact that they cannot articulate it to your satisfaction and that you demand it is the simple reason why you will ever "get it."

Why do you believe you exist? Because you see yourself in the mirror? Because you feel? Because you have sentience? You have faith in yourself. How is it so unfathomable for someone else to believe themselves and others is evidence of something like but larger? Heck, you believe in a quark probably. I've never seen a quark. Have you?

btw, I'm an agnostic. I get pissed when religious folks diss science and when folks diss religion.

btw2, at some point, more people will understand that science will ever more lack answers. After all, both scientific theory and mathematics proved it independently themselves. There will be a time when all is known about what is possible to be known, unless we manage to break space and time.

Re:Rational Bias

[Citizen of Earth]

I don't believe consciousness is something mystical, however, but that's probably because I've never found mystical-type "explanations" at all convincing.

If you examine human history, you will find that anything that we didn't understand at a particular time was given a mystical-type "explanation". As we have come to understand more and more, we have had to trot out the God explanation less and less and in doing so, we have reduced the number of Gods in our lives from dozens to only one, since we don't understand the nature of life and death (or consciousness and oblivion). Perhaps one day we will understand these things and that will be the end of God.

"As a scientest, it is my job to discover reality and as a theologian, it is your job to fit God into it."

Re:Rational Bias

[Citizen of Earth]

I've noticed that a lot of the religious people I know aren't really religious - they just want to belong to a group so they subscribe to the group think.

This is, in part, one of the few benefits of religion. The primary function of a church (and the only reason that people go) is that it is basically a social club.

Re:Rational Bias

[Myco]

That's an excuse for belief, not a reason. And it's not a very good one -- you could use it to justify any belief, no matter how foolish. Axiomatic systems are not defined arbitrarily -- axioms are carefully chosen because they seem inevitable based on our experience, and they significantly contribute to the system's effectiveness in describing its domain. The God Axiom does no such thing -- it's not obvious, it's not compelling, and it's not helpful.

Re:Rational Bias

[scheming daemons]

Changing one part of your statement:

Guess what? The whole world is based on axioms, and for me, one axiom in my life is "An invisible fire-breathing dragon exists in my garage." And that's what I stand by. I need no proof of his existence, because no evidence points either way, so I take t on personal faith that he exists.

Go ahead... disprove the axiom that I live by.

I defy you! You can't prove it!

Silly dogmatic.....

Re:Rational Bias

[bcboy]

> The majority of the Slashdot community includes people who are able to think objectively and logically

+5 funny

Re:Rational Bias

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps they are ignorant and superstitious and fear the discovery of verifiable truths?

Perhaps they're squeamish about medical research being performed on murdered babies?

Re:Rational Bias

[kellman]

Actually you shoot yourself in the foot with this statement: "The majority of the Slashdot community includes people who are able to think objectively and logically."

What? Where have you seen this? Slashdot arguements are often emotional, anecdotal diatribes rather than concise, accurate, balanced arguments.

It doesn't seem to matter the subject either...

Re:Rational Bias

[kellman]

How do you know that? You don't exactly sound like a church-goer anyway...

Re:Rational Bias

[kellman]

I disagree. Each time they break an atom down further, they get more and more smaller particles. Science will never 'know' everything. There will always be great unknowns. Even when space and time are 'broken', as you put it, the learning will be just beginning.

Actually, you exist because you can ask yourself the question "do I exist?" Remember the quote, "I think , therefore I am." (Kant, I believe) A quark doesn't question its existence.

Whoohoo

[Stigmata669]

I can't help it... I got an article published on slashdot! My day is made!

We Are Our Own Wicked Gods

[Anonymous Coward]

God is Dead. Get over it!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Why was this illegal in the first place?

[Anonymous Coward]

See topic.

Have we reached the point where we have to get permission from our own government to do things?

Re:Why was this illegal in the first place?

[Anonymous Coward]

Have we reached the point where we have to get permission from our own government to do things?

No. Embryonic stem cell research has never been illegal. In fact, the federal government even funds embryonic stem cell research -- but only if it uses a stem cell line that existed before mid-2001.

But it is still completely legal anywhere in the United States to do any embryonic stem cell research that you want. You just can't get the federal government to pay you for doing it.

It appears that this law recently passed in California is a purely political measure.

It just says that something which already was legal, still is legal. If Gray Davis actually wanted to encourage embryonic stem cell research in California, he would put his money where his mouth is, and provide funding.

But this law really has nothing to do with science or medicine. It is just a political move intended to help the Democrats in the fall elections.

The real issue...

[gillbates]

is not stem cell research, but in using unborn humans as a source for those stem cells. The church has no qualms about stem cell research so long as acquiring the stem cells does not mean killing an unborn human being.

What the Church really fears is a time in which humans will be "grown" for their organs - that is to provide healthy organs for sick people. Using embryonic stem cells for research is not a trivial step in that direction.

Re:The real issue...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I can see their point -- sort-of. But that's just like opposing heart transplants because it might create a situation where people are killed -- or doctors too quick to pronounce them dead -- to get at their organs.
That is already happening (P.R. China). But to oppose transplants because of this goes a bit far.
Here we have 'human' embryo's -- in fact 2^n cell clusters, not even blastocysts yet -- sure, genetically they are as human as you and me and your little toe, but fysiologically they are just barely metazoan.
Yes, there is a slippery slope, and we just have to face up to it. They church does not and thus opposes even the killing of a fertilized ovum. Heck, if killing *potential* human life is murder, then with modern cloning techniques, tonsillectomy is genocide :-)

Re:The real issue...

[Anonymous Coward]

fertilized ovum.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but an ovum is unfertilized by definition. As soon as the cell is fertilized, it becomes a zygote.

(Of course this is a matter of definition, and not morality.)

Re:The real issue...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oops, yes!

So the California Governor can *pass* laws?

[Belisarivs]

I didn't realize California had folded in the legislative branch into the executive branch. Most other places, the legislature passes laws, and the Governor signs them.

This is a step in the right direction. Now if I can just convince my college's student government that a Constitutional Monarchy is a much better form of government than this President/Senate/Court deal . . .

From the unpopular point of view . . .

[Belisarivs]

Not to engage in the dead-horse debate about abortion, it's important for people to realize there are *two* sides in the argument. Bush happens to be on the side the believes that a fetus has the spark of human life, and the rest of the position follows from that. If you want to argue whether or not that's the case, I don't want to hear it because it has nothing to do with the fact it's part of Bush's philosophy.

Now, having that point of view, how can people that would roundly condemn Nazi medical experiments blame Bush for taking a position that acknowledges the other side, but refuses to give support to medical experimentation that results from a practice he believes to be immoral? Or should morality be completely removed from politics?

Re:From the unpopular point of view . . .

[tid242]

Bush happens to be on the side the believes that a fetus has the spark of human life

Just as a counter to your statement a fetus and an embryo are not the same. Morality and politics should not be mutually exclusive although many religious advocates, and those who pander to them, would like to belive that morality is synonomous with religion, in that being agnostic or impartial is the same as amoral, which is clearly not the case. Along this train of thought the idea that Abortion up to full-term is legal while using cells from discarded embryonic tissue should not be legal is hypocritical, not amoral.

so good for Bush and the Witch-hunter general, they pander to conservative populations of people for votes, they aren't scientists, and neither are the vast majority of government policymakers. i don't have a problem with peoples' beliefs, but when these beliefs are held by policymakers who, quite frankly don't know anything about the nature of that which they are controlling, and it impacts people who do-then i have a problem.

Just think of all the bullshit legislation being kicked around regarding intellectual property, fair use, and other slashdot-type material, you know what?-it's the same damn thing, just a different medium.

"there are *two* sides to every arguement" (if there were less then there wouldn't be an arguement now would there be?). This commonly used phrase simply promotes the borderline personality-type debate that far too many people engage. there are (almost) always more than two sides, most real questions don't have simple "yes" and "no" answers. While the research community is almost always concerned with the ethics of their work and the question is "how much" or where to draw the line, conservative simpletons tend to answer with "no, never" or "yes, always" and back it up with "just because" or "because it's always been that way." this type of thinking does a great disservice to humanity, it is counterproductive, arrogant, and fickle.

ok, //end_rant

sorry, but i feel very strongly about our kakistocracy...

-tid242

Re:From the unpopular point of view . . .

[reptilicus]

Remember that most of the embryos in question are leftovers from in vitro fertilization clinics. These clinics routinely run redundant procedures in case of failure, so you end up with a lot of fertilized eggs that aren't going to be used. What happens to those fertilized eggs that (according to some) have a soul? Some get stored for a period of time, but in general, they get discarded.

So you've got this heinous crime happening anyway--fertilized eggs being destroyed. The question is whether it's better to simply destroy them and gain nothing, or to destroy them and get something useful from that action.

Isn't it better if sick, suffering people can be healed? Why just throw that chance away?

Re:From the unpopular point of view . . .

[DukeToma]

"...a fetus and an embryo are not the same."

I'm sorry but that's completely incorrect. An embryo is simply a fetus a few months earlier. Allow me to bring you up to date on the science of life. A male reproductive cell (spermatozoa) unites with a female reproductive cell (ovum) and together they become a single celled human being (Zygote). If you look at any chart that shows the Development of a Human Being you will see the first stage of any Adults life being a Zygote, progressing through various stages of development. These stages have been given names, however these named stages are all simply periods of development of the same being created at conception (or perhaps multiple beings in the case of twins). Human Reproduction

Re:From the unpopular point of view . . .

[woodsma]

Along this train of thought the idea that Abortion up to full-term is legal while using cells from discarded embryonic tissue should not be legal is hypocritical, not amoral.

However, those that typically lobby against using embryonic stem cells are also those that lobby aginst abortion. It has to do with their total perspective on life. That our government supports abortion in no way mandates that our government should support the use of embryonic stem cells. In fact, didn't Pres. Bush campaign on a pro-life ticket as well? It is significantly more difficult to reverse the abortion position of the gov. than to set a new precident with embryonic stem cells.

so good for Bush and the Witch-hunter general, they pander to conservative populations of people for votes, they aren't scientists, and neither are the vast majority of government policymakers. i don't have a problem with peoples' beliefs, but when these beliefs are held by policymakers who, quite frankly don't know anything about the nature of that which they are controlling, and it impacts people who do-then i have a problem.

I get it, the doctors and such are the ones who are infallable experts and if you're not you have no business having an opinion? I don't think this could last very long. In reality, those against (and those for, for that matter) embryonic stem cell research have valid points of view that need to be discussed. They're simply not always a "scientific" point of view, but then, *gasp* science is not the end all of the decision making process!

conservative simpletons tend to answer with "no, never" or "yes, always" and back it up with "just because" or "because it's always been that way."

Nice bit of posturing, but not entirely accurate. What's missing is the little track about commitment to truth. When one has such a commitment to truth, then "no, never" on things that are wrong and "yes, always" on things that are right seem to me to be non-negotiable. In the conversations I have, I rarely encounter people who try to back it up with "just because" or "because it's always been that way", and this myopic simplification is an insult to those who take the time think things through in an attempt to come to the correct conclusion.

All Right, I'll be the one to say it

[netphilter]

The issue (at least from the perspective of an authentic Christian) has nothing to do with science. It has to do with my belief that the Bible is the infallible word of God. God declares in the Bible that life begins at conception...end of discussion. If I believe the Bible the I have to believe that life begins at conception. If I believe that then destroying embryos is murder, plain and simple. The liberal media always tries to make this an issue of science or saving humanity or whatever when it really has nothing to do with that, at least not from the Christian perspective. I believe that embryos are lives, and I'm not going to advocating taking those lives.

Re:All Right, I'll be the one to say it

[Anonymous Coward]

God declares in the Bible that life begins at conception

Ok. I have forgotten exact location where precisely that is said, in enough detail as not to be just someone's far fetched interpretation. So, could you give me the exact reference(s)?

And yes, I am being sarcastic. To my knowledge nothing like that is said in the Bible, partially because it's just millennia old book written by nomad tribe that had at that point barely climbed down the tree, and partially because if some divine creator did author the book, (s)he wouldn't have wasted time in trying to explain complains too complex for the time and place.

Re:All Right, I'll be the one to say it

[javabandit]

I am not a Christian, or a Jewish person, and I do feel that most religious texts are overall rubbish.

That notwithstanding, I don't see anywhere in Christian or Jewish scripture where a fetus is declared to be the same as a born, breathing person. If anything, it is the exact opposite. The word "breath" and the act of "breathing" are referred to many times over as being the qualifier for life. Bodies being fully formed, yet without the breath of life. Calling forth the winds to breath life into corpses... etc... etc. The Jewish priniciple was always that God breathed life and gave the soul to the child when the child was born. Because that is how it is written even when Adam was first created.

Ezekiel 37:

"Thus says the Lord God to these bones, 'Behold, I will cause breath to enter you that you may come to life. 'And I will put sinews on you, make flesh grow back on you, cover you with skin, and put breath in you that you may come alive; and you will know that I am the Lord.' "

Genesis 2:7

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

Job 27:3

"For the length of my life is still in me, And the spirit of God is in my nostrils"

There are lots more references to such things. But overall, it does appear clear that according to Jewish and Christian scriptures... the fetus is not a living, soul-having child until it comes out and has the breath of life breathed into it.

On another point, if the Christian and Jewish God was so dead set against child-killing, he certainly didn't show it... since he made it a point to dictate the killing of living/breathing, innocent children in several circumstances.

And for those who quote Exodus 21 as being proof that abortion is condemned... that is wrong. In Exodus 21, the consequence of life for life was if the _bystanding PREGNANT woman_ died due to being accidentally hurt as the result of a brawl between men... not the fetus. If the women lived, the perpetrators would simply be fined. Nowhere in this text does it say that the well-being of the fetus and the mother both are to be considered. This is probably the most commonly misused, and over-interpreted modern Jewish/Christian text related to abortion.

Just wanted to inject a little information into the fray.

Re:All Right, I'll be the one to say it

[Anonymous Coward]

If you follow the bible literally, you will be found completely immoral by today's standards and probbaly thrown in jail. If we do not accept polygamy, male dominated power structures, mass slaughter of innocents, theocratic regimes and so on, don't you think it would make sense to kind of question some of the other things in this "infallible" Bible as well???

The moral of the story: think for yourself. There is no single truth and anyone claiming to know about The Truth is one to walk away from.

Re:All Right, I'll be the one to say it

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, doesn't Exodus also describe the killing of thousands (if not millions) of living first-born children in Egypt, simply to prove a point to their stubborn (and UNELECTED) tyrannical leader?

Bottomline... if God wanted to protect kids, he wouldn't be killing or hurting them. His policy is perpetuated to this day by the Catholic Church. This may seem immoral to some, but then again.. you're free to not follow this immoral belief system.

Re:All Right, I'll be the one to say it

[james.bromberger]

I don't think religous belief need have anything to do with the assertion that life begins at conception. For me, I have simply seen no argument that the first cell after conception is any less "life" than after it has been dividing for a while. Believing that it is an individual life, then, leads to the conclusion that it is as worthy of protection as my own 30-year-old life.

Re:All Right, I'll be the one to say it

[spike hay]

Here's what the bible says about the right to life of children: happy is he who smashes the heads of little children on rocks." Psalms 137:9.

BTW, abortion was quite common in ancient israel. It was very commonly done by eating a semi-poisonous plant.

Re:All Right, I'll be the one to say it

[netphilter]

Nothing like taking Scripture out of context. Read the whole Psalm. It was a song asking God to vanquish the enemies. Granted, it's brutal, but they were asking God to do that to their enemies, not advocating smashing your own kids head off of rocks. Literacy is a wonderful thing when applied correctly.

Re:All Right, I'll be the one to say it

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh, it's okay because it's just your enemies children that are getting their heads smashed. I see.

Re:All Right, I'll be the one to say it

[woodsma]

There is no single truth and anyone claiming to know about The Truth is one to walk away from.

Is that a single truth? It certainly looks like you think so. Self defeating statements are interesting things...

Re:All Right, I'll be the one to say it

[Anonymous Coward]

> Is that a single truth?
Nope. It's a damn good rule of thumb though.

Re:All Right, I'll be the one to say it

[woodsma]

Whatever.

Majority-shmority

[DerFeuervogel]

An interesting point, but Jehovah's Witnesses do not represent a
particularly large segment of the American population or their beliefs.

This is irrelevant, with respect to the argument of separation of
church and state. 200 Years ago it was the majority view in the south
that blacks were inferior and hence the concept of slavery was valid.
We look back on that now with revulsion. So then if the majority view
cannot over ride the documents that define the nation. Simply put, the US
has a constitution that defines how the church and state interact.
The issue of embriotic destruction is a religious one and should not
be federally precluded.

Re:Majority-shmority

[goldspider]

Whether or not the beliefs are religious in nature or not, this country has always been a matter of majority-rule.

I don't think President Bush's decision on this was motivated solely by his moral apprehensions. Rather I don't believe there was sufficient scientific evidence that this course of action is yet appropriate. Another reader commented that (as far as he/she knew) there has been little or no embrionic research done on animals.

If I were the president, I'd certainly want evidence that something with such deep moral and scientific implications worked before I encouraged and/or spent taxpayers' money to fund such a program.

Re:Majority-shmority

[PD]

Remember, a lynching mob is pure majority rule in action. Quite a lot of people have absolute no moral problems at all with stem cell research. So when you say that there are deep moral problems with it, you're just projecting a specific prejudice onto the problem.

Re:Majority-shmority

[goldspider]

A lynching is not majority rule. It is mob rule, where a vocal minority act out on what others may feel, but respect the law and do not act on their feelings.

I never said there were "deep moral problems" with embryonic stem cell research. My words were "deep moral and scientific implications", suggesting that there is much to be considered before embracing the controversial research.

like I also stated, I have no desire to put religious dogma in the way of medical progress. The point I'm making is that (as President) there is no point in pissing off a whole lot of people who believe that embryonic stem cell research is wrong by supporting what is little more than theory. Call it political if you wish, but I call it sound judgement.

Re:Majority-shmority

[Rutulian]

The issue of embriotic destruction is a religious one and should not
be federally precluded.

The Catholic Church and various other religious groups may oppose the use of embryos in stem cell research, but that doesn't make it a "religious issue". It is a moral issue. And if you think the governing of the state should have nothing to do with morals then we should have let the Nazis win during World War II.

Re:Majority-shmority

[Wavicle]

Whether or not the beliefs are religious in nature or not, this country has always been a matter of majority-rule.

Who told you this? Please have them explain:

1) The Electoral College
2) The Senate
3) Prohibition (note that a popular majority is not required for constitutional ammendment)

There are checks and balances in the system designed to prevent The Tyranny of the Majority.

Think carefully. (I know it hurts)

[bobdole34]

Gov. Gray Davis is probably receiving some sort of "appreciation" for allowing company 'X' to conduct their research. Not to mention many other multi-billion dollar bio-medical research and pharmaceuticals will move to or conceive in CA.

Re:Well, about time.

[netphilter]

Yeah, you're right...it's much better now that we have unbelievably high divorce rates, kids killing each other, children having sex (and babies), college students that can't read, presidents that think it's ok to lie to the american people, and thousands of people going to hell because they refuse to hear the truth. Thanks atheists and liberals, thanks. :-D

Re: logically inconsistant

[Gallamine]

Your comment has a few flawed ideas.

1) While you commments about doing what you want with your body are partly correct, you miss the fact, that a) we're not talking about our bodies - we talking about the body of a human being. A child. A genetically identical to you and me life., and b) we can only do what we want with our bodies as long as it doesn't harm the rest of the society. Murdering our children has significant social impact.

2) There's nothing wrong with preserving our species, but the whole point of this debate is that we're killing children in order to preserve ourselves. We're eliminating new life in order to squeeze a few more years out of the old ones. Seems rather inconsistant to me.

Louis Pasteur prooved over 100 years ago that life doesn't come from non life. Life passes seemlessly from the mother and father into a child. Never does life stop and that zygote is just as human as you are (except that it wants to preserve life).

If you want to experiment why don't you donate your living body to be hacked apart in the name of science :)

Flame on!
-Gallamine

Embryos

[NetGyver]

Point of reference: I consider myself semi-relgious, but my mind is open.

I kind of have a problem destroying a perfectly good embryo for the sake of scientific research.
I consider enbryos life to the extent that, hey I was an embryo once, you all were. Taking that enybros chance at life away is like someone taking your chance to live away now. But others beg to differ and that's okay.

It all boils down to how the process is done.

The bill requires clinics that do in-vitro fertilization procedures to inform women they have the option to donate discarded embryos to research. It requires written consent for donating embryos for research and bans the sale of embryos.

So in other words if the fertilization doesn't work right and/or the enbryo hasn't a chance for life, the women who go there now have the option to donate that embryo for research? Am _I_ reading this right?

From the sounds of it, the embryo is just going to be tossed out anyway. Assuming i'm not reading the article wrong, this sounds perfectly fine with me.

If it's about an option to donate eggs to a fertilization clinic to grow an embryo in a test tube to harvest for research, then it's no so clear to me. But i guess since these people are giving up their sperm and eggs, that's their right, they're the owners of them. I wouldn't say it's okay or wrong, I'm just not sure if I'd do it personally. I'm netrual about it.

Re:Embryos

[Blacklotuz]

In-vitro fertilization involves creating a number of embryos to insure at least one success. A healthy one is selected and the rest are discarded. Since there being discarded anyway we might as well use them for stem cell research

Re:Embryos

[rick446]

You wrote:
So in other words if the fertilization doesn't work right and/or the enbryo hasn't a chance for life, the women who go there now have the option to donate that embryo for research? Am _I_ reading this right?

Not exactly. Generally, in in-vitro fertilization, a number of eggs are fertilized, and a number of (possibly undamaged) embryos are created. I believe that this has something to do with the difficulty of harvesting eggs and the desire to have a few around "just in case" the first few embryos don't implant in the uterus.

If it's an embryo, then the fertilization did work right, by definition. Generally, the excess embryos are frozen or discarded when the couple decides they have enough kids. So in that sense, perhaps the embryo "hasn't a chance for life," but it doesn't mean the embryo wouldn't do fine if there were a willing woman to carry it to term.

By the way, I haven't seen the bill (the Wired article had a link to the legislature's web page, not to the bill itself), but I'll just point out that 1) the White House never banned embryonic stem cell research - they just refused to fund it except for the listed stem cell lines, 2) embryos are not the only source of stem cells (placenta, umbilical cord, etc. are also abundant sources), and 3) the advances we've seen through stem cell research up to now have come almost exclusively from non-embryonic stem cells. There's a hope that embryonic stem cells will prove more fruitful than non-embryonic, but that has not been the case thus far.

If the Calif. bill really ALLOWS stem cell research, then it's doing nothing new -- stem cell research was already *allowed*. But it sounds safer politically than what I believe is the case, which is that California is *funding* embryonic stem cell research. But again, I haven't seen the bill.

Just my $.02

Re:Embryos

[dmadole]

In-vitro fertilization involves creating a number of embryos to insure at least one success. A healthy one is selected and the rest are discarded. Since there being discarded anyway we might as well use them for stem cell research

I think you've hit upon the point, but in the opposite way you probably intended. One of the biggest problems with embryonic research is that it adds justification to the practice of destroying embryos by giving it a supposedly beneficial purpose.

Label me as a radical freak if you will, but I still believe in the ages-old principle of morality that states that you must have good means to good ends.

I don't dispute that it would be an excellent thing to find a cure for paralysis and neural diseases. Or that it is great and worthwhile work to help people have children that otherwise couldn't. But regardless of how good these ends, it is simply not justifiable to acheive either one through the means of killing human embryos.

And for those who don't have a problem with killing embryos, I can only see that you fall into two categories:

• Those who believe that it is acceptable to take human life, or,
• Those beleive that human embryos do not represent human life.

For the former category, I will not attempt to persuade you otherwise, for I feel you are too far gone to be helped.

But for the latter, what is an embryo then? I think by any scientific definition of "life" it must be agreed that embryos are alive. So that only leaves the question of "are they human?"

All I can do about this is offer insight into my own reasoning. Take it for what you will.

I am the father of twin girls who were born after 16 weeks of pregnancy. I watched their live birth, and then watched them as they died afteward. I was left with no doubt from this experience that those two girls were live human beings. They looked human, they acted human.

So then, when did they become human? The day before? The day before that? The day before the day before? The day before the day before the day before? I can't say. I can't determine with any satisfaction that there is a single point since their conception where they transitioned from being not human life to being human life. Therefore, I can only conclude that they were always human life. Or, at a minimum, I can conclude that the safest thing to do when dealing with questions of life and death, is to consider that they were always human life, and err on the side of caution.

If you are hunting and you see in the distance what looks to you an awful lot like a deer, but has bright orange on it, what do you do? Do you shoot anyway, assuming that one of those PETA freaks have just put an orange vest or paint on a deer? Or do you err on the side of caution that it might be a fellow hunter?

Re:Embryos

[Anonymous Coward]

You think you are being smart, but there's nothing wrong with drawing a line.

Re:Embryos

[DukeToma]

"From the sounds of it, the embryo is just going to be tossed out anyway." Yean, and people on Death Row are going to be "tossed out anyways", also, but this doesn't mean that we can butcher them all and sell their organs to the highest bidder. If you stop for a moment and think about this topic very seriously you'll also realize that saying that it ought to be acceptable to do medical research on these because they're going to die anyways is not a smart thing to say. Remember, you too are going to die anyways. That doesn't mean that I have to right to take your life early because there could possibly maybe be a chance that I could learn something that might possibly make someone else's life more comfortable.

Re:Embryos

[Blacklotuz]

My point wasn't that its right or wrong, just that its being done. Right now the embroys are just being destroyed. At least through stem cell research theres a chance that they could be used to help others. In-vitro is going to go on no matter what happens with stem cell research.

Uhg

[Servo]

Normally I don't think very highly of california, but I do agree with them on this.

it IS a touchy subject, but one which I feel Bush does not have the right to butt into.

Does anybody believe in States Rights anymore?

How dare they defy Bush?!

[Sloppy]

It is pure arrogance that the people of California think they should be able to govern themselves, especially if it involves defying our leader in a post-9/11 world. Besides, after Bush's landslide election, it is clear that his deep and well-considered philosophy has a mandate.

Research

[ktulus cry]

I myself am Catholic and pro-life, but I am also a very strong proponent of stem cell research. Though the harvesting of cells from embryos does stop a life from occuring, it has not actually developed into life - it exsists as rapidly dividing cells. There is far too much protential for stem cells to ignore it based on the religous fanatic. Cheers to California, and I hope that Michigan isn't too far behind their example.

Re:Research

[james.bromberger]

You said:
>> Though the harvesting of cells from embryos does stop a life from occuring, it has not actually developed into life - it exsists as rapidly dividing cells.

Irrespective of your religous beliefs, it seems this only so much hand-waving. You and I are masses of cells, too; not dividing as "rapidly" as we once were, granted.

I have yet to see any convincing argument that the first cell resulting from fertilization is any less "life" than after 3, 6, or 9 months of division, or even after 30 years of division, for that matter.

actions of Governor seem odd

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems odd that California's Governor would sign a law authorizing embroyonic stem cell research but veto a law allowing the state to research industrial hemp. Hmm, guess we can see where he is putting his money.

Re:Think carefully. (I know it hurts)

[tid242]

Not to mention many other multi-billion dollar bio-medical research and pharmaceuticals will move to or conceive in CA.

you're absolutely right, this is much worse than having them move to Europe or Japan...

Shifting the braindrain abroad is also much better than scientists moving from one coast to the other as well...

remember, if company X is not drawing down federal funds, then it may not necessarily be a whole lot better off than it was last week anyway...

-tid242

This can be read in another way

[mofolotopo]

Just like California's medical marijuana laws and their opposition by the federal government, this can also be seen as an issue of....drumroll please.... tate's rights. I see it as quite an interesting way to bring the issue of state's rights to the fore, as the people who normally bang on about state's rights all the time (conservatives) are exactly the people who will HATE these two laws. It's quite interesting to see how (for some of them) their belief in the sovereignty of the states completely evaporates when the states are doing something THEY don't like. I'd like to point out that I said SOME of them, as I know there are people out there on both sides of the political spectrum who honestly believe that states should have sovereignty in most issues that won't flip-flop in this situation. I'm just saying that I know for a fact that there are a LOT that have.

Re:This can be read in another way

[netphilter]

The federal government should, however, have the responsibility of protecting life, whether it's that of an unborn born child or a born one. I'm all for state's rights, but not when they infringe upon the right to life for children.

Re:This can be read in another way

[mofolotopo]

Well, there is no legal recognition that life begins at conception, which is why abortion is legal. You may think that's right or wrong, but it nonetheless is the law. That being the case, there's no reason why a state shouldn't be able to pass a law which is in line with the supreme court's interpretation of the point at which life begins.

On another note, there are some huge misconceptions about how therapeutic use of stem cells is actually practiced. For the most part, they use tissue from fetuses that were already aborted for other reasons. Furthermore, if the assertion is that the use of tissue from one already aborted fetus isn't allowable even if it saves the lives of thousands of people who have families and friends of their own, you're on pretty shaky moral ground to say the least. Allowing thousands who may not share your beliefs to die for your belief that an already aborted fetus is somehow sacred seems to me (and a lot of the medical community) to be tantamount to murder in its own right. I can't expect to convince you of that, but at least you have to think about the fact that people WILL die from diseases that these treatments might cure, and weigh that against the use of something that, even if you believe that a 32-cell blastula is somehow human, is already dead.

Wow, this is new....

[Anonymous Coward]

A new and growing cult known as "The Christians" attacked and burned the great Library of Alexandria today. The caretaker of the Library, Hypatia of Alexandria, a brilliant mathmetician and vocal pagan, was found flayed (skinned alive) in the bowels of a place of worship owned by a Christian known as Cyril.

In other news, the Catholic campaign against anything non-Catholic continues successfully throughout Europe. Also, Cyril was elevated to saint hood. The Pope also wants you to remember that all of this stuff about the Earth going around the sun is just another illusion by Satan.

Re:Wow, this is new....

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok...that happened in what year exactly? Umm....if we go back far enough, your going to find some pretty unsavory pagans, along with people from just about every faith on earth.

And for that matter, alot of the people some people want to label as "pagans" were not what most people would think of as a pagan today. Many were superstitious people (there's a big difference there) who worshiped god(s) of a different faith. They weren't Wiccans or something...actually, if you read a few history books...Wicca pretty much didn't exist until about 1951 when Britain lifted some Witchcraft laws and some books were published. Books with dubious sources, no less.

Is it really so hard to see how even many non-Christians find the whole embryonic stem cell/abortion thing kinda sick too? It's not JUST Christians....alot of them - yes....even MOST of them. But not all.

Whatever...

Wouldn't it be easier to use Illegal Immigrants?

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally I'm pro-life based on principle, but it seems we want to discard principle when we can take a technological short-cut.

CA apparently has more of those then stem cells and they are both illegal and often a nusiance despite claims to help the economy, and they could solve many more problems.

Of course the Church teaches against that too, but they also teach that we should help the poor and Government seems to see nothing wrong with imposing that morality on the rest of us.

They do seem to want to avoid the Church's mandate to "educate the ignorant", how else to explain the public school system?

Didn't the Nazis and Japanese make many more medical discoveries in WW2 at a much faster rate when they discarded those silly ideas about human dignity and the value of life?

We would have slavery today if "modern medicine" was discovered before about 1850. The northerners wouldn't want to close their tissue bank.

But that is what you get when pragmatism dictates principles. Niven's "Jigsaw Man" is probably less than 50 years away. Wait until the baby boomers start needing replacement parts...

Or the complaints and fears here about electronic cattle ear-tags. But if we don't assert the intrinsic dignity of human life (and yes, embryos are human life, merely at an early stage), we are just animals and there is no argument against being treated like cattle.

Humans have government. Animals have Zookeepers.

And the USA is turning into a zoo.

Like the Church has any right!

[Anonymous Coward]

Give me a break about the freaking "church of America" Besides the "boy scandals" that is unfair to the church, think about the other stuff, like the $10 million dollar house that a cardinal had! The cars, the idea that you can screw your neighbor-literally and get forgiveness the next day. What in the hell gives the church the right to deem what?s worthy. So if they are so worried about lives why don?t the church spend a little more time with the unfortunate. These petty "homeless houses" are a joke, instead of giving them fish teach them how to get it. If the church can give $8 million dollars to some people to "appease" there pains and shove it under the cover. Call this what ever you want built the Church are the last people on this earth that have a right to judge what is a sin.

--my close--

Hey Israel back the fuck off Palestine! You have done more evil in this world than all Arab countries put together! And no Afghanistan is NOT Arab, they don?t even speak Arabic!

Did this make you laugh, good I know how you feel about America.

Did this piss you off? Then you must be one of them!

Phys. therapy

[pclminion]

His recovery so far has been almost entirely the result of physical therapy.

You don't think the fact that he's Superman has anything to do with it?

Another article that sheds more light...

[aminorex]

If you want to see why I think pharma was pivotal in this move, check out the auction site.

It's a mass of generic cells

[MichaelPenne]

Not a "body".

Not CNS, no brain tissue, no heart, no lungs, etc.

About half of the naturally created zygotes die in the first two weeks after fertilization.

If these are "human beings", then half of our population dies before even being implanted! Of these are "human beings" then why don't pregnant women get counted twice for taxes & apportionment?

Finally, the fear of "growing people for organs" is bad sci-fi, not science. The idea is to grow organs and organ tissue directly from stem cells, and save real suffering and dying human beings with the result.

Re:It's a mass of generic cells

[james.bromberger]

(1) That this mass of cells doesn't have distinct organs doesn't mean it's not a individual human life. Let's not quibble over defining "body".

(2) Failing to implant certainly implies death for such a mass of cells. Slamming into a telephone pole at 60 miles per hour probably implies the same for this mass of cells (and for the mass of cells that is the original poster).

(3) I wouldn't have a problem with a verifiably pregnant woman being able, along with the fathter, to count their child as a dependent for tax purposes.

(4) "Growing people for organs." A red herring. I'll go along with you that far.

(5) It's a fact of life that humans suffer. If one accepts the premise that an embyo is human life (which is not at all irrational), than it follows that you can't kill one human just to benefit another that might be suffering.

Re:It's a mass of generic cells

[MichaelPenne]

> (1) That this mass of cells doesn't have distinct organs doesn't mean it's not a individual human life.

According to the defintion of "individual", it does. You might switch the context of "an individual" to merely "a single thing", but then how is your mass of cells different from a tumor or clump of "adult" stem cells?

> (2) Failing to implant certainly implies death for such a mass of cells. Slamming into a telephone pole at 60 miles per hour probably implies the same for this mass of cells (and for the mass of cells that is the original poster).

Only if the cells are already in a uterus. If the cells are in a petri dish, they can live indefinitely in culture, or be grown into (living) organ tissue to save the lives of individual human beings.

> (5) If one accepts the premise that an embyo is human life (which is not at all irrational), than it follows that you can't kill one human just to benefit another that might be suffering.

Only if one switches the context of "human life" mid-sentence to "human being". The "human life" of course is not "killed", like with other tissue transplants, it is just moved from one form of living (in vitro) to another (in vivo).

Re:It's a mass of generic cells

[james.bromberger]

>> According to the defintion of "individual", it does.

Why?

>> You might switch the context of "an individual" to merely "a single thing", but then how is your mass of cells different from a tumor or clump of "adult" stem cells?

It's not much different. All the cells in question have a single owner, and we should get his permission before doing anything with them

It appears to me that all of your arguments revolve around this theme, and please correct me if I'm wrong:

"It's not a life yet because look what I can do with it now that I can't do after point X in its development."

In my view, you've missed that they aren't *your* cells. They're not even the *mother's* cells. They're completely unique. They're living and growing. They are, then, a brand-new created agent that is endowed with every right you and I so cherish.

Things Anti-Research folks often say:

[MichaelPenne]

Things Anti- embryonic Stem cell research folks say:

Anti: But it's a human being! A microscopic brainless little human being and taking cells from it is murder!

Pro: No, it's a mass of generic totipotent cells. If it makes it into a mother's womb, it might (about 1/2 fail to implant) become twins, triplets, or it might merge with another blastula to form a single individual. Or it might fail to implant and be expelled as waste. If we start declaring that fertilized eggs are human beings, do we then investigate every woman who has an early miscarriage for suspicion of murder or neglect (too much excercise, coffee or stress can cause a zygote to fail to implant)?

Better to stick with our current definition of "human being": unique individual of the human species, rather than redefine human being to mean one or more or part of something that might become a human being if inserted in the right environment just to try and get a leg up in the battle agains the pro-choicers.

Anti: Adult stem cells are providing cures while the liberals want to waste money on embryonic work just to upset the religious!

Pro: Unipotent adult stem cells were discovered over fifty years ago, and only recently have treatments with them become safe and effective. Yet such treatments are frequently claimed by anti-embryonic stem cell folks to be proof that adult _pluripotent_ stem cells will be effective, even though no human trials have been conducted with adult pluripotent stem cells to justify this claim!

Sadly, one can easily make the claim that adult stem cell research is a good thing without lying about embryonic stem cells research and therapeutic cloning. I wonder why folks who are interested in ASCR seem to constantly have to attack ESCR and SCNT? Doesn't their field of interest hold enough promise without cutting down the others?

In an ideal world, where curing sick people came first, all three avenues would be fully explored for the best cures.

Often the above is accompanied by something like:

Anti: Adult stem cells are currently healing hearts from only a few injections!

Pro: One form of disease has been alieviated in one patient. There has been no widespread set of human trials to show this will work in all cases, nor has there been comparative studies to see if this one method is better than methods using SCNT or ESCR. There is no scientific reason not to explore multiple methods for treatment to find the best one for various different forms of disease. Surgury stops some cancers, taxol stops others. It would be rather silly and unscientific to say since surgery is 70% effective agains cancer A, we should not fund other forms of cancer research, wouldn't it?

Anti: This research will lead to growing children for body parts!

Pro: No, that is not at all likely, even aside from the moral implications, it would be impractical. Instead, the specific needed organ cells are grown in the numbers required from pluripotent stem cells and injected, or the organ itself is grown on a synthetic mesh. No serious researcher in the field of regenerativ medicine is proposing "growing a clone for replacement organs", one only hears such nonsense from bad sci-fi writers and religious nuts.

Anti: Stem cell therapy will be too expensive for ordinary people anyway!

Pro: This is pure speculation. Any new procedure is expensive, including adult pluripotent stem cell work and certainly killing a person's immune system and replacing it with marrow stem cells grown in the lab. Fund the research normally and demand that the research is made available for everyone.

The best thing about stem cell research is that it is about finding _cures_: new organs, new nerves, new brain tissue. Folks cured should be able to return to their lives, get back to work, etc. This is the ultimate dream of medicine: curing people of the ravages of disease and age, rather than just keeping sick folks alive for a few more years.

Re:Things Anti-Research folks often say:

[james.bromberger]

You said:
>> Anti: But it's a human being! A microscopic brainless little human being and taking cells from it is murder!

>> Pro: No, it's a mass of generic totipotent cells.

You and I are masses of non-generic cells, so?

>> If it makes it into a mother's womb, it might (about 1/2 fail to implant) become twins, triplets, or it might merge with another blastula to form a single individual.

Pretty amazing how it works, huh? But why does it make it any less a human life?

>> Or it might fail to implant and be expelled as waste.

People die every day. That doesn't mean they weren't a human life before dying, does it?

>> If we start declaring that fertilized eggs are human beings, do we then investigate every woman who has an early miscarriage for suspicion of murder or neglect (too much excercise, coffee or stress can cause a zygote to fail to implant)?

Not any more than we investigate folks that get in car accidents or whose loved ones die of cancer.

>> Better to stick with our current definition of "human being": unique individual of the human species, rather than redefine human being to mean one or more or part of something that might become a human being if inserted in the right environment...

Current definition of "human being" according to whom? But I'll bite anyway. What makes the first cell after fertilization any less a human life that after it has been dividing for a while? You haven't convinced me. Furthermore, don't **you** need the right environment in order to live? Lacking the evironment to continue to live doesn't mean you weren't living before. Just ask a drowned person. (Then again, they might not respond too quickly. Maybe he wasn't a human life after all!)

Re:Things Anti-Research folks often say:

[MichaelPenne]

> You and I are masses of non-generic cells, so?

So we're human beings, unique individuals of the human species. We can't divide to form two human beings, or merge with another to form a single human being, right?

OTOH, generic human cells are not unique. Do you really want to remove uniqueness from the definition of human being?

> Pretty amazing how it works, huh? But why does it make it any less a human life?

"A human life" as defined as some living human tissue, a stem cell (just like any other human cell in culture) certainly is. But "A" human being is an individual composed of differentiated cells. A cell that might become one or several or part of an individual given the right environment is not "an" individual human being.

> Not any more than we investigate folks that get in car accidents or whose loved ones die of cancer.

Accidental deaths must be reported as such, and evidence presented that the death was indeed accidental. With human beings, if it is not known why a person died, generally there is an investigation. If you want fertilized eggs treated as human beings, why would you deny them this standard protection afforded to other human beings?

> Current definition of "human being" according to whom?

According to the way the word has always been used. It has never applied to individual cells or microscopic masses of generic cells.

> What makes the first cell after fertilization any less a human life that after it has been dividing for a while?

What makes it different from a dividing "adult" stem cell or cancer cell? All have the potential to continue to divide in the right conditions. How would you tell an individual living human cell from a single celled "human being" by looking at the cell?

> Furthermore, don't **you** need the right environment in order to live?

Live? Stem cells are alive, or they are not very useful. *I* however, do not need the right environment to become a human being. Furthermore, current research seems to be moving toward being able to return any human cell to a totipotent (where it could become an embryo if implanted).

Are we then to declare all living human cells "human beings"?

> Lacking the evironment to continue to live doesn't mean you weren't living before. Just ask a drowned person.

Check your tense. My point was that the generic cell needs the right environment to _become_ a person, which is entirely different from a person needing the right environment to "survive". In other words, human stem cells (or fertlized eggs) can survive just fine in various different environments, but they need a _specific_ environment to _become_ one or several or part of one people.

On the other hand, most folks don't think that a human being becomes something else when they are put into another environment where they *survive*.

Re:Things Anti-Research folks often say:

[Pemdos]

Okay, so when is that magical point when you "_become_" a person? You too were once an embryo, no?

Your argument differentiates between an embryo and a "human being", stating that one cannot be the other. Therefore, logic dictates at some DISCRETE point(s) in time there was a change in state. I am genuinely curious as to your response, and to whatever evidence you may produce to support your claim.

Re:Things Anti-Research folks often say:

[MichaelPenne]

Well, it (fertilized egg) clearly becomes an individual human life when it can no longer split to form twins+ or merge to form a chimeric individual. This occurs in the first several weeks.

Spectre and Feinstein's cloning bill, for instance, defines the stage at which the generic mass of cells becomes protected at 14 days, which is the most conservative limit in the world (other than a complete ban), but still allows ESCR and therapeutic cloning research to proceed.

As far as when this individual human life becomes a human being (entitled to the same protections as other human beings), I'd say the best criteria is the same one we use to determine when life ends: presence or absence of brain activity.

Re:Things Anti-Research folks often say:

[james.bromberger]

Yay! I appreciate the sincere feedback. Now, on with the conversation...

>> So we're human beings, unique individuals of the human species. We can't divide to form two human beings, or merge with another to form a single human being, right?

Unique individuals of the human species, yes. Can't divide or merge, yes.

>> OTOH, generic human cells are not unique. Do you really want to remove uniqueness from the definition of human being?

A very good question. I'll agree that they can't necessarily be said to be, as a collection, forever unique due to the aforementioned possibilities. I'm guessing you'd agree, however, that the cells in question certainly *are* genetically unique. I've not removed that criteria from the definition.

>> "A human life" as defined as some living human tissue, a stem cell (just like any other human cell in culture) certainly is. But "A" human being is an individual composed of differentiated cells. A cell that might become one or several or part of an individual given the right environment is not "an" individual human being.

The distinction between "human life" and "a human being" is indeed very interesting. Firstly, I think it's reasonable to argue that the distinction shouldn't matter much since any embryo you and I talk about is not our own, but is unique and is alreay endowed with its own inalienable rights. Consequently, it's not our decision to make whether it lives or dies.

Next, I'm not sure it **must follow** that "A" human being has to be comprised of differentiated cells. At any given instant it time, it is an individual and, arguably, a human being. Along these lines, who's to say science may someday reveal that a collection of just two cells is already differentiated? 100 years ago, no one could have dreamed of the converstation you and I are having now.

>> If you want fertilized eggs treated as human beings, why would you deny them this standard protection afforded to other human beings?

I wouldn't. In many cases, however, no one ever knew that the new human life existed. No investigation could be expected. When it is know, though, I think death by natural causes should be assumed unless there's a strong reason to believe otherwise.

>> According to the way the word has always been used. It has never applied to individual cells or microscopic masses of generic cells.

I am not a professional biologist, philosopher or ethicist, but I'm skeptical that these disciplies have "always" been in agreement about the definition, or even "always" enjoyed total agreement by their practitioners as to the definition.

>> What makes it different from a dividing "adult" stem cell or cancer cell?

It's reasonble to argue that there's little difference, except that an adult can exercise his own free will over his own cells and can choose to (try to) eliminate the cancer.

>> How would you tell an individual living human cell from a single celled "human being" by looking at the cell?

Again, I'm not a biologist, but I'll posit that it's not an important question in regard to the ethics of the matter at hand.

>> *I* however, do not need the right environment to become a human being.

I'll argue you became a human being when you were conceived, and ever since then you have had to be in an environment where you could survive.

>> ...current research seems to be moving toward being able to return any human cell to a totipotent... Are we then to declare all living human cells "human beings"?

This is closely related to the "uniqueness" point above. Obviously, the matter of cloning rears its head too. That's another can of worms I'll ignore for the moment, but I suspect you'll want to come back to it! :-)

>> Check your tense.

I was very specific with my tense for a reason.

>> My point was that the generic cell needs the right environment to _become_ a person, which is entirely different from a person needing the right environment to "survive". In other words, human stem cells (or fertlized eggs) can survive just fine in various different environments, but they need a _specific_ environment to _become_ one or several or part of one people.

I understand your point very clearly, and I hope I've explained mine. I simply do not find your argument compelling enough. Furthermore, I think the issue of life is of such enormous importance, that we should err on the side of caution, on the side of life.

Re:Things Anti-Research folks often say:

[woodsma]

The question isn't individual human life, it's human life period. Just because a "group of cells" isn't differentiated doesn't mean that it therefore isn't human life that requires protection. "Clearly" becoming a human life is simply the point at which there can be no doubt (though some do, eg: late term abortion), it does not therefore mean that anything before that is not life, simply that it is unclear as to if it actually is. I contend that it is.

I don't personally know anybody who will ever take the position that a cell from a fully developed human can be catagorized as a human that deserves protection but it most certainly *is* human, though easily recognized as not viable. However, when a human being is soley comprised of a very small amount of undifferentiated cells I think it is proper to say that it is at the least a viable human, though it may become more than one, and like all humans may even die. I honestly don't see why that is brought up as an argument for the research, other than obviously some people belive human life begins at a different point that other people do, when, in fact, dispite all contrived definitions, we **really don't know for sure**.

I believe we should take an approach where we don't harm a life to heal another (keep it on this level, I don't mean that we can't inflict injury on a vuluntary subject to help heal another person, eg: kidney transplants, etc.), even if that life is new, small, vulnerable to failure, and uncertain.

As for brain activity, just because developed life clearly ends at the lack of brain activity, it does not therefore follow that developed life only begins at brain activity. The fact of the matter is, we don't really know when life begins. I belive we should take an extremely conservative approach to this unless/untill we can factually say otherwise (something that I don't belive can ever happen).

Note: spelling and grammar are not my strong points. Debate my argument if you want, not my spelling/grammar. Just a request...

Re:Things Anti-Research folks often say:

[MichaelPenne]

> The question isn't individual human life, it's human life period.

The question is the difference between 'human life' in general and an individual human being, I think.

> However, when a human being is soley comprised of a very small amount of undifferentiated cells

Again, this redefines "human being": an individual of the human species becomes "anything that might become one or more or several individuals of the human species."

If you are arguing that _potential_ human beings should be treated as _actual_ human beings, then just say so.

But then explain why these potential human beings should not be protected from neglect and abuse as actual human beings are?

> I belive we should take an extremely conservative approach to this unless/untill we can factually say otherwise (something that I don't belive can ever happen).

If it was academic, that would be one thing. However, restricting this research risks causing human beings _for which there is no question whether they are human beings_ to suffer and die. People with Parkinsons, people with heart disease, people with broken spines, people with MS, etc. There is no question whether these folks are human beings, right?

I think the risk of causing suffering & death of human beings is much higher on the part of the folks who want to stop this research.

Re:Things Anti-Research folks often say:

[DukeToma]

"No, it's a mass of generic totipotent cells. If it makes it into a mother's womb, it might (about 1/2 fail to implant) become twins, triplets, or it might merge with another blastula to form a single individual. Or it might fail to implant and be expelled as waste. If we start declaring that fertilized eggs are human beings, do we then investigate every woman who has an early miscarriage for suspicion of murder or neglect (too much excercise, coffee or stress can cause a zygote to fail to implant)?"

I see your logic here, so an infant isn't really a human being either because it might die of SIDS, or it might die from heart complications, or it might be killed by the dog, or it might be tossed out with the bathwater. I'm sorry but making it to adulthood is not a requirement for being a human being. I also argue that making it to infancy is not a requirement for being a human being. These are simply stages of development of the same Human Being. If you even try to argue that life begins at birth then you will have a difficult time ever having your voice heard in the scientific community over all of the laughing.

German scientists learned a great deal during World War II by doing research on living human beings. In fact we could really advance our technology a whole lot faster if we removed are moral boundaries, yet would it really make this world a better place?

People are already attempting to clone children that died prematurely so don't tell me that this type of research won't open doors to cloning

Re:Things Anti-Research folks often say:

[woodsma]

The question is the difference between 'human life' in general and an individual human being, I think.

Not to me, and this is probably one reason why we will never agree. I don't belive "individual" has or should have anything to do with it. It is, as I wrote, a "viable human, though it may become more than one, and like all humans may even die." This, to me, is enough, and the futher qualification of "individual" seems to be arbitrary to me.

Again, this redefines "human being": an individual of the human species becomes "anything that might become one or more or several individuals of the human species.

Again, the qualification of "individual" seems to be arbitrary. The fact remains that it is at least a human being, and for me that's enough cause to take the conservative approach.

If you are arguing that _potential_ human beings should be treated as _actual_ human beings, then just say so.

Interestingly, as one should be able to see from what I wrote, I don't belive we are discussing "potential" human beings, I belive we are discussing actual human beings. Just because this being is at a stage where it may be come more than one doesn't invalidate that it still is at the very least a human being. Why do you belive that individuality is a necessary requirement?

But then explain why these potential human beings should not be protected from neglect and abuse as actual human beings are?

Why should I? I don't belive that they shouldn't be protected! How in the world did that statement get in there? Where in my writings did I even begin to imply this?

restricting this research risks causing human beings _for which there is no question whether they are human beings_ to suffer and die.

BZZZT! WRONG! It does NOT cause them to suffer and die, it only delays or prevents them from being cured, for, as I contend, a valid moral position (ie: allows another to retain his/her own life). Their DISEASE causes them to suffer and die. Nice bit of equivocation, but entirely invalid.

There is no question whether these folks are human beings, right?

Just as much human to me as the embryos, who I belive have as much a right to life as the people with a disease. I also belive maintaining their life shouldn't be made at the expense of another's (the embryo).

I think the risk of causing suffering & death of human beings is much higher on the part of the folks who want to stop this research.

Again with the equivocation. The cause is the DISEASE.

Re:Things Anti-Research folks often say:

[Saeger]

If you saw the parent posters logic, why did you have to resort to bad logic to counter?

The parent poster was asking why if it's a "human" should a mother be allowed to get away with "murdering" her zygote in a miscarriage as result of "gross negligence?" You tried to reduce his argument by countering with the absurd analogy that an infant killed by a dog shouldn't be human either.

And for the record, IMO, human life begins with conscience, which only requires a developed brain/computer. Even most retards qualify, but we don't kill 'em because other humans empathize... same as we selfishly don't kill vegetable relatives.

I expect to be mod'd down - that's alright.

--

Re:Things Anti-Research folks often say:

[Anonymous Coward]

And that girl who died after refusing blood transfusions in Canada? I assume you would blame the disease, and not her faith which prevented her from getting treatment?

speaking of equivocation...

Re:Things Anti-Research folks often say:

[Pemdos]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I appreciate the way you put forth the (relevent) facts as facts and your opinion as opinion (many Slashdotters seem to be a little fuzzy on the distinction...) BTW, IIRC the fetus' heart starts beating at week 3, so "first couple of weeks" might be more accurate than "first several weeks".

For me, there seems to be more we don't know than what we do know about the process of going from a fertilized egg to sentient human life. There is a lot we do know (plus we have a buttload of opinions), but so much remains a mystery. I am not quite convinced we're reached level of understanding and common agreeement where we can say X number of days always equals 'no human being here', which is what a bill like this requires.

Re:Things Anti-Research folks often say:

[MichaelPenne]

> BTW, IIRC the fetus' heart starts beating at week 3, so "first couple of weeks" might be more accurate than "first several weeks".

Well, Spectre's bill research to 14 days, while other nations have decided on 3 weeks or longer.

> I am not quite convinced we're reached level of understanding and common agreeement where we can say X number of days always equals 'no human being here', which is what a bill like this requires.

Well, every such law involves some risk. Making the research illegal or de-funding it certainly risks killing many people for whom there is no question of their human being status, while taking the risk that God or Science may one day reveal a lower limit.

But we do this all the time in a society, millions of folks are killed on the hiways alone, who might have been saved by a lower speed limit or an all out ban on cars.

In this case it seems to me that the apparent risks of causing death by banning or de-funding the research far outwiegh the potential risks involved in allowing it to go forward.

Re:Things Anti-Research folks often say:

[MichaelPenne]

> Again, the qualification of "individual" seems to be arbitrary. The fact remains that it is at least a human being, and for me that's enough cause to take the conservative approach.

Individual is part of the definition of human being (an individual of the human species). Without it, the term is meaningless.

> I belive we are discussing actual human beings. Just because this being is at a stage where it may be come more than one doesn't invalidate that it still is at the very least a human being. Why do you belive that individuality is a necessary requirement?

Three reasons:
1) it is not "at the very least" a human being. In fact, it may well become part of a human being. Human Chimerae with unique DNA from two or more fertilized eggs have been found to be far more common than previously thougth.

2) See above (individuality is part of the definition of "human being").

3) Human clones will happen one day. These folks will not have unique DNA, but they will still be human beings (right?).

> Their DISEASE causes them to suffer and die.

Interestingly, that was the argument Reagan used to justify not spending money on AIDs research.

However, anti-ESCR folks are actively fighting a promising path to cures for a variety of diseases for millions of unique individuals of the human species. Preventing those folks from having access to those cures seems much closer to murder than harvesting some cells from a petri dish to me.

Re:Things Anti-Research folks often say:

[Anonymous Coward]

And that girl who died after refusing blood transfusions in Canada? I assume you would blame the disease, and not her faith which prevented her from getting treatment?

speaking of equivocation...

This is so far from the discussion that I don't think it could even be listed as "off topic."

How can you take a personal choice of an individual to refuse medical treatment because of her faith and equate that to the moral delima of embryonic stem-cell research? Because faith plays a part in both roles? News flash: faith plays a part in many areas in our society. Regardless, none of the writings I submitted earlier relied on faith as the reason to not promote embryonic stem-cell research. You've injected that into the discussion yourself. The arguments I've made are equally valid to a moral athiest as to an extreme right-wing Christian. As a matter of fact, you don't know if I'm a moral athiest, a moderate Muslem, a Christian or even a man or woman, for that matter, unless you've read some of my other comments on other topics.

But, since you bring it up, you're right, I take the position that it was, as a matter of FACT, the DISEASE that killed her! The choice to refuse treatment certainly allowed the DISEASE to run unchecked, but it was the DISEASE nonthelesss that took her life. Her faith did not make her sick, her DISEASE did. I will only grant you that her faith prevented her from being healed, not that the faith itself killed her. Certainly you don't believe the coroner listed her faith as the cause of death do you? Of course he didn't!

This is all irrelvant to the topic, though. You should learn how to further debates by coherently drawing throughts through the discussion instead of postulating some imaginary concept that you see "between the lines." Respond to what people write, not to what you think their motivations are. I'm personally not interested in debating what someone thinks my motives are. Debate what I wrote, as I take great care in crafting my responses in a discussion.

Regards. Oh, and have the guts to at least post logged in.

Re:Things Anti-Research folks often say:

[woodsma]

Just so I don't get slammed on my response, my password was incorrect so it listed it as an AC. I wrote the above response.

woodsma

Re:Things Anti-Research folks often say:

[MichaelPenne]

> I see your logic here

Then why can't you re-state it properly?

> so an infant isn't really a human being either

Do you think we should apply the same criteria to protecting infants to protecting fertilized eggs? If so, then it requires the filing of a conception certificate and explanations if that conception fails, just as we do for birth, right?

Or do you want these microscopic human beings protected at some lesser level than real human beings? If so, what is your logic?

> If you even try to argue that life begins at birth then you will have a difficult time ever having your voice heard in the scientific community over all of the laughing.

Are you repeating a personal experience for some kind of therapy? If not, what in the world led you to imagine that I would make such a silly statement?

Fact is, "life" doesn't "begin" at all. The sperm is alive, the egg is alive, the blastula is alive, the embryo is alive, and the fetus is alive. At some point, a mass of generic cells becomes an individual of the human species, that is the topic (not Nazis nor dog eating babies, much as you might prefer to discuss those for some reason).

> People are already attempting to clone children that died prematurely so don't tell me that this type of research won't open doors to cloning

Another strawman. If you want to prevent human reproductive cloning, then pass Spectre's bill against it (it would have passed last year if not for the Religious Right's opposition, isn't that wierd?) Meanwhile, we don't reduce speeding by outlawing bicycles, nor does it make any more sense to try and prevent reproductive cloning by outlawing ESCR.

Re:Things Anti-Research folks often say:

[woodsma]

Individual is part of the definition of human being (an individual of the human species). Without it, the term is meaningless.

It may be in Websters, but I still find it arbitrary. It certainly is a requirement for a human being, but I don't conclude that individuality is a necessary requirement to label an embryo as human life. I still hold that the embryo is no less human than an adult.

1) it is not "at the very least" a human being. In fact, it may well become part of a human being. Human Chimerae with unique DNA from two or more fertilized eggs have been found to be far more common than previously thougth.

In regards to the first part of your statement, I still hold that it is at least one human, with the capability to become more than one human. In regards to the second, I am not a doctor, so I base my decisons on what I know and I try to learn as much as I can. That being said, educate me on the concept and I will attempt to draw a conclusion. In this situation, is there viable life, or is it an unviable mutation (though common)?

3) Human clones will happen one day. These folks will not have unique DNA, but they will still be human beings (right?).

Of course, and I would say we protect them as much as "normal" humans. Do you suggest that they are lesser beings and deserve less than that?

Interestingly, that was the argument Reagan used to justify not spending money on AIDs research.

Is that an attempt at a stab? What's the point in bringing this up? Are you assuming that I am/was against AIDS research? It still doesn't change the fact that it will be the disease that causese the suffering. The difference, however, is AIDS research can be carried out without taking another's life. It is not the "research" part that I am opposed to, it is the method of research I am opposed to. You will find no opposition from me regarding research using adult stem-cells at this time (though you may find me in opposition to a part of that if I find it immoral).

However, anti-ESCR folks are actively fighting a promising path to cures for a variety of diseases for millions of unique individuals of the human species. Preventing those folks from having access to those cures seems much closer to murder than harvesting some cells from a petri dish to me.

Careful, your rhetoric is on very unstable ground here. Anti-ESCR people are not fighting research itself, just the method of research that violates their moral principles. Unique/non-unique personally doesn't make a bit of difference to me. Viable life v. non-life is what matters to me. Murder is a VERY strong word, and your use of it should be, I recommend, extremely selective. From my point of view, those cells in the petri dish are the result of murder too.

Re:Things Anti-Research folks often say:

[Sebastopol]

I'm wondering where the woman carrying this discussion comes into play. You appear to forget that she is more than a petri dish for your thought experiment. That starting cell is a part of her the same way a fingernail or a skin cell is, since the latter may eventually be reverted to a "totipotent" cell, would you afford equal protection to every cell in her body? Would you imprison her for getting a haircut?

I love when men argue about what can and can't be done with a woman's body.

An earlier point said would you charge a woman with murder for exercising too hard and losing her zygote. So you're telling me that's it's "natural causes" when she exercises and doesn't know she's pregnent, but then becomes murder after she skips her first period and willfully works out too hard?

I'm not convinced of your argument that it is a life.

Furthermore, what if we "err" on the side of pro-life: what if she can't afford to raise it? Will you pay her child support? Will you adopt the child? Or would you support laws that would bring more suffering into the world?

Just a few q's that make it hard for me to be pro-life.

Re:Things Anti-Research folks often say:

[MichaelPenne]

> It certainly is a requirement for a human being, but I don't conclude that individuality is a necessary requirement to label an embryo as human life.

Nor is anyone else, the embryo is human life, as is a living organ or cell culture. ESCR doesn't "kill" human life, either.

That is why the issue of individuality is the key to the discussion.

> I still hold that the embryo is no less human than an adult.

And so if a woman drinks too much coffee and has a misscarriage she should be tried the same as if she drowned her infant?

And so our numbers on births and deaths should be adjusted to count the millions of zygotes that die every day?

> That being said, educate me on the concept and I will attempt to draw a conclusion. In this situation, is there viable life, or is it an unviable mutation (though common)?

Viable life. From two or more fertilized eggs.

> What's the point in bringing this up?

Reagon killed millions of people by blocking research into AIDs. You may well feel morally justified in fighting ESCR, but your (collective) actions are also condemning millions to death. You may well feel that 1 millions zygotes saved = 1 million sick people prevented from being cured by your morality, but at least do the math.

> From my point of view, those cells in the petri dish are the result of murder too.

See above. From my point of view they are cells & it is cells vs. people. From your point of view, it is people vs. people. I would still say this does not automatically mean blocking the research is the best choice, but you'll have to wrestle with that yourself.

Re:Things Anti-Research folks often say:

[james.bromberger]

I appreciate your sincere argument. I'll give you sincere rebuttal.

>> That starting cell is a part of her the same way a fingernail or a skin cell is...

The embryo is genetically distinct from the mother. It is then "its own owner", if you will. The rest of that paragraph talks of cells that truly are hers. She can do what she wants with them.

>> An earlier point said would you charge a woman with murder for exercising too hard and losing her zygote.

I said one should assume that most miscarriages are by natural causes unless there are strong reasons to suspect otherwise. "Willfully working out too hard" would be something she would have to live with, because it would be useless to try to prove otherwise.

>> I'm not convinced of your argument that it is a life.

Is that because of some preconceived notion, or because you have a rational argument to the contrary. I sincerely welcome a rational rebuttal.

>> ...what if she can't afford to raise it? Will you pay her child support? Will you adopt the child? Or would you support laws that would bring more suffering into the world?

In the *vast* majority of cases, she is the bearer of a new life because of a conscious decision she and the father made, knowing of the possibility of new life. They must live with the consecuences, which may include offering the child up for adoption. There are *millions* of couples that would like that chance.

Re:Things Anti-Research folks often say:

[MichaelPenne]

> The embryo is genetically distinct from the mother. It is then "its own owner", if you will. The rest of that paragraph talks of cells that truly are hers. She can do what she wants with them.

So you have no opposition to deriving stem cells from therapeutic cloning?

Re:Things Anti-Research folks often say:

[Anonymous Coward]

I was drawing the connection you figured out.

I haven't signed into slashdot for over a year since what I consider to be some unfair treatment of a larger number of users occurred.

Yes, the disease killed her. But her death was an unnecessary one. We've prevented large swaths of the natural world from harming us. Simple things like chlorination.

Another potential remedy is the stem cell research. The JW blood transfusion analogy has been brought up many times. I think it is just as applicable here. Saying the disease is at fault and not the people actively blocking a cure is inaccurate, I think. Blame should be with those consciously blocking treatment.

Cause of death won't be faith, but it'd be awfully nice if "refused treatment" was noted somewhere. (and it probably was)

Re:Things Anti-Research folks often say:

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, and despite your insulting attitude, I was not making any assumptions as to your religious convictions. But if you *are* atheist you might want to look at this debate, atheist vs atheist, on the subject of abortion.

Abortion Debate


I have yet to see a strong non-theistic defense of human life and human rights being applied from day 1 (or even day 60). Heck. in my opinion, although the line needs to be drawn at birth due to human hardwiring, even at birth I'd say a conscious life has yet to awaken. I'd place the harm and evil at that stage as equivelant to that of hurting a small animal - save for that practical problem with humans keying on form.

But anyway.
Most of the points you raised, including the continuum, were examined and I thought rather solidly rebutted. But don't take my word for it, read it for yourself. Is quite good.

Re:Things Anti-Research folks often say:

[james.bromberger]

>> So you have no opposition to deriving stem cells from therapeutic cloning?

This is where the slippery slope starts, in my opinion, but it's an important question, and I think you did right by asking it.

Basically, I don't have much of a problem with using the stem cells, with the owner's permission, to culture them for theraputic use.

Re:Things Anti-Research folks often say:

[scheming daemons]

The current, globally-accepted, definition of death is the cessation of cerebral brain activity. "legally dead", "brain dead", etc.

If we accept that definition of death, then I think the we must accept that life doesn't begin until the onset of cerebral brain activity. This occurs sometime during the 3rd month of gestation.

If human death is defined as the lack of detectable consciousness, then human life must be defined as beginning with the acquisition of detectable consciousness.

Therefore embryos, while they are living human tissue, are not living human beings anymore than a brain-dead individual on life-support is a living human being at the other end of the spectrum.

"I think, therefore I am alive."

Embryo's can't, so they aren't.

Re:Things Anti-Research folks often say:

[scheming daemons]

I won't answer for the person you directed this question to, but for me, the answer is this:

At the distinct point at which the ball of cells that carried my DNA achieved consciousness, I became a living human being.

Just as, I will cease to be a living human being at the moment I permanently lose consciousness.

The only logical difference between those two statements is that the second one is the commonly accepted definition of legal death in most of the civilized world, while the first one is controversal. Now, why is that?

Re:Things Anti-Research folks often say:

[woodsma]

And now the off topic is into abortion... I'm going to stick to the subject at hand. Regards.

Re:Things Anti-Research folks often say:

[Anonymous Coward]

And here I was under the impression that earlier you had stated the problem with embryonic stem cell research is the potential increase in abortion.

Certainly that's what others feel, so my examining that basis isn't unwarranted and certainly not off-topic.

Re:Things Anti-Research folks often say:

[woodsma]

First just a couple of notes:

And so if a woman drinks too much coffee and has a miscarriage she should be tried the same as if she drowned her infant?

Lets not get into the absurd here. Did she know she would miscarry if she drank the coffee? Did she do it deliberately to miscarry? Was there malice involved? There's so much that would have to be answered to come to a conclusion on this that a simplistic treatment wouldn't do any justice. Suffice it to say that my position is that we should protect the life. Things like the question above bring into play the same types of discussions we have in courtrooms: malice, forethought, intent, etc. I'm certainly not suggesting that all loss of life is murder, or justifiably prosecuted, but I do believe that some probably is.

...but your (collective) actions are also condemning millions to death.

It is doing nothing of the sort. It certainly isn't helping them, but then I believe it is helping others. Research continues to proceed, just not at the pace nor in the manner that you might like to see, but I am not working against all research, just one particular type. You don't even know if the research is going to solve the problem, yet you've come to the conclusion that my (our collective) opposition is eliminating all hopes of a cure. That's quite a stretch.

And, now to the meat of what I want to say:

From my point of view they are cells & it is cells vs. people. From your point of view, it is people vs. people.

No, that's not exactly my point of view. It's much too simplistic.

But first, lets go back to the subject of inflammatory rhetoric. I've pointed this out in your writings a couple of times now, and there was a reason I did so.

I've personally found that such emotional discourse does nothing to further a discussion. Sure, it rallies those that are already on your side, but it very clearly tends to alienate those that aren't, and reduces your chances of making a persuasive argument. Not to mention, it is insulting and doesn't take into account the possibility of a simple misunderstanding between the two parties.

I bring this up, because I want you to see that it can be damaging to your position. It wasn't very much so in our dialogue, because I pointed it out and moved on back to the discussion, but it easily could have been. And, as a matter of fact, I believe there has been a bit of a misunderstanding between us.

When I started discussing ESCR, I was coming from a complete view of the research, from the creation of the embryos to their destruction, to then what to do with the stem cells that result. It appears to me now (correct me if I'm wrong) that you are simply talking about the stem cells themselves, and not how they were acquired.

So, let me clarify my position, then we can continue the dialog, perhaps in a less emotional manner. However, I would like, at this point, to only go a few more layers into the discussion, because I would like to eventually move on to other things. Perhaps we can still learn from each other? I'm sure you have some good arguments to contribute (I mean this seriously).

Here's my position:

I believe that human life begins at the point that the egg and sperm join and a viable result occurs, though we may not be able to prove it. I believe that a very conservative approach should be taken, in either case, with our treatment of this result. This means, to me, that we shouldn't create these embryos for selfish reasons (IVF) and we certainly shouldn't be creating them for destruction. It also means, to me, that we do everything we can to preserve all embryos that already have been created, and furthermore, we should be working to further their lives.

Now, what to do about the stem cells that are the result of the past destruction of embryos? That's not as clear to me, though I do believe there is a correct answer. No, I don't believe that one stem cell equates to one life, so the base issue isn't the use of the stem cells themselves. The issue, to me, is the precedent and overhead that goes along with this, and on this I have not drawn a conclusion. It's the dilemma of benefiting from a past evil, and I've come to no conclusion on it yet. My gut tells me it's not right, but that may simply be a rejection of how the cells were acquired, not an actual problem with the good use of them. And, make no mistake, I (and almost every other anti-ESCR that I've run across) believe it would be good to come up with cures for other's diseases (this is a result of our respect for human life, all human life). As a matter of fact, I work at a children's hospital, that's how much I believe in it (though I'm probably going to end up quitting this job because my boss is a jerk, but I digress). However, these cures will not exist in a vacuum, they have a relationship to other things that must be considered. This needs to be discussed and worked out in order to do justice to the ethical issues.

Now, lets see where this takes us...

Re:Things Anti-Research folks often say:

[MichaelPenne]

> Lets not get into the absurd here. Did she know she would miscarry if she drank the coffee? Did she do it deliberately to miscarry? Was there malice involved?

These are the differences between a neglect/manslaughter charge and a charge of murder (did she know the baby would drown if she left it alone in the tub?) & you illustrate my point (that miscarriage would require the same sort of investigation as other infant deaths). The issue still remains that if the fertilized egg is a human being, then the US Govt. is required by the 14thAmendment to extend the full protection of the law to the fertilized egg, the same protection other human beings are afforded.

The fact that this may be difficult or impossible to do is a sign that granting human being status to a fertilized egg is illogical.

(I'm sorry if you feel pointing these conclusions are "inflamatory". I don't, I feel that too often anti-ESCR folks present themselves as the only one's with a moral position in the debate, ignoring that for folks who don't see fertilized eggs or stem cells as human beings, the anti-research position is a brutal stand to take: saying that folks should not be allowed to research cures to some very terrible diseases in order to prevent "harm" to some microscopic goo!)

> You don't even know if the research is going to solve the problem, yet you've come to the conclusion that my (our collective) opposition is eliminating all hopes of a cure. That's quite a stretch.

The leading scientific institutions of the United States (AAAS, NAS, etc.) have come to a similar conclusion (that refusal of public funding is seriously hindering the research), so I'm not just relying on my own training as a molecular biologist here.

> The issue, to me, is the precedent and overhead that goes along with this, and on this I have not drawn a conclusion. It's the dilemma of benefiting from a past evil,

I think your feeling that IVF is "evil" is at the root of our disagreement. In nature, as many as half of conceptions result in an expelled embryo. The woman usually doesn't even notice. IOW, in the natural system, embryos are made and discarded regularly. What logical course could possibly lead to the conclusion that mimicing this process in the lab to allow couples who cannot have children 'normally' is EVIL?

And (since it is the natural course to discard unused embryos) why would it be EVIL to use the discarded ones to try and find cures for disease?

Re:Things Anti-Research folks often say:

[woodsma]

The fact that this may be difficult or impossible to do is a sign that granting human being status to a fertilized egg is illogical.

I don't see it as that at all. Yes, it may be difficult, but I don't believe it is impossible, or that this difficulty indicates that it is illogical. I do think it would take quite a bit of work to get it down correctly, but then, ethics is not necessarily the easiest thing to nail down.

ignoring that for folks who don't see fertilized eggs or stem cells as human beings

Are they or are they not? I'm not concerned about the subjective views of others; I'm only concerned about the fact of what it is (please don't take that to mean that I have no compassion for other's suffering, as I've already indicated otherwise). If, in fact, they are not human beings, then there is no moral issue. If they are, then there is. Opinion should not decide this, fact should.

I'll grant that the fact is not clear in this instance, and that I opt toward a conservative approach. Because I believe that we are talking about human beings, I won't concede in their destruction for use in research. Why kill one to save another? What is the gain? However, if you can show me that we are not, in fact talking about human beings (something that I will be very cynical about, by the way, but open to discuss), then I will consider that information. Again, my goal is not to prevent people from getting help, my goal is to maintain as much life as is possible as a whole. Secondary to that goal is the increase of quality of life.

that refusal of public funding is seriously hindering the research

It may in fact be, but I've expressed my reasons why I don't support this funding at this time.

In nature, as many as half of conceptions result in an expelled embryo. The woman usually doesn't even notice. IOW, in the natural system, embryos are made and discarded regularly. What logical course could possibly lead to the conclusion that mimicking this process in the lab to allow couples who cannot have children 'normally' is EVIL?

Simple. I don't equate natural as necessarily good, nor necessarily acceptable. I believe we live in a broken imperfect world, and I don't hold that "natural" is how things should be, simply how things are, and that in some cases nature should not be emulated. For example, tornados are natural and they kill people, would you then suggest that it would be a non-evil to create them (if we could) to the end of destruction of life? An extreme example, granted, but one that illustrates the concept.

However, I do believe that natural effects are amoral (in that nature doesn't make a "moral" decision and cannot do so), so that if we were using the "naturally" discarded embryos (after trying to prevent their loss in the first place, within reason) then that would be OK (of course, the question of if they are even usable at that point comes up).

The evil comes in the willful choice by men to cause immorality to come about. In my view, the willful destruction of an embryo equates to, at the least, manslaughter. Therefore, the process of creating multiple embryos that will almost certainly be destroyed for the sole purpose of satisfying a personal desire for a child is, to me, an extremely selfish and immoral thing to do.

And (since it is the natural course to discard unused embryos) why would it be EVIL to use the discarded ones to try and find cures for disease?

Again, I don't believe that natural equates to good and right. It is natural for men to die, but that doesn't mean that it is moral for us to kill.

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

n/t

Implications

[willpost]

"perfect timing for suporting his campaign."

Does this mean that politicians serve the people best when they're trying hard to get re-elected?

individualism, conception, and the AMA

[taxman_10m]

The majority of the Slashdot community includes people who are able to think objectively and logically. So it's not surprising to see most of these arguments here. Perhaps we could apply that same reason and thought to the opposing view? There must be some reason why a mass of people would oppose stem cell research...

The opposition arises because the embryo is seen to be an individual. That is what religious opinion on the matter boils down to, that this thing in question is an individual. And that means there is no ontological difference between the embryo and me. I'm just bigger.

The masses aren't all coming from one side of the political spectrum either. There are Democrats for Life and Libertarians for Life.

It is a little ironic that this is framed as religion vs science because it was really science that influenced opinion on the question of life. During the 19th century embryology was a new field and you had doctors that came to the conlusion that religion was wrong about life beginning at quickening (when fetal movement is first felt) and that the laws of the country were also deficient in that regard. It was the American Medical Association that went about trying to change public opinion and the laws. They actually didn't even get much support from churches at the time. But you'll notice that most of the laws overturned in Roe vs Wade came from this time. So maybe if the AMA hadn't gone around enlightening people in the 1860s then this stem cell issue wouldn't be an issue.

I've helped to archive some of the AMA's stuff on the web. The questions they posed are still very relevent and it's an interesting read. That's really where the whole issue began as I see it.

The AMA was self-interested, not enlightened

[Spamalamadingdong]

The AMA's campaign against abortion wasn't about enlightening anyone; it was about shutting down competition from non-AMA practitioners who were successfully "treating" conditions such as "obstructed menses".

Most of the arguments against abortion in those times had to do with danger to the woman from e.g. the use of unsanitary instruments. Antibiotics wouldn't be available for the better part of a century. Now that the death rate from legal first-trimester abortion is a small fraction of the death rate from full-term pregnancy, all of these arguments (which are circumstantial, not moral) point the other way. Accordingly, the argument of the antis has changed. The AMA is mostly staying out of it, because they get the business either way and have no axe to grind (delivery pays better than abortions, but liability premiums for OB-GYN practice eats the difference).

Re:The AMA was self-interested, not enlightened

[taxman_10m]

The AMA's campaign against abortion wasn't about enlightening anyone; it was about shutting down competition from non-AMA practitioners who were successfully "treating" conditions such as "obstructed menses".

I've heard that argument made but I don't buy it. If it were a matter of competition then why did they make it illegal rather than making it regulated such that only licensed doctors could "treat" such conditions. They didn't just make it illegal for the uncertified, they made it illegal for everyone.

Most of the arguments against abortion in those times had to do with danger to the woman from e.g. the use of unsanitary instruments.

That was definately a part, but the primary reason listed over and over again is the question of life. Another secondary reason was the fear of immigrants outbirthing the WASPS.

Antibiotics wouldn't be available for the better part of a century. Now that the death rate from legal first-trimester abortion is a small fraction of the death rate from full-term pregnancy, all of these arguments (which are circumstantial, not moral) point the other way. Accordingly, the argument of the antis has changed.

The argument hasn't changed at all. It is still primarily concerned with that question of life. The title from Horatio Storer's second book is still the defining question, "Is it I?"

To me it seems you've read a few feminist overviews of the period. But really, read some of the primary sources. I'm not saying self interest didn't exist, as it may exist for stem cell scientists trying to obtain grants. But to pass off the whole Physician's Crusade as "self interest" is just false and too easily dismisses a very important part of history.

I'm probably going to get modded down for this...

[bmalia]

I have no opinion.

Captain Pike

[Anonymous Coward]

Forget Christopher Reeve. What about poor Captain Pike?

Thanks for bringing up this important subject. Because of Captain Pike, we already know that the promise of stem cell research (whether "embryonic" or "adult") is vastly overrated. Even in the 23rd century, it will be completely impossible to grow new organs or spinal cords. Quadriplegics will have to live their entire lives in motorized boxes with a single large beeping light on the front.

But the saddest thing about Captin Pike is not the box he lives in. It is his door. You see, in Star Trek, there are doors that are very intelligent, and open automatically. Except for Pike's door.

The door to his room is the only door we ever see in the Federation that has a doorknob. This is sad because Pike is also the only person we see that cannot operate a doorknob.

Infant organ transplants, personal conscience

[Spamalamadingdong]

that people should not be used as means to other people's ends. I consider embryos to be people, so if you use an embryo as a means (via research) to cure someone else, I consider that an immoral act.

If you'd like to use your own stem cells, from your own body to do research, please feel free. Just don't take them from someone else without his or her consent.

You leave two very important questions unanswered:

1. Because you consider embryos to be people, I should be bound by your beliefs? Does freedom of conscience extend only as far as the right to agree with you?

   Ponder the consequences, starting with the tenets of some of the more radical animal-rights groups. If a large group of folks decided that cows and chickens were people, would you give up hamburgers and omelettes?

2. An infant cannot give consent to donate its organs any more than an embryo can. However, the parents of dying/dead infants often donate their organs to save other people's children. This is where babies with biliary atresia (a congenital malformation of the bile ducts which is uniformly fatal) get their donor livers and another chance at life.

   Is that wrong, by your lights?

   If not, what is your argument against the parents of frozen pre-embryos (16-cell clusters) donating those cells for use in stem-cell research or treatments, instead of just throwing them down the sewer if they aren't going to be used? Keep in mind that the pre-embryo is dead either way, and that throwing away the pre-embryos is not at all different from the normal implantation failures of the human reproductive scheme.

Just for your information, I have never seen a decent response to either of these questions from a member of the right-to-life persuasion. Feel free to be the first.

Re:Infant organ transplants, personal conscience

[Reality Master 101]

Because you consider embryos to be people, I should be bound by your beliefs? Does freedom of conscience extend only as far as the right to agree with you?

So if someone does not consider black people to be people, should they be bound by other's beliefs?

Re:Infant organ transplants, personal conscience

[james.bromberger]

You said:
>>1. Because you consider embryos to be people, I should be bound by your beliefs?

The argument that an embryo is not human life has always seemed very "hand-wavey" to me, with heavy use of scientific terminology that can't do justice to the profound question of l-i-f-e. It's profound for philosophical and ethical reasons, and society has to deal with them on that level. I strongly believe that if society is going to err, we should err on the side of caution, on the side of the preservation of life.

Now, if you don't believe embezzlement is wrong, you will indeed be bound by my (and society's) belief to the contrary, because there has been an examination of the ethical issues. It is therefore perfectly reasonable for a dissenter to be bound by the majority's beliefs, especially if it's a matter of profound philosophical or ethical import.

>> An infant cannot give consent to donate its organs any more than an embryo can. However, the parents of dying/dead infants often donate their organs... Is that wrong, by your lights?

It is indeed, "by my lights", wrong that parents would prematurely end and infant's life. (Witholding treatment for a terminally ill person, though, is another question altogether.) I have no qualms whatsoever with next of kin donating the organs of any deceased person.

Re:Infant organ transplants, personal conscience

[MichaelPenne]

> The argument that an embryo is not human life has always seemed very "hand-wavey" to me, with heavy use of scientific terminology that can't do justice to the profound question of l-i-f-e.

It's also a straw man. Pro-ESCR folks don't make the argument that an embryo is not "human life". In fact, their argument is that it is the same kind of "human life" as other tissue culture, organ transplants, human cells grown for cancer research, etc.

Pro-ESCR folks make the argument that a fertilized egg and the undifferentiated embryo that forms from it in a petri dish is not _A Human Being.

In fact, most of the pro-ESCR arguments I've seen have made the distinction between "human life" and "a human being" pretty clear.

Why do Anti-ESCR folks keep using the generai term "human life" when they mean a specific "human being"? Are you also against tissue culture and organ transplant?

> I have no qualms whatsoever with next of kin donating the organs of any deceased person.

How about an encephalitic infant? Should parents be forced to keep a child without a brain alive until they die of old age (or the power goes out)?

Generally, the medical standard is that when there is no brain activity, it is ok to harvest the organs, since waiting until complete and total cellular death generally means the organs can't be used. Are you also against organ transplant?

Re:Infant organ transplants, personal conscience

[james.bromberger]

You said:
>> Why do Anti-ESCR folks keep using the generai term "human life" when they mean a specific "human being"?

They use the term because, as in my case, they do not think the distinction is relevant to the debate.

>> Are you also against tissue culture and organ transplant?

No, as long as *I* (or my next of kin if I'm dead) consent to the use of *my* cells. When you recogize an embryo as human life automatically endowed with inalienable rights, it follows that we should get its consent to use its cells, which we can't do, so we shouldn't use them.

>> Should parents be forced to keep a child without a brain alive...

Firstly, this is rare and only on the periphery of the central issue at hand. To answer your question, though, I'll quote from my previous post: it is "...wrong that parents would prematurely end an infant's life." Note the use of "prematurely".

In fact, I have a cousin who had an encephalitic baby, and she cared for him for several weeks before he finally died. I think, in fact, she did have his organs donated after he passed away. That, in my view, was **such** the right thing to do on every level.

Re:Infant organ transplants, personal conscience

[Darby]

The argument that an embryo is not human life has always seemed very "hand-wavey" to me, with heavy use of scientific terminology that can't do justice to the profound question of l-i-f-e.

OK, here is an explanation so simple you should have no problems following it.

Can an embryo exist on its own outside of its host body? I'm not saying can it get a job and buy food down at the grocery store. I'm asking is it capable of surviving without being inside the body of its mother?

No, of course it can't.
Then it is *not* in any way shape or form an *individual* life.

Of course, you will not accept this, yet you will be completely unable to come up with *rational* refutation of my point.

Abortion and similar opponents are, in general, (no offense to you personally) about the most disgusting sub-human scum on the planet.

Again, look at it rationally. Their motives might be good, although I personally doubt it in most cases, but their actions make the situation far worse than it would have been if they stuck to their own freaking business rather than trying to tell everybody else how to run their lives.

In the first place, most of the anti-abortion people are the same ones who are up in arms whenever anyone talks about teaching people about birth control. Yes, I know these are not the same exact sets of people, but the overlap is huge. So, in part, they helped create the situation where the issue of an abortion is even addressed.

Then look at what they are actually saying. They claim to be defending some unborn life. So rather than allow a person to choose what she allows to grow inside her own freaking body, they want to force her by law to go through 9 months of pregnancy, and then 18 years of raising a child she either did not want, or can not afford. Neither of these situations are good ones in which to raise a child, so it's bad for the child they claim to be helping.

Very seriously, these people are claiming that having sex is a crime that should be punished by a worse penalty than any other crime there is.

If you want kids, and choose to have them, then that is totally your business, and I'm sure it can be a rewarding experience. Imagine being forced at gunpoint to not only have one, but spend the next 18 years of your life raising it. Of course if you screw up badly at this job *THAT YOU DIDN'T EVEN WANT IN THE FIRST PLACE* then you can get sent to jail for that anyway.
This not only affects you, but an actual real child not just a couple of cells as would be affected if the person had been allowed to exercise one of the most fundamental rights of a human being: the right to NOT reproduce.

To any person of sound mind, this is absolutely insane.

Re:Infant organ transplants, personal conscience

[Anonymous Coward]

Can an embryo exist on its own outside of its host body? I'm not saying can it get a job and buy food down at the grocery store. I'm asking is it capable of surviving without being inside the body of its mother?

No, of course it can't.
Then it is *not* in any way shape or form an *individual* life.

Of course, you will not accept this, yet you will be completely unable to come up with *rational* refutation of my point.

Can a two week old infant exist on its own without its mother's care? Not likely. Is it a human being? Is it wrong to kill it?

Is that a "rational" enough refutation of your "point"? Maybe you should think these things through for a few seconds before you start deciding who's the "disgusting, sub-human scum".

Re:Infant organ transplants, personal conscience

[Darby]

Can a two week old infant exist on its own without its mother's care? Not likely. Is it a human being? Is it wrong to kill it?
Is that a "rational" enough refutation of your "point"?

That is a completely pathetic and irrational attempt to refute the point. I was very careful in my wording on this point as evidenced by, "I'm not saying can it get a job and buy food down at the grocery store."

Maybe you should think these things through for a few seconds before you start deciding who's the "disgusting, sub-human scum".

Obviously I did think it through quite well since I managed to counter your point before you even made it.

The disgusting sub-human bit was directed at a different issue than this one though. That was directed at those who would make laws to cause one mistake to destroy multiple lives when it is completely unnecessary.

Re:Infant organ transplants, personal conscience

[james.bromberger]

You said:
>> Can an embryo exist on its own outside of its host body? ...No... Then it is *not* in any way shape or form an *individual* life.

Non sequitur. That simply is not a rational argument. It *is* perfectly rational to reply, though you don't want to seem to agree, that neither can a newborn exist without care. At what point, then, does life begin in your view? It seems you are chosing to ignore this fundamental question.

>> Of course, you will not accept this, yet you will be completely unable to come up with *rational* refutation of my point.

A rational argument should be made devoid of emotion, using logic and reason. I suggest you cannot point out any reason why my arguments have been irrational, other than that I don't agree with you.

>> Abortion and similar opponents are, in general, (no offense to you personally) about the most disgusting sub-human scum on the planet.

Your ad hominem attacks do you a disservice.

>> ...most of the anti-abortion people are the same ones who are up in arms whenever anyone talks about teaching people about birth control.

Please stick to the topic at hand.

>> So rather than allow a person to choose what she allows to grow inside her own freaking body, they want to force her by law to go through 9 months of pregnancy, and then 18 years of raising a child.... these people are claiming that having sex is a crime....

I have not at any point suggested that having sex is a crime. I have presented a rational case that if a couple engages in sex, and it results in a new life, the preservation of life supersedes all other rights. They should be bound (by law, in my opinion) to look after the welfare of that life.
Certainly a reasonable solution is adoption. Now, if they don't want to be bound to look after the welfare of a child they might conceive, then they both have sure-fire alternatives available to them to prevent conception of any new life.

You may not like that argument, but it is not irrational. I suspect that folks that don't like such an argument also didn't like it when their parents disciplined them for misbehaving.

>> If you want kids, and choose to have them, then that is totally your business...

I'm glad to find we agree on something, but the fundamental question remains, when is it a child?

Re:Infant organ transplants, personal conscience

[Darby]

Non sequitur.

No, it isn't. I don't think this means what you think it means.

That simply is not a rational argument. It *is* perfectly rational to reply, though you don't want to seem to agree, that neither can a newborn exist without care.

It is in fact a perfectly rational argument. Your response, like the previous one tries to ignore the point I brought up in favor of a point I refuted in my original post. Existing without care is not the issue. Being unable to exist outside of the body of the mother period regardless of any care or any thing else whatsoever are fundamentally different concepts.

At what point, then, does life begin in your view? It seems you are chosing to ignore this fundamental question.

I would say it's not even worth discussing something as a life until it can exist as its own entity. It is irrelevant that it needs to be taken care of, fed, etc. It is still its own life within its own body. A 2 week old embryo can not exist outside of its host body. This is quite clearly not "a life" as we use this term in daily speech.

A rational argument should be made devoid of emotion, using logic and reason. I suggest you cannot point out any reason why my arguments have been irrational, other than that I don't agree with you.

Logic and reason would dictate you actually read the whole argument to which you are replying. You quite obviously failed to do this *twice*.
It has nothing to do with what your point is, or whether I agree with it. It has to do with the fact that I already shot down that response while I was making my argument.
Here is the third time. Perhaps you will actually read it this time which will allow you the possibility of constructing a rational argument.

"I'm not saying can it get a job and buy food down at the grocery store."

See that?
It has nothing to do with a baby's ability to feed itself once it is born. The issue is the ability to survive *outside the body of another human being*

Your ad hominem attacks do you a disservice.

It was not an ad hominem attack. It was my opinion backed up by arguments you completely ignore.

Please stick to the topic at hand.

The topic at hand is stem cell research. Everything after the first paragraph of my original post is off the topic at hand. You seem to be picking and choosing little bits of what I am saying to respond to while ignoring the fundamental issues which would require you to actually think about your assumptions, which most people never do, were you to actually address them.

I have not at any point suggested that having sex is a crime. I have presented a rational case that if a couple engages in sex, and it results in a new life, the preservation of life supersedes all other rights. They should be bound (by law, in my opinion) to look after the welfare of that life.

Well, if you are punished for an action by law, then that looks a lot like a crime.
If someone chooses to actually bring a child into the world, then sure they should take care of it.
If they don't choose to do that, then a sane person would want to give them every option to not do so. This is why I find people who want to outlaw abortion to be so disgusting. In the name of saving a life, they are potentially ruining many lives. This is not a rational trade off.
Even if it was, it's none of your freaking business to tell other people what to do inside of their own bodies. Period. If you think it is, then you are completely insane.

Certainly a reasonable solution is adoption. Now, if they don't want to be bound to look after the welfare of a child they might conceive, then they both have sure-fire alternatives available to them to prevent conception of any new life.

Adoption is not really a good solution either. Sure, it can work but in a lot of cases, adopted children grow up feeling worthless and inadequate.
Not in all cases, and I won't even go as far as most, since I have no statistics on this, but I do know that there are many cases where this is true.
Also, there are too many people in this world as is. People who choose not to have children generally are making a well thought out choice. Most people who have children put no thought into it at all. They think that's what they're supposed to do, so they do it. No thought is given as to whether it would be better for the potential child's welfare to not be born in the first place.

I'm glad to find we agree on something, but the fundamental question remains, when is it a child?

Well, then I'm glad this fundamental question has been clearly settled. If it must remain inside a host body to survive then it is obviously *not* a human life. Without being completely serious, something that can't exist outside a host body is known as a parasite.

Re:Infant organ transplants, personal conscience

[kellman]

1. Because you consider embryos to be people, I should be bound by your beliefs? Does freedom of conscience extend only as far as the right to agree with you?

Ponder the consequences, starting with the tenets of some of the more radical animal-rights groups. If a large group of folks decided that cows and chickens were people, would you give up hamburgers and omelettes?

At what point do you consider a baby to be a person? After birth? What about premature babies? They are being born and surviving earilier and earlier. Once you have to determine when to label a fetus 'a person' the logic gets fuzzy. For the RTL crowd, and philosophically as well, a 'person' begins at conception. Before conception, there is no possibility for a human to form. If you argue that it is a 'person' only when it is able to survive outside the womb, you will be dis-proved by your own 'god' science that it is earlier and earlier. Just think about what it could be like in 100 years. Babies could be grown entirely outside of a woman. At what point is that baby 'a person'?

2. An infant cannot give consent to donate its organs any more than an embryo can. However, the parents of dying/dead infants often donate their organs to save other people's children. This is where babies with biliary atresia (a congenital malformation of the bile ducts which is uniformly fatal) get their donor livers and another chance at life.

Is that wrong, by your lights?

If not, what is your argument against the parents of frozen pre-embryos (16-cell clusters) donating those cells for use in stem-cell research or treatments, instead of just throwing them down the sewer if they aren't going to be used? Keep in mind that the pre-embryo is dead either way, and that throwing away the pre-embryos is not at all different from the normal implantation failures of the human reproductive scheme.

As for your first sentence, why would it be considered wrong? A brain-dead person can't consent either. Bad argument. As for the rest: If you have a problem with ESCR, you will have a problem with people throwing away their embryos. That is why IVF has some inherent problems from a basic RTL standpoint anyway. It is the same reason the aborted-baby-spare-body-parts industry is disgusting. Just because abortion is legal, doesn't mean its allowable to 'harvest' their little dissected bodies for profit and 'necessary research'.

Re:Infant organ transplants, personal conscience

[Spamalamadingdong]

At what point do you consider a baby to be a person? After birth? What about premature babies? They are being born and surviving earilier and earlier. Once you have to determine when to label a fetus 'a person' the logic gets fuzzy.

That's pretty simple, actually. If it has grown enough of a brain to be able to wake up and be conscious, it's a baby. Until then, it is less than a baby (and if it took a wrong term in development and doesn't have a functioning brain, it never was a baby). This definition works no matter how good your support technology gets.

As for your first sentence, why would it be considered wrong? A brain-dead person can't consent either. Bad argument.

No, you missed the argument. The next of kin make the donation. In the case of the frozen embryo, the next of kin are the sperm and egg donors (for IVF operations, they are the people who were trying to become parents and if they are done with IVF, have probably become parents enough times to be finished).

The only way you can argue that donation of a 16-cell blastocyst for stem-cell research is immoral is either to argue that organ donation from cadavers is also immoral, OR to claim that the 16-cell stage of humanity is morally worth more than any other stage even if they are all facing imminent and inevitable death. I think that anyone who holds this view is either unable to grasp the implications (and is therefore stupid and not to be taken seriously except as cannon fodder in someone's ideological war), or is simply evil.

Gonna happen no matter what

[Anonymous Coward]

If the US doesn't allow this they fall behind because someone else will allow it.. Americans like to be the best and don't want to fall behind. I would assume this is going on anyways and I would rather have it done out in the open

'States rights'

[Anonymous Coward]

Just goes to show you. Conservatives belive in 'States' rights' when the state is conservative.

Fuck you, G.W.Unelected.

Re:you're right

[Anonymous Coward]

Tee hee hee.
Eating penis.
Hard times.
HA HA HA HA HA!

Why the bias here?

[Anonymous Coward]

As a scientist working in this field I must say: why has everyone taken this as being the Catholic church versus science again? What the Catholic church thinks is irrelevant.

The issue here is in creating a baby and then killing it for it's cells. This cruel concept is hidden by labels such as "embryonic stell-cell research". There is no rational argument one can put forth to make the statement that "this is not murder". Let's at least be honest with ourselves.

There is quite a bit that can be accomplished through cDNA analysis (which we have yet to scratch the surface), this research is unnecessary and horrid to anyone who has had children.

Now accepting embryo donations is a better Title.

[Zapdos]

There is no cloning here. This has never been illegal, this is just a clarification.

Sen. Deborah Ortiz authored the bill that states California will explicitly allow embryonic stem cell research, and allows for both the destruction and donation of embryos.

The bill requires clinics that do in-vitro fertilization procedures to inform women they have the option to donate discarded embryos to research. It requires written consent for donating embryos for research and bans the sale of embryos.

mod parent up; has valid facts

[ryochiji]

The fact that embryos are often simply thrown away is a very important fact that's not raised often enough.
Somebody please mod parent up.

Re:Well, about time.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you were trying to be funny, but it just came off bitter and harsh.

Re:Well, about time.

[zoobee]

Yup, tis always the lack of religious values that get the Bible thumpers riled up... Oh my Lord!! Believe in a religion and magically you'll end up becoming better than them darned commie liberals! What a hogwash!

1) High Divorce rates?
Well, women are more free to make their own choices! It is this reason why, unlike the previous generation, instead of putting up with a crappy marriage they'd rather not be part of such a relationship. Those damn liberal atheists!! If it were not for them liberals the woman folk would still be the one busy serving their husbainds!

2) Kids killing each other?
Uh, just like their elders? The Crusades? WWI? WWII? Vietnam? The Mujahideen before and after the Taliban? Israeli/Palestinian conflict? IRA in Northern Ireland? More people have been killed in the name of a religion than otherwise... Damn Liberals!!

3) Childern having sex?
Uh, in religious Iran (oh no their God is different than the God of Bible!) the legal age for a bride is 13! In the state of Utah, in some communities, 14 year old brides are very common... Damn liberals!!

4) College Students that can't read?
Uh, with States pushing for creationism like syllabus I am not surprised there... But damn the liberals from preventing childern and college students from readin books other than the Bible? (Which version is the right one though? hmmmm)

5) Presidents that think it's ok to lie to American people?
Oh I hear ya on this one!! Next election I am writing in Pope's name on my vote! The religious NEVER lie... Oh and the popes of the yesteryears don't count... A preist or Ashcroft like uber-patriot makes a better president than say the one appointed by the Supreme court... I am all in the favor of abolishing electoral college... lets elect presidents by way of popular vote.... Oh I am rambling.... those damn liberals! atheists!!

6) Hell? what hell? I must be Jewish? Oh damn liberals!!

Re:Wouldn't it be easier to use Illegal Immigrants

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a few thoughts on this issue:

> Didn't the Nazis and Japanese make many more medical discoveries in WW2 at a much faster rate when they discarded those silly ideas about human dignity and the value of life?
Actually, No. The Nazi's did a number of "experiments" which were little more than cruel torture. Because their methodology was so poor, almost nothing of any value came out of what they did.

You cannot consider a bunch of cells to be a human being simply because they have the potential to be a human being any more than you can consider a pile of random chemicals a human being simply because it has the same potential (over a longer period of time, obviously). You cannot consider a clump of cells human until they have developed enough of a nervous system to be self-aware.

Finally, a free adult human should have the right of absolute and unconditional control over what goes on in their own body. (limited, of course, by the laws of physics:) Anything less is a form of slavery.

Morality/Religion

[Grendel Drago]

The issue of embriotic destruction is a religious one and should not be federally precluded.

You know, the Christians also prohibit lying and murdering. (Yes, they're hypocrites, but we're talking about their ideals here.) That doesn't make laws against murder a religious issue.

I agree with the conclusion that the government has no place prohibiting stem cell research, but if the best reason you can think of is "The Christians are against it, thus we must allow it!", then you really need to check your premises.

--grendel drago

Re:Well, about time.

[netphilter]

1) High Divorce rates? Well, women are more free to make their own choices! It is this reason why, unlike the previous generation, instead of putting up with a crappy marriage they'd rather not be part of such a relationship. Those damn liberal atheists!! If it were not for them liberals the woman folk would still be the one busy serving their husbainds!

Liberals always forget where the REAL women's rights movement started...the Bible. If it wasn't for Christians women would have zero rights. One of the reasons the Christian church was persecuted was for the freedom it gave women. It's called history, try checking it out sometime.

2) Kids killing each other? Uh, just like their elders? The Crusades? WWI? WWII? Vietnam? The Mujahideen before and after the Taliban? Israeli/Palestinian conflict? IRA in Northern Ireland? More people have been killed in the name of a religion than otherwise... Damn Liberals!!

I forgot that the fact that adults do something automatically makes it right. Kids are killing each other because the Liberals won't let parents discipline their kids.

3) Childern having sex? Uh, in religious Iran (oh no their God is different than the God of Bible!) the legal age for a bride is 13! In the state of Utah, in some communities, 14 year old brides are very common... Damn liberals!!

They do lots of other things in these countries as well, so you agree with those things, too? Like women having NO rights? Hmmm, you seem to contradict yourself. I don't even know where to begin to refute this since it is so completely irrelevant to the problems of the U.S. Should we really model ourselves after Iran? Another liberal tactic...speak, then think.

4) College Students that can't read? Uh, with States pushing for creationism like syllabus I am not surprised there... But damn the liberals from preventing childern and college students from readin books other than the Bible? (Which version is the right one though? hmmmm)

Yeah, this has nothing to do with the Liberals telling us that we can't ever give anyone a bad grade because that might "hurt their feelings."

5) Presidents that think it's ok to lie to American people? Oh I hear ya on this one!! Next election I am writing in Pope's name on my vote! The religious NEVER lie... Oh and the popes of the yesteryears don't count... A preist or Ashcroft like uber-patriot makes a better president than say the one appointed by the Supreme court... I am all in the favor of abolishing electoral college... lets elect presidents by way of popular vote.... Oh I am rambling.... those damn liberals! atheists!!

What does the Pope have to do with anything? You show your lack of education by assuming that because I claim to be a Christian I'm Catholic. I could care less what the Pope or any other Catholic does. I follow Jesus Christ and I assure you that he never lied, and I do everything that I can to follow his example, as should anyone that chooses to take on his name.

Exodus 21:22 says nothing about ESCR

[MichaelPenne]

> If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

This pretty clearly is talking about causing a miscarriage by abusing a pregnant woman, not growing stem cells in a petri dish.

Meanwhile, ESCR uses cells grown in a petri dish, so obvioulsy has nothing at all to do with Exodus.

Re:Exodus 21:22 says nothing about ESCR

[netphilter]

The point is that God values unborn life as life, thus ESCR is taking life (obviously).

Re:Exodus 21:22 says nothing about ESCR

[MichaelPenne]

That seems to be your interpretation of 21:22, all the text says is that the judges will decide how to punish men for abusing a pregnant woman who loses her baby as a result of the abuse. In any event, you want the US government to establish your religious beliefs as law in this case, don't you?

Other stem cell sources

[SeanAhern]

Something that a lot of people seem to either not know, or conveniently forget, is that stem cells can be retrieved from sources other than embryos. Vast amounts can be harvested from placentas, even more than can be harvested from an embryo. They can also be retrieved from umbilical cords. Scientists have even been able to find useful stem cells from adult muscle tissue.

The point is that this is not a medical issue. All of the research benefits from embryonic stem cell use can be realized through the use of stem cells that are done without the destruction of a single embryo.

This is a pro-life/pro-choice issue. The question is one of whether you believe that a developing fetus/embryo is a person, and if its destruction is destroying a person.

Question for the Crispy.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've always wondred why all you pro-life people are also pro death penalty? isnt that a bit of a contradiction? is unborn life more important than a living human being? oh well i guess if jesus says its ok to kill these people but not those people it must be? right?..

Re:Well, about time.

[zoobee]

Liberals always forget where the REAL women's rights movement started...the Bible. If it wasn't for Christians women would have zero rights. One of the reasons the Christian church was persecuted was for the freedom it gave women. It's called history, try checking it out sometime.

Uh, comparative to 2000 years ago yeah! But women could not vote in this country of ours, till 1920s. And could not apply for loans without a male co-signer till the early 70s! You oughta check these facts out too...

I forgot that the fact that adults do something automatically makes it right. Kids are killing each other because the Liberals won't let parents discipline their kids.

I guess my sarcasm got the best of you....:) What I MEANT to say was that, kids killing etc has NOTHING to do with liberals or atheism... I hope this one makes sense for ya.

They do lots of other things in these countries as well, so you agree with those things, too? Like women having NO rights? Hmmm, you seem to contradict yourself. I don't even know where to begin to refute this since it is so completely irrelevant to the problems of the U.S. Should we really model ourselves after Iran? Another liberal tactic...speak, then think.

Uh, again, same thing, my sarcasm got the best of ya (I see a pattern emerging here...).... What I MEANT was that it's THE RELIGION, in case of Iran and UTAH, that has sanctioned child sex, not the liberals...:)

Yeah, this has nothing to do with the Liberals telling us that we can't ever give anyone a bad grade because that might "hurt their feelings."

I see, its the same way as making one's point just because it's said in the Bible, who cares if the reality or "CONVENTIONAL WISDOM" factualize the situation otherwise. Come on! If it were not for the likes of Voltaire, Galelio, and Eienstien, you and I still would be thumping Bible. Wait a minute, I guess you still remain attached to "how things were"...

What does the Pope have to do with anything? You show your lack of education by assuming that because I claim to be a Christian I'm Catholic. I could care less what the Pope or any other Catholic does. I follow Jesus Christ and I assure you that he never lied, and I do everything that I can to follow his example, as should anyone that chooses to take on his name.

Hahahahaha! You are funny!! Man o man! relax and read through my comments again! And you'd see the sarcasm! I used "pope" just as an example, a "metaphor"! Since "Pope" is alive, thanks to the modern marvels of science, I thought I use his name than some dead, or shall I say "temporarliy unavailable" (in case of JC) religious icon. However, by mentioning the name of JC, you just proved my point!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re: If you consider a cell human life...

[Anonymous Coward]

I consider all the sperm human life as well (only 1 step away from conception, shouldn't that make it life, it swims, and has a purpose...) so I declare the government should ban all masterbation on towels, if you must masterbate now, you must do it in a sterile environment, into a sterile container, so you can donate it to the less fortunate that can't create there allocation of sperm....

Most of you didn't realize....

[orichter]

...we have the christians to thank for recursion.

Stem Cells

[xyleen]

I think the thing that people need to know is are we using these stem cells just for the research phase, in which we will figure out either how stems cells do what they do so we can turn on these genes in the area that needs fixing, or is it a matter of learning how to make artificial stem cells so we dont end up having to waste a potential life to save a new one...OR will it be an indefinite cycle of always using an stem cells from an embryo to towards a person needing the treatment that they might provide.

Im pretty sure its the former and not the latter, since giving up a potential life just to save another is pretty immoral since that potential life does not have a say in the matter. Im sure it would be very noble of that potential life to want to sacrifice their own existance to save someone, but since they cant quite answer that question themselves, we cant very well allow it.

I am all for the research though. So long as its not always one to one, and there is only an initial cost of so many to kick start the process of knowing exactly how these work or make sythetic ones. We are pretty close I think to understanding it. We know that the body is formed in sequential order in vertabrates as the genes for that process are adjacent from head to toe. We also know about telomerase which trys to fix up the buffer of gene trash that gets used up whenever cells replicate. But these information is much easier to gleam from developing cells which still have these genes turned on or turning on, and off as well.

Re: logically inconsistant

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to experiment why don't you donate your living body to be hacked apart in the name of science :)


That would be suicide and deemed illegal.

It's like a scene from Escape From L.A.

[writertype]

As a (Northern) Californian, I have to say I'm scared at the completely banal uses to which stem research will undoubtedly be applied. Already we've got a mild toxin (Botox) being used routinely at parties to smooth out wrinkles in middle-aged women.

Are we too far off from a day when Hollywood millionaires will keep a stockpile of organs on hand to replace when necessary? When months at the Betty Ford Clinic is replaced by a few whacks of a scalpel to replace a burnt-out liver?

I'm well aware that this is a rather reactionary response, and I'll stop hyperventilating now. But I still can't help feeling deeply cynical when I flip the page from the tiny amount of space newspapers provide for hard science articles to the massive amounts of space devoted to celebrity, entertainment, fashion, and beauty.

buy my kid

[Anonymous Coward]

I can sell you a quality kid in nine months for only $10,000. Why play around with your health with purchasing little crack-addled abortion babies? You don't know who their parents were! You wouldn't want to possibly inject yourself accidentally with nasty evil Conservative DNA would you?

Its not the legality......

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not the legality of the matter that bothers me. I believe that cloning may actually lead to us being (close to) immortal. Despite what 99% of people believe, living forever would be a nightmare. Nobody dies, everyone reproduces. My guess would be that we would never find a way to make it off of this planet to spread the population. Life on Earth would becoming a living hell where everyone was in perfect health, huddled next to each other until we run out of air or food (I guess food)...

ACK!

[Anonymous Coward]

"This is the ultimate dream of medicine: curing people of the ravages of disease and age, rather than just keeping sick folks alive for a few more years."

Making folks sick is nature's way of voting you off the island!!! Thats just what we need... Trillions of people who never die. Think about that for a second. You think your hometown is crowded now?

Re:Wouldn't it be easier to use Illegal Immigrants

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, sorry to nit-pick, but the problem is that you've glossed over the central question: *are* embryos human life?

It's not obvious, and I guess we disagree on this point. Moments before birth, is that unborn baby a human life? Personally, I'd say yes. Moments after the first sperm touches a fertile egg in a woman? Personally, I'd say no, it's just a clump of cells. I know I know I know, after all, what am I right now? A clump of cells! But, so are the toe nail clippings I threw out this morning.

to summarize:
me, considered alive and somewhat precious(ha!), made up of a clump of cells.

toe nail clippings, considered living and disposable, made up of a clump of cells.

So, are the clump of cells of an embryo closer to a fully formed human or to toe nail clippings?

For me (most of us?), there is a gray area. And that's the central question, and that's what needs to be argued. The rest of your argument/point can only make sense if you've conviced yourself first that

" yes, embryos are human life, merely at an early stage"

It would have been interesting to hear your points on that, since it seems to me that a lot of arguments along these lines (abortion included) really stem from a difference of opinion regarding "is it life yet?"

PS

the comment regarding slavery is complete and utter nonsense. It's amazing to be reminded that even then, the northener abolitionists were driven by this silly notion that maybe slaves were fathers and sons and mothers and just generally people like anyone else. That analogy would apply to the southerners, however, since they really did believe in the "partial humanity" of slaves. Funny, now that I think of it, why didn't all these jesus arguments apply during slavery, but now apply to the sanctity of life in this case?

Hmmm ...

Easy solution....

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop. Start over.

Get the stem cells from umbilical cords and placentas, not from embryos. Remove federal funding on embryonic stem cells.

Re: "proving" God

[Gallamine]

God or "non-God" can't be "proven." I boils down to evidence. There is lots of evidence for the existance of God. I don't have enough time to write it all. Check out Legislating Morality by Turek and Geisler and Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis and check out CARM.org. God is there if you want to look for him. We Christians (well, the ones that think) don't beling in God, "just because," and I'll defend that anyday.

-Gallamine

Rant

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm, lemme run this through the cranium a second...

If I get a vasectomy, I kill x/2 (x being the # of sperm cells I might produce had I not gone under the knife) human beings. So... folks are serial killer's just for masturbating?

New slashdot poll: Would you donate your reproducive cells to cure diseases if you knew it'd go to lab-based fertilization? Harvesting zygotes in a lab environment, there's a freaky thought.

But what if we used Luke's embryonic cells?

[109 97 116 116]

Who'd fight Darth Vader then?

I won't join the "anything goes" crowd

[dolphin558]

It's bad enough that these lives that were begun are going to die, now we're going to use their inevitable destruction as an excuse to experiment on them??? It's like a 1943 forensic specialist knowing that the Nazi and Stalin were evil but not privately ENJOYING the opportunity to study the results of experiments done on the human body. lilmacumd@yahoo.com if you'd like to chat.

Re:Wouldn't it be easier to use Illegal Immigrants

[BasharTeg]

I'll be a little more impressed when I hear that you've turned down a heart transplant, bible thumper. Heart disease runs in my family, and it's morons like you who are standing in the way of perfect heart transplants. I hate to use a movie as an example, but look at John Q. The guy was fighting to get his kid on a LIST of people waiting for other people to DIE, just so they can cut out their organs and hope to hell that they are accepted in the recipient's body. What a sick joke if we can just grow them ourselves. If you don't want your stem cell grown heart, don't take it. But stay the fuck out of the way of me and my benefits of medical research. I don't begrudge you your principles and beliefs, but the minute you try to shove them on others, you can cram the father, the son, and the holy ghost back up Mary's cunt and tell her to give birth to it elsewhere.

Call me a troll if you like, but I will tell you this: If you stand in the way of human progress, you will be crushed.

Re: "proving" God

[Citizen of Earth]

God or "non-God" can't be "proven."

Correct.

There is lots of evidence for the existance of God.

I defy you to produce even one item of objective and compelling evidence demonstrating the existence of God.

We Christians (well, the ones that think) don't beling in God, "just because,"

My position is that in the absence of objective proof, any thinking person must be prepared to accept that either possibility may be the objective truth. If a person is utterly unable to accept that one of the possibilities may be true, then he is irrational.

Since my understanding anyway is that a True Christian must accept only one possibility, then a True Christian cannot be a rational person. When dealing with irrational people, all bets are off.

Re: "proving" God

[Jonathan the Nerd]

I defy you to produce even one item of objective and compelling evidence demonstrating the existence of God.

The life of Jesus. Jesus, during his three-year ministry, performed quite a few miracles (walking on water, healing people with incurable diseases, raising the dead), most of which had quite a lot of eyewitnesses. Three days after he was executed, he rose from the dead and was subsequently seen by hundreds of people. Some of those people wrote down their experiences, while others compiled testimony from lots of other people. Since these accounts dealt with religious matters, people who copied them made darn sure to copy and preserve them accurately. As a result, there's a lot more evidence for the acts of Jesus than there is for the lives and acts of Caesar, Plato, Aristotle, and various other ancients, who were famous but not religiously revered, so their words probably weren't checksummed as thoroughly.

I would give you quite a lot of contemporary (as in 20th century) examples of God's intervention in human affairs, but I don't have time, since have to go to class now. Guideposts magazine has a monthly column called His Mysterious Ways, in which they publish stories of modern-day miracles. (Unfortunately, the archives of this column aren't available online for free.) Some of them are rather dull, but others are astonishing. Guideposts has published at least three volumes of these columns. They make for interesting reading. More important, though, they provide undeniable evidence that God is still active in the world.

Re: "proving" God

[Citizen of Earth]

The life of Jesus. Jesus, during his three-year ministry, performed quite a few miracles (walking on water, healing people with incurable diseases, raising the dead), most of which had quite a lot of eyewitnesses. Three days after he was executed, he rose from the dead and was subsequently seen by hundreds of people. Some of those people wrote down their experiences, while others compiled testimony from lots of other people. Since these accounts dealt with religious matters, people who copied them made darn sure to copy and preserve them accurately. As a result, there's a lot more evidence for the acts of Jesus than there is for the lives and acts of Caesar, Plato, Aristotle, and various other ancients, who were famous but not religiously revered, so their words probably weren't checksummed as thoroughly.

Garbage.

I would give you quite a lot of contemporary (as in 20th century) examples of God's intervention in human affairs, but I don't have time, since have to go to class now. Guideposts magazine [guideposts.com] has a monthly column called His Mysterious Ways [guideposts.com], in which they publish stories of modern-day miracles. (Unfortunately, the archives of this column aren't available online for free.) Some of them are rather dull, but others are astonishing. Guideposts has published at least three volumes of these columns. They make for interesting reading. More important, though, they provide undeniable evidence that God is still active in the world.

More garbage.

Thanks for playing.

Re: "proving" God

[Skevos Mavros]

Oh dear,

You said:

Guideposts magazine has a monthly column called His Mysterious Ways

So I went there and read:

I just stepped outside for a look at the backyard. as soon as I heard the door click behind me, I realized I'd locked myself out. (SNIP) Then I saw a gate. Aha! I approached it, only to have my hopes dashed when I saw it was secured with a padlock. (SNIP) Lord, please help me get back in, I prayed. Not for my sake, but for Carole's.
Almost immediately I noticed a key hanging high on a hook. The key to the padlock, I thought. (SNIP) The key slid in easily, and the lock popped open. I was free! (SNIP)
When my friends returned I told them what had happened. I laughed about my ordeal, saying, "And to think that the key to the padlock on the gate was right in front of me the whole time!"
They both looked puzzled. "Padlock?" one of them said. "The only key out there in the yard is the one on the hook for the freezer."
"That can't be so," I insisted.
Together we walked out to the patio, leaving the back door ajar. I took the key from the hook and marched over to the gate. But this time when I tried, the key didn't fit the lock.

Oh boy. You don't really believe that clearly fictitous story do you? That an all-powerful all-loving God would perform such a minor miracle to save Carole's feelings and yet allow all the suffering we see in the world?

Is a cancer a person?

[robertliguori]

My boilerplate for determining BS in pro-life arguments is to do a search-replace with cancer or tumor instead of fetus. Cancers have different DNA from their hosts. They grow, live, metabolize, and do all the things zygotes do. So why don't they have rights?

Re:Is a cancer a person?

[kellman]

So, are _you_ a cancer? Can I douse you with chemotherapy and radiation? Just asking...

SUCH a red herring...

[Anonymous Coward]

The inarticulate garbage-spewing hip-hoppers aside, I think that Black people do a fine job of arguing for their own humanity. You cannot read anything by Frederick Douglas or Langson Hughes and argue that the author was not a human being.

Re:SUCH a red herring...

[Reality Master 101]

So if my three year old can't argue for his own humanity, then he's not a person?

Perhaps you missed the hammer in the hand

[Spamalamadingdong]

The argument that an embryo is not human life has always seemed very "hand-wavey" to me, with heavy use of scientific terminology that can't do justice to the profound question of l-i-f-e.

The handwaving (fallacy of equivocation, in logic-speak) of the RTL crowd regarding the word "life" is far worse.

Let me describe the difference between life and A LIFE to you. Life is anything which respires, metabolizes, etc. If the living whatever came from human origins, it's human life in some sense. However, that definition makes no distinction between a Nobel laureate, a brain-dead gunshot victim or a 16-cell embryo. In other words, it is meaningless for the purpose of deciding the question you think is so important. So why do you continue to use it?

A human life is something human which also has a functioning brain. Once you have brain death, the human life is gone even if you have organs and tissues plugging away. This is why a 16-cell pre-embryo is not A LIFE. It has no ability to think or even feel, it has no self, and nobody should be required by anything other than their own personal desire or sense of obligation to give it one. It comes down to personal conscience. If someone would rather that their 16-cell cluster be part of a cure for someone's nasty disease instead of becoming a baby they don't want, that's their right to determine - not yours.

If you are so insistent that 16-cell pre-embryos are full human beings, you should therefore have a funeral for every one which winds up on a tampon instead of growing into a baby. I know that even you think that this is ridiculous, which means that you don't even take your own argument seriously. Hypocrite.

Re: "proving" God

[Jonathan the Nerd]

Wow, thank you for that logical and well-reasoned rebuttal. I wish I could be as eloquent as you are.

So you reject eyewitness accounts as evidence? Your history teachers must have had trouble with you, because eyewitness accounts are the only evidence we have of any historical events that took place before the invention of audio and video recording. So, do you also reject the assassination of Caesar? The Trojan horse? The fall of the Roman empire? The Norman conquest of England? Or do you only accept eyewitness accounts that don't disagree with your preconceived worldview? (And some people accuse Christians of being inconsistent and illogical!)

Re: "proving" God

[kellman]

Actually, the existence of matter is proof that there must have been some higher being outside of our dimension that wrought matter into existence. After that, it's a theological argument. Science cannot prove that God doesn't exist, and philosophy proves that some 'God' must exist.

Re: "proving" God

[greenrd]

Even if Jesus did perform miracles... Uri Geller has performed miracles too, on television. Does this imply that we should believe everything that Geller says? Of course not.

So you might say Jesus' miracles are impossible to explain scientifically. Even then, the argument is bogus.

"(1) X performed miracles. (2) X said he was empowered to do so by God. (3) Therefore God exists." is not a valid argument. X could have been mistaken. That's a logical possibility, isn't it? Your argument needs to be fleshed out some more if it is to be logical.

Re: "proving" God

[greenrd]

Whether or not Jesus did in fact perform miracles does not show that God exists. If you are too stupid to see why, I helpfully explained this in another branch of this thread.

Re:They Are Just Fucking Cells

[Anonymous Coward]

a cell is a cell is a cell

Look Up.

[MichaelPenne]

There is a whole solar system out there & alot more beyond.

The speed of light ain't much of a limit for folks who don't age.

Plenty of room.

No reason to let death erase that software you've been writing for the past (insert current age here) years. It is a wothwhile program your're working on, isn't it?

Re: "proving" God

[spruce]

And just how did this higher being itself get wrought into existence? You see, we have the same problem comprehending the existence of a God as we do the existence of the universe, we can't comprehend things which would have to be timeless.

Re: "proving" God

[Jonathan the Nerd]

Even if Jesus did perform miracles... Uri Geller has performed miracles too, on television. Does this imply that we should believe everything that Geller says? Of course not.

Interesting argument, but I doubt Uri Gellar ever did anything as impressive as raise a man from the dead after he had already started to decompose. (See John 11:1-45.)

"(1) X performed miracles. (2) X said he was empowered to do so by God. (3) Therefore God exists." is not a valid argument. X could have been mistaken. That's a logical possibility, isn't it? Your argument needs to be fleshed out some more if it is to be logical.

You have a valid point here, and I'm not sure I'm going to be able to answer it to your satisfaction, but I'll try anyway.

I doubt we'll ever be able to completely prove God. Some things can be proven completely, like A=pi*r^2, or 2H[2] + O[2] = 2H[2]0, but other things can't be proven so easily. If a man commits a murder, and there are no eyewitnesses, it may not be possible to prove he did it with 100% certainty, but it may be possible to obtain enough evidence to convict him anyway. In the same way, it may not be possible to prove 100% the existence of God, but considering all the evidence (the miracles of Jesus, the miracles since Jesus, the rather startling changes wrought in so many people who have turned to God), many people -- even some dedicated atheists -- choose to believe.

There are other people who can explain the evidence for God much more completely than I can. If you're interested, I'd advise you to read The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel. The author is a former newspaper reporter who used to be a devoted athiest. He wanted to get the truth about Jesus, so he interviewed a dozen experts and asked them various questions about the life and records of Jesus. His research ended up convincing him of the truth of the Gospel, and he became a Christian. If a man like that can be convinced of the reality of God just by examining the bare facts, that says a lot for the available evidence.