Slashdot Mirror
US Stem Cells Contaminated
Croaking Toad writes "According to The Register, US-based scientists using stem cells has hit a brick wall. The stem cells apparently have been contaminated for quite a while with animal proteins rendering them useless in the treatment of human illnesses. New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the USA by a 2001 Executive Order from President Bush." To be precise, stem cell harvesting wasn't outlawed; the usage of federal funding was outlawed. Several states and research institutions have been using their own money to undertake research. The AP coverage is up as well. Update: 01/24 19:40 GMT by J : Carl Zimmer has a fascinating description of the sugars we humans lack that contaminated the stem cell lines. What a curious genetic heritage we have...
That's not true. Federal funding for harvesting embryonic stem cells was cut off. Huge difference.
The executive order related to what could be done with Federal dollars. To leave that out is a huge distortion.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
No. Denied Federal funding, yes.
Coincidence? I think not. Let the conspiracy theories abound!
BTW, fp.
New stem cell harvesting paid for with federal funding was prohibited by the executive order. Private and state funding can still be used for that purpose (like the money that California will be pumping into stem cell research).
"As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist" I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines " where the life and death decision has already been made", This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research" without crossing a fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life."
-- George W. Bush
Just thought I'd help back up the parent there.
moo
If you've been waiting tor stem cell research to help you grow antlers, it looks like you're out of luck. Sorry, folks.
Never ask for directions from a two-headed tourist! -Big Bird
See ya later, Johnny (1925-2005) and thanks for the memories!
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Since the OP didn't seem to bother reading the executive order:
"Federal funds will only be used for research on existing stem cell lines that were derived: (1) with the informed consent of the donors; (2) from excess embryos created solely for reproductive purposes; and (3) without any financial inducements to the donors. In order to ensure that federal funds are used to support only stem cell research that is scientifically sound, legal, and ethical, the NIH will examine the derivation of all existing stem cell lines and create a registry of those lines that satisfy this criteria. More than 60 existing stem cell lines from genetically diverse populations around the world are expected to be available for federally-funded research.
No federal funds will be used for: (1) the derivation or use of stem cell lines derived from newly destroyed embryos; (2) the creation of any human embryos for research purposes; or (3) the cloning of human embryos for any purpose. Today's decision relates only to the use of federal funds for research on existing stem cell lines derived in accordance with the criteria set forth above."
Harvesting of new stem cell lines is not prohibited - a PI merely cannot continue to expect to receive government funding if s/he does so.
What ever happened to the whole moral situation on stem cells? was it by-passed while i wasnt looking and its being eluding me? can someone please inform me...
Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. - HHGTTG
"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the USA ..."
The federal government decided not to fund harvesting new stem cells. That's a far cry from "outlawed".
Anyone with the expertise can harvest new stem cells legally in the US, the Feds just won't be giving them grant money to do it.
It's too bad whoever wrote the story didn't even bother to read a couple of paragraphs into their own linked text.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
Can't stem cells be harvested/created from blood or other tissue samples. Isn't this a better technology to pursue if we want to seek organ clones that don't get rejected by the host?
As I recall it's a little more restrictive than that: federally funded research is not allowed to make any use of any stem cell line other than the pre-existing ones. So they also cannot use new lines that were harvested by someone else.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
The difference between theory and practice is in theory quite small and in practice quite large. In theory, sure, "private investment" could continue the research, but we all know that's not going to happen.
(apologies for horribly mangled quote)
I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
Now the stem cell research money that Ca. ponied up in thier state question will pay them huge dividends nice.
Good for them
So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
But it's true.
Bush's law prohibits federal funding for stem cell research, nothing else. Private firms may do as they wish. In addition, as far I can determine, the law does not prohibit state funding for stem cell research. This would be a great way for some states to attract biotech business.
This is something that was known, albeit not well known at the time of the executive order. Sadly this fact was not very widely publicized at the time and forces me to wonder why it is big news and such a shock now.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Nice troll, you flamebaiting whiner. Learn something about federal funding before you open mouth next time.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
You forgot another important word: human.
The research beginning first on humans simultaneously with animal embryonic stem cells is the first time that I can recall in medical research. The normal research process has animal testing prior to human testing. The idea is that we should invest in learning how the cells are able to differentiate and how the lab can use the process to an advantage in animals. Only after this has been turned into a political issue has the reearch process reversed from animal testing first to human testing first.
I am defenseless. Use your button. Mod me down with all of your hatred.
The study reports that the cell lines currently approved for study under federal funding contain a sialic acid called N-glycolylneuraminic acid, or Neu5Gc.
Neu5Gc? I never knew scientist were so l33t! Cool!
No, it wasn't. Firstly, Executive Orders cannot create law (Youngstown v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952))
But more importantly, the EO in question applies only to research conducted with federal tax money. Private research institutions and some state-funded ones (including several in California and other states) are free to persue their own stem cell lines as they see fit.
NeoCon response:
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
The federal government decided not to fund harvesting new stem cells. That's a far cry from "outlawed". That's not true. Federal funding for harvesting embryonic stem cells was cut off. Huge difference. The executive order related to what could be done with Federal dollars. To leave that out is a huge distortion. New stem cell harvesting paid for with federal funding was prohibited by the executive order. No. Denied Federal funding, yes. Harvesting of new stem cell lines is not prohibited - a PI merely cannot continue to expect to receive government funding if s/he does so. The federal government decided not to fund harvesting new stem cells. That's a far cry from "outlawed". We get it =\
This was mentioned back in the Presidential debates. Bush said we have X Stem Cell Lines available, while Kerry said that the available lines are contaiminated with mouse DNA and probably other DNA.
only Homer Simpson is stupid enough to support this
For FREE NO ADS! 1GB/20GB PHP MySQL With a Control Panel Hosting
They're not as effective. Embryonic stem cells are the best to use for research.
Last I checked, it was still ok to harvest adult stem cells for research.
Oh, and even if you could harvest any embryonic stem cell in the world, you would still have the "transplantation" immune response problems that you see with those contaminated cells; after all, you are taking the DNA of a human (we can argue if that human was ever "alive" later) and implanting it into another "live" human, you better be sure that your significant proteins match.
Do these stem cells have little flag patches on their tiny shoulders? I bet these slack about stem cells turn out to be French. Or perhaps Canadian.
It would be funny if lobbyists were able to make the point with Bush that restricting stem cell funding might allow other countries to leap ahead of the U.S. and patent and market stem cell technology, locking them out of potentially lucrative products.
I wonder which lobby would have more influence -- corporate or Christian? Right now, I'd say Christian cause the funding is not there.
Bush was the first President to fund stem cell research at all so those saying that he cut funding are not accurate either.
"contaminated with animal proteins"??? How is this a bad thing? C'mon scientists, turn poop into poopjuice! (ala Red Meat) We've been needing some research on how to create half-human-half-animals for a while now! I personally am DYING to merge my DNA with a ferrets! And, if they do it successfully, they'll be pulling in money hand-over-fist.. more than enough to go back to their ordinary stem cell research. (anyone else get a flashback of the Batman/Robin series where the cool teens merge their DNA with a snake, puma, etc?) Who needs government funding?? heh.
"There is a reason Linux is free"
~me~
Hey Man, Want some stem cells, its good stuff, very clean. The first one is free, but then it costs.
Time for black market stem cells. If GW moron wants to kill people by not allowing research that could save people, the screw him.
TheProf
I don't know about antlers, but I have aways thought I would look fetching with a nice pair of rams horns.
I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
Wonderful! Now Corea, Singapore, Spain and other countries that were very rear in Biology R+D are going to wipe out US companies!
In the 21th Century, US companies will pay royalties and patents to third world countries instead of the opposite. Thank you Mr Bush and your-moron-religion!
The people of the great state of california recently passed a proposition to fund research for this, which may in fact result in a new wave of cures, and fortunes...
r op /71/
http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/11/02/ca/state/p
Oh and if red states have a problem with the us working with fetal stem cells, then they can choose NOT use the cures and solutions that will come out of this....
problem solved.
Bush said that the lines allowed in the 2001 order, and those that have been being used since would be sufficient. If they are, as it seems, useless then it would stand to logic that new lines are in order. Maybe he will see the light, what can I say except, hope springs eternal.
1. Stumble across overturned truck of embryos.
2. Negotiate with scientists, making sure to use the phrase, "You're breaking my balls" alot.
3. ?????
4. Profit!
Animal embryonic stem cells are well funded by the US government. Mod parent insightful!
I am defenseless. Use your button. Mod me down with all of your hatred.
to everyone screaming that it's simply federal funding that's denied... i certainly don't see any private organizations jumping up to throw their money at stem cell research (unless someone can correct me on that), so aside from the money from Cali there's currently $0 being thrown at it
Ironic this news comes on the same day as the march for life in DC
...and that's all there is to it.
why is anyone modding this up? It is making me nauseated to even visit slashdot.
As much as I would like the federal government to open up funding for embrionic stem cell research, this news post is total crap. The 'contamination' doesn't render the cells useless. The contamination comes from the fact that the medium used to grow cell lines generally contains animal-based serum. This might be a problem in some small subset of experiments, but scientists have been using animal serum for decades. The cells can still be used. Even the referenced article points out that next to nobody is THAT concerned about this.
This gets two big *yawns* up from me.
How about non-scientists stop submitting articles about science topics if they're going to keep insisting on misinterpreting everything?
Dead babys, as I like to call them :)
"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
The embryonic stem cells have certain desirable biological characteristics, such as pluripotency. In practice, it's somewhat difficult to separate non-federal funding from federal financing. E.g, previous federal grants may have been used to build and equip a laboratory, necessitating the building of separate, redundant facilities.
Did you even read what you copied? Funding wasn't just cut off for harvesting. It was cut off for any research using newly harvested stem cells.
So, yes, a private company can harvest more cells and give them away, but any researcher who touches them can kiss his funding good bye.
New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the USA by a 2001 Executive Order from President Bush.
This is slashdot, with the journalistic integrity of Dan Rather.. I should not have expected any different.
Stem cell harvesting is not illegal, so harvest away. What you can't do accoring to that 2001 executive order is harvest stem cells and expect the government to pay for it. It's like saying Bush outlawed cars because he won't buy you one.
That's fine with me anyway, it's beyond me why the government pays for reasearch that does not go into the public domain. Let pfizer pay for their own research! They don't need my subsidy.
-- Greg
Slashdot, would a spell-checker for posting be too much to ask? It's not rocket science!
Let the conspiracy theories fly! Surely it was the fundamentalist conservative right wing; or was it the liberal fundamentalist hippie left? Perhaps the Nazis? I'm sure in the end we'll blame it on terrorists.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
Because the only private donors with the kind of money that's required for this sort of thing are large corporations. Everything large corporations do must be justified by a fairly short term (5 to 10 years max) profit motive. There is no obvious profit motive for stem cell research, and so getting corporations to pony up is near impossible.
The only medical research corporations are willing to fund is the kind of research that will result in fairly quick discoveries of drugs meant to treat, not cure, illness. Curing disease is not profitable. Getting people to take drugs for the rest of their lives to MANAGE illness is extremely profitable.
but why does the President have the power to do this? What exactly does it mean for the president to pass an executive order?
I don't remember any "executive orders" in either my highschool American Government or American History classes. Is it just that the article is slightly short on details, and what actually happened is that Bush pressed for a bill to be created, got it through congress, then signed off on it? Or did he something less legally clear? It sure would be nice if this was something the Supreme Court could easily overturn.
Any law/government buffs out there wanna help explain?
Everyone seems to forget that embryos are not the only sorce of stem cells.... bood from the ambylical cord contain stem cells, these cells are already being harvestead and used to treat spinal cord injuries.... as posted in this Slashdot Artical.
Still no problem, if they can't operate in the US then just move operations to india, rusia or wherever else they are free to make scientific advances
Perhaps. But then you could just move to California, where they just voted to borrow $3Billion to pay for stem stell research.
JOIN US FOR PONG!
Seems the neocons and religious-zealot-conservatives are just using this as a way of stealing the party away from the original republicans who wanted government out of these issues.
OK, I'm stumped. How does a ban on federal funding for new stem cell lines amount to government intruding into these areas?
After all, the classic "original" Republican line has been that abortion is a matter for states and individuals to decide, not the federal government. How is a policy that puts the onus for new stem cell lines on states and private companies so different?
TylerWhich is itself a bit of a misleading statement, as stem cell research is a very recent thing. It would be like saying "President Britany Spears III was the first president to fund time travel research" in the year 2145.
The same story ran on dateline NBC last night, and in their "in-depth coverage", they failed to point this out, as well as stating that stems cells are "byproducts from fertility clinics", without mentioning abortions. Regardless of which side of the debate you're on, you have to admit that this is nowhere near in-depth coverage.
It's FEDERAL funding .... not a legal ban. ... FUD that doesn't matter.
Slashdot. News for nerds
From The Corner:
Well, fundamentally it's an effort to make an argument for new stem cell lines, by undermining the viability of all the existing lines, including those federally funded. There's not much new to it, except now it's dressed up in a "new" study, when everyone has always known that these lines (not just the Bush-approved ones, but almost all ES cell lines developed past a certain stage) were developed with so-called mouse feeder cells. To call this "contamination" is simply dishonest. A good number of cell products used in humans are developed with feeder cells from animals, and some of these (not embryonic cells, but other cell products) have been successfully developed into medical treatments in the past.
A couple of key points. First, it is not true that all the Bush-approved lines were developed with these mouse feeder cells. There are sixteen lines (not counted in the LA Times's "20 or so" available lines) that have been frozen in an early state, so as to wait for better cell development techniques. These have never been exposed to mouse feeder cells or any other cells, they are frozen and could be used if these folks had a better method to suggest.
Second, the FDA has a lot of experience dealing with cell products (again, not embryonic stem cell, but others) developed with such animal cells. Then-administrator of the FDA Mark McClellan, in testimony before [the president's bioethics council] in September of 2003 [found here] was asked about the mouse feeder layer issue in embryonic stem cells, and he replied: "We've certainly had experience, successful experience, in thousands of patients in documenting the safety of cells that have been exposed to animal feeder cells, mouse feeder cells, and the like."
This new study strikes me as a partially dishonest repackaging of old worries in an effort to put new pressure on the Bush administration's funding policy. The trouble with it, as with all similar efforts by the researchers, is that the policy is based on a moral conviction, not a scientific assessment. Even if what they are saying were correct, it doesn't change the moral problem with embryonic stem cell research, and so will not change the policy. And from what I can see, it isn't correct either.
Par for the course, alas. What a course!
I've been told by people in the profession that this is not true, there are other stem cells that are just as good or better. Its just that they know how to get the embryonic cells and it was cheap. Something like that anyways.
"You can now flame me, I am full of love,"
thank God, Allah, Buddah, Abraham, the Latter Day Saints, Harry Krishnah, and even Brian Boytano i'll be dead by then.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
That's not true. Federal funding for harvesting embryonic stem cells was cut off.
That's correct, but also misleading. The executive order banned embryonic stell-cell research by any organization, group, or researcher receiving federal funding.
Not federal funding for stem-cell research. Federal funding for any research, related or not. Nearly every research organization in the country receives federal funding in one form or another. If the lab across campus doing physics has a federal grant, you can't do embryonic stem-cell research (except using the existing, contaminated lines).
The effect is the same as outlawing stem-cell research for 99.9% of all research facilities, a fact the fundies and Republican apologists like to play down or dismiss entirely. However, it doesn't make distortions like those in the summary any less obnoxious or inaccurate. There is at least one entirely privately funded research facility in California that is doing embryonic stem-cell research, our superstitious, less-than-intelligent, ever-so-less-than-competent president notwithstanding.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Did the Clinton administration receive any requests to fund stem cell research? If it didn't, then your point is meaningless. Maybe stem cell research didn't really exist before Bush became president?
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
The Belgian scientist, Catherine Verfaillie, who was leading the Stem-cell research department of the University of Minnesota is coming back to Belgium because of the whole anti-stem cell research climate in the US and because it is becoming harder and harder to find appropriate funding. If this kind of thing goes on, the US will quickly lose its leading position in some kinds of research. And I think that another four years of Bush might quickly accelerate this trend.
I could have sworn it was October, 2004, but my calender says it ain't so!
-- Microsoft is the most expensive commodity operating system and office suite vendor in the marketplace.
for penis growth through stem cell implantation.
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
Firstly, I think this submission has no place in /. Partly because people generally get modded negatively if they criticise the Republican party.
I must have misinterpreted your statement, because it sounds like your saying that if any article is critical of Bush, that it doesn't belong on Slashdot.
So if I misnterpreted that, here is your chance to correct it...
JWall: GUI client for IPTables
Is perhaps an appropriate analogy one of Microsoft source code and Open Source programming? In other words, once you've seen Microsoft source code any contribution you make to Open Source may constitute "contamination" and bring threats of legal action to the entire project.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
That's not true. Federal funding for harvesting embryonic stem cells was cut off. Huge difference.
That's not true, Federal funding for any research done on new stem cell lines is denied. It's not just the harvesting. Huge difference.JWall: GUI client for IPTables
"...any researcher who touches them can kiss his [Federal] funding good bye."
Very important distinction.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Other countries are already the first option for cutting-edge treatments that haven't yet or won't gain approval in the U.S.; this is yet more business being pushed the way of slightly less scrupulous countries. Perhaps the original research would be too costly to conduct in the U.S., but I wonder if it would be cost-effective to import a viable treatment developed outside the country?
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
And now that they are contaminated, they are useless, so there will be no more federally funded research on human embryonic stem cells. As your quote points out, future lines are off limits. I wonder who knew that and when...
Who are you? The new #2 Who is #1? You are #617565. I am not a number, I am a free man! Muhahaha.
I submitted this twice and for some reason it wasn't accepted. Not that i'm holding a grudge, but i have diabetic friends and this is major news for me, and perhaps could change some people minds' about stem cell research (not embryonic stem cell research though, which is a more delicate subject).
1) Federal funding of research involving stem cells not coming from the existing lines is forbidden.
2) The existing lines are contaminated. So to continue to do any research; new stem cells must be harvested.
3) Anyone harvesting new stem cells of the forbidden types loses their federal funding.
4) In the absence of State or private funding, all stem cell research will stop because there are no new lines and no usable existing lines. Should one State bear the burden for what will ultimately benefit all States? Should basic research, and not just derivitive research, be fully in private hands? (see any of about 6,000 utopian SF horror novels for rebuttal)
How about a compromise on the wording? I'd suggest a modification of the story report "In part due to lack of funding, ew stem cell harvesting was effectively outlawed in the USA by a 2001 Executive Order from President Bush."
Kerry also said that there are some 200,000 embryos currently in limbo as a result of IVF. In other words, sperm and eggs were harvested, embryos created and frozen. Some of those embryos were implanted, and resulted in successful babies. The recipients are now known as "complete families" and have no use for the remaining embryos.
To be fair, some of those families may later change their minds and want another child, but by the time the woman passes childbearing age, those frozen embryos are pure, simple ethical dilemnas. Further, with every IVF, the problem accumulates.
Do we keep them frozen forever?
Do we start looking for host mothers just so they can be born?
Who pays for the refrigerator, and what happens if they can't or won't pay? Do we prosecute?
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
> Am I the only slashdot user that thought that Minority Report qualified as a horror movie?
Personally, I kinda thought it was a comedy.
My lab works directly in that field (but not in the US, thank goodness). The fact is that pure, virgin stem cells are the best, bar none. You can get decent stem cells from other sources but that's tantamount to comparing Extra Virgin Olive Oil with garbage from the olives' fourth pressing.
It is personal. It's tough for some to admit they made a mistake and voted in someone more stupid than themselves so they defy logic and reasoning to justify their decisions.
Regardless of whether there was an outright ban or not funding, and it was simply a funding ban on farther cell lines, it has cast a cloud over research in America. Many of the scientists working in the field have moved to China an India to be able to contunue work with less funds. Less companies are investing in research for fear it will be banned in the future as the neocons are still pushing for that.
Hmmm, one of the supporters for California Prop. 71 ($3BN state funded stem cell research) was Schwarzenegger... You know, the Republican governor out here?
If you're going to troll, at least try to do it intelligently.
I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it to the death - Voltaire
I've almost never seen an appropriate analogy of any kind, and certainly not on Slashdot.
To be precise, stem cell harvesting wasn't outlawed; the usage of federal funding was outlawed. Several states and research institutions have been using their own money to undertake research. The AP coverage is up as well.
I didn't know they had it in them, thank you Hemos.
I tried for 5 years to come up with a clever sig...only to realize that I am not clever.
that right..adult stem cell research is being and has been used to treat cancers of all kinds and has had some very good results. as the OP pointed out, its embryonic that has been banned from being used by federal funds.
It's amazing how many people believe that stem cells come from abortions. The religious right does an amazing job of spreading bad information and nobody ever promotes correct information with as much zeal or money.
Stems cells are very much "byproducts from fertility clinics". When married couples pay for in-vitro fertilization, the clinics fertilize many eggs in a lab. After a certain ammount of time, the healthiest embryos are chosen and implanted. The rest of the embryos are destroyed as medical waste. That's it. No abortions. Those embroys were never destined to be born. Why not help people with them?
-B
Bush was the first President to fund stem cell research at all so those saying that he cut funding are not accurate either.
That is a campaign speech lie. He was not the first president to fund stem cell research. Under previous presidents, stem cell research was undertaken with federal funds for that purpose. However, to prevent controversy, they projects were labled "paralysis research" or such.
So, Bush was *not* the first president to fund stem cell research. He was the first to say that it was ok to call stem cell research "stem cell research" on the grant application.
Learn to love Alaska
Yes. In fact, recent studies are showing the stem cells extracted from fat cells or even from hair cells (you know, the white thing at the end of the hair follicle you pull out) are a great source of stem cells. These stem cells are also more tame and easier to control than embryonic stem cells.
I really hate it when somebody says President Bush is against stem cell research. He's not. He's against harvesting embryonic stem cells. He's even funding already harvested embryonic stem cell research, as the parent posters pointed out.
I also hate it when people say stem cells can cure disease X. It isn't true, yet. Stem cells have yet to cure anything. If stem cells could cure diabetes or paralysis or brain damage or nerve damage, don't you think you'd hear a lot more about it in the press? Don't you think there would be advertisements on the radio asking for people with disease X to participate in a research project using stem cells? But you don't. That's because stem cells have yet to produce anything. Some researchers are beginning to fear that stem cells are just too hard to control and useful remedies won't be out for decades or even centuries.
There are other more promising routes of research. For instance, the Atkin's diet has been proven to lower blood cholesterol and to reduce the severity of diabetes. Why aren't we spending as much money on that as we are on stem cell research?
This whole stem cell fiasco has been a hammer to pound President Bush on the head, and I think every sane human out there has seen it for what it is. "Christopher Reeves died because of President Bush" just doesn't ring of truth at all. Let's stop politicizing science and just approach it with objectivity and skepticism for once, folks. And please, when science starts stretching the bounds of morality, let's make the right decision to limit science and not limit morality. That's what makes us different from the research that German and Japanese scientists did in WWII.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
There's an astonishing report out of China; it can be read here. (The story, already quite poignant, is made even more so by the realization that the author is himself tetraplegic and is considering the procedure himself.) Essentially, the Chinese have already abandoned stem cells, and have moved onto nasal cells from four month old fetuses. They're working. Read this:
Self-preservation is the strongest instinct, and morality will inexorably be rewritten to allow whatever is required to survive. This is ultimately what will end the abortion wars, and pro-lifers are horrified at this (likely) endgame.
New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the USA by a 2001 Executive Order from President Bush.
:-)
Except in Nebraska!
I tried for 5 years to come up with a clever sig...only to realize that I am not clever.
Soooo, from you anology, I take it that these stem cells are extracted using some "embryo press"?
This was mentioned back in the Presidential debate. Bush said we have X Stem Cell Lines available, while Kerry said that the available lines are contaiminated with mouse DNA and probably other DNA.
I see this as an interesting prospect. If we mix JackRabbit with Antelope stem cells we may finally have the fabeled "Jackelope"! No longer will we have to resort to glueing horns onto a stuffed rabbit!
Also - your sig is wrong. He doesn't say "I Am the New #2" - just "The New Number 2"
And now I want to go listen to that song.
The contaminants cause human antibodies to attack the transplanted cells. This has been demonstrated in experiments. All of this was covered in "TFA." This makes them dangerous and probably useless for human beings without some dubious attempts to remove the contaminants. I say dubious because they are unlikely to succeed, and in addition likely only handle the particular contaminations we already know about.
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
Every sperm is sacred
Every sperm is great
If one sperm is wasted
God gets quite irate
I love the spin slashdot puts on this stuff. I'm surprised it didn't say "The stem cell supply has been in ruins since Bush urinated in the supply."
You'll have to wear a hat everytime you go out in public!
Plus, embryonic stem cells don't work. Stem cells from umbilical cords, however, do. We should be pursuing umbilical cord stem cells, not killing our children.
It is accurate. If your research depended on use or construction of stem cell research prior to Bush, your federal funding was cut unless you were already using one of the mentioned preexisting cell lines. There was federally funded research involving production of stem cells, some of which led to the already existing lines of stem cells. I have no idea where you got your information, but if I were you I would consider any information you get from political sources to be highly suspect, whether from Republicans or Democrats.
To all of those that jumped up and said that only Federal money is withheld no law is passed against stem cell research (their emphasis not mine) I should point out the obvious that...
frontline research is conducted with mostly Federal money coming out of the NSF, DoE (you name it) and not the private sector (unless subsidized by... Federal Grands).
Why do I always have to point out the obvious to people that don't know what they are talking about, but have a clear opinion about it, and are so happy to accept whatever the prevailing truth of the day happens to be, as long as it fits their very clear and concise perception of reality?
Yam, yam, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade
This "potential" argument bugs me. Because the cells could become a person, they ought to be treated as such right now when I am not? Hell, I could become millionaire - should I be treated as such? I could become a murderer - should I be put in jail now even though I haven't killed anyone? I favor looking at how something is right now, and making the evaluation - not basing the evaluation on the uncertain future.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
First of all, California is of course funding research on its own.
But - shouldn't the lack of private funds towards this effort make you a little supicious? Many billions are spent on drug research. If there really is hardly any private funds going into this field then it should tell you that extracting anything of value is going to be very difficult, if the promise were as great as some people think then why have private companies not jumped all over it? Drug companies are investing in longshots all the time.
I'm not against the research, not even against harvesting stem cells, and I am glad California is funding the effort. But I also would hate for a lot of focus to go into stem cells when perhaps there are other areas of research that might languish as a result. I simply am saying if you follow the money, it seems odd that a lot of very smart companies are staying away in droves.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Bush was the first President to fund stem cell research
And now he's the last...
Huh?
No, that's not the way it works. You can't have it both ways. If you assign responsibility to him for all the negative things his administration does, then you also have to give credit to him for all the good things it does.
If you actually reda any of the stories, they really make it out to not be as big a deal as the Slashdot story would indicate.
I don't know why the poster went AC, but he makes a very good point that you have to question the motives of the people behind this "finding" when it's old news repackaged.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
A The majority of fertilized eggs are aborted naturally.
B Eggs are donated and fertilized outside the womb. Again most may not survive even when implanted. Numbers of extra fertilized cells are used for research.
C This shows how it works
Did he inhale?
The president doesn't fund cell research the NIMH does. If he hadn't issued the order restricting it they would have funded whatever they thought was the most scientifically valuable. It's not like he "allowed" the NIMH to fund other forms of stem cell research as well.
All this stem cell criticism is like the global warming articles....ok lets pretend the US government is the stone aged evil group some claim they are, and they dont want to fund Kyoto or Stem Cell Research. If the other 80% of the world is funding stem cell research, and private companies are funding it, there doesn't appear to be any real road block in terms of this miracle science coming true....its not as if when the US government contributes suddenly the science works....There are many stem cell companies out there right now that are privately funded, if the technology is so promising, someone, be it the EU or Pfizer is investing tons of cash, because if you develop the cure for cancer or diabetes it will more then pay you back.
As inflamitory as the following may be to you, you post is equally inflamitory to me. In my viewpoint pregnancy is a medical condition, and a cureable one at that. It should not matter if that cure is morally offensive to you or I as we are not the one making the decission. Morals are a personal thing and I don't believe they should be forced upon others. You may want to compare it to murder, but in my mind I can see a difference. If you are morally objectional to abortion, please don't have one, but please do not try to make that decission for everyone.
blah blah blah....
drightler@technicalogic.com
That's a wonderfully Orwellian statement. Congrats. Well, that might happen if the initial posting didn't claim that the testing was "outlawed". There's nothing wrong with people setting the record straight.
Here in California we passed some funding bonds for stem cell research. While I support the research (Personally, I'd set up free abortion kiosks on the street in order to harvest them. I consider "ethics" on these issues to be the domain of the weak and intellectually stunted) I voted against it because it was too much credit spending at a time we are trying to dig out from the pit that unrestrained Democratic governance invariably digs. Maybe next time. If the treatments stem cells promise are so wonderful, then the private sector can foot some of the bill.
--- Ban humanity.
I had my misgivings about the $3B in bonds, but I'm glad we passed it. Consider it our big middle finger to GWB, California's present to all the blue staters.
Not true. Some Germans cared, some didn't. To say that no Germans thought that mass murder was wrong is simply wrong.
>>The slaveowners actually thought they were doing a service by beating their slaves and forcing them to labor.
Only those who believed their own lies. Just because you keep up a front doesn't make it the truth.
What I find most ridiculous is that the same group of people who said that a black man is less than a white man and that kidnapping and enslaving africans was the "white man's burden" are the same group who pretend that they are the worlds single moral authority, and claim that as the basis for everything they are for. Infanticide has a longer history than civilization. Longer than our species. As far as opinions go, mine is that the fetus isn't a child until there's brain activity. None of this "potential" tripe that so many people bandy about. Until then it's just a lump of flesh.
You want to rail against "child murder"? How about the foetal deaths caused by pollution? How about all those dead kids in Iraq? Conservatives have no moral authority because they have continuously contradicted themselves.
If murder is murder, why have a death penalty? Why start preemptive wars? Political convenience, that's why. It's all a lie.
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
While I try to stay out of these kinds of arguments, your argument seems to be along the lines:
"Because most fertilized eggs die without intervention, it is okay to kill them with intervention."
So if I substitute "living people over the age of 2," is it suddenly moral for me to kill whoever I want? They'd probably die eventually.
America FUCK YEAH!
You demonstrate a few dozen cells have human consiousness, and I'll concede your point about "precious" lifeforms.
Hmmm
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
_My_ tax dollars go into those research coffers and it makes me _really_ angry that they can't be used for this research to better the survival chances of our species because of some phony pseudo-morality political pandering.
I actually get more angry that our tax dollars go to support medical research that is then patented and sold back to us a insane rates.
I wish people would top being "technically correct" and discuss the real issue at hand . . stem cell research outside of the current lines of embyronic stem cells. was seriously hindered by the actions of this government
Are you under the impression that the federal government EVER funded embryotic stem cell research? It didn't.
Finkployd
Finkployd
What are you, 14? You sound like a brainwashed drone. Next time, do some reading and learn what the hell it is you're talking about.
"Embryonic Stem Cells don't work"
And people have been trying as hard as hell to prove other stem cells work as well because...?
If I still had mod points I'd mod you into flaimebait oblivion.
As it is I am personally pro-life. My vote, however, is firmly pro choice. Why? Because as soon as you legislate what is acceptable and what is not (as to when an abortion is legal when normally banned), you will inevitably run into a condition where an abortion would make logical sense, but is not covered by the law, and thus is illegal.
I am pro-life because my mother had me ten days after she turned 18. I was put up for adoption, and was loved and raised by a couple who could not have children. They are mom and dad. I now enjoy a wonderful relationship will all my parents, (I have three "dads", two "moms", and one step-mom). I know full well I could be an aborted fetus, but I'm not, thus I'm firmly pro-life. I will not, under darn near any circumstance, impose my belief on another, thus my vote being firmly pro-choice.
You're trying to equate the Holocaust with abortion. While abortion is abominable, even in my eyes (partial birth particularly so) it is not the Holocaust. The Holocaust was about eliminating a human genome from the planet, a far more insidious thing. Get over your bible belt, moralistic, dictatorial views on abortion.
Roe V Wade was a Good Thing (tm) and should be allowed to stand.
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
If you don't get help at Charter, get help somewhere.
That depends. The Supreme Court has rejected prior restraint, but if you have plans for a 'dirty bomb' you can be arrested for being a terrorist, even though you haven't done anything.
When you get to hell -- tell 'em Itchy sent ya!
My point is not meaningless. What I was saying is that you cannot cut funding that does not yet exist. It is not accurate to say that he cut funding as some people are saying.
Never the less, the executive order in question is reprehensible. Bush is using tenuous, illogical, religious grounds to justify denying a large category of funding to a promising area of scientific inquiry. Hundreds of potential stem cell lines for research are being destroyed daily from aborted fetuses. If Bush is in favor of destroying existing resources (human tissues) instead of using them to advance science and save lives, why not ban organ donation? Does anything in the bible say "thou shalt not help fund researching [new, human, embryonic] stem cells if thou art the [federal] government?" If this research is immoral, why only ban government funding, as opposed to all funding, or the research itself? If this is about abortion, why not oppose abortion, rather than research? Can anyone make sense of this policy? It scares me, not in how sweeping the effects are, but because The President, the "Leader of the Free World," is using executive orders to dictate where scientific research funding goes based on personal, nonsensical, unpopular religious motives.
I think the rest of government should do what the Pentagon does, and ignore it. There's no basis in law for "executive orders" anyway. I doubt any president would allow a case based on violating an executive order to go to court, in case the Supreme Court ruled that Executive orders don't exist. Chances are, Bush can't do anything but get grumpy if the whole Federal Government simply ignores his ban.
Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
All that is just fine - until you realise that the cutoff is not when the baby is born, it is when the baby starts to develop a nervous system. If the baby is incapable of thinking or being conscious then it is not alive, and by terminating the pregnancy (a medical condition), you are not killing anyone.
No, you've got it wrong. It's more like, you COULD become an adult human being but because so many fail to make it to that stage of development we've taken it upon ourselves to legalizing the killing of human beings in the embryonic and fetal stages of development for our own benefit/profit. Just because they are in an earlier stage of development does not make them any less human. You were an embryo too at one point.
That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. I guess it makes you feel superior to those on the other side of the debate by defining a pregnancy, even one in its embryonic stage as equal to a fully-formed and developed baby regardless of whether or not that pregnancy has developed to the stage where it has a viable chance of life outside the womb.
I find it funny that the same people who are so adamant that abortion is murder are almost always the same people that are opposed to the dissemination of methods of birth control as well as the same people who are quick to make single mothers the scapegoats for all of society's ills.
And what right do you have to tell a pregnant woman, regardless of how her child was conceived, just what exactly she is allowed to do with her own body?
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
I think a much better term is "undifferentiated zygote."
Very, very few abortions happen when a fetus is viable. I think in many states that's flat out illegal. And saying that terminating a pregnancy before there is a heartbeat, let alone any sort of brainwave activiy, is morally equivalent to killing an infant is ridiculous.
I could become a murderer - should I be put in jail now even though I haven't killed anyone?
That should be up to Pre-Crime, not the President.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
...and see if the logic still holds:
Oh and if red states have a problem with the us working with [results obtained from genocide], then they can choose NOT use the cures and solutions that will come out of this...
Hrm...nope...still sounds like murder to me. I'm not against SCR. Adult stem cells *do* work, while embryonic stem cells have yet to show a single success (and have shown several grossly negative results), and adult stem cells don't kill the donor.
jason
Have a good day?! Impossible! I'm at work!
So why should federal policy be based on an extreme religious view?
Stem cell research was illegal in the US before Clinton made it legal. If you are claiming that previous presidents have funded it please provide some links to proof.
You know, you've convinced me. Morals are personal. Everyone should have choice.
/sarcasm
I have no moral qualms about murder. I choose to murder you.
What's your address?
You want someone to demonstrate proof of conciousness?
Hell, you can't even demonstrate that my boss has human conciousness, outside of my frame of perspective. For all I know, once he leaves my office he turns into a pink elephant and flits around with the fairies. 'Demonstrate' is most definitely not the word you are looking for when you're talking about conciousness.
Never confuse volume with power.
This brings up a question that has always bothered me. What is the constitutional justification for executive orders that affect funding. Shouldn't this be a congressional action?
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
"It doesn't matter - Embryonic Stem Cells don't work"
How did this assclown get modded up??????
You mods (note lowercase) are on crack.
This is just plain bullshit.
Back this up.
Legalize Infanticide. I agree that it's a hard line to draw, but you and I both know that the child takes a year or more to even begin to act like we would consider "human". Gurgling, cooing, shitting on your shirt? Sure it looks cute, but I assert that until the creature has the capability of acting morally it isn't worthy of moral consideration.
-- Too lazy to get a lower UID.
I don't have much of a problem with the state funding the research, but dammit, we don't have the money to be doing this right now. That $3B borrowed will cost the state $6B, possibly more if the state's credit rating doesn't improve in the next few years. Lets get our house in order, and then wait a couple of years before we go into this.
:/
Not to mention the questions about just who would be profiting under this.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
And now that they are contaminated, they are useless
If I read correctly, they've _always_ been contaminated. The logical question is,"Didn't anyone think about this ahead of time?" Why is it suddenly so important to be so meticulous now and do everything from the ground up?
It's sound like political bellyaching to me. If the inclusion of the Neu5Gc had potential problems, wouldn't the scientists have anticipated it ahead of time? These are supposedly world class researchers. For everyone to come up, 5-10 years later, and say,"Oooops. We just realized..."
No. I'm not buying it.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
This is misleading. He didn't actually make a conscious decision one day and say "let's start funding stem cell research". Through the NIH it was getting funded as part of the scientific research the gov't supports. What he did do was make a conscious decision to terminate that support.
NIMH? National Institutes of Mental Health funds stem cell research? Umm, do you mean NIH? National Institutes of Health.
Here is the NIH stem cell policy page for anyone interested.
http://www.ninds.nih.gov/funding/research/stem_cel l/
Since the original comment was censored by right-leaning moderators, here is a recap:
It's technically correct, but also misleading, to say that federal funding of embryonic-stem cell research is all that has been banned. While technically true, the reach of federal funding extends so wide and deep in the research community that the net effect of banning embryonic stem-cell research by any group, organization, or individual is indistinguishable from outlawing it completely to most organizations.
It isn't just federal funding for stem-cell research that has been banned. Federal funding for any research, related or not, bans any embryonic stem-cell research from being conducted, anywhere, by anyone associated with the organization involved. Nearly every research organization in the country receives federal funding in one form or another. If the lab across campus doing physics has a federal grant, you can't do embryonic stem-cell research (except using the existing, contaminated lines).
The effect is the same as outlawing stem-cell research for 99.9% of all research facilities, a fact the fundies and Republican apologists like to play down or dismiss entirely. However, it doesn't make distortions like those in the summary any less obnoxious or inaccurate. There is at least one entirely privately funded research facility in California that is doing embryonic stem-cell research, our superstitious, less-than-intelligent, ever-so-less-than-competent president notwithstanding.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Who are you? The new #2 Who is #1? You are #617565. I am not a number, I am a free man! Muhahaha.
You demonstrate a few dozen cells have human consiousness
How about here?
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
The reason Bush gave the executive oder was to ensure that fetuses were not concieved with the intention of harvesting. Most Ethical Scientist would agree. Yes it does stop the use of aborted fetuses but there would need to be some form of controll to make sure the latter dosn't hapen.
While I agree with you that the religious right constituency is misinformed with regards to many things, abortion related or ortherwise, you are equally misinformed.
The religious right position on life is that life begins at conception (when a sperm and egg unite). Under this definition, any embryo destroyed is most certainly an abortion.
This is the crux of the entire stem cell issue (from the religious right standpoint), and I'm amazed you don't understand this concept, yet choose to talk about this issue as if you are well informed.
$45 per U Colocation Special
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
Yes yes, the cells are "human". They aren't a person though. For example, my hair is just as much human cells as an embryo - no crime getting it cut. The problem you have is that you want to grant the rights of personhood to the cells. Do the cells have the characteristics of personhood? Thought, logic, will, etc? For quite a period (I think brain activity is absent in the first 2-3 months of preggers) there is none of that. If thought is not important - you won't mind coming in for a labotomy will you?
The above is where the "potential" argument comes from because a dozen cells really don't have the characteristics of a person - so you say "they have potential". But face it, nobody gets squat for potential. You don't go to prison for what you could do, only what you do do. You don't get special privileges for what you could be, only for what you are. Why should a few dozen cells be distinguished from everything else? It's a religious/emotional thing - just admit that there is no rational basis and you will at least be arguing from an honest position rather than trying to wear a cloak of impressive words.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Your utter ignorance is the reason why America is falling behind in terms of scientific progress. I hope a terrible degenerative disease claims your life. And as it slowly turns you into a vegetable, you can ponder how nice it would be, if you didn't project your ignorance about stem cells onto the rest of the population and allowed the research to proceed to save hundreds of thousands of lives, including yours. Embryonic cells are the only absolutely pluripotent cells. The umbilical cord cells are partially differentiated, and some pathways have already been closed for them. And before you reply with an equally dumb statement, please refer me to where you got your M.D. or your Ph.D. Frankly, unless you have or are at least in the process of getting a degree in life sciences, your "opinion" about what works and what doesn't is nothing more than hot air, with a heavy stench of bullshit and christian right propaganda.
It WAS brought up when Bush made his executive order and after the order there was nothing to be done. New cell lines could not be used in federally funded research so there was no way to correct the problem of animal contamination. It has just taken until now for the problem to become serious enough to warrent this much attention.
A foetus cannot be considered living until it can survive independantly of the mother without immediate intensive medical aid.
If you look closely, abortions are not permitted anywhere near the point at which the foetus can survive without the mother UNLESS there is a significant risk to the life or mental wellbeing of the mother should the child not be aborted.
I've dealt with this crap, when you've had to actually sit down with someone who wanted an abortion (rape, first child died after 3 months, 2nd rape she didn't want it again) then you can say "Oh it shouldn't be allowed". Until then, I'll leave it to the individual.
How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
amazing how stupid you are.
so you are saying that a human is a parasite that needs to be eradicated when it is inconvienent to someone?
sweet, it's just too bad your mother did not hold a similar view and abort you back then.
Get a grip, killing babies is what it is, until you people can not admit that FACT you will be dismissed at wacko-nutjobs.
That doesn't make any sense. There would be no need to conceive only to abort. There are plenty enough abortions occurring to supply plenty of stem cells for research. It's a bogus argument that's used to shield a religious motive.
Good luck with that my friend, they are having shitfits because a church is burying the ashed of those murdered children instead of throwing them in the trash or flushing them down a toilet.
I think too many people out there are willing to face the reality that abortion is really all about whether or not a mother can murder her own child.
Or at the very least hire a contract killer to do it for her.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
He did??? I did not know that!!
free speach
Did you mean: free speech
Never the less, the executive order in question is reprehensible. Bush is using tenuous, illogical, religious grounds to justify denying a large category of funding to a promising area of scientific inquiry. Hundreds of potential stem cell lines for research are being destroyed daily from aborted fetuses.
Even atheists have morals and ethics. There's an ethical dilemna posed by embryonic stem cell research and President Bush made a compromise between disallowing all funding, and allowing federal funding for unlimited destruction of potential human life. You can hate Bush all you like, but you can't deny that this dilemna exists, even apart from religious belief. If Bush was the zealot you seem to believe, he would have simply banned stem cell research altogether.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
Never mind, I found a link
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
why aren't you having sex now? If you were having sex right now there'd be another child. By not having sex you are preventing this person from being alive. You murderer
I think a better term is "murdered children"
Murder is defined as "the unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice." So you can't murder someone in self-defense and the government can't murder someone by lethal injection. The word "murder" specifically applies to deaths that are against the law, which abortion clearly is not.
OddManIn: A Game of guns and game theory.
Is motherhood a medical condition?
Seriously, though. Infanticide is different than murder in some important ways. You don't walk down the streets at night afraid of being aborted. Since it's killing your own genetic material only (well, and the father's, which many people never mention), that means really you only have one person to be afraid of: your mother. And most people aren't afriad of their mother killing them.
Speaking of fathers, why aren't the fathers involved in the decision? An abortion is basically "I don't like the way this baby is going to affect my life, so I'll kill it" in most cases. So why can't the father have an equal say?
And don't bring in some corner case where the mother has to decide between her own life and her baby's life. That is a rare reason for an abortion. It's much more common to just get a doctor to say that than for it to actually be true.
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
I searched and found "Results 1 - 10 of about 22,800,000 for 404."
Dude, at least get your facts straight. As someone pointed out below embryonic stem cells don't come from abortions. They come from in-vitro fertilization and are currently discarded and die anyway. AND abortions only happen when the baby is viable if it has severe defects and no chance of enjoyable life or mother's health is in danger. Only during the first trimester is the decision is entirely up to the mother.
I am pro-choice, but I wouldn't allow aborting a baby at 8 months except in horrible and rare circumstances. Does anyone here really think different? If mother is likely to be killed by either birth or C-section, or if the baby is going to live in pain and drown in it's own saliva by the age of 3, well that's a different story.
I don't mind when the religious right states an honest position, and saying "I believe that conception is the point of life" WITHOUT going on to make any of the usual silly arguments is just fine - make it a matter of faith and leave it at that. The problem is, when religion controls government too much, life sucks. Life under Al Queda would likely be about as pleasant as life under the extreme Christian Right. Keep the law and the church separate.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
for all the hype about stem-cells, it's interesting that none of the pharmaceutical companies are dumping their money into research on them. The hype over them is more political than medical.
Yes, that is the religious right's position,
but so what? Why should the mainstream press
be forced to use the rhetorical language of
a minority of the public?
Because if you believe that life begins at conception, then the fertilized eggs are in fact children, and precious lifeforms.
Children are precious. Eggs are not - you have a large supply of those.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
On the abortion issue, I think that the biggest mistake people are making is considering a question of law to even begin with. It is already illegal to murder another person. Abortion should be a question of fact, meaning something a jury determines with the help of expert testimony.
Whether abortion is murder turns on whether a fetus is a living human, which in turn depends on when you decide life has begun. The "life begins at birth" side has it wrong. If a mother gives birth prematurely by a week, the baby will live, and therefore it must have already been alive a week before the due date. But killing it ten minutes before it's due somehow isn't really murder? The logic is flawed.
Moreover, no argument based on the dependence of the fetus can be made. By law, the child is dependent upon the parents until the age of 18, anyhow. Would you consider a mother killing her child when he is 6 months old murder? How about 6 years? 17?
Any argument for either side must be made in terms of when life begins, and I don't trust Congress any more than I trust religious zealots (myself included) to objectively define when that is. I do trust doctors to determine when life begins, because they are the ones who can say "Miss Smith, your son was born 8 weeks early, but he is going to make it." or "Ma'am, I'm sorry, but your child was born 15 weeks early, and there isn't much hope at this point."
Defining birth as beginning at conception is, then, equally ridiculous. A fetus born 9 months prematurely has zero chance of survival.
The gray area is the time between conception and birth. Exactly where should the line be drawn? I personally draw it at brain activity, because that's how we measure when you are dead and, if you are clinically dead, then you can't be a victim of a future homicide. However, I defer to medical judgment on this question. If the State can prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the child was medically alive at the time of abortion, then a murder conviction is supported. If the State cannot prove that, then no conviction should occur.
I wish there wqere mod points to mod you stupid.
so you support partial birth abortions and later term abortions??? you just saisd to because you are pro-choice.
Why are you against adding a qualifier that states "in instances of medical emergency or extenuating circumstances such as incest or rape?" a woman has the right to murder her child because it's birth might interffere with her career or the carribian cruise she wants to go on?
most anti-abortion people are interested in removeing the "convienence" abortions and the blatent infancide that happens after the second trimester and the most horrible partial birth abortions.
Are you are a sick motherfucker that is happy to lie to himself? or are you going to start voting for and rallying for what is really needed?
support abortion laws that make sense, rally against the sick and horrible shit that is in place right now.
You're missing the point.
I'm not saying that I agree/disagree with the ban, I'm simply saying that people need to know what they're talking about when they discuss something. Especially ridiculous is the parent post of my first reply who accuses someone of ignorance while clearly demonstrating he doesn't comprehend any of the debate.
I agree we need to keep the law and religion separate. I also know that the key to doing this is complete and accurate understanding of all sides in a debate such as this.
$45 per U Colocation Special
minority of the public = 50% of the voting population
haha
this kind of head-in-sand elitist behavior is why you liberals keep losing elections
----(o)----
Each of the many eggs is a viable human fetus. destroying them is almost the same thing as an abortion, minus the many ill effects on the mother and to many religious people is of a nearly identical moral character. Of coarse the real moral issues is that they should NEVER have been brought together that way in the first place, ie in vitro fertilization of human eggs should be illegal. That however is considered by many a more difficult battle to fight so publicly people go after the "bigger fish" of abortion.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
No, actually it isn't. Or rather, almost all abortions(*) involve the destruction of an embryo or fetus, but the destruction of fertilized eggs that have never been implanted is not the abortion of any pregnancy. No anti-abortion campaigner (that I know of) has ever called this action abortion; they may have called it "destruction of human life" and "morally equivalent to abortion", but that's different.
(*) This gets into politically-laden terminology - is it an abortion when a dilation and extraction procedure (the procedure that's often labeled "partial birth abortion") is performed on a woman carrying a fetus which has already died in utero? If so, since the fetus is dead before the procedure begins, is the D&C procedure the destruction of a fetus?
To be consistent then you have to be against invitro fertilization. As the techniques necessitates a certain amount of waste in the production of fertilized eggs which have to be destroyed anyway, and their is really no way around this (the irony, a way for invertile couples to have a baby requires the destruction of fertilized embryos). Protest and try and ban invitro-fertilization if you believe that life begins with fertilization and thus destroying fertilized eggs is immoral, but if you choose not to do not split hairs protesting stem cell research.
Umbilical cord stem cells are not a replacement for embryonic stem cells, though they are still useful. Also to say that one form works while the other doesn't is trying to second guess the research, as extrodinarily enough the stem cell research is designed to find out how exactly what the stem cells are capable of and what they are useful for, so we don't know what each type of stem cell will work for a particular situation and that is one of the reasons for doing research.
What I find most ridiculous is that the same group of people who said that a black man is less than a white man and that kidnapping and enslaving africans was the "white man's burden" are the same group who pretend that they are the worlds single moral authority, and claim that as the basis for everything they are for.
What does 'white man's burden' have to do with Africa? It refers to the fact that, in India, back in the days of the british empire, not matter how you help the natives or what you do for them, they will hate you for being their master. Just like today, where, no matter what we do for Iraq, they will hate us and want us gone because we are foreigners occupying their country.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Let's see... isn't
New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the USA by a 2001 Executive Order from President Bush. To be precise, stem cell harvesting wasn't outlawed.
kind of like saying
Water is made of nitrogen. To be precise, water is made of hydrogen and oxygen.
That is a campaign speech lie.
Anyone have any idea of the theological implications of God's Vessel On Earth telling a lie?
The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
The "embryonic" qualifier is very important. My research is funded by NSF and I work with nasal stem cells all the time. If harvesting all types of stem cells were illegal, federal employees wouldn't be allowed to sneeze.
-- sometimes AND gates turn me on.
Uh, no. Under this definition, any embryo destroyed is murder. This means that abortion is murder and that the destruction of "spare" embryos from IVF is murder. It does not in any way mean that IVF is abortion.
While abortion is abominable, even in my eyes (partial birth particularly so)
What's so bad about partial birth abortion? It's primarily used for severe hydrocephalics. The fetus has a head the size of a basketball and is in no way viable.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
I'm not sure if you were reading the parent correctly, but the embryos are destroyed regardless. It doesn't matter if they're used for research, their fate is the same.
So, considering how much you claim to value life, then surely you can agree that it is better to use such "medical waste" to better people's lives, instead of simply throwing it in the trash.
vi ~/.emacs
U.S.A. did not BAN stem cells. They banned fetal/embryonic stem cells.
Furthermore, many of the great stem cell achievements, (if not most) have been from non-fetal stem cells.
Please fix this post and make it accurate instead of re-iterating media bullshit agenda. Thank you!
There are serious issues with equating redshift with velocity. Some items with significantly different redshifts may be close in space. I've looked through a number of papers myself, some of which indicate that there is an extra redshift that corresponds roughly to the type of object being looked at. Otherwise, we're left in the uncomfortable position of having younger galaxies in clusters facing away from us, and older galaxies facing towards us. Anything that points to us as occupying a special position in the universe is... somewhat suspect :)
As to what the phenomenon actually is that causes the high redshifts, I don't think we know yet.
Binary geeks can count to 1,023 on their fingers
There are quite a lot of people who believe that either after the fetus is viable (i.e., could live on its own in an incubator or after the brain of the fetus starts to emit certain brain waves (a lack of those waves in an adult leads to them being called "brain dead") then it is at that point that the rights of the child/fetus need to be considered. According to a friend of mine, the brain waves condition occurs at around 4-5 months though, which the rabid "women must be able to kill their fetuses up to the day they would be born" people would never agree to.
Since the real way to stop abortions is for stupid women and girls to not get pregnant, and since that isn't going to happen, it looks like the anti-abortion people will be doing their thing for a while. However, I think that if a partial birth abortion ban were to pass, quite a few of the anti-abortion people would relax a bit. The pro-abortion people don't want to give them that concession though. It's sort of strange. Both sides have a strong distaste for partial birth abortion, but even though it is very rare, the pro abortion people don't want to give it up.
My other first post is car post.
Yeah, nobody reputable is reporting success in any of these areas. I'm just glad that poor people can't afford a trip halfway around the world for treatment. Fortunately though, if Jenna Bush needs an abortion or brain surgery, she can drop the whole moral authority thing and fly to the appropriate country. I'm also thankful that a nation like China can still hand America its ass on a platter. I really like having my country upstaged in front of the world.
I hardly think your description is valid. I'm atheist, and I also believe that life begins at conception.
According to The Register, US-based scientists using stem cells has hit a brick wall.
According to The Grammar Daily Chronicle, subjects and verbs have hit a brick wall in negotiations. It seems the two parties just can not agree. =P
Despite conventional wisdom, I've discovered you can blame a guy for trying. It's called "attempted murder".
The current techniques for stem cell extraction use viable embryos which are, by definition, human beings, and the process of extraction kills them. This is the heart of the controversy and the reason for the limitation on federal funding.
There is a new procedure for extracting stem cells from non-viable embryos, which has only just been postulated, and the technology for doing so is in its infancy, having only been demonstrated last year (2004).
I am not a biologist, but I had a conversation with Dr. Landry about this last week, so my information comes unfiltered by the media.
Last I heard, three things were needed to make a baby - 1)sperm 2)egg 3)womb. While Invetro can fertilize an egg in a lab, I'm not aware of any baby coming to term in a petree dish. Take any 2 of the above in any combination and you certainly do not have life. You may be able to create cells with the potential for life (just add the womb)but how a fertilized egg frozen in a test tube can be considered murder is beyond me. I understand the pro life/pro choice debate, but can someone explain how a fertilized egg which would NEVER have the opportunity for life (sans womb)is still considered murder? If so, would invetro itself qualify as murder since unused embryos are destroyed?
Computer neural networks can fly aircraft (simulated, for certain). Bird brain cells fly not just simulators, but real birds. None of these are remotely human, let alone exhibit human consciousness. Leaping to such a conclusion proves that you are using zero reasoning and are instead parroting someone else's party line. If you are so accustomed to reciting chapter and verse instead of thinking, one wonders what it is you get paid for.
You seem to be misinformed as well. Not every right-winger is religious. There is a "religious right" but they're not the only ones on the far right, and they're not the only ones who are pro-life. I'm an atheist, far right, pro-lifer.
I have absolutely no moral or ethical objections to harvesting stem cells. I don't consider undiferentiated cells to be " a human life". I also have a close family member who has Parkinsons disease. I am strongly-pro stem cell reasearch.
But I take issue with Dr Ajit Varki foisting fake science on the public.
from The Register:
"The human embryonic stem cells remained contaminated by Neu5Gc even when grown in special culture conditions with commercially available serum replacements, apparently because these are also derived from animal products.
The argument for the necessity of harvesting new human stem cells goes like this:
Having established that culturing stem cells in a serum replacment derived from animal products contaminates the cells with Neu5Gc, scientists attempt to rid existing cell lines of Neu5Gc by culturing them in serum replacement derived from animal products. This fails to rid the stem cells of Neu5Gc. Therefore, they conclue that existing cell lines can not be rid of Neu5Gc by growing them in a in serum not derived from animal products. It is therefore necessary to harvest new cell lines and grow them in culture not derived from animal products.
Try growing existing cell lines in serum not derived from animals and see if that rids them Neu5Gc. Then get back to us.
So, logically... If... she.. weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood!
Same thing, different century.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
What about unmarried couples? Wait, you're one of those religious right-wing zealots aren't you?! Quit pushing your propaganda! Burn him at the stake!!
parent is (99%) correct:
http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp
A couple goes to IVF(in vitro fertilization) clinic; an operation is performed to extract oocytes(unfertilized embryos). These oocytes are all fertilized and then frozen. The (now)embryos are thawed one at a time and incubated. When they have passed a critical point (the stage at which a genetic disease would develop for instance); the embryo is surgically implanted in the female.
The embryos that are unused are very much THROWN AWAY. So all of those activists out there that are attempting to convince you (including the president who said that stem cells crossed a "fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life.")
I'm sorry Mr. president, but that line gets crossed every time an embryo from an IFV clinic gets thrown away.
George II -- Spreading Freedom and American values, one bomb at a time.
Here we have a saying (about something that was so long ago that the only knowledge one possesses comes from hearsay): "At that time I was still curd cheese in the display window." ('Damals war ich noch Quark im Schaufenster.')
According to your logic we have to thread curd cheese the same way as a human being because after some digestion and metabolism the atoms could form a human embryo.
Unlike the current administration, who believe that life begins at military draft age.
Reality has a liberal bias
I hope you eat no meat, because the cow in your burger had way more conciousness than a 3-month foetus.
Hmmmmmm... The Secret of NIMH. Could be an interesting title for a movie.
For example, my hair is just as much human cells as an embryo - no crime getting it cut.
The example is fatally flawed - the purpose of a hair is not to become a baby, so therefore it's ok to cut - An embroyo on the other hand is a life, and cutting it would be a crime.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
If abortion is legal, then it is by definition not murder. What you are trying to say is that you would like to define it as murder, thus making it illegal.
It isn't as cut and dry as that. If a woman isn't ready for motherhood then there is a good possibility she will not be a good mother. Then you have a child raised poorly which hurts soceity as a whole. Another situation is that there isn't enough money availible from the mother/father to raise a child. This results in a drain on the welfare system; basically making the taxpayers responsible for the child. It isn't a perfect world. In such a world abortion would never happen. My point is simply that just because a group of people disagrees with the practice it makes it no more of a wrong choice for others. If everyone would mind their own business more often there would be a lot less conflict in the world.
I also find it interesting that I was moderated as flamebait for offering an opinion different from the original poster's. People are way too unaccepting of alternative ideas.
blah blah blah....
drightler@technicalogic.com
Abortions are one thing; stem cells are another. Stemcells do not come from abortion; nor do they have anything to do with them. Stem cells are infact harvested when a couple undergoes IVF(in vitro fertilization).
It goes like this:
A couple goes to IVF(in vitro fertilization) clinic; an operation is performed to extract oocytes(unfertilized embryos). These oocytes are all fertilized and then frozen. The (now)embryos are thawed one at a time and incubated. When they have passed a critical point (the stage at which a genetic disease would develop for instance); the embryo is surgically implanted in the female.
The embryos that are unused are very much THROWN AWAY. So all of those activists out there that are attempting to convince you (including the president who said that stem cells crossed a "fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life.")
I'm sorry jgardn, but that line gets crossed every time an embryo from an IFV clinic gets thrown away. So your problem is not with stem cells but actially with in vitro fertilization.
Here's a good primer:
http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp
George II -- Spreading Freedom and American values, one bomb at a time.
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard in my life. Stem cell research was just recently developed. Of course he was the first president to fund it. He was also the tallest president to fund stem cell research, the shortest to fund it, the blackest, etc. You have no idea how to form coherent thoughts, do you?
And Atheism isn't an extreme view about religion?
I know, I know, but for someone who repeatedly claims to be an atheist, you sure to talk about god a lot in your journal.
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
Bush, "conscious"? Prove it. Then prove that he "makes decisions", rather than appearing to announce them on TV. While this post is a flame, the distinctions are real - and your post is a claim that Bush actually makes these decisions.
--
make install -not war
And for the record, yes, I am against IVF for this very reason. Until the process is perfected and not this "hit or miss" stuff that goes on now, it's not ready for primetime.
So, considering how much you claim to value life, then surely you can agree that it is better to use such "medical waste" to better people's lives, instead of simply throwing it in the trash.
Right, I want umbilical cord stem cells to be used. Just not dead kids.
People who define it as conception are on crack anyway, as something like 50% of all 'pregnancies' end at the start of the mother's next period, and thus no one has the slightest clue they even happened.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
A zygote in a Petri dish is not part of a pregnancy. Without a pregnancy, you cannot have an abortion. It's patently obvious that the attempt to classify the discarding of unused IVF zygotes as "abortions" has nothing to do with the facts, and everything to do with political posturing to an ignorant public. This resembles Humpty Dumpty redefining "glory" to suit his whim of the moment; it debases the very purpose of language, which depends on agreed-upon meanings.
I could get rich mining irony ore here. If you mean that it's an issue (and a problem) that a large part of the American public is taking a highly-emotional political position based on what amounts to a large number of partial truths and outright falsehoods, then you begin to understand. Your problem is that the facts are opposite the stance you appear to be backing.Sustainability and energy independence essay
For some reason, once the baby clears the birth canal, murdering it is wrong.
To start it's the second trimester, not when the baby clears the birth canal.
Furthermore what I cannot understand is this: For some reason as soon as the sperm touches the egg; killing the embryo is murder, but killing an oocyte(unfertilized embryo) or a sperm is not.
George II -- Spreading Freedom and American values, one bomb at a time.
I would have mod'd you up if I had point, I'm tired of people modding down others for opinion. It was opinion, not flamebait.
Q: Was there funding at some point in time?
If so...
Q: Is the funding less now than it was at some point in time?
If so...
Q: Who reduced the funding?
--Phillip
Can you say BIRTH TAX
Whose purpose? The "purpose" of sex is to make a baby, so rubbers are illegal? All those living, human sperm cells (and that lonely egg cell), doomed to death when they were faithfully obeying their purpose. The purpose of marriage is to make a baby, so childless couples are criminals - divorce is a crime, girls who don't put out on dates where my purpose is to get laid are criminals.
--
make install -not war
"The potential of embryonic stem cells became apparent in the late 1990s, and in 2000 the National Institutes of Health announced that it would fund stem-cell research as long as the actual extraction of cells from embryos was done by someone else. President Clinton strongly supported this policy." [Source]
And if you think Slate is too liberal a source to trust on this, here's a venom spitting concervitive to back me up.
"the feds are not going to actually get involved -- will not spend appropriated funds -- until after the pluripotent stem cells have been already recovered from the process." [Source]
I think we can safely take the above paragraph to indicate that Clinton approved the use of federal funds to research embryonic stem cells, though did not approve said funds to actualy extract the cells.
Anything else you need me to prove?
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
Stem cell research began during the Clinton administration and he didn't do anything.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
"So, Bush was *not* the first president to fund stem cell research. He was the first to say that it was ok to call stem cell research "stem cell research" on the grant application."
So "Bush was the first president to cut funding" stands.
OK, I'm stumped. How does a ban on federal funding for new stem cell lines amount to government intruding into these areas?
Federalism.
The federal government levies far too much in taxes. As a result, states cannot tax enough to cover their needs. The federal government then doles out cash according to which states will do what they are told. This effectively castrates state power, leaving them completely beholden to the federal government for funding. Likewise with local government, and research institutes, universities, and charities. All are dependent upon federal funds because federal taxes are collected at such high levels, then handed back in the form of grants.
Right after Bush was re-elected in 04, the research facility down the street cancelled tons of programs, as their federal funding (which accounts for more than half their budget) was cut by 50%. Why should the president allocate this funding? Why is it not collected by the state here? Why is it not collected directly in the form of donations? The reason is consolidation of power. Those with power want more power. They get this by taking over more functions and controlling all the money. This is easy for the feds since all they have to do is raise taxes and increase their payouts. At this rate, in 100 years the government will be collecting 50% income tax and subsidizing the price of all our foods.
Do you want to put a stop to sex too? Cause that form of fertilization is pretty hit or miss too.
Another example of Red States sponging off the benefit of work done by Blue States for the common good. One way compassion!
--
make install -not war
*ahem*
Umm, you forgot to click the "Post Anonymously" button on that one buddy...
"The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his." - Patton
It's simple, once born we are human beings and a sack of cells can be called a baby. Inside the womb we call it a sack of cells.
If you want to know the real truth the only reason we are willing to acknowledge the term baby after birth is due to bleeding hearts who believe that *gasp* their own species is special and unique when the truth is that at no age does it become more than a sack of genetic material. Slugs are sacks of genetic material, Dolphins are sacks of genetic material, and humans are sacks of genetic material.
"To be precise, stem cell harvesting wasn't outlawed; the usage of federal funding was outlawed. "
well actually seeing as how no federal funding was allowed before on stem cell research the act didn't "OUTLAW" but in fact "Inlawed" the funds to be used for stem cell research.
That's akin to having rape, legal, but setting up the inheritence laws so that the rapists can't end up with any assets of the victim if they produce a child with them, and then the victim and then the child dies. It really doesn't seem to make any sense at all to even bother with that law.
Not that I'm saying abortion is immoral, I'm just saying, if it was, it doesn't really make any sense to ban stem cell research.
In fact, the only thing I can think of with a clause like 'if the Federal government funds it' is the 1st amendment, where it forbids an establishment of religion. Hrm.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
"If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." -- Anatole France.
"It remains foolish even if the majority votes for it." -- me
Sustainability and energy independence essay
without crossing a fundamental moral line
What line would that be?
And...
If it is so "fundamental" then why in the hell do I have to ask that question?
I don't see any moral problem here.
And... if the destruction of life is so f*scking "immoral"... what about that whole Iraq thing? Why in the hell are we using taxpayer dollars for that?
--Phillip
Can you say BIRTH TAX
For the purposes of this post I will treat these embryos as if they are a human life. Whether I believe this myself is not an issue, since I am trying to see this from Bush's point of view and he clearly sees them as 'hav[ing] the potential for life'.
President Bush made the decision to attack Iraq and has justified that by saying that the war is beneficial to the Iraqis in the end as it brings them democracy. His opinion therefore must be that the benefit of life without pain and persecution for the many now and all those who will live there in the future is worth the sacrafice of a few thousand actual, adult, human lives. All of this was done using many billions of tax dollars.
President Bush accepts that stem cell research has 'promise and potential' for saving lives and relieveing pain by forming treatments for currently incurable conditions. Some embryos need to be sacraficed (not really my first choice of words, but it illustrates the point) to benefit the many now and all in the future. Yet Bush now thinks that saving the potential lives of the few outweigh the benefits to the many, at least where tax money is concerned.
Whether you agree or disagree with me on either of these issues, don't you think that this is a serious case of double-standards?
No, we'll just invest our money in India, where it will go much further, building huge university hospitals there when US subsidy money is stopped. Can you say "University Rust Belt"?
--
make install -not war
below average intelligence = 50% of the voting population.
... :0
This is why
If you make it illegal to deliberately crash an airplane, you will inevitably run into a condition like United Flight 93 where it would make logical sense to break that law. Therefore, we must allow people to crash airplanes whenever they want.
Hard cases do not make for good law.
So it's OK to do something "abominable" as long as it's only for personal benefit and not for racism?
Furthermore, if abortion is legal for any reason at all, what's stopping people from using it for genetic engineering?
Yes, because everyone wanting to ban abortion are right-wing theocrats, including gays and atheists. They probably have "bible belt, moralistic, dictatorial views" about murder, rape, and theft as well -- how dare they!
So it's a Good Thing for a lawyer to coerce a woman to commit perjury ("Jane Roe" was never raped) in front of the Supreme Court? It's a Good Thing for a court to blantantly ignore important issues like "the difficult question of when life begins"? It's a good thing to let appointed-for-life judges make the laws? (If the "pro-choice" movement had as much popular support as they claim, then surely abortion would stay legal through democratic means.)
No, he wasn't. Clinton funded research as of 2000 on embryonic stem cells, though would not allow said cells to be extracted with federal funds. Because these stem cell lines were new to the federal research budget, this represented federal funding of new stem cell lines.
Bush has eliminated funding from new stem cell lines.
Q.E.D. - Bush has reduced federal funding for new stem cell lines.
Moral of the story, do your own research rather than just believing what Bill O'Riley and Fox News tell you.
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
Embryonic Stem Cells Don't Work???? Must be because they are more primitive precursor cells and therefore can transdifferentiate into more cell types than the "working" cord blood cells. What would I know? I only work with the damn things.
The people that were most vehemently opposed to slavery at the time were the right-wing conservative fundamentalist Christians. You know, the type that go around preaching "Repent or go to hell!" The type that label things "right" or "wrong" with nothing in between? The less religious and atheists in the nation couldn't care less about slavery, either way. It's interesting that nowadays everybody considers slavery abominable, even those who abhor fundamentalist Christians.
The Southerners had to indoctrinate themselves that owning slaves was a moral obligation. They believed that they white race was superior to the black, and that without the guidance of the white man, that the black man would be savage. As offensive as this idea is today, it was common, and was still common, up until a few decades ago.
Today, fundamentalist, right-wing, repent-or-go-to-hell types are again preaching that abortion is wrong. The atheists and less religious are ambivalent towards it. It's only a few who actually believe that abortion is a right that absolutely must be defended by the constitution. They convince themselves that the "tissue" is not human, and that the mother has the ultimate freedom to determine whether the tissue should be removed or remain a parasite.
All I'm saying is in a few years time, when abortion rights are no longer found in our founding documents, and when the fundamentalists are able to convince a large majority, that we will look back on abortion like we look back on slavery today.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
There are two things that puzzle me about the United States of America: fear of human sexuality and fear of progress.
Blowing things up on TV and showing violence on the news is okay. People start complaining only if a part of a naked female body appears on the tube or if those *damn* scientists try yet another method that could potentially save us from suffering and premature death. Whoever thinks that U.S. is a country of freedom has never tried to get an abortion in Mississippi or teach evolution in Georgia's public schools. I do not even want to start talking about stem cells...
Although federal funding is cut, I suspect that it will not stop research in the long run. I hope that my state decides to follow California and raise its own money for embryonic stem cell research. And if I ever become a millionaire, I know where I am going to spend my money. Moreover, you do not have to be rich in order to achieve something. Although I do not have education in biotechnology and other related fields, I think that there are some kids at MIT and Harvard that can achive something that I can't. If we provide enough financial support through small donations, we can fund public labs that rely on money, not religious influence of our government. If this country was able to raise millions of dollars for the victims of the recent tsunami, I believe we can rase enough money for small scientific projects. Once these projects start returnig results, companies will jump on the bandwagon and the industry will be able to support itself without Mr. Bible's say.
@ AC:
Aside from spelling errors that are bound to happen when frothing at the mouth (I do it too), I have several issues with your post:
so you support partial birth abortions and later term abortions??? you just saisd to because you are pro-choice.
RTFP: I personally do not support any abortion, I just refuse to force others to my will.
Why are you against adding a qualifier that states "in instances of medical emergency or extenuating circumstances such as incest or rape?"
Because something will happen, that is not covered by the law, yet would merit an abortion. The doctors will refuse to treat the woman without a court order, which may take forever, thus said woman goes to an alley and someone with a coat hanger does it. Very very bad.
a woman has the right to murder her child because it's birth might interffere with her career or the carribian cruise she wants to go on?
Unfortunately, yes. I know someone who effectively did this. I do not know how she can stand to live. My daughter would be almost the same age as her child. If I were in her shoes I would break out in tears every time I saw a child the age of what mine would have been.
most anti-abortion people are interested in removeing the "convienence" abortions and the blatent infancide that happens after the second trimester and the most horrible partial birth abortions.
I'm sorry you are so mistaken. Most pro-choice people (in fact all those I know except the one mentioned above), simply do not want to legislate morality. This is my case.
Are you are a sick motherfucker that is happy to lie to himself? or are you going to start voting for and rallying for what is really needed?
support abortion laws that make sense, rally against the sick and horrible shit that is in place right now."
I do not see how I am lying to myself, but come what may I will fight any law that attempts to dictate morality, abridge free speech, take away my right to keep and bear arms (I do not own a gun BTW), or otherwise pollute the courts with invalid or unconstitutional laws (God I feel out of place living in California).
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
If you believe that life begins at conception, then miscarriages are murder. And I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you - it runs right past the Watchtower HQ. BTW, how many precious lifeforms have you adopted, compared to the number of people's lives you're dooming to misery?
--
make install -not war
I don't know if you actually read those journal entries, but both are obvious humor (at least obvious to me) besides, both are almost 4 years old. They're just something I saw in e-mails, and posted here because I didn't want to lose them.
Viable embroys that are not wanted otherwise.
You act as if there are women getting pregnant to cell their embroys for research. This is not the case. They are going to be aborted anyway.
so your against in vitro fertilization ?
That's not true. Federal funding for harvesting embryonic stem cells was cut off. Huge difference
Actually. It isn't a huge difference. Just about every research lab in the country takes NIH funding for one thing or the other; in effect, if you are doing embryonic stem cell harvesting, it disqualifies your entire lab -- not just the particular project. In effect, this law _does_ ban harvesting for almost every lab in the country, even if they can find independent money for the actual harvesting. Further, you can't propose a study to the NIH which depends on another study that has harvested embryonic stem cells... it's just a really really dumb policy.
I've seen about a hundred posts arguing about why or why not the research is something that is equivalent to killing babies, and as many arguing the federal research ban only stops institutions asking for money for the research...
First, to get it out of the way, the "ban" is not a law against research, but a funding rule that is implemented such that any facility receiving federal dollars (every public hospital, college, reasearch center, ~99.9% of the US research facilities) is barred from conducting the research on new lines. If you get federal dollars for anything at the facility, you can't do the research, period.
Now, the type of stem-cell reseach being debated uses discarded eggs from In-Vitro Fertilization. Regarding the radical right religious regime's belief that a Day 5 blastocyst is a person, complete with a soul, etc... Sure, if they want to 'believe' this, they can. The problem arises when they try to selectively (read: politically) apply laws to support their religious beliefs.
Apparently, many people (including a bunch of folks here on
So, shouldn't the radical right religious regime be even more adamantly against IVF ? While a handful of cells used in research seems to get them in a panic, they ignore the simple fact that thousands of fertilized eggs are destroyed every month as part of normal IVF treatments. Why aren't they calling for the elimination of fertility clinics ? Are these couples who pursue IVF mass-murders ?
Where's the logic here ? If stem-cell research should be banned because allowing a Day-5 blast to arrest is killing a baby, why do they not have any issue with, or even debate over the effects of the IVF treatments where the stem-cells for this research are obtained ?
"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech."--Benjamin Franklin
This is about the only case where it makes sense (often can't tell / don't realize sooner in the pregnancy that something this severe is wrong).
It still does not take away the gruesome aspects of what it is.
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
See, this is the moral ground that the pro-abortionists are standing on. After all, the human tissue is no better than cows.
You have to understand that fundamentalist Christians find this idea absolutely terrible. There is no equivalent to animals and plants (built to serve man by God) and man (built as sons and daughters and future equal heirs of God). Trying to compare animals to humans wins no converts from the fundamentalist camp.
I might as well preach to you that animals deserve to die and are filthy creatures whose sole purpose in life is to get in my belly. You wouldn't appreciate that argument any more than I appreciate yours.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
I find it interesting how the only time we ever see programs being attacked for exorbancy at a time when there's lack of funds are when they're programs the Republicans oppose.
Isn't that a bit odd?
If we're going to take a serious look at budgets and eliminate items that are unreasonable for our current economic position, fine. But that's not what's happening.
Life is not the issue. When you mow your lawn your mass murdering if you believe it's about life. It's about when it becomes human, specifically when it becomes an individual human.
If you believe that fertilized eggs are human individuals then you believe that the body itself is the biggest murderer since it aborts far more fertizilized eggs than it lets be born. The number of abortions performed by womens bodies dwarfs what the clinics do.
that EMBRYONIC stem cells are contaminated, we should harvest more.... (everybody forgets the Embryonic part, we have already had successes with adult stem cells, embryonic are rather expiremental)....but anyway, I suggest we reinstate federal funding for expirementing with spare organs from Federal Prisoners, Foster Children, and Jews. There is a signficant amount of organs available from these groups that could help with the whole "shortage of transplant" organs thing.
Actually, the example is flawed because hair isn't made up of cells.
> An embroyo on the other hand is a life, and cutting it would be a crime.
Your example is flawed because taking life is not always a crime. If it were, I would be guilty of crimes against... um... lettuce, for example.
No, they believe that life ends at draft age.
--
make install -not war
Uh, where was the budget in 2000? With a surplus? Balanced? $500,000,000,000 in the red?
The dems are not the ones who put us $500,000,000,000/year in the hole. That $500b/year that we've had to borrow. We've borrowed that much and we will have to pay it back, with interest.
I'm surprised that you don't advocate for the kidnapping of women off the sidewalks and forcing thye to have an abortion, whether they wanted on or not.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Not really true.
The ban (in place since 1995) was pushed through as a rider on an appropriation bill by the GOP. NIH sought help from HHS on how the ban applied; in 1999, HHS responded that research on stem cells can be funded by NIH (public funds) so long as the stem cells themselves were produced via private funds. In short, so long as government funds weren't used for the first step, any ethical research could be conducted. Government funds *were* going into research on these cells, just not at the creation stage.
However, under the Bush guidelines, this is changed. If the stem cells are not part of the original "64" lines (not really 64 lines, but that's beside the point), no government funding can go into research involving them. So, apart from the fact that it doesn't change the fact that government funds couldn't be used for the creation of stem cell lines, it bans research on any line that hasn't already been created - in short, making it a more restrictive policy, not less.
Here's some details about the history of the lines and their current status:
AAAS Policy Brief: Stem Cell Research
It also explains why there is animal contamination.
People said I was dumb, but I proved them.
make for a convenient argument for the right-wing zealots who think embryonic cells are better off in the garbage than possibly improving people's quality of life.
By cutting off all funding for research using new stem cell lines and forcing labs to rely on the contaminated ones, they can point to the inevitably failed experiments and say "See? It wasn't going to work anyway".
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
Fine, for the "Nit Pickers" I'll change the word "Life" for "Human Life".
Next?
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
No, we liberals keep loosing elections because, as Plato said
"If you allow the people to choose their rulers they will elect fools and naives"
In this particular case, we seem to have rolled these two undesirable caricatures into one candidate and elected him President.
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
That non-embrionic stem cells are already being used in the United States, today, to cure illnesses?
It's amazing that people are continuing to push for embrionic stem cell research - which to date has shown no serious prospect of curing people - when we are already using non-embrionic stem cells in clinical trials to cure people.
I could understand the debate if embrionic stem cells were actually better than non-embrionic stem cells, or showed more promise for curing disease, but they don't. People are already being cured of diseases such as Parkinson's using non-embrionic stem cell therapies.
The push for embrionic stem cell research is just plain immoral. Even were it to provide the cures its proponents claim, it would still come at the moral expense of having a human being arbitrarily decide who should live, and who should die. Thus, human life will be viewed not as something sacred or sacrosanct, but rather in terms of the its value to society; and the criterion of this judgement will be based not upon some objective standard, but rather on whatever is most expedient for those in power. To push for embrionic stem cell research is to regard the dignity of persons to be worth less than the value of scientific research. Furthermore, it bastardizes science in that rather than science being judged in light of its contribution to humanity, humanity is judged in light of its contribution to science. Science should exist to service humanity, not the other way around.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
"Stupid idiot gave them to me for free, I just had to suck them from a hose!"
1. Bush "cut federal funding" "stem cell"
Interesting. This is a complete lie, yet people love to write about it.
2. Bush "begins federal funding" "stem cell"
Hmm.. The religious right sure seems pissed.
3. Bush "starts federal funding" "stem cell"
The first ever President to start federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research and he doesn't even get mention?
4. Bush "allows federal funding" "stem cell"
Ahhh.. another "true" tidbit, at 343 hits, it beats 213 to come out as the winner. But not only did Bush "allow" federal funding, he started it. You'd think if the religious right was the one spreading the disinformation they'd be at least a bit peeved about that.
They've been using aborted babies for private stem cell research for years, you never heard about this issue (at least from them) till the idea of federally funding it came up.
You can be pro-choice and still be against federal funding for abortions, you can be pro-life and still not care if some woman you will never meet decides to abort. It's actually a great deal more middle of the road than just saying "pro-choice" and "pro-life". Where's the "pro-whocare'sIjustwanttokeepmymoney" aspect?
Well, at the earliest stages of the embryo, the cells (stem cells) are not differentiated enough for you to tell which is a hair cell, or a liver cell, or an eye cell. That's the point...they are all cells with potential, but, are not live or a living human...just a grouping of cells that, if all goes well, have the potential to differentiate and become a human....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
The fact that most of the 'legal' stem cell lines were contaminated with animal products was well known back in 2001. Doonesbury even did a series of strips where Duke was selling a line that just happened not to have been contaminated in this way. I would link to the aforementioned strip, but Doonesbury seems to have changed its policy on viewing past strips to something I can't link to.
Miscarriages clearly are not murder since there is no intent to kill. Abortions are intending to terminate a pregnancy, therefore it's murder.
And this is about human life - trying to equate human life with any plant or animal life is utterly ridiculous.
And last time I mowed, the grass stayed alive and grew back...
It's about when it becomes human, specifically when it becomes an individual human.
At conception, a new living organism is created that has a DNA sequence different from either parent - that DNA sequence is human - therefore, it's a human life. And that's what this is all about, isn't it.
Sorry - all of your points are invalid (like the rest of liberalism and secular humanism is...).
I've seen about a hundred posts arguing about why or why not the research is something that is equivalent to killing babies, and as many arguing the federal research ban only stops institutions asking for money for the research...
First, to get it out of the way, the "ban" is not a law against research, but a funding rule that is implemented such that any facility receiving federal dollars (every public hospital, college, research center, ~99.9% of the US research facilities) is barred from conducting the research on new lines. If you get federal dollars for anything at the facility, you can't do the research, period.
Now, the type of stem-cell research being debated uses discarded eggs from In-Vitro Fertilization. Regarding the radical right religious regime's belief that a Day 5 blastocyst is a person, complete with a soul, etc... Sure, if they want to 'believe' this, they can. The problem arises when they try to selectively (read: politically) apply laws to support their religious beliefs.
Apparently, many people (including a bunch of folks here on
So, shouldn't the radical right religious regime be even more adamantly against IVF ? While a handful of cells used in research seems to get them in a panic, they ignore the simple fact that thousands of fertilized eggs are destroyed every month as part of normal IVF treatments. Why aren't they calling for the elimination of fertility clinics ? Are these couples who pursue IVF mass-murderers ?
Where's the logic here ? If stem-cell research should be banned because allowing a Day-5 blast to arrest is killing a baby, why do they not have any issue with, or even debate over the actual IVF treatments where the stem-cells for this research are obtained ?
To me, there is no logic, it's just politics, plain and simple. The radicals pushing for the "ban" don't really respect life so much, they do respect power and influence and seem to want to use it to force themselves on others.
p.s. If you have questions or want more facts on IVF, please feel free to ask me and I'll try to point you to some answers.
"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech."--Benjamin Franklin
this is the dumbest stuff I have read for weeks
Well... your bias towards the issue is sub-consciously evident by use of the phrase "not matter how you help the natives or what you do for them, they will hate you for being their master."
In 2005 the time of Bush's announcement, mouse cell substrates was the most reliable method of growing stem cells. New non-mouse methods are now known.
I dont think any serious researcher is using the ancient methods any more. They've moved to localites that fund stem cell research.
Correction: *All* of the great stem cell achievements have been from non-fetal stem cells.
Luke-Jr
Actually, I can't stand the religious right. I'm annoyed that Bush needs to pander to them at all, and only less so that his policy on putting tax dollars into fetal stem cell research is personally formed by his religious convictions, which could use some lightening up.
I vote my conscience, and got to choose between the lesser of two people that wouldn't have been my choices either way. But I typically lean away from the muddle-headed, do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do leftier-side of the Democratic party because their particular form or irrational behavior tends to manifest itself as economy-squashing taxes and regulatory policies that suck the life out of our productivity. That productivity is what buys us the economic largesse to do things like basic research, and to reward those companies that take those chances with their money.
So, I'm typically more of a Republican, and I do think it's worth the time to address people who, like you, best surmise their opinion of me as:
"Good! Now all the unholy poor will die faster!"
Hooo-eeee! You certainly are showing your intellectual prowess with that one. Wow, another bright, left-field light shining into the dark cave of conservatism, yesiree-bob.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Heh, I look forward to hearing what President Bush has to say about this... Anyways, this is just another foolish roadblock. Stem cells have the potential to revolutionize human existence, as to why we are letting politics interfere with it, I'm not too sure. We choose to kill innocent people everyday by waging war, I don't see why harvesting stem cells is such a crime, after all, its being used to discover potential treatments. Stem cells could be used to treat ill massive amounts of people, why let them die is the true question.
Well, that's just inflamatory, and not helpful to a rational debate. The debate stems from a real moral delemma, it's not as clear-cut as both sides try to make out.
I think everyone agrees that abortion is regrettable, and should be avoided whenever possible. The problem is trying to get government and law enforcement involved in those decisions, because they have to choose sides: do you sanction murder, or slavery? Because you have to allow one or the other. Since a fetus cannot survive outside the mother's womb, outlawing abortion is a 9-month to 18 year sentence of indentured servitude on the pregnant woman.
And there are all kinds of ancillary consequences to the mother for carrying child. Aside from the emotional difficulty of trying to give up a child that the woman is poorly suited for caring for, they have now been subjected to multiple social issues that will inalterably change the course of their lives. High school girls that become pregnant are often not allowed to continue in the mainstream curriculum. Many women will lose their jobs. There are many health issues and possible complications associated with pregnancy, as well as the expectation for the mother to maintain a lifestyle that does not jeopardize the health of the child.
And what about the "unborn", "potential" child? The one that will be killed if the mother decides not to be a mother? We all hope for life. We hope for a better outcome for the mother and the child, and pregnant women these days can get lots of support from many avenues. We hope they will take advantage of them and make the right decisions for themselves and the child.
Still, sometimes a pregnant woman must decide to end a pregnancy. The government should not be involved in this decision, for the reasons stated above. People sometimes seem to forget that there are things in this world worse than death, and even though we love someone, we have to let them go rather than prolong their suffering.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Did Alfred Korzybsk live in vain? The DNA sequence is a blueprint for a human, not a human.
Sorry - all of your points are invalid (like the rest of liberalism and secular humanism is...).
And people don't believe me when I say that Christianity is anti-democratic. Secular humanism is the basis of a decent portion of the Bill of Rights, medieval navel gazing and superstition never really gave much thought to the rights of mankind.
You know Kipling's famous poem was basically a romanticization of imperialism and oppression, right?
"It refers to the fact that, in India, back in the days of the british empire, not matter how you help the natives or what you do for them, they will hate you for being their master."
See Kipling's problem was that he really believed that the British were a positive force in India, bringing them Christianity and Civilization.
Also it's worth noting the parrellels between his view and the view of many Iraq war supporters... we're "bringing Democracy!"! Why can't they be more appreciative of all the good things they're doing for us! White man's burden...
How about here?
Whether or not a little network of nerve cells that can fly a plane can reasonably be considered to be conscious (and I think that the universal answer among neuroscientists would be "no"), these cultures at least have one crucial feature--there are actual neurons present, which are certainly necessary, albeit not sufficient, for consciousness.
But at the early stage at which stem cells are harvested, the embryo doesn't have any neurons.
You're absolutely right, the situation is complex and there is no good answer.
Maybe we should get the federal government out of it and leave it up to the states.
After all, the Roe v. Wade decision was made by 9 people and effectively made law for the entire nation. I don't see any constitutional basis for denying the states the ability to legislate the issue. Perhaps some people feel as though abortion is a civil liberty, but it's not in the Constitution, so those people need an Amendment first.
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
if it was actually true, and didn't cause brain tumors instead of curing the disease.
The truth of the matter is that claims of disease cures from embryonic stem cells are as wildly overblown as every other medical fad. It is in the researcher's vested interests to promise the sky and I, for one, have no intention of compromising my morals for a bag full of promises.
Clear, Dark Skies
Excuse me. Isn't an abortion the destruction of an embryo or fetus?
No, abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. When cells are merely dividing in a dish, nobody is pregnant.
Going to give them an intelligent dog by knocking that.... sugar thing.
Check the FAQ.
Using private money to do embryonic stemcell work does not affect your other research in any way.
Clear, Dark Skies
Ok, I've read all of the back and forth up to this point, but this parent post has to cross some line. BTW, they were internment camps set up to isolate Japanese-Americans from the general population. Concentration camps were where the Nazis sent Jews and others they deemed undesirable to work as slaves and die. There's a big enough difference there.
Those cells can be, and are, harvested from embryos that are otherwise discarded by fertility clinics. Do you really think scientists are going to order up a bunch of embryos and surgically remove eggs from human donors, in expensive and potentially dangerous procedures, while all these free embryos get trashed?
You're saying you'd rather those embryos just go to waste.
As long as we have fertility treatments that create surplus embryos, you can't take the moral high road on this. Those embryos are going to be destroyed, regardless. Might as well put them to some use. If you think embryos are lives, you're going after the wrong people. Go after the fertility clinics. In the meantime, let's lessen the waste and possibly save some lives.
Oh yeah. I'll fix that now.
But things are more complicated than that. It is logical falacy to treat something as what it may someday become as opposed to what it actualy is.
Until birth, a child is really just a clump of cells growing in a host body. It is not, in that respect, terribly unlike a tumor.
I'm not saying this is the case, just that it is an equaly vlaid way of looking at an embryo.
In reality, without any real way to make a distinctions about where life beings, we are forced into a matter of faith. Is a fetus a human being? Ethicaly, religiously, moraly, that's up to the indivudal. Legaly, no, a fetus is not a human being. To paraphrase:
The census doesn't count them
When there is a miscarriage we don't have a funeral.
We can't get health insurance for them.
We can't get social security information for them.
We can't get tax exemption for them.
We can't get a passport for them.
From the point of view of the State, a fetus is not recognised as a human being in ANY RESPECT save in this one obscure corner of medical regulation. As it would happen, this is the only area in which such recognition has any possibility of negitive effect on the electorate.
For this reason, if for no other, the stem cell research regulations are a bad idea. If Bush seeks to extend legal recognition to the fetus, he should do so elsewhere... not in the medical community.
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
I do'nt thikn you understand how PAINFUL it must be fer those poor babies to have their stems ripped out of them by some evil liberel sientist! How wud you like yor stem torn right OUT! This is medicaly provn to be more painfl than being shot with a gun or having a bom droped on you, so thats why killing iraqs is'nt the same thing. becus we know a babys feel plenty of pain b4 thier born!!?! Its having nohting to do with riligion.
(...posting anonymously for the mods who don't get the joke...)
[1] I said Democrats invariably overspend. To an intellectually sound mind, this does not imply the opposite. I did NOT say the Republicans never overspend. I did not mention the Republicans at all. This strawman was a product of your own ideologically fogged mind. That being said, Democrats, when unrestrained, will invariably overspend. Their brutal anal rape of the California budget is on the level of the criminal, and makes the federal GOPers look like amateurs.
[2] Re: abortions. Aw, did I tread on your little plastic moralities? Boo hoo, pussy. Suck me, swallow, cook me a steak and then die. But I tease.
And, yes, there are some women in this world who should have forced abortions so the rest of us don't have to pay for their little bratty living arguments for putting birth control into the water systems of the planet. Abortions are cheaper than jail terms for the little ones that grow up to be serial thugs. Hell, I'd make abortion leagl through the fifty-seventh trimester. ;-)
--- Ban humanity.
Humans embryonic stem cells are being researched at the same time as animal embryonic stem cells. I'm trying to emphasize that embryonic stem cells are currently being researched in humans and in animals at the same time. Animal research should take priority over animal testing. Human testing should almost never go first because of ethical and financial implications.
I am defenseless. Use your button. Mod me down with all of your hatred.
At least 5 others had posted this before this comment. 4 of those should have been modded redundant as well.
So, Bush was *not* the first president to fund stem cell research. He was the first to say that it was ok to call stem cell research "stem cell research" on the grant application.
That part's true, but the idea of Bush "cutting funding" (ie spending less on ANYthing) is highly-unlikely. Bush is a big spender (not that Kerry wasn't, and this isn't a political post, just a factual one!). Bush and his gang don't mind big government as long as it's not Democrats doing the big-spending. (The Democrats, in one of life's weird ironies, are starting to actually-look fiscally-responsible -- but only by comparison to this batch of corporate Republican porkers!).
me
Only that you understand the importance and ease of citing your sources the first time around, next time around.
That wasn't so tough, now was it?
Only on Slashdot is it a troll to ask someone to cite their sources.
Typical.
he has calculated that his religious supporters can be misled but Wall Street is in the business of running the numbers.
Talk about hitting the nail on the head... the corporate world is not interested in his 'values'. They don't care if he seems like an honest man. They care about their_bottom_line. If he doesn't give them something concrete they will notice.
The Christian right on the other hand really is more of a popular movement, he only has to make them like him enough to vote for him. He has convinced them that he is 'one of them' - I know evangelical Christians who disagree with him on many issues, but voted for him anyway because they could identify with him and thought he was a good man.
I know full well I could be an aborted fetus, but I'm not, thus I'm firmly pro-life.
I know full well I could have been encrusted on a tissue and thrown away, but I'm not, thus I'm firmly anti-masturbation.
While I'm at it:
"Abortions for all!"
BOO!
"Well, abortions for none!"
BOO!
"Abortions for some! Miniature american flags for other!"
YAY!
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
IIRC, there are also some stem cells in umbilical cords which might be useful for research.
====
Crudely Drawn Games
Let is never be said the Religious Right is incapable of hypocrisy. Had I not commented on this story I'd be modding this post up right now.
This is EXACTLY the problem with the Conservative Christian views on reality. To paraphrase George Carlin "They'll do anything to save a fetus, but if it grows up to be a doctor they just might have to kill it."
Either you're ok with the concept of the sacrifice of the few to benefit the many or you're not. Either you're ok with the concept of man's ability to judge his fellow man or you're not.
I don't think it's ok to sacrifice the few to save the many. I don't think that our campaign in Iraq and the hundreds of thousands we've killed there are an acceptable price to pay to foist democracy on a country that may not be ready for it yet.
I also don't think a fetus is alive, so I'm not really in any sort of logical contradiction when I say I'm all for stem cell research. That's sacrificing medical waste to benefit the many, no problem there.
I think that man can judge his fellow man. That's why I'm all for the death penalty in certain specific cases.
At the same time, to argue that you don't want to kill a fetus because it's an innocent child but you do want to kill a child molester because he's a vicious criminal is hypocritical if you ascribe to Christianity. All sin, even child molestation, is equal in the eyes of God. It is not man's place, but God's to judge, and to classify a human embryo as more or less worthy of human mercy than that child molester is a sin of pride of the highest degree.
Moreover the equally absurd argument that abortion somehow risks the disruption of God's plan is arrogance beyond words. To assume that man can somehow act in a way that would confound the all powerful and all knowing mind of the Most High? How can you believe this and still claim to be a Christian?
[To the parent, I'm not ranting against you, just in general.]
Double standards? Damn skippy. I haven't seen anything from the Right Wing in the last 10 years that hasn't smacked of hypocrisy.
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
That doesn't make any sense. There would be no need to conceive only to abort. There are plenty enough abortions occurring to supply plenty of stem cells for research. It's a bogus argument that's used to shield a religious motive.
It has already been stated innumerable times in this thread, but I guess it needs repeating. Stem cells come from in vitro fertilization, not abortions! The American propaganda system is truely amazing. Even those against the ban spout mistruths.
BTW, I don't see any reason why fertilization for research only is a problem at all.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Umbilical cord stem cells are not a replacement for embryonic stem cells, though they are still useful. Also to say that one form works while the other doesn't is trying to second guess the research.. [snip]
Actually no. Embryonic stem cells have been shown to be extremely unstable. Adult stem cells have already been used to heal afflictions. One is a waste of money and life, the other has already produced some medical uses.
Your post starts on the right leg, but your train of logic seems to derail before the destination (conclusion.)
While many germans knew the holocost was wrong, (some even went against the nazi's to their own hurt) most did nothing. The germans who did nothing, can be compared to you doing nothing to protect the unborn. Justifying the death of child is equally trivial to justifying death of another race.
Children dying in Iraq is another matter altogether. To me it's caused by a lack of morals in the people who lived there. Most people heard of children dying, but did not hear the cause. The islam/materialist men who were fighting for saddam did not protect their families, they did the opposite and used them as human shields, while attempting to kill americans.
You might question my morals, but I'd kill all of them... only in the cause of freeing them from such evil.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
He understood what you were saying. He was trying to emphasize that you don't know how to speak properly.
Not only are you quibbling over semantics, you are also in error. Go look up the definition of "concentration", then apply it to the idea of rounding people of a certain type up into a camp. Then you'll understand why it's called a concentration camp. See? It's not because a concentration camp is somewhere you go to think really deep thoughts.
If you wish to minimize the situation by calling it an internment camp, go right ahead. I know people go to all sorts of lengths to feel better about America, including watching Fox News. If it makes you feel better to say "We weren't as bad as the Nazis", instead of recognizing a terrible mistake or trying to sugar coat the mistake, go right ahead. It's not my job to stop you from being an idiot.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Well, I guess the point is that previous administrations did not have to grapple with the same ethical concerns, so you can't paint Bush as some uniquely anti-scientific Neanderthal.
For the sake of it, are you also saying that HeLa cell cultures shouldn't be used before extensive animal tests? For research, human non-tumorous cells would often provide a better model than common labaratory animals -- and be far cheaper if the culturing methods were properly developed.
Institutions that have their hands out begging for money shoudn't whine and complain when there are conditions placed on how those funds can/should be used.
What is so hard to understand about that?
If you are feeding from the public funds trough, you can expect your snout to be smacked from time to time.
Because some people, like myself, have a huge problem with the destruction of embryos in or out of the body. (wrt fertility clinics, that it is by choice selection makes it worse in my book.) While it may or may not fit the dictionary definition of an abortion, in my value system, I consider it an abortion.
Everyone has their own set of values, whether you are left or right--frankly this issue is ill-defined on party lines. As well, these are not simple issues as you well know. In my case, I absolutely abhor abortions. OTOH, I fully believe in a woman's right to determine her health status under our current system of laws. Yes, this results in difficult contradictions.
I'm a male, conservative, not Christian, no religious upbringing, do not go to church, do not agree with Bush on some issues, did vote for Bush because I felt Kerry was somehow more incompetent, went to a generally considered liberal national college, blah, blah blah, blah. I think there are far more people in a similar position in society, indeed far more than the media or the extremists would like to acknowledge, and that our current system of laws (case law as well as letter of) reflects that middle ground, however imperfect, for now.
Intresting paragraph from an intresting article (the last link).
I have noticed that members of the Discovery Institute, the headquarters for lobbying for Intelligent Design, are also speaking out against embryonic stem cell research. It will be interesting to see if they try to embrace Gage and Varki's research while still trying to cast doubt on evolution. How on Earth, I wonder, could someone promoting Intellgent Design or Young Earth creationism make sense of these scientific results?
It actualy wouldn't be hard, they'd simply say that humans didn't have this sugar because they were god's chosen mammal, or something like that.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
No, Clinton was the first president to do so.
so you are saying that a human is a parasite that needs to be eradicated when it is inconvienent to someone?
Actually I'd say it is exactly a parasite (by the definition of parasite), and that it is only a potential human until the cord is cut. But you won't care, I know. Maybe we just have a different idea of what common sense.
...and if you had a clue about his politics, you would understand that Mr. Schwarzenegger is a RINO (Republican In Name Only) and is actually extremely liberal.
I'm not even talking about miscarriages. I'm talking about menstration. Simply because the egg is fertilized doesn't mean menstration never happens. Most fertilized eggs land on a tampon. And yes, the body does intend to expel them (which you call killing).
Even with miscarriages if we follow your definition we should be charging women with 2nd degree murder.
"And this is about human life - trying to equate human life with any plant or animal life is utterly ridiculous."
And your basis for this claim is? Let me guess, it is either "it just is, if you can't see that your blind" or "I believe in a special magic part of me that makes me unique and magical called a soul". Please, shock me, come up with something that is backed by fact or evidence that humans are something more than ONE of the more intelligent creatures on the planet who also happen to be manually capable.
"And last time I mowed, the grass stayed alive and grew back..."
Did the part you cut off survive? And are you confident each blade survived? What about the last time you swatted a fly, did it live? Ever wash your hands with anti-bacterial soap?
I bet the part of the grass you cut off didn't make it, instead it broke down and helped the rest of the grass (or any other nearby plants) survive and live longer and healthier. The part of the mother they cut off when they perform an abortion does the same.
"At conception, a new living organism is created that has a DNA sequence different from either parent"
So does every sperm and every egg. Really we should outlaw premature ejaculation, masterbation, and menstration. Technically eggs and sperm are living human organisms you know.
"Sorry - all of your points are invalid (like the rest of liberalism and secular humanism is...)."
Welcome to the real world. And please, if you respond at least attempt to up with at least one example of valid logic or something more substantial than "nuh uh".
Unless of Course - the state wants to have an interest. Ask Scott Peterson - He got nailed for murdering the fetus too. The state will absolutely assign rights to the fetus - but only in the states interest, and not the fetus.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
It WAS brought up when Bush made his executive order
Forget the political perspective. Why did the scientists use cultures which would introduce Neu5Gc if it was going to render their entire stem cell inventory useless? They wouldn't. Someone's making a crater out of a divet for political purposes.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
It seems to me that if enough potential profit is involved, private companies would still be lining up to provide financial backing for research despite some protests.
And even in other countries it seems mostly like governments investing (not sure about that, would love to hear if I'm wrong).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Yeah, ironic isn't it: the guy who most needs some stem cells in his brain pulls the plug on the research...
Well... your bias towards the issue is sub-consciously evident by use of the phrase "not matter how you help the natives or what you do for them, they will hate you for being their master."
You're confusing the bias inherent in the phrase with my own.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Because if you believe that life begins at conception, then the fertilized eggs are in fact children, and precious lifeforms.
In the specific case given (left overs from fertility clinics), the embryos in question are scheduled to be destroyed as medical waste. Using them for stem cell research is worse than this how? Or are you saying that every potentially viable embryo that a fertility clinic produces should have every attempt made to be brought to full term and born even if that means many tens of children (most likely unwanted, I can't imagine even parents who are having problems conceiving desiring to suddenly add 10 or more members to their family).
Not to say Stem Cell research is moral or immoral, I'm merely pointing out that the embryos mentioned in the specific example given are already going to be incinerated. Which would you prefer?
Be sure to explain that to the person he just allowed to be executed. I'm sure he'll appreciate it.
"What I find most ridiculous is that the same group of people who said that a black man is less than a white man and that kidnapping and enslaving africans was the "white man's burden" are the same group who pretend that they are the worlds single moral authority, and claim that as the basis for everything they are for."
What I find ridiculous is that you actually believe that the people who did the enslaving are alive and determining what the moral of the world are.
what?
Ever hear of adoption?
Get a FREE Sony PS3
Wow... exactly what are the "Bush opponents" saying so far beyond your "reprehensible, tenuous, illogical, and religious" that blow the issue so out of proportion?
What do you mean by unstable? And unstable in vivo, or in vitro? Embryonic stem cells are quite stable in culture and thus are reasonable easy to culture, and many techniques already exist from IVF (which pretty much means they are stable in vitro).
Immune rejection in vivo will be the usual cause of any "unstable" stem cells, and is a problem for both umbilical and embryonic stem cells as the animal/human and the cell line are usually not genetically identical.
While I'm sure you're just trying to be a troll, you might be interested to know that last time I checked, Bill O'Reilly is actually in favor of stem cell research.
The HLA is not as simple as blood type, but it is not like the donor has to be a monozygotic twin of the recipient.
...
0 03 /11_10_03.html
To have stem cell-based therapy you need to bank common HLA types.
The neoconservatives won't pay for it unless making Christian septuplets is somehow involved. "Use the existing '60' lines," they say. So, federal funding blackout on anything likely to be useful in the field. Ever wonder why the Bush compromise was inadequate? This is one big reason.
What we just found out is that, even if you are HLA-compatible with one of the Bush-sanctioned lines, you probably can't use them anyway. That's big news, IMHO.
I quote:
Complicating matters is that common combinations of versions of HLA proteins vary considerably within ethnic or racial groups, and quite dramatically between racial groups. No information is available on the federally approved cell lines' particular combinations of HLA proteins, but the lines' small number and their derivation from embryos created for reproductive use indicate their HLA diversity is likely to be woefully inadequate.
Instead, researchers will need access to a group of human ES cell lines that match as many people as possible. Because there would be limited resources for establishing such a "bank" of ES cell lines and because of concerns for early human life, the panel carefully considered how to optimize Americans' "biological access" to future therapies with these cells.
African-Americans have a greater variety of HLA profiles, so more cell lines would be needed in the bank to potentially match the same percentage of that population as, say, white Americans. According to the panel's calculations, 40 cell lines representing the most common HLA varieties of white Americans would be expected to match about 71 percent of that population. By contrast, 40 cell lines matching the 40 most common HLA types of African-Americans would cover just over 45 percent of that group. Regardless of what percentage of the population is covered, however, new cell lines would have to be established, the panel said.
"No matter how we look at it, the federally approved cell lines are inadequate," says Gearhart. "We can do a lot of work with them, but we can't move into clinical trials or offer therapies with them."
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/Press_releases/2
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
It is remarkable to note that having Neu5Ac and lacking Neu5Gc is one of very few ways in which humans are unique. I suspect that the Intelligent Design folks would embrace the finding that humanity is different from animals in a very specific and unique way while rejecting the idea that it was a random mutation that caused this difference. If there were a creator who noticed that the creations thus far were kind of boring due to having Neu5Gc in their brains, the obvious thing for the creator to try would be to stick some handy disrupting chunk of DNA in the middle of CMAH. I mean, that's what Varki is doing in mice, most likely, and we assume that he's intelligent.
(Personally, I find the position of the scientific community a bit contradictory. We contrast evolution with intelligent design, but then consider genetic algorithms a branch of AI and award doctorates to people who mutate animals in interesting ways. Clearly evolution isn't going to pass the Turing test any time soon, but it seems to be about tied with drug companies for cleverness currently.)
As someone asked me in a previous post on this same thread "prove it." I'd never be so crass as to phrase it that way, so I'll paraphrase instead.
Can you provide documentation to back that assertion?
Keep in mind we're talking about new embryonic stem cell lines. We're not talking about existing embryonic lines, ubmilical or placentil lines, or adult lines.
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
I'm sorry, did you just advocate that someone get put on trial for each and every abortion?
Proud member of the American Non Sequitur Society. We might not make much sense, but boy do we love pizza!
Well, I think a mass of cells is a "child" when it's able to survive outside of it's womb--ie with no direct support from the body that grew it..
I also think that we should be able to retroactively abort assclowns like yourself.
Bzzzzzzt. Sperm and Eggs cells have only 1/2 of a human DNA sequence.
Also, Sperm and Egg cells do not divide - a fertilized egg, on the other hand, does.
Carl Zimmer has a fascinating description of the sugars we humans lack that contaminated the stem cell lines.
I don't know about Carl, but I'm sure lacking some donut sugars right about now. Mmmmmm donuts.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Clinton said that he was going to fund them. He made a big press deal out of it, but he never followed through.
Yes, sigh, here we go again.
If a person engages in an illegal behavior that is not intended to, but does result in the death of another, then that person is guilty of manslaughter, right?
So, if a woman, who does not know she was pregnant, goes on a drug binge and OD's, triggering a miscarriage, she would be guilty of manslaughter, right?
For that matter, if a woman was pregnant, and knowingly changed her diet to one that was completely deficient in folic acid, as well as several other vitamins, it is very likely that she would spontaneously abort (would be challenging, but not impossible). By your definition she would be guilty of murder. It would be premeditated. The amusing thing about your position is that in many states, this premeditated "murder" would make the woman eligible for murder (excuse me, capital punishment to republicans).
Sorry, your points are also invalid (like the rest of the neoconservatives that will do anything it can to prevent an American woman from having an abortion but is more than happy to start wars in the third world, resulting in thousands of innocent civilian deaths).
1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
Considering we didnt' systematically exterminate japanese-americans in those camps I fail to see exactly how calling them something other than "concentration camps" is minimizing the situation.
If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
Miscarriages clearly are not murder since there is no intent to kill. Abortions are intending to terminate a pregnancy, therefore it's murder.
Killing a person, even without intent, is generally illegal unless there are some very special circumstances. It may not be murder without intent but we need to prosecute these people for manslaughter, battery etc.
It's time we any risky behavior in pregnant women if they have a reasonable expectation of harming the human being they carry. No more bungee jumpting if you had unprotected sex the night before.
You've obviously never had a living human child developing inside you before.
I'd like to point out by the way that all you are "is really a clump of cells growing", but I do not use that as an excuse to dismember you callously without regard to your well being.
Beyond that, I can only say that I recall him saying it on his show.
Probably mere happenstance, since it wasn't michael posting, but this is the first time the 'media' has mention that the "ban" on stem cell research is really just a ban on government funding of stem cell research. Damn, any schmuck can pick up his wifes afterbirth and create cures for cancer in his basement lab.
Congratulations, slashbot. You failed to read the post you to which you are responding.
I fail to see exactly how calling them something other than "concentration camps" is minimizing the situation
Euphemism. If you need to mince words to to prop up your insecurities, fine. Just don't ask me to sacrifice meanings so you won't feel uncomfortable.
And if your argument is "We weren't as bad as the Nazis", then don't expect me to take you seriously.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
To expect to see brain cells or muscle cells in the earliest stages of the development of a human being would be anti-intellectual and downright ignorant. The brain cells are there along with all of the other cells that make up a human body. Only ignoramouses expect them to look like they would in a fully developed adult. The cells are present, they are alive, and they are developing at their own pace. All these cells need is all that any cells need. Food, water, oxygen, etc. The necessities for life. Whether the embryo develops in her mother's womb or some other woman's womb or in an artificial womb (if one were to be developed), the embryo will always develop into the same adult. The reason for this is that all that is necessary for an individual human life is present in the embryo and in fact is present in the single-celled zygote. This is a scientific fact.
Get out of the dark ages where people believed that a "blob of tissue" became "ensouled" at some point during development.
And while that establishes him as on the fence as to the morality of abortion, it does not indicates that he "favors" stem cell research.
"On the fence" is not the same thing as "in favor of." If it was, not one would give a crap about voting for the 87 Billion before voting against it.
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
Is there any documentation of this or is this just your personal recolection?
I've found numerous sources (cited in previous posts) discussing Clinton's pro-stem cell funding stance. Surely if he reniged on this promise you can find a newspaper article substantiating it. Idealy a newspaper article from a source not known for a conservitive bias.
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
There's no such thing as a "fertilized egg". What you are probably referring to are the pre-embryonic stages of development on the human being. Starting at the single-celled zygote and progressing through the blastocyst stage and so on. Again, these are merely stages in the development of a human being. Other stages are infant, toddler, adolescent, adult.
Why would it be ethical to dismember an innocent human being in one stage of development and not in another stage? Are you one of those non-scientific types that believes that there is some point that the human body becomes "ensouled"?
Next up: How the courts will determine if someone is a witch or not by testing if they float.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Yes, yes, yes. The whole point of an abortion, however, is to dismember a human being who is presently in an early stage of development such as blastocyst, embryo, or fetus. Technically dismembering a human being in these stages of development who is not in a womb would not be called an abortion.
Calling it murder would be accurate, however.
Stem cell research began in 1998 with the successful propogation of the first lines. That meant that Bill Clinton could have funded research in FY1999, FY2000 and FY2001. George Bush's first budget was FY2002 which commenced on October 1, 2001 and ended September 30, 2002.
In your comment, you suggested that if a group, college, or organization is receiving federal funding of ANY kind for ANY kind of research, they cannot do embryonic stem cell research unless they want to lose their federal funding. BZZZZT!!! Wrong.
From that same page I linked you to:
No federal funds will be used for: (1) the derivation or use of stem cell lines derived from newly destroyed embryos; (2) the creation of any human embryos for research purposes; or (3) the cloning of human embryos for any purpose. Today's decision relates only to the use of federal funds for research on existing stem cell lines derived in accordance with the criteria set forth above.
In other words, federal funds cannot be used for embryonic stem cell research (with the exception of the 60 stem cell lines that had already existed as of 2001). No need to repost your comment because the "right-wing" modded you down... you were modded down because you were WRONG.
What I find most ridiculous is that the same group of people who said that a black man is less than a white man and that kidnapping and enslaving africans was the "white man's burden" are the same group who pretend that they are the worlds single moral authority, and claim that as the basis for everything they are for. Infanticide has a longer history than civilization.
"Group of people"? What group would that be. I hope I am not in your definition of "that group". Should I be worried?
I think "Interesting" or "Informative" would have been a more appropriate moderation for this thread than "Insightful". There's nothing insightful about this.
I will say that I agree with the parent about the inconsistencies adopted by many who would label themselves as morally superior to the rest. That's pretension at its worst.
I however do not agree with the parent's stance on "potential" tripe. Is this to say that before a fetus has a developing brain that it has no chance of becoming a living being? That seems like an absurd argument to me. But then, I do not believe in murder in any of its forms - this includes death penalty. Instating the death penalty is an interesting way of being self-righteous. I'm sure most people on this earth have done something that merits more consequences than have been received, but those judgements were not dealt.
A wise person makes his own decisions, a weak one obeys public opinion. -- Chinese proverb
Outlaw can mean:
"...to place under a ban or restriction"
It most certainly has had a restriction placed on it now.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
That is why there is a term called 'viability' that is used in deciding whether to abort or not. 3rd trimester abortions are the only ones where viability is up in the air, and those kinds of abortions are typically only done in cases where the mother's health is at risk, she doesn't really have a choice at that point. Hospitals focus on preserving the life of the mother more than the baby, especially in cases where the baby has a severe defect. The problem is, every pregnancy is different, so it is very hard to legislate 'when' the cutoff is. Lawmakers are scared to put in a "doctors discretion" clause because that leaves too much room. This is indeed a problem of how to legislate 3rd trimester abortions rather than a problem of should we have abortions at all. The problem with using "brain activity" as a cutoff is that what can be called brain activity occurs quite early in the pregnancy, before the fetus is viable in the least, and is most likely a totally involentary process. "Brain waves" are just coordinated electrical pulses, their presence doesn't mean the fetus is thinking, it just means the cells are functioning.
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the frumious Bandersnatch.
Which essentially means "I wont fund real science because the voices in my head tells me not to"
Of course now other countries will do the real work, and american companies will just buy the results in a few years.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Yes, yes, yes. The whole point of an abortion, however, is to dismember a human being who is presently in an early stage of development such as blastocyst, embryo, or fetus. Technically dismembering a human being in these stages of development who is not in a womb would not be called an abortion. Calling it murder would be accurate, however.
"Dismember" is a term obviously calculated to create a misleading impression of a person being ripped limb from limb, and to obscure the fact that such an early embryo is an undifferentiated ball of cells--it has no members to "dis."
Calling it "murder" is to exalt cells over mind. The term is normally "murder" used to refer to the snuffing out of a human consciousness. You cannot murder a body in which brain death has already occured, for example, even if all of the other organs are still alive. But like limbs, an early embryo has no consciousness--indeed, no brain to feel pain, nor nerves to feel it with. It is the human mind that is worth of protection. Yes, an early embryo (like a sperm and an egg) has some chance of eventually developing into something that has a brain and a mind, and can reasonably be called a person. But it doesn't have them yet.
That's a mighty big leap you are making, from the Peculiar Institution to the attempted obliteration of an ethnic group that shared a religion, to abortion? Well, free speech is free speech, but you aren't helping the debate much. Regardless of your political opinion of the woman, I think that Hilary Clinton said it best, "Keep abortion safe, legal and rare." Nobody likes abortion, just like nobody likes other emotionally unsavory medical procedures. Unfortunately, what you deem to be 'proper' or 'religiously correct' should have no impact on the practices of a medical community that largely disagrees with you. I would sooner put my faith in a doctor when it comes to a medical decision (which abortion is) than a religious zealot screaming waving signs and screaming at women who are doing something that must be very emotionally taxing. But hey, what do I know, I'm a guy.
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the frumious Bandersnatch.
If you look at this from the point of view of the pro lifers "The rest of the embryos are destroyed as medical waste. That's it. No abortions."
These are living embryos and they are being killed. How is this any different from an abortion?
Before I get my head jumped on I myself am not for the banning of abortion. I do not think it is a good thing but I can not see any just way to ban without making things worse than they are. I can see where the right to life people are coming from and from their point of view it this is the same thing.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Do you realize how many embryos are discarded by fertility clinics each year? There are between 9,000 and 400,000 frozen embryos in the US available for use by other couples (just ignoring the ones that exist for couples that will probably never be used); only 2-3 dozen have ever been used. Almost all of these will inevitably be destroyed. Of course, many never even make it to the freezer.
It's your choice: trash, or stem cell research. I know which one I'd choose.
Heck, even in nature, the situation isn't all *that* different. Initially, scientists assumed that most pregnancies made it to term. However, as tests have become more and more sensitive, it is now clear that over half of all fertilized eggs are miscarried before the woman ever realizes she was pregnant.
People said I was dumb, but I proved them.
No, but they can.
People said I was dumb, but I proved them.
Since bone marrow is a form of stem cells (adult stem cells), then all of you are wrong. It can thus be said that stem cell reseach began in the 1950s and 1960s with with bone marrow transplants.
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
You got it exactly right.
It's interesting to me that the "religious right" are deeply worried about an aborted fetus but hardly ever protest over IVF procedures.
It could lead one to believe in the Christian Baby theory; basically, that their policies on IVF, abortion, and birth control are actually consistent (and cynical): to produce more Christians, at any cost.
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
"Because if you believe that life begins at conception, then the fertilized eggs are in fact children, and precious lifeforms."
Okay then. Take the zygote to the zoo, and watch the cell group laugh at the elephants. Feed it Gerbers. Change its little cellular diapers.
Won't do you any good, because a zygote is not a child; it is a fertilized egg. This is a fundamental point of what is really real, and what is fantasy. Chris Reeves was real. People dying and suffering by the millions that we could save are real. The cells are just cells.
Bush is not in favor of destroying human tissues. To claim that he is is simply "tenuous" and "illogical".
This is an ethical dillema along the same lines as whether medical data gathered by the Nazi doctors using Jewish "volunteers" should be used. To some, using the data legitimizes the collection method. To others, it's just data. To wave your hands and claim there is no ethical issue at all is simply "tenuous" and "illogical".
If this research is immoral, why only ban government funding, as opposed to all funding,...
Because the question of morality is an individual matter. Private funding comes from people who have decided that it is moral to do this. Tax funding comes from everyone, even those who are morally opposed to the activity. A ban on federal funding honors the feelings of those who oppose the research while also honoring the feelings for those who accept it. If you want to support such research, write a check. If you don't, you ought not have the feds take your money away from you for such purposes.
If you want to use war protestors as a counter example, then you need to be arguing that THEY should get the same consideration, not that nobody ought to get it. But you'll lose that argument, because public funding of the military is a task outlined in the Constitution for the US government; public funding of stem cell research is not.
Welcome my friend, to the 1680's.
How do you feel about the earth travelling around the sun? That got galileo a life sentence from the religious right.
That's the president's point, dipshit. Throwing away a baby is morally wrong and the government won't fund it. Doesn't matter whether the baby's ripped out of the mother's womb or if it's a test tube baby, it's still a human life being thrown away.
Question: Why is Bush against stem cell research?
Answer: Bush doesn't give a sh*t about stem cell research; hell he can't spell it. But the religious right is against it, and religious right == votes.
Question: Oh. So it's that simple?
Answer: OF course. Bush is a simple man.
Well, I think a mass of cells is a "child" when it's able to survive outside of it's womb--ie with no direct support from the body that grew it..
Okay.
Deeply religious people's will freeze up if they get information different than the minister told them. If the minister told them stem cells came from Jesus Ass, then they wouldn't allow it anyway, since anything that came from jesus ass was holy.
These are the people who in other cultures, put on masks, shake rattles and dance around to perform healing.
When does consiousness occur? I can't remember a damn thing from before I was three or so. Does that mean I could be aborted?
"Because if you believe that life begins at conception, then the fertilized eggs are in fact children, and precious lifeforms."
If you believe that you are ruining god's reputation on earth with such garbage, would it be okay to have you locked in prison and held in silence because you are harming god on earth?
Oh...that's different you say? I don't "get it", right?
Riiiight.
Of course. Banning research on animal cells might impact the agricultural corporations.
Sorry if I'm cynical, but I don't accept anything that Bush does as being done for honest reasons. Each individual case must be proved separately. (Generally I find this results in a more accurate initial judgement.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
And at the time that he said that it was already known that those cell lines had been contaminated with animal fluids that were used to raise them.
If he didn't know that, it was only because of intentional ignorance, and thus cannot be used as an excuse. That is one time among many when he intentionally lied to the american public. He lies so often, that I generally find it better to presume that anything he says is a lie than to believe it. (Sometimes other evidence proves that occasionally he has told the truth.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
They were definitely concentration camps, even if they different from the Nazi ones. You'll notice the great-grandparent didn't say 'death camps'.
While an embryo's brain has not formed to the point where synapses are firing and "consciousness" has been achieved you still cannot ethically snuff out his/her life.
For example, if we had a patient who was "brain dead" yet we knew that in a few months her brain would become conscious and walk out of the hospital, and I were to tear the unconscious body apart, society would have every right to throw my butt in jail. This is closer to the scenario we have in human beings who have not yet developed far enough to become conscious.
(like the rest of the neoconservatives that will do anything it can to prevent an American woman from having an abortion but is more than happy to start wars in the third world, resulting in thousands of innocent civilian deaths)
This position is not inconsistent or hypocritical, actually. Those thousands of innocent civilians aren't Christians, so their lives don't matter. Whereas fetuses that are aborted in the USA are potential Christians.
I fine it really depressing that my homeland is turning into a theocratic backwater before I'm even middle-aged.
Glad to see you can tell the difference between embryonic stem cells, adult stem cells and placental blood.
Glad to hear that educated people like you control the future of our species.
Clear, Dark Skies
I love it when a person is an expert on a subject, yet can still write an article about that subject which is clear and thoroughly understandable by the average person. Zimmer covered a little evolution, chemistry, stem cell research, and politics all in one 1600+ word article, and I never once got lost in the techno-babble. Heck, I even enjoyed it. The ability to write like this is a sign of true intelligence. Too bad more experts can't relate to "regular folks" this way. My thanks to Mr. Zimmer.
Then why does everyone target embryonic stem cell use and not IVF? From your viewpoint, you're attacking the symptom, not the problem.
I, in the meantime, would rather see what would otherwise be medical waste put to good use.
This debate seems rather senseless.
vi ~/.emacs
The statement he made was that it would be EASIER to harvest new stem cells and grow them in serum which does not contain Neu5Gc.
BTW, if you can figure out how to make SERUM not derived from an animal, let me know, would ya?
hmmmm?
I find it interesting how people here constantly think I'm a Republican when I'm not.
What I am is concerned about the California budget, which as of June 1, 2004, had $40 billion in existing bond debt, plus another $30 billion authorized but not issued because the projects they're for haven't reached specific phases, plus $15B in bonds approved by voters one last time to bail out the state, plus the $3B for the stem cell research -- $88 billion in bond debt in place or authorized, payable over the next 30 years, with as much as about $9B going to paying back bond debt in a single year. The state is bond-happy, and has been for years, because we don't have to pay it off until some time that is not now.
Going into this round of budget talks, we have a budget shortfall of $8B, out of a total spending package of more than $100B. The Legislature has served notice that it's not happy with the governor's submitted budget, and plans to fight it with their own version of things, and it's going to get nasty, because there can be no more borrowing to cover the deficit, and there's less than $4B left in last year's $15B authorization to cover the gap. Something is going to have to give, and it will not at all surprise me to see July 1 come rolling around without a budget again.
Note that I support embryonic stem cell research, but I also support not pushing the state's finances any more than they already are. Trim some of the other programs out of the way and make room for the money first, then spend it.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
I don't have anyone reaching into my pocket to fund most things that are researched.
Why should I want the government to take my money in the form of taxes and spend it on something that has not been proven and is still on in the research stage?
If I want to pay for the research, I can donate to any of the organizations who are performing the research.
until some bigshot gets Parkinson's Disease. Then, a miracle will take place and stem cell research will be placed on the front burner.
Mumia Abu-Jamal is *laughably guilty*. Check the evidence.
If only that was just the stem cells that were contaminated in US bodies...Unfortunately, contamination seems to spread to brain cells before that.
This is somewhat offtopic, but I don't believe nerve cells are necessary for conciousness. (I'm refering here to weak AI, though, and I agree that nerve cells are necessary for conciousness in current humans.)
Well, what has changed since then? Basic human nature? The type of people who are religious? The organizations themselves? The texts from which they claim to derive their authority? No - the only thing that has changed is the status quo - slave ownership is no longer the norm. "Harm" is so loosely defined and so easy to ignore or twist ("we're helping them by bringing them Christianity!") that it's impossible for a centralized moral authority to assure us we aren't doing things equally as bad as the slave owners.
What I find ridiculous is that you actually believe that the people who did the enslaving are alive and determining what the moral of the world are.
Many of those who did fight against civil rights are still alive. Many persons who believe that a black man has no right to use the same water fountain as a white man are still alive and voting. Hell, the GOP has at least one senator currently in office who publicly opposed the idea of equality between blacks and whites.
You sir, are the dipshit.
I didn't realize that getting chopsticks lodged in one's brain was such a common thing in China.
Well, no shit sherlock. The topic is talked enough about these days that you should be able to understand that embryonic stem cells is implied.
Dave, you hit the nail right on the head.
In addition, in order to be logically consistent, an anti-ES person must be against women's birth control hormones. Why? Because typically the contraceptive hormones do NOT prevent conception, they merely make the uterine wall lining a less hospitable place for a zygote to develop. So then the next time the woman goes to the bathrooom...wooosh, down the toilet goes the "person".
So where are the protestors and waving their stupid signs? Exactly.
Unfortunately, the media presents the issue as if little babies were being killed for their cells...infact, a cluster of 32 cells that have not differentiated into any of the embryonic germ layers hardly constitute an organism at all, let alone what we consider a "person".
and just for the record...I happen to be AGAINST abortion, which I logically reason IS infact murder. Harvesting ES cells, by contrast, is not.
It served their interests for her to think that. ("I'm better than them" is a good hook; and it kept her watching their ads.)
It serves Bush's interests for you to think that he's an idiot. I, too, believe that he looks like an idiot. I do not for an instant believe the lie, though. He's building an empire[1] and is very good at social engineering.
[1] -- another article discussed military robots, and someone posted saying that if we have warfare in which the two sides are unbalanced wrt robots, especially if one side is all robots and the other side is all meat, then it's going to look very bad to everyone involved when the robots keep mowing down the meat. Countries which use robots in battle, the poster continued, should be seen as empire-building because you should be willing to lay down your life for democracy. Which shows just how corrupt Bush's new war is; he's unwilling to lay down the lives of his daughters.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
The "religious right," as everyone has called them, have done a terrible job of showing what Christianity is all about. I, for one, do not believe that the war in Iraq is just or good, because it would be inconsistent with my other beliefs. While many "Christians" may engage in this doublethink, do not fool yourself into believing that these people are representative of true Christianity. And no, I'm not a neocon, nor do I affiliate myself with the "right," on many issues. I believe that if Jesus were to comment on the things that these people spout He would be very disappointed.
Now that was a non-sequitor. Tell me, where in my post did I ever take an explicit or implicit position that it was ethical "to dismember an innocent human being in one stage of development and not in another stage"?
My objection was to terminology: an abortion is the interruption of a pregnancy, and no pregnancy has occurred. Yes, the destruction of zygotes produced as part of IVF should be the moral equivalent of abortion, if moral attitudes were determined by logical argument, but "moral equivalent" and "are the same thing" are two different relations.
As for there being "no such thing" as a fertilized egg, many reputable sources disagree. I'll concede that another term for fertilized egg common in medical jargon is "zygote".
The question I don't see being asked is, HOW did the stem cells get contaminated? With _animal_ protein? What, was a lab assistent sloppy with eating a Big Mac on the job? Or were they deliberately (cue paranoia-meter) sabotaged? I only consider the sabotage scenario too likely. After all, we have anti-choicers burning down abortion clinics and PETA raiding cosmetics factories - it's a logical extension to picture some hothead dumping a bucket of pig fat all over the lab equipment...
my hair is just as much human cells as an embryo - no crime getting it cut.
Only the growing basal part of the hair is alive. The rest is dead, which is why it doesn't hurt when you cut it, but it does you pull it.
I don't disagree with your point, but your example is way off : )
You can't take the sky from me...
You just totally eviscerated that retard. I love to see these idiotic slashbots talking out of their ass, and get slammed for it. Congrats.
As Dave says, the lines are propagated through tissue culturing, etc. Someone screwed up the current batches, or else they'd be using them right now...
While an embryo's brain has not formed to the point where synapses are firing and "consciousness" has been achieved you still cannot ethically snuff out his/her life.
Yet we can amputate a finger and snuff out the lives of thousands and thousands of human cells, every one of which, in principle, could be cloned into an individual human being. A woman can ethically decline to have sex during her fertile period, even though it prevents a living, human egg in her ovaries from developing into a human being with thoughts and feelings. Potential is not actuality.
For example, if we had a patient who was "brain dead" yet we knew that in a few months her brain would become conscious and walk out of the hospital, and I were to tear the unconscious body apart, society would have every right to throw my butt in jail. This is closer to the scenario we have in human beings who have not yet developed far enough to become conscious.
Yet every ovum has this same potential to develop, yet it is considered ethical to decline sex, and thereby to destroy this potential human being (or more accurately, deny it the opportunity to become a human being with thoughts and feelings). Potential is not actuality.
for the record:
a D&E is the "normal" surgical abortion procedure, and is the exact same medical procedure that is performed when a woman miscarries, and needs to have her uterus cleaned out.
a partial-birth is completely different.
... hi bingo
We don't pass laws against all immoral activity in this country. Whether or not people "should" do something is not always the relevant test. I could say quite objectively that people shouldn't smoke, but it isn't illegal, nor should it be. The fact is that there is an ongoing debate about stem cells, and there's no good reason why my tax dollars sould go to pay for what is (whether or not you want to admit it) extremely controversial research.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
"The statement he made was that it would be EASIER to harvest new stem cells and grow them in serum which does not contain Neu5Gc"
True, that is how he is quoted in The Register. But the evidence given does not support that proposition for exactly the same reasons which I gave in my refutation of a similar argument.
You state correctly that I left out the "easier" part in summary. That is irrelevent, for the more complicated argument which involves "easier" is not valid either. In characterizing another's argument, it is fair to simplify by omission only if return of the omitted points does not invalidate criticism. Well what I have done is certainly legitimate, for the weaker stance of "easier" is no better supported on the evidence than the strong stance, as I characterized it.
"BTW, if you can figure out how to make SERUM not derived from an animal, let me know, would ya?"
Use human blood serum.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Morals are a personal thing.
No. They're not. And they're not cultural either. There are absolutes. Some ways of life are better and more moral than others. The fact that you choose an immoral life means that you are an inferior person. Now, some people may choose to live in a morally reprehensible lifestyle, but that does not mean that the rest of us should condone it or accept it.
My other first post is car post.
GW Bush: "This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research" without crossing a fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life."
GW shows his ignorance about stem cell research when he makes it seem as though embryos with fingers and toes are being harvested for stem cell research. They aren't. Blastocysts are. Blastocysts, an extremely early stage of 'embryo', are thrown out by the plateful every week by fertility clinics.... these are blastocysts that are used when needed for stem cell harvesting. In other words, no 'thumb sucking' embryos are used for stem cell harvesting, and only 150 cell blastocysts which look like a small transparent globules, which are going to waste anyhow since there is no money to do the work on them, are being used. So cutting funding is doing nothing to 'cut back' on 'embryos' from being created specifically for harvesting. There are enough blastocysts for a million scientists to do research already being produced by fertility clinics.
"Artificial Intelligence usually beats real stupidity."
What? Even the most hard core Nazis didn't even think that. Why do you think that the strictest secrecy was deemed necessary when it came to the operation of the death camps? Because they were a horrible, gruesome affair, that's why. To go on, mass murder by machine gunning naked civilians (as in Babi Yar) was deemed unsuitable, not because of a lack of efficiency, but because the high command was affraid that the psychological toll on the troops would ultimately be too high. A more humane method (to the troops carrying out the murders) was adopted in the form of gassings. Why do you think that camps that were closed (such as Treblinka) long before the risk of being overrun were obliterated, as if nothing had ever happened there? Hardly the work of someone who thinks he's done nothing wrong. If you have nothing to hide hy not just leave it there? No, they clearly knew they were up to no good. They rationalised this with it being a necessary evil and in the cause of a greater good, but that it was fundamentally wrong wasn't lost on the vast, vast majority of the people doing the dirty work.
No, the guilt of the contemporary german population who in their own words "Didn't know" was not in the fact that they didn't know. Hitler and Himmler made it damn difficult to know. It was in the fact that they didn't question.
Stefan Axelsson
> If this is about abortion, why not oppose abortion, rather than research?
Yeah, right. You tried opposing abortion recently? If you're not female you get slapped down straight away because "you can't possibly know" and all that.
Then just about any reasonable objection gets slapped down for being extremist, no matter how moderately expressed. Or you get called a religious nut.
Resisting abortion appears to be futile. This leaves opposition to anything derived from abortion, such as stem cell research.
> BTW, I don't see any reason why fertilization for research only is a problem at all.
Depends where you view life as starting. There are arguments all over where a foetus actually becomes a life; my own opinion (stress OPINION) is that fertilisation is the point where that life begins, and if you extinguish that spark, then you eliminate up to 100-odd years of useful contribution to the human race by denying that spark the right to life.
So my problem with fertilisation for research is the same as your problem with research on foetuses/children/teenagers/adults beyond where you feel that point exists.
Well of course life starts at conception. If you wanted to argue that life started at meiosis, I wouldn't argue. Thing is, not all life is created equal. Humans are alive, but so are dogs, cows, ocotopi, sea cucubmers, real cucumbers, spinach, portabello, green mold, E. coli, and so on. Every time I brush my teeth, I am taking millions of lives.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Well, "intelligence" is a slippery concept, because there's so little consensus on its meaning. I think that intelligence is a measure of the accuracy of the model in the mind of the world outside: what it is, how it works. Bush's world is paradoxical: it includes so much of the world, more than most people, because he's an actor on the world stage. His actions and words directly (and powerfully, though indirectly) affect the lives of billions of people in evey corner of the world. But his world is constructed by other people; it always has been. He's probably never had an original though in his life, beyond his single-digit years, when Jeb beat the habit out of him. His world is huge, but his paths through it are hugely constrained. His knowledge of the world off that path is miniscule, and repressed by fear and hate. So I'd say that, though his ability to act on the real world is very large, his model of the world in his mind is small, flimsy, and mostly wrong.
But what he's got is a map of several hundred tremendously powerful people, some of whom are very intelligent in the terms described. As you point out, he's got very insightful techniques in manipulating that world. But his constant mistakes, even in talking about things in which he's not interested (most everything governmental), betray his crude model of the world beyond his (bidirectional) puppetmasters. He's not very smart, but he is lucky. That he was born into such a position of inevitable power, including being programmed to be used by the powerful. For all his social engineering of people close to him, he can't adapt to anything (or anyone) new - his model does not include techniques for learning. He's a boy in a tiny, powerful bubble. He knows it well, but only within it. That's pretty stupid. Woe is us.
--
make install -not war
While many "Christians" may engage in this doublethink, do not fool yourself into believing that these people are representative of true Christianity.
This is total BS. Every time anyone points out how hypocritical Christians are, or criticizes them in any way, someone like you always says, "those people aren't true Christians." Yeah, right. So how many "true" Christians are there? 5?
The fact is, Christianity is a huge religion both worldwide, and here in the USA. Probably about 50% of Americans are active Christians, from figures I've seen. Just because you think your beliefs are more "pure" than theirs doesn't mean you can call them "fake"; why should I, as a non-Christian, believe you over them?
As a non-Christian, I judge Christians as a group by the actions they take. Christianity is a large group, and has different factions, so of course I do understand that these factions may sometimes disagree and act differently, much like the Sunni and Shia Muslims do. However, when I or any other outside observer makes a judgment on Christians, we're basing it on the actions of the majority. If your tiny sect with 5 people happens to act differently, it doesn't matter, because the majority of millions of people doesn't agree with you. It's much like calling Americans "fat"; that's a valid statement, because 75% of Americans are indeed overweight, and 50% are obese. You might have a BMI of 17, but you'd be an exception. Would you claim that all the overweight Americans aren't "true Americans" because they're not like you, even when they're in the vast majority?
I believe that if Jesus were to comment on the things that these people spout He would be very disappointed.
Here in Phoenix, on MLK day last week, there were some gatherings downtown, and a large group of black youth took that time to start a riot. Riot police came in with horses, pepper-sprayed them, and broke it all up, but I wondered what Dr. King would have to say about this kind of incident on his memorial day. I'm sure he would be disappointed too, but other black people can't say that those kids aren't "true" black people.
So please, cut out the "true Christian" thing. I for one am utterly sick of it. If you don't like being criticized for the actions of your group (that being Christians), then stop claiming to be a member of it. Unlike your race and nationality, membership in a religion is voluntary.
That doesn't change my point at all. The opposition claim that they are or will be used.
I go an create a human clone, and its first words are, "Hi Gang". Someone is going to pay.
God interviened, foiling mans plans.
Just say no to license servers!!
And when it can survive outside of that device, it's a viable person, with all the rights of being that come with that status... It's not the womb that's at issue, tis the life inside it.
My opinion isn't relevant to what I was pointing out, namely that the parent post had a weak argument. Changes of subject like that are what makes arguments like abortion into the cesspool that they are.
That's not true. Federal funding for harvesting embryonic stem cells was cut off. Huge difference.
Yes. Thank you Hemos for making that distinction. I for one am extremely tired of the idiots running around claiming the US has 'banned' all stem cell research.
What's so bad about partial birth abortion? It's primarily used for severe hydrocephalics. The fetus has a head the size of a basketball and is in no way viable.
Hydrocephaly in no way makes a child non-viable.
I was born with a large head. In fact, my head was so large that the doctors thought that I was hydrocephalic. They wanted to put a shunt into my brain to drain the excess fluid. My mother refused to allow it. It turns out that I wasn't hydrocephalic, I just had a really big head. For the first few months of my life the head circumference measurements put me in the 100th percentile. To this day, I still have a larger than usual head. Unless I shave my head bald, I can't wear baseball caps.
Your statement is a lie. There is never a medical necessity for the partial birth abortion. No doctor was willing to risk his or her professional reputation by saying that there was when the debate was before congress.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Umm... that's his whole fucking point. The extra IVF embryos are ALREADY being destroyed, usually by being thrown in a medical-grade incinerator. But for some reason the R2L folks don't protest that even a tenth as much as stem cell research.
At that point in time the research did not require cells that would be suitable for use in humans. The cell lines were NOT useless for the research that was being done at the time and there was every expectation that new uncontaminated cell lines could be created and used in the future. Only at this point now several years later have they gotten to doing useful human trials and research where uncontaminated cell lines would be required.
My theory is that Bush or those advising him knew about this very problem and passed the executive order anyway knowing that these cell lines would become near useless in the future. By doing so, he was able to simultaneously satisfy those who wanted all the research banned for whatever reason and not look like a complete luddite to others.
It will be just deserts if Bush comes down with a disease that could have been treated with the research he has essentially forbidden. Some other recent presidents come to mind as having been in this situation.
I call you on this too. There are no embryos in fertility clinics. Blastocysts can only develop into embryos after implantation at around day 6; using the word "embryo" in this context is also political propaganda rather than medical fact. (The "embryonic stage" covers zygotes, blastocysts, gastrula and the other pre-fetus stages of development. See this? That stage comes two and a half weeks AFTER implantation.) If you said "blastocyst death" I would agree that the definition is correct.
I just called it what it is. Why weren't you honest enough to do it first? Do you place propaganda effectiveness ahead of truth? People who do, deserve no respect. That's nice for them. Why can't they mind their own business, like people who keep kashrut or the Jains? That same definition of "life" applies equally to sperm and ova. Biologically, there is no "beginning of life" in the last few billion years; there are only stages in the lives of organisms. Roughly two thirds of all human zygotes ever formed fail to make it to live birth, with about half lost before becoming embryos. Nobody, not even (especially!) the pro-lifers, takes their demise as any sort of tragedy. The blastocysts used for research are in the same stages of development as those which are lost to natural causes. From both the lesson of biology and the universal practice of our society it follows that they are of little value, and perhaps the application of the term "living humans" to them is inappropriate.Sustainability and energy independence essay
They can win elections for now, but it is only a matter of time before people realize that these bastards are lying through their teeth and the backlash removes them from power. Unfortunately, it will remove lots of the good things they've done in the process; their cynical posturing now will result in true damage later. I cannot take seriously anything they say because of the layers upon layers of deception they've had to build to insulate their rhetoric from the facts.
The difference between "spontaneous" and "induced" is a political distinction in your mind? If that kind of thing comes out of it, you shouldn't trust anything else that does. Do you need introductory logic or therapy? Heck, try both. My "political" end is to expose, debunk and repudiate the lies and the liars behind them. My purpose is to discredit the liars so that reasoned and dispassionate discussion can have a chance of achieving a settlement that will hold. The most and biggest lies about abortion come from the right, so that's where my attention is focused in that debate. I call bullshit. If the "necessity of the views" of someone says that teaching non-geocentric cosmology leads to immorality and defines "relativity" as "moral relativism", that person is a kook; they are just plain wrong, and maybe we ought to have them medicated. People who demand that well-established biological terms be re-defined to suit their political agenda are just as wrong, and perhaps just as sick.But company B cannot sell their invention without company A's approval. Company A can continue to sell their original invention, but they can't use the improvement creatd by company B without licensing it.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
That wasn't really the point I was making. There is no fundamental belief in Christianity that promotes warfarw, crass capitalism, or other injustices. Just because many people who call themselves Christians may believe in these things, they are not integral to the belief system, which is what I was attempting to point out. If anything, Christianity is against these things, if one goes by the teachings of Christ. On the same note, I don't believe that we should generalize Muslims just because some of them engage in terrorist activities. Admittedly, I do not know whether or not these actions are integral to Islam, but I would assume not.
Does the ban on funding block funding studies on the stem cells extracted from umbilical cord blood? I was pretty sure you could get clean stem cells from that.
"You can now flame me, I am full of love,"
There is no fundamental belief in Christianity that promotes warfarw, crass capitalism, or other injustices. Just because many people who call themselves Christians may believe in these things, they are not integral to the belief system, which is what I was attempting to point out.
My point is that most Christians do support these things, as evidenced by their actions. Not just some small minority of Christians, but most; we learned that in the recent election.
Maybe you don't think they're "true" Christians, or that they're not acting according to Christ's teachings, but none of that matters. Christians, as a group, are not defined by what their religion was supposedly founded on. They're defined by their actions in the present.
As for Muslims, you're right that most of them don't engage in terrorist activities, which makes that a bad comparison to Christians, who do mostly believe in war and aggression. However, Muslims as a whole do believe in many bad things, such as war and poor treatment of women. This is evidenced by their behaviors in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. There was an incident not too long ago about a woman sentenced to be stoned to death in an Islamic African country because she got pregnant out of wedlock. Is this in line with Mohammed's teachings? I really don't care. Mohammed is long since dead, as is Jesus, but "Islam" is defined today by the actions of its followers, which includes such atrocities as this.
You can't survive without external sustenance. Why should I consider you alive? A newborn baby has to be warmed, fed, its wastes removed, etc. Basically, a similar job to that of the proposed artificial womb, at some level.
In your mind, what is the difference? And why does such a difference form the basis of the definition of "life"?
Embryonic stem cells are easier to work with but they also have all sorts of problems when it comes to developing therapies - for example, causing tumors.
Placental and adult stem cells are more limited but are also being used in a number therapies today; they shouldn't be conflated with the more problematic fetal tissue.
Clear, Dark Skies
You failed to mention that they are the same people who like capital punishment. (Catholic's excluded)
And tax money goes towards a lot of controversial things, anyway. It goes towards animal testing, which is a hell of a lot more controversial than taking eight cells that happen to be human that were left over from IVF.
Animals can feel pain, while pulling a hair kills more than eight cells. (I'm not against animal research, I'm just pointing out idiotic this 'standard' is.)
I don't know where the boundary of 'human' is but it sure as hell isn't eight or sixteen or thirty-two cells sitting in a test tube.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
IVF isn't controversial at all.
I say, "What rock do you live under?"
And tax money goes towards a lot of controversial things, anyway. It goes towards animal testing, which is a hell of a lot more controversial than taking eight cells that happen to be human that were left over from IVF.
Animal testing is more controversial than stem cells? Have you been spending all of your time at PETA meetings?
If you can't make a distiction between human life and animals, then I feel for you. BTW, there's more than one source for stem cells, including abortions and fetuses created specifically for that purpose. But, I guess I'm the "idiot".
I don't know where the boundary of 'human' is but it sure as hell isn't eight or sixteen or thirty-two cells sitting in a test tube.
So where is it? Before implantation? After implantation? Birth? After the cord is cut? Once the kid stops breast feeding?
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
You know you are correct. I have never heard of anyone protesting IVF. Doesn't mean that it does not happen mind you but it must be pretty rare.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Where's the logic here ? If stem-cell research should be banned because allowing a Day-5 blast to arrest is killing a baby, why do they not have any issue with, or even debate over the effects of the IVF treatments where the stem-cells for this research are obtained ?
Actually, Catholics are indeed against IVF, as well as a number of other reproductive technologies that involve planned deaths. *shrug* Just figured it was worth mentioning that they are consistent, even if you don't agree with them.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
{nods} Which was an interesting bit of semantic wordplay when they put the change through to allow "contraceptive" to refer to items which didn't prevent conception at all. Then, there's that little factoid where a small percentage of them do implant, but are then essentially starved by the horomones cutting out their food supply. Makes you wonder how long it will be before methods of early-term abortion (other than RU486) are also labeled as "contraceptives." *wry grin* And again, at the least the Catholic position is consistent here.
Unfortunately, the media presents the issue as if little babies were being killed for their cells...infact, a cluster of 32 cells that have not differentiated into any of the embryonic germ layers hardly constitute an organism at all, let alone what we consider a "person".
Probably doesn't help the case when the media was talking all about harvesting stem cells from victims of partial-birth abortions. There, I'm guessing it was actually adult stem cells of some sort being used, but since the average viewer doesn't know the difference between embryonic and adult stem cells...
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
In the gentlest way possible, I'd like to point out a seeming discrepancy in your post. You argue that conservatives have a problem with using stem cells from viable embryos to save many yet condone the loss of human life in Iraq for the good of the country and world.
I think the key issue here is choice. From your post, I'd infer that you have no problem with a woman choosing to terminate a normal pregnancy (and, in my personal world-view, a life). Isn't it also a person's choice to embark on a path that's fraught with danger and possibly death? Every single serviceman and woman in Iraq is there because he or she made the choice to join an organization that is an agent of war.
As for the catastrophic civilian causualties: while terrible, these deaths were obviously not the intention of the Bush administration. While you could trace the blame back to their misguided and inept post-war planning, that kind of reasoning glosses over the malicious and willful acts of the jihadists that are committing mass murder. To view them as anything other than adults making conscious choices is in itself arrogant, imperialistic, and perhaps even a little bit racist (the view of "Look at what we've made these natives do to each other!") Sorry, *I'm* ranting now, and most of this post has little to do with what you've written. I'll stop before I do any more damage. -A Conservative Christian Liberal defying political categorization