Scientists Create New Human Embryonic Stem Cell

Homework Help writes "U.S. scientists were successful in creating a new human embryonic stem cell. From source, "U.S. researchers said on Monday they have created a new human embryonic stem cell by fusing an embryonic stem cell to an ordinary skin cell. They hope their method could someday provide a way to create tailor-made medical treatments without having to start from scratch using cloning technology. That would mean generating the valuable cells without using a human egg, and without creating a human embryo, which some people, including President George W. Bush, find objectionable. ""

Comments

s/creating/destroying

[daveschroeder]

That would mean generating the valuable cells without using a human egg, and without creating a human embryo, which some people, including President George W. Bush, find objectionable.

should read:

That would mean generating the valuable cells without using a human egg, and without destroying a human embryo, which some people, including President George W. Bush, find objectionable.

To echo something I said the other day: personally, speaking as someone whose training has been almost exclusively in medical science, I fully support embryonic stem cell research. We have embryos that are and will continue to be destroyed today, that could absolutely be harvested for research. However, to ignore any ethical debate on such issues is just as ignorant as some would paint the opposition. Scientifically, an embryo is, strictly speaking "human life"; so, when and why is it ok to end such life, regardless of the state it may be in? Why should we not examine the important ethical questions? There is absolutely no doubt that significant scientific benefit could come from cloning or farming of humans in more developed forms. So should we push forward with things such as that, full force? Or should we take pause ask important questions that define our very humanity?

Remember - and admittedly, this was due in part to the timing of discoveries, but is true nonetheless - President Bush is the first president to allow federal funding of any kind to human embryonic stem cell research. Further, there were no "bans" on embryonic stem cell research: there was a restriction on federal funding of research that didn't use approved, preexisting lines. Without regard to the purported scientific use{ful,less}ness of the existing lines, the fact remained that funding was indeed provided, human embryonic stem cell research (including the destruction of embryos) was not banned, and a conservative approach was taken. Further, large research entities - such as the state of California and the University of Wisconsin System - have had little difficulty in establishing research centers to skirt federal funding restrictions and still commit federal-scale research funds to embryonic stem cell research.

The ethical considerations are important: should we also clone humans? After all, aren't you "anti-science" if you oppose unrestricted human cloning?

Just because something is nothing more than an amalgam of cells - or a single cell - doesn't mean it doesn't represent, even if only philosophically, human life. Why is it valid in the macro scale, but not micro? Note I'm not saying that even embryonic stem cell research that involves the destruction of embryos - indeed, embryos that would have been discarded anyway - shouldn't be done; I am saying that there should be ethical debate and discussion: as I'm sure many would agree, just because you can do something doesn't necessarily mean you should.

In any event, I applaud researchers for finding a potential method that may allow embryonic stem cells to be used without the associated destruction of human embryos, thereby removing a significant and valid ethical consideration as a barrier to the further exploration and use of these cells as potentially valuable tools.

Note: I didn't vote for Bush, and don't personally support Bush's current human embryonic stem cell policy.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[slavemowgli]

A restriction on federal funding *is* a restriction of research, though. It's like trying to travel without having a valid driver's license or some other form of photo ID - you can do it, but there's gonna be a lot of hassles (try flying or booking a hotel room without photo ID!).

That's not to say that every possible study under the sun should be funded, no matter what it's about. But the discrimination between what is and what isn't funded should be based on objective criteria, not on one man's personal religious beliefs.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Itchy Rich]

Scientifically, an embryo is, strictly speaking "human life"...

For that to be correct you first have to define "human life" in terms that science can measure.

If you mean capable of human emotion then I would say you were wrong (others may disagree based on their beliefs) since at early stages the embryo has no complex nervous system.

If you mean "genetically human" then you're right, but so is some of the gunk under my toenails.

If you mean "has the potential to become human" then you're right, but the tense is important, i.e. it's not human yet, and we still haven't defined what being human means so can't measure the point at which it becomes "human".

Re:s/creating/destroying

[dr_dank]

However, to ignore any ethical debate on such issues is just as ignorant as some would paint the opposition.

I understand that most of the embryo's are leftover from fertility treatments and would otherwise be discarded. What moral qualms could be had for experimenting on something that would otherwise go in the trash?

Why aren't the religious zealots freaking out about the "unborn" being unceremoniously dumped into a biohazard waste bin at the fertility clinic the same way they freak out if they experiment on it, possibly saving lives in the process?

Re:s/creating/destroying

[daveschroeder]

I didn't directly acknowledge in this particular post that the restriction on federal funding does indeed effectively restrict research, but yes, I'd agree with that.

But the discrimination between what is and what isn't funded should be based on objective criteria, not on one man's personal religious beliefs.

Every ethical debate will be colored with the body of our experience. Some will be religious, some will be considered by yourself to be "objective", others will come from different philosophies. That's why it's called debate.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[b17bmbr]

you're absolutely right. we need only think "ahead" a few years and imagine what might be possible. if embryonic stem cells, than what about more mature embryoes? how about fetus farming? the potential is enormous. it's a thought i don't like.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[erlenic]

If embryonic stem cell research is the panecea everyone claims it to be, why aren't more companies coming out of the woodwork to fund it. The patent rights to a cure for all the deceases this can supposedly cure would be a license to print money.
Also, it's not just one man's religious beliefs, it's the moral and ethical beliefs of millions of Americans. For some of us, religion has nothing to do with it.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[wambaugh]

I believe both the original poster and the would-be corrector are incorrect. The correct wording would be to substitute "creating" with "using". The embryos used to create stem cell lines are "extras" from fertility treatments. They will be created and destroyed independent of stem cell research.

Targeting stem cell research is merely a way of winning over voters who dislike what they perceive as the demystifying of "humanity" by science without alienating people who are in favor of fertility treatments.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[daveschroeder]

It's not that simple.

The moral qualms come from the fact that today, they're discarded as a side effect of trying to help couples start a family; to bring a life into the world that will be cared for and nurtured, and to propagate our species.

Once there is a need for a supply of such embryos, the creation and subsequent destruction of said embryos might be encouraged, and may outstrip today's supply. As I said, we could certainly also farm humans for immense scientific benefit and usefulness. But does that mean we should? Should we potentially start a factory for human embryos that will then be destroyed for research? If it's ok to destroy ones that will already be destroyed, why not make more?

See, those are the kind of questions we need to answer and talk about. Not ignore.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[TheRealMindChild]

At what point do you decern the difference between cells we can destroy and ones we can't? I mean, you wouldn't have any objection to me eating an apple. It is, by your, and many others definition, alive. What is I chopped off my own arm? Am I not allowed to destroy it? It certainly is "alive". More so than the embryos that people are "destroying".
 
Would it be murder if I drown a kid that was born with no brain?
 
Personally, I think the whole idea of "life" isn't what we should or DO care about. It should be conciousness. We should not destroy a concious being. It should be illegal to destroy conciousness... not the ambiguous "life" you speak of.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Eslyjah]

Get real. I object to ALL government funding of research for philosophical reasons. I do not, however, object to scientific research generally, provided it is privately funded and within reasonable ethical boundaries. By your logic, however, my position is somehow inconsistent. Care to enlighten me?

Re:s/creating/destroying

[JamesKyleWilson]

It seems to me that the ethical issues are just going to get messier as our technology gets more sophisticated. What do we do if it turns out that one of these 'tweaked' stem cells can be turned into an embryo by some relatively simple technical process? It looks to me as if we're going to eventually have to make some relatively arbitrary decisions about where the line between potential life and just a blob of cells is drawn. If we ultimately can take any human cell and turn it into a nascent embryo (and I would suspect that a blob of stem cells isn't that far off) then any chunk of human flesh is a potential child and any stem cell is a potential embryo. Personally, it seems to me that you've got a similar issue with a human egg and a sperm sample...if you just let them combine (and how much simpler a process can you get) then you've got a potential human being. Is the process of refusing to allow the sperm to fertilize the egg different in kind from failing to implant a fertilized egg in a woman? If so, how so? We choose an arbitrary point in the process (and one that in nature still has a prettyt good chance of naturally failing to produce a child...may eggs fail to implant in the natural conception process) and draw the line there. I find it hard to see this as anything more than an arbitrary decision...

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Chanc_Gorkon]

You know, I, personally would never go through what some would go through to have a child. My wife and I were trying to have a second child and we got to the point where insurance would not cover it. I said we can't go any further. While it saddens me a little, I stil have my son. I do not want her to risk her life trying fertility drugs and possibly have 3 or more kids to take care of. Don't get me wrong, I love kids and God gave me a wonderful child to love everyday, but I personally feel if God wants us to have another child it will happen.....the normal, old fashioned way. There are too many risks in the fertility drugs and in-vitro fertilization, while it works, does carry with it the moral problem of what do you do with the other 20 embryos? I don't feel it's morally right to distroy the embryo's and I don't really want them to go to anyone else. I also do not want them to be used for stem cell research either. So, I won't participate in this kind of way to have a child. I will just love the child I have EVEN more then I already do (without spoiling him of course).

It fascinates me that so long as people are trying to have a child, everything including THROWING AWAY embryos it's ok, but it's not ok if they are doing stem cell research. I personaly believe it's not ok in BOTH counts.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[SlayerofGods]

I'd figure on there being 2 main reasons.
1)There's no proof it will work yet. Many great things didn't getting the funding they deserved because there was no guarantee it would work.
2)And what exactly would they patent? You'd have a hard time patenting stem cells since nature invented them long before the Pharm companies did.
I suppose they could patent the method of using them, but a rival company could easily take what they came up with, modify it enough so they can get their own patent and save a lot of money.

Just my thoughts.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Prospero's Grue]

If embryonic stem cell research is the panecea everyone claims it to be, why aren't more companies coming out of the woodwork to fund it. The patent rights to a cure for all the deceases this can supposedly cure would be a license to print money.

No form of R&D is a licence to print money - especially at such an early stage. There is much work to do, many lines of investigation to be explored, and a lot of paths will lead to dead-ends.

The return, if it comes at all, will be long in wait - and a lot of commercial enterprises would simply not survive long enough to reap their dividends.

The potential in this, and many new scientific fields is enormous; but to try and fit that into some economic model is the kind of thing that the "square peg in a round hole" simile was invented for.

Also, it's not just one man's religious beliefs, it's the moral and ethical beliefs of millions of Americans. For some of us, religion has nothing to do with it.

Very true, and while I am a supporter of stem cell research, believe an embryo is a life, and would prefer that embryos destined to be discarded be used rather than wasted; I understand the other side.

This research is controversial, and runs counter to the core beliefs of more people than just religious zealots. The government has elected not to fund it with public money, but has allowed the research to continue on its own merits. I think that's the most balanced approach one could hope to take.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[brunson]

If you find it morally or ethically objectionable to destroy human embryos then you'd better get down to your local fertility clinic and start protesting. They routinely fertilize 50-70 eggs for implantation and when one (or four or eight) finally takes, the remaining dozens are destined either for stem cell research or the incinerator.

At least in research they're giving their 'lives' to the possible benefit of may sick individuals. Otherwise, in the vocabulary of the Anti-Choicers, they're just abortions by the crate load.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[MightyMartian]

It fascinates me that so long as people are trying to have a child, everything including THROWING AWAY embryos it's ok, but it's not ok if they are doing stem cell research. I personaly believe it's not ok in BOTH counts.

Well I don't agree with you, but at least you are consistent. The debate over stem cell research is a sham. The debate should be over the use of reproductive technologies that produce extra embryos.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Note: I didn't vote for Bush- but I thought his embryonic stem cell policy didn't go far enough.

Given that- I fully support adult stem cell research, and this is an exciting step merging the two branches. Next step- creating an adult stem cell from a non-stem cell, and researching the difference between the embryonic and the adult stem cells. Either that or figuring out how to remove the 2nd set of DNA from the lab-created embryonic stem cells. Note that embryos aren't the only potential source- cord blood, if it can be kept and donated, is full of embryonic stem cells, and the embryo, now a post-birth baby, survives. This method of giving an embryonic stem cell whatever DNA we want to feed it is potentially a way to make cord blood stem cells usefull- and encourages the continuation of human life by encouraging the rich, powerfull, and impotent to support poor families that have more children than they can financially take care of.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[wealthychef]

A few points:
1) Nobody claims it is a panacea. Settle down. But nobody can credibly deny it is a promising avenue of research that gives hope to millions of sick people for a cure to their disease.
2) Do you think that the government should not fund any research, only corporations? Do you think the government should not fund research for a cure for cancer? Or any other disease? Or are you trying to say embryonic research is not promising? If the latter, then do you know how much private funding is being done on this subject? (I don't) 3) I agree and you are right that many people have ethical, moral and philosophical objections to embryonic stem-cell research that have absolutely nothing to do with religion.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[daemonenwind]

People in concentration camps were most certainly going to die. Does that make it alright for Mengle to perform his medical testing on them? Some of his research on the effects of extreme environments is genuinely scientifically useful, but just because the subjects were "on their way out", does that make the experiements alright?

Re:s/creating/destroying

[brunson]

I'm not sure I can figure out what side of the fence you're on.

So, it's okay to create a factory for fertilized eggs and destroy the leftovers if it means someone who couldn't have a child naturally can grow one rather than adopt, but it's not okay to create them for the potential benefit of millions of people that are already on earth and suffering from debilitating diseases?

Re:s/creating/destroying

[learn fast]

Regarding the debate, Bush is losing.

Most Americans now think the ban should be dropped and the government should "fund research that would use newly created stem cells obtained from human embryos".

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Alex P Keaton in da]

So it is somewhat analagous to eating chicken eggs? I never understood why vegetarians won't eat eggs. (I understand why Vegans don't) Eggs we eat are the unfertalized ones, so they won't ever become chicks. Even if we don't eat them. (Not to be totally vile, but the same way that the egg that ebds up on a maxi pad each month will never become a human)
They actually check the chicken eggs before shipping them off to be eaten....
On the converse- get caught destroying a bald eagle or a piping plover egg, and see how the government feels about the "not yet born."
I am going to be honest- I have trouble formenting an opinion on stem cells, because each time I lean one way, something pulls me back in the other direction. My question, if stem cells lead to a cure for cancer, will those who opposed the stem cell research boycott the treatment, and die?

Re:s/creating/destroying

[daveschroeder]

No, it's not correct; up until this new possible method, the only way to obtain human embryonic stem cells was to destroy the embryo.

You can indeed get many kinds of stem cells (not embryonic stem cells) from various sources, including cord blood, without destroying the embryo.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[kermyt]

I can't believe I'm actually replying to an AC, but here goes.

I can only speak for the US, and this only applies to research that is not Black or Grey (secret or top secret status). But any publicly funded research requires the results to be public. If the research is privately funded then the results of the research is property of the private company that funded it. Private companies do not make it policy to share research. This means that _only_ publicly funded research is available for others to follow without having to pay for a patent or trademark.

I guess my point here is that Human intellectual advancement is hampered by private research. only because the results of that research are not always made public unless the private entity sees a way of turning a buck off of it.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[dgatwood]

The moral and ethical beliefs of millions of Americans include the mistaken belief that all Catholics keep guns in their basements and that everyone else but their chosen protestant denomination is going to Hell, too.

IMHO, embryonic stem cell research is even less ethically sticky than organ transplant. If your infant is on life supoport with no hope of surviving, at what point do you pull the plug? Do you agree to give those organs so that some other infant might live?

With stem cell research, you're talking about taking cells from something that hasn't even evolved beyond a tiny ball of cells---far less alive than that infant---and yet most parents would gladly give up that infant's organs so that someone else's child might live, but a surprisingly high number of those same people would not be willing to give up a handful of cells from a frozen embryo so that adults can live.. It's an appalling ethical contradiction.

The ethical arguments against stem cell research are grounded in the abortion debate. Unfortunately, the [expletive deleted] Republicans have created this politically charged anger over the abortion issue. The dyed-in-the-wool religious right folks don't want to feel like they are changing their stand on destroying a fetus. Unfortunately, they can't see past the rhetoric to realize that this is a completely different fundamental issue.

The result is a group of people who have become so dogmatically indoctrinated in their position that it would take a miracle to change their minds. Because of them, legitimate medical research that could save lives is being stifled in the name of God. That's just wrong, by any definition, in much the same way that the Church stifling Gallileo was wrong....

I'm not saying there are no ethical issues. If we see people creating fetuses for the purpose of extracting stem cells, many could legitimately consider that morally and ethically reprehensible---myself included. However, as long as you are extracting tissue from a fetus that is going to die anyway, not taking advantage of those cells would be equally morally and ethically indefensible.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Retric]

The federal government is not allowed to fund any organization which does embryonic stem cell research. So if an organization is doing 200 studies using 1000 researchers and 1/2 of them are federally funded then you would think they could use private money to do an embryonic stem cell study. But, if they did that they would lose ALL gov funding to ALL of their projects.

Now can you see why people might object to this? It's not that it bans federal funding for research but it ALSO limits the research these organizations can do with private funding.

PS: When you look at the history of scientific research over the last 100 years most ground breaking research has been paid for by government organizations. Now if you want to give up satellite TV, the internet, computers, and most of the other advances over the last hundred years then your viewpoint might have market but that's hey you don't know what you would be giving up so it must not be that important.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Vitriol Angst]

This is good. But I'm not clear on what is the benefit when you are starting with a stem cell and ending with a stem cell. How is the new cell different.

Also, I think the fundamental issue about stem cells and anti-abortion in general is that both sides are not talking about the same thing.

Pro-Life looks at human life as precious. Without looking at what life is being lived.

Pro-Choice is looking at when human consciousness and a valuable like begin AND end. Often, they are proponents of the "Right to Die". Brain dead is looked at as not a useful life, nor is extreme pain looked at as something people should endure.

The difference between a human cluster of embryonic cells and those of a monkey or a rat are only in the genes that eventually will be expressed. Personally, I don't see the difference morally between Embryonic stem cells and somebody taking a bath. Both entail killing human cells that carry a human genetic code. The idea that we are killing human life by using the Embryonic Stem Cells will be stood on its ear as soon as we can make a human from a skin cell, or any number of cells not currently involved in reproduction. So is it that the gene is sacred? Or the fact that a cell is involved in reproduction? Is a person created from a skin cell going to be just as valid/human as a "natural born" person.

I think, when you look at life and humanity from a consciousness/value perspective --then it is a lot easier to deal with new advances in science and leads to rights and ethical treatment for new type of life we have not yet considered.

The ethics of "Right to Life" don't seem to be based on value of life at all, but in preserving either a sacred DNA or a sacred reproductive cell. Note, that there is no issue with non-reproductive cells, nor is their any issue with DNA. It seems, that because it is human DNA involved in reproduction it automatically becomes sacred. The ethical quagmire this will put us in will only get worse as science continues. There hasn't been enough discussion of what we actually value when we say the word "life".

I think the bigger issue comes when we can tinker with genes to "improve people". Many would say that increasing intelligence, or reducing disease would be OK. But it is much harder to really define what makes people smarter or more useful. And any improvement ends up becoming mixed with Social Engineering. But we cannot ignore that. We are going to Engineer Society just as much by ignoring differences as we are by creating them. If the wealthy can enhance (and they will--maybe overseas) then aren't you going to end up with a lower tier of humanity by NOT making it affordable/acceptable for the lower classes to enhance?

But then, what do we want to improve--and what are the results? Some may want to tweak people to become "more religious" or "less likely to prefer same sex" -- these are probably going to actually end up being the "easier" of things to change. This will probably be the hardest and most difficult ethical debate humanity has ever faced (until robots think, that is). I don't think present society is up to the debate, because we still don't seem to have caught on to really understanding WHY we hold certain beliefs. We also seem to have become addicted to self-righteousness on both sides that will hamper our ability to find common ground.

I personally think, a lot of this issue is clouded by positions people have taken and personal identity and positions are more polarized by political opportunism. Until that changes, I don't feel very hopeful.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[CosmeticLobotamy]

Once there is a need for a supply of such embryos, the creation and subsequent destruction of said embryos might be encouraged, and may outstrip today's supply.

And one day water might turn purple, but until then, how about we just make decisions based on the fact that it's blue-ish right now?

We've got several hundred guys whose job it is to make up new laws. If people start farming abortion clinics, I bet one of them will get on top of it pretty quick. And we'll all support them, because your opposition isn't a bunch of jerks. None of us want to see humans being bred just to be killed.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[daveschroeder]

I'm not on any side of the fence. I'm simply laying out the arguments.

We already had a societal debate on whether it was worthwhile for the purposes of fertility. The answer is apparently, "yes, it is."

We must also have the debate on whether it's okay, on a potentially much larger scale, for medical research. It's not a foregone conclusion, by the way, that embryonic stem cells are necessarily a magical panacea for all disease. The may in fact be very useful. But to paint them as the end-all be-all (not saying you, personally, are doing that) is just as disingenuous as the opposition.

I already said I, personally, support unrestricted human embryonic stem cell research.

I also support fertility clinics.

My positions are perfectly consistent, so don't try to paint me as some kind of fence sitter. What I'm trying to say is that ethical debate is warranted for new uses of human embryos that require their destruction. The fact they're already discarded (i.e., destroyed) for fertility purposes doesn't negate the need for any debate for new uses. Further, as I said, such use may at some point outstrip supply for fertility clinics. Then what do we do?

I'm not saying I have the universal answers to these questions, just that they're there, and shouldn't be ignored. I know what my own personal opinions are, but that's irrelevant to the topic at hand, which is my assertion that debate on this topic is very valid and warranted.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[saskboy]

One thing the media should have asked Bush about his contention that hurting an embryo is like taking a human life, is when the trafficing of human life isn't a crime in the USA. Why are sperm banks and invitro fertilization legal if doctors are accepting money to enslave an embryo to a human female?

And why aren't embryos issued Social Security numbers, and how come they don't have legal names? Obviously women should be required to name their fetus as soon as they are aware they are pregnant, and begin the process of documenting the new life so that the government can begin taxation and prepare for the new arrival.

Of course this whole post is just a touch sarcastic.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[sycodon]

There is a problem with the whole embryonic stem cell debate that is like the proverbial elephant in the room. It appears at this point, to have a viable research program and therapeutic program you would need a steady supply of women willing to donate human eggs.

I have it on good authority that this process is somewhat less pleasant and far more complicated than donating sperm.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[TheRaven64]

You'd have a hard time patenting stem cells since nature invented them long before the Pharm companies did.

Don't be so sure. The patent rights for a gene sequence go to whoever first discovers it. You can have a plant growing in your garden for years and then be sued because it contains a patented gene sequence. Ludicrous? Yes.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[daveschroeder]

None of us want to see humans being bred just to be killed.

Indeed.

To some, destroying a human embryo is the logical equivalent.

(Further notes: yes, "they" have accepted that the destruction of embryos is acceptable for purposes of fertility clinics. Possibly they have internally reconciled that it is ok for the goal of allowing a couple to start a family - their own family, biologically - that they wouldn't have been able to start otherwise. Perhaps they would also make the same determination - that is, that the destruction is worthwhile, on balance - if it can be proven with our currently limited lines that embryonic stem cell research is the end-all be-all panacea that its supporters make it out to be.)

Re:s/creating/destroying

[DoofusOfDeath]

Scientifically, an embryo is, strictly speaking "human life"

I think this is actually a question that touches on both science and metaphysics / ontology. I.e., there's the question of "What do we mean by a 'human life'" (ontologic) and then, "Does an embryo seem to meet that definition?" (science).

I think this is an important distinction, because there's the question of which definition of 'human life' is relevant for the discussion. I listen to a lot of Christian talk radio, and I've never heard this discussed:

It seems to me that the real question is, if God said "Don't murder", then the real question for Christians regarding killing an embryo is, "When God gave that commandment, did He intend embryos to be covered by that command?" From that perspective, it's kind of irrelevant what scientists (no offence intended), or dead Greek philosophers, or George Bush, mean when they say 'human life'. If the question is whether or not killing embryos is going against what God wants, then one should use the categories He used in His commandments.

I realize that the follow on question might be, "We're talking about what's ethical, not about what God wants." That's too huge to deal with in this post, but I think most Christians believe that what God wants == what's moral.

so, when and why is it ok to end such life, regardless of the state it may be in? Why should we not examine the important ethical questions?

This goes to the question of "Why does it matter to do good vs. wrong?" I know that Christians tend to have their own answer to this (which includes its own philosophical difficulties). I've never heard a good answer for this though, beyond (ultimately) the Hedonistic one: "Doing good feels good, and you want to feel good, don't you?" Does anyone know a secular answer that's more satisfyingly grounded?

Re:s/creating/destroying

[dachshund]

I fully support embryonic stem cell research. We have embryos that are and will continue to be destroyed today, that could absolutely be harvested for research. However, to ignore any ethical debate on such issues is just as ignorant as some would paint the opposition.

This is a line I see frequently from people who really should know better. As if nobody was having this debate anyway, as if it wouldn't happened without the President f*ing up research for years.

What's particularly aggravating about it is that iit basically means "sure maybe it was a bad call, but it's all good because we had this good debate". Or in other words: "yes, the position is probably wrong", but at least I made us kill a few years talking about it. I would almost rather people be firmly on the other side than to offer such a lame justification for bad decisionmaking.

Worse, instead of giving us something to debate, the President tried to have it both ways with a poorly thought-out "compromise" that looked good, but really wasn't-- and he then ignored the issue for years. So while most people were figuring out that the President had not actually offered a reasonable compromise at all, years of progress slid away. Meanwhile the public has discussed these issues ad nauseum (for years!) and come to a broad consensus in favor of research. Yet the President and many members of Congress have made it clear that there's still no room in their philosophy (or their constituents' checkbooks) for digression on this issue. So that's not much to smile about.

If any "side" of this argument has the right to be aggrieved, it's the pro-research folks, and the scientists who have had their work shut down for reasons inadequately explained, and inadequately justified. Not the people who can't even justify the decision on its merits, but hide behind the notion that scientists were just looking to chop up embryos without "debate".

Re:s/creating/destroying

[sammy baby]

Bravo for a well presented post.

Just by way of addendum, the "not this, or no nothing" approach has been used in a variety of related scenarios. For example, if you run an organization which conducts family planning or health counseling and receive federal funding, you may not even mention abortion to any of your advisees. If you do, you lose your federal funding. In pro-choice circles, this is known as the Global Gag Rule.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[|/|/|||]

I see some difficult debates in the near future.

Here's something to think about: would you be willing to grow a clone of yourself, for the purpose of organ/tissue harvesting, only without an entire brain? Basically a body in a coma - never conscious.

It sounds disgusting, but is there really anything wrong with it? These are the kinds of questions we're going to have to deal with in the near future - ethical dilemmas that will test our "common sense" and our ability to decide what is "right." Hell, they'll test our definition of what "right" is.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[twiddlingbits]

Most Americans are ignorant about Stem Cells and only hear the Marketing Hype that they promise "cures" for everything from A to Z. Who would NOT be for something that does that?

Re:s/creating/destroying

[CosmeticLobotamy]

To some, destroying a human embryo is the logical equivalent.

It's really not, unless you omit the "breeding" part.

Anyway, it's not killing an embryo, it's ensuring that it lives for a very, very long time, it just gets to do it as a chunk of another animal. And it's happy about that. God told me so.

(That last part wasn't really a reply to you, Dave, in case you're wondering what the hell I'm talking about.)

Re:s/creating/destroying

[RatBastard]

Even though I am staunchly pro-choice, I find the concept of harvesting embryos to be morally repugnant for the same reason I find the concept of forced harvesting of executed prisoners' organs (which we do not do, but has been suggested several times by many people) repugnant. It turns human bodies into a resource to be mined. A commodity of meat.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[lgw]

you find it morally or ethically objectionable to destroy human embryos then you'd better get down to your local fertility clinic and start protesting.

Don't say that too loudly, you'll start something. There are people who feel this way. You may try to dismiss them as religious nutjobs, but in a representative government, even the nutjobs' opinions count. You can't say "there's no debate on this issue, because those who disagree with me are idiots".

This is a very cool technology, because it *deos* let us ignore the debate on harvesting embryos and move on to doing useful research!

Re:s/creating/destroying

[berbo]

The fact they're already discarded (i.e., destroyed) for fertility purposes doesn't negate the need for any debate for new uses.

If destoying embryos is wrong,'murder' in the eyes of some, then its wrong. period. Why should the debate be any different?

Re:s/creating/destroying

[twiddlingbits]

However, as long as you are extracting tissue from a fetus that is going to die anyway, not taking advantage of those cells would be equally morally and ethically indefensible. That is about the best way I've seen of expressing the debate in way BOTH sides can claim victory. BTW, there are a LOT of anti-abortion Democrats and Greenies and Libertarians, it is just that thier party does not consider it a basic "plank" of the party platform. There are also a good many pro-choice Republicans but they are not heard as their views are not considered a basic "plank" of the party platform.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[rev_sanchez]

Some part of it might have to do with how treating a problem is more profitable than curing it. The big money makers these days are lifestyle drugs that you need to take regularly to treat the symptoms of a condition.

Fixing a problem gets you money once. Temporarily removing symptoms gets you money every month with that refill.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[lgw]

Now can you see why people might object to this? It's not that it bans federal funding for research but it ALSO limits the research these organizations can do with private funding.

Labs are actually quite good at working around this restriction. Yes it's a hassle, and there's some overhead you wouldn't have otherwise to keep up appearances, but it doesn't really limit privately funded research in the room next door to the federally funded research, once the appropriate shell organizations have been created. This is not the first time this song-and-dance has been needed!

It would still be better to have the federal funds, however, which makes the work in TFA very exciting.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Creedo]

The Catholic church certainly has a problem with it either way. In addition to my religious beliefs on it, I am also disturbed by the sheer waste of resources. With all the children waiting for adoption or at least a foster home, I can't fathom the desire to spend large sums of money on such a procedure.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[TomSawyer]

I'm not sure I can figure out what side of the fence you're on.

This is very telling of why there is such little progress on these issues. Instead of focusing on seeking truth too many people are seeking sides.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[garett_spencley]

If embryonic stem cell research is the panecea everyone claims it to be, why aren't more companies coming out of the woodwork to fund it. The patent rights to a cure for all the deceases this can supposedly cure would be a license to print money.

Probably because if the other side of the debate wins, and stem cell research is made illegal, billions upon billions of dollars will have been wasted.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[|/|/|||]

You're on the right track, but there are a lot of complications. If you extrapolate your argument, you could argue that it's OK to poison someone in their sleep, since they're not conscious and will never know that they've been killed.

If you cause an isolated individual that nobody knows to die instantly, then who is harmed? You could say that the "future self" of the person yas been harmed, by never being allowed to exist. This is the same "destruction of potential" argument that anti abortionists use. This is pretty weak, though, because you can't really "harm" someone who does not and will not exist. That person will feel no pain and will experience no emotional anguish at their loss.

I would argue, however, that the past self is also harmed - basically the collection of memories in the person's nervous system. They exist at the time of death, and are destroyed forever in the process. The person may not be consciously aware of their destruction, but that information is lost nonetheless. Note that this argument only applies to individuals that have been conscious at some point in the past - not to collections of cells that have not yet formed a brain.

It may sound like splitting hairs, but this is a pretty complex issue. Basically I'm narrowing it down by saying that we should prohibit the destruction of a being that has been conscious, rather than prohibiting the destruction of a being that is currently conscious. A being that has never been conscious does not have to be treated the same way, as I see it - regardless of the potential to be conscious in the future.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[pant]

So it is for propogation of the species. How is that different from saving a member of our species?

And not only are you helping propogate the species, but,(sometimes, but not all), you are propogating their relative infertility. And if the second generation go to fertility doctors we are destroying more lives.

If it's ok to destroy ones that will be destroyed, why not make more?

Or will you ignore those questions and not talk about them?

By the very nature of the discussion, there are so-called stem cell lines, and it would be beneficial if those lines could be augmented and kept current. Organlegging is not much of a problem in the world,(yes it does happen, but rarely), even in spite of huge demand.

Organ donation lists routinely(Always?) outstrip availability. Where is the mass harvesting? If stem cell research takes off, will we be rounding up our women for ova harvesting? No. And factories for human embryos that are to be destroyed for research are also sometimes called fertility clinics.

This seems a little backwards to me. Its ok to create new life, but not save the older life? Who is playing God now? As soon as a kid is delivered from a Petri dish, i'll agree with you.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Johnboi Waltune]

I never understood why vegetarians won't eat eggs.

It has something to do with the way the chickens are raised, locked in tiny cages for their whole lives, choking on their own filth, and forced to live as egg factories. They become physically and mentally ill in that environment, demonstrating self-mutilation behavior and a drastically reduced lifespan.

Many vegetarians will buy "free range" eggs, which cost much more, but are harvested from chickens that are not kept in cages.

Here is some good documentation of the ways hens are mistreated.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[stankulp]

But the discrimination between what is and what isn't funded should be based on objective criteria, not on one man's personal religious beliefs.

How about basing the discrimination upon the personal religious beliefs of a large portion, if not the majority, of taxpayers who provide those funds and object to creating and destroying human embryoes?

A lot of people voted for George W. Bush precisely because of his personal religious beliefs.

Or perhaps you believe that the mythical Constitutional "separation of Church and State" should preclude anyone who is not an atheist from voting?

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Clod9]

>Why aren't the religious zealots freaking out about the "unborn" being unceremoniously dumped into a biohazard waste bin

As a religious zealot, I'd say that most of us ARE very upset (not "freaking out", though) about this. But it is within the law for people to do so, so there's nothing we can currently do about it.

As for "freaking out" about experiments on embryonic stem cells, that activity in itself isn't one I see a moral barrier against; far from upsetting me, I could wholly support that research, even to the point of encouraging the use of my tax dollars for it. The problem is that if there is a demand for embryos, then more people will step in to supply them by getting abortions, and THAT'S what I have a problem with. It's like the organs-for-money debate, except the donor (the embryo, the one being sacrificed) doesn't get to have a say in the matter.

Should people be able to have abortions? Maybe--I've yet to see rational debate in America on this question.
Should people be able to have abortions purely because of their lack of planning? I'm against it.
Should people be paid big bucks by research clinics to have abortions? Definitely not.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Tikiman]

IMHO, embryonic stem cell research is even less ethically sticky than organ transplant. If your infant is on life supoport with no hope of surviving, at what point do you pull the plug? Do you agree to give those organs so that some other infant might live?

With stem cell research, you're talking about taking cells from something that hasn't even evolved beyond a tiny ball of cells---far less alive than that infant---and yet most parents would gladly give up that infant's organs so that someone else's child might live, but a surprisingly high number of those same people would not be willing to give up a handful of cells from a frozen embryo so that adults can live.. It's an appalling ethical contradiction.

Embryos are not morally equivalent to people on life support with no hope of recovering - this is why relatively few people of any political persuasion are unwilling to let their unborn embryos be destroyed in a reseach lab. This is the explanation of the "ethicial contradiction". Your view that an embryo is just a "tiny ball of cells" is obviously not shared by many.

Unfortunately, they can't see past the rhetoric to realize that this is a completely different fundamental issue.

No, it is the exact same issue - does an unborn child of any age have a right to life? If one thinks that the answer to this question is "yes", then one must oppose abortion, IVF, stem-cell research, and all activities that destory human life, regardless of whatever useful scientific data may be gathered. Is it ok for scientists to use data gathered by Nazis in human experiments? The question is morally ambiguous at best.

I'm not saying there are no ethical issues. If we see people creating fetuses for the purpose of extracting stem cells, many could legitimately consider that morally and ethically reprehensible---myself included. However, as long as you are extracting tissue from a fetus that is going to die anyway, not taking advantage of those cells would be equally morally and ethically indefensible.

Clearly then you agree that the embryo has some moral status, that creating and killing them is wrong - ok, I agree. But I think your view of the entire issue is a bit too shallow. The ends do not always justify the means, particularly when the "means" is experimentation on and destruction of human beings.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[pant]

You may be right. Let's close down all fertility clinics. How many lives,(read tiny groups of a few thousand cells) are destroyed every day? Does that make fertility treatments,(Experiments; Will it work? Don't know, but we have 23 embryos left), right?

Re:s/creating/destroying

[modecx]

Very insightful! If everyone were so consistent in their beliefs I feel the world would be a better place.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[someone1234]

Nice from Bush being the first, damn Lincoln did not allow anything!

Re:s/creating/destroying

[frgough]

*sigh*

Not all research funding is federal funding.

The reason there is so little private funding of embryonic stem cell research is because it's so unpromising.

Adult stem cell research is producing results NOW and so is what is being funded.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[hubs99]

I would argue that an embryo is precisely an equivalent to someone on life support. Left outside of an uterus there is absolutely no hope that this embryo will sprout into a full blown human.
What people fail to remember is that these embryos in most cases are not being created solely to be destroyed and used for research. These are embryos that have been created for other purposes (In vitro fertilization) and would otherwise be discarded.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[slughead]

A restriction on federal funding *is* a restriction of research

Sometimes private industry intentionally cancels projects and research due to competition from the US government (AKA the biggest and richest employer on the planet).

For all we know, twisting off the government spigot on these projects could be the best thing that happened to stem cell research. The private sector has been known to do a little research on occasion.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[skarth]

Exactly right.

(cut to Buchenwald, 1945)...

GI #1: Hey, what's this? A lampshade made of human skin? That would look good at home.

GI #2: What are you doing? You can't take that with you!

GI #1: Sure, why not? The person whose skin this was is already dead. It was going to be thrown out anyway. Might as well make use of it now. Besides, it's not like it's a whole person either. It's just their skin.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[CrazyTalk]

People in concentration camps were "most certainly" NOT going to die - they could have been released by the Germans and lived. It's not like they had a fatal disease. Different situation altogether, and circular logic.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[jedidiah]

You can't be so naive to believe that such people aren't also equally bombared by counter-propaganda from the likes of "Focus on the Family" and their own ministers.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[hubs99]

Why restrict if there is a loop hole that some but not all researchers can wiggle through. If you are ok with them wiggling through why not allow them to do so without the hassle and without screening smaller lab researchers who will not be able to find /use the loophole.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Skye16]

Most people who are against it are also for in vitro fertilization for couples who otherwise couldn't have children. nevermind that an excessive number of eggs are harvested and fertilized before one is selected and transfered back into the uterus (excessive is a strict definition in this case - I'm not talking hundreds of thousands or something, just more than will be necessary for the procedure). nevermind that these eggs are either kept frozen or destroyed after the woman becomes successfully impregnated.

really, pick one stance and stick with it. either embryos are alive and need to be protected, or they aren't and don't. I don't see how destroying embryos on the way to having a child is somehow more ethically acceptable than curing "everything from A to Z".

Personally, I have no problem harvesting embryos, even if a woman consents to being a "farm" for eggs. An embryo is no more a human than cake batter still in the mixing bowl is a cake. Obviously, this is where my opinion diverges from many of you. That's okay. All I ask is consistency in our respective positions.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Keebler71]

I know this is off topic but I thought that instead of using my mod points I was about to allocate, I'd respond to you instead. While I wish you and your wife the best of luck, I just wanted to throw out there another option. I personally never would have thought of it and I understand why it never crosses others' minds, but I happened to marry a woman who herself was adopted and I am very, very grateful that her biological mother had put her up for adoption a few days after she was born.

My wife had a wonderful childhood and has unquestionably been given a much better life than what she would have experienced had she not been adopted into a loving family. While we were fortunate and did not have any difficulty conceiving our first child, we are in the middle of an international adoption for our second and I am sure we will adopt more or become foster parents later in life. I've met many people that didn't think they could love an adopted child as much as their "natural" child - but they typically look like I just hit them with a sack of bricks when asked if they would still love their biological child if they suddenly discovered it wasn't theirs. I don't want this to be misconstrued as a guilt trip, but there are many many children throughout the US and the world that are in need of loving families. Good luck to you and your family.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[GypC]

You know, viewed from orbit, you are just a tiny ball of cells, too.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[argStyopa]

Why aren't the religious zealots freaking out about the "unborn" being unceremoniously dumped into a biohazard waste bin at the fertility clinic the same way they freak out if they experiment on it, possibly saving lives in the process?

Hm, you do understand that this (peripherally) IS why the "religious zealots" (plus quite a few reasonable people besides) ARE freaking out about abortion, right?

I mean, to quibble about the method of destruction is a little meaningless, like suggesting it's ok to shoot someone in the head, as long as you don't throw the body in the garbage afterward.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[twiddlingbits]

I'm not against the Research using embryo's that would be discarded from IVF methods, but I don't think we should go down the slippery slope of "egg farms". IIRC, we need embryos which are fertilized eggs so an egg farm would have to be dosed up with IVF drugs (expensive) and harvested. And she would have to be very careful about sexual health and such to be able to keep her "job".

Re:s/creating/destroying

[jedidiah]

No they won't.

Human embryos fail to make it on a regular basis. Much of this even occurs without any notice taken by the potential mother.

This precarious potential of embryos is why there are currently so many available to be used in stem cell research.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[neoform]

since when is a living human the same as a few cells?

I shed "human cells" every day in the form of hair and skin.. would you call those cells "human" ?

having a brick doesn't mean you have a house.

cells are cells, they are not humans.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[jedidiah]

No, they just aren't particularly good at thinking things through. It's horribly ironic actually.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[imstanny]

I guess my point here is that Human intellectual advancement is hampered by private research. only because the results of that research are not always made public unless the private entity sees a way of turning a buck off of it.

I think you got your cause&effect confused. It is because a private entity wants to make a profit that they do any research in the first place. Take away the incentive of a profit and you don't get any advancement at all. Or, at best, you get something along the lines of NASA.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Retric]

Most people in this country support abortion and embryonic stem cell research. Many of them voted for Bush because they feel other issues are more important.

PS: Most = More than 1/2

Re:s/creating/destroying

[paranode]

Remember - and admittedly, this was due in part to the timing of discoveries, but is true nonetheless - President Bush is the first president to allow federal funding of any kind to human embryonic stem cell research. Further, there were no "bans" on embryonic stem cell research: there was a restriction on federal funding of research that didn't use approved, preexisting lines.

This is true on its face, but there is some clarification needed. Clinton was the one who actually implemented all of the policy and prepared the government to fund stem cell research. Bush happened to be in office when it became a reality. If Bush had done absolutely nothing there would be unrestricted full federal funding of stem cell research under the Clinton administration policies. However, Bush issued an Executive Order and changed all of that. So, while Bush didn't 'ban' anything, he did take research a step backwards from where it would be now if he had left it alone.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[GypC]

Free range eggs taste a lot better and have more nutrients, too. They cost more, but I wouldn't say that they are expensive compared to other sources of high-quality protein.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Jason Ford]

Should people be paid big bucks by research clinics to have abortions? Definitely not.

This reminds me of a South Park episode I saw recently. Cartman was trying to get women to have abortions so that he could get stem cells to help save Kenny (well, that's what he said he was doing.) He was standing in front of the abortion clinic, asking pregnant women who were walking by if they might not abort their pregnancies to help save his friend. One couple says, "Sure, we'll just try to have another baby later on," and the woman goes off to have an abortion.

All joking aside, the fact is that nobody wants abortion. Can I get a show of hands from everybody who would like to see the number of abortions performed in the world increase? Nobody?

The stem cell research industry will not need to pay people to have abortions. 'Oh, look, honey. If you get me pregnant and I have an abortion, we'll get a nice fat check from the research company.'

Perhaps you would do very well as an abortion adviser. Any time a woman decides she might want an abortion, we could have her sit down with you and talk. You could determine if the abortion was medically necessary and/or morally acceptable. We could trust that you would make the right decision every time. But, if we were to entrust this power to someone we don't know, how would we know the person wasn't abusing this position of authority? If a group were to audit this person's judgments, how would we ensure that the group was acting appropriately?

Finally, seeing that such centralized decision-making would not work, why don't we leave the decision-making in the hands of the people who are examining abortion as an unfortunate and difficult choice? (That is why supporters are 'pro-choice' and not 'pro-abortion'.)

Re:s/creating/destroying

[borawjm]

Bush is losing.

Do not worry...We can rebuild him. We have the technology ... Better than he was before. . . stronger . . . faster

Re:s/creating/destroying

[GypC]

Oh yes, as I recall the German concentration camp guards would hold a BINGO tournament every Sunday. The lucky winners would be released from the camp that very night.

"Go Jews," they would say,"und be free. Ach! Vait! I vill give you ten Marks to bring back some bier und weinerschnitzel. Danke."

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Alex P Keaton in da]

Cool- That makes sense. I had a best friend who was a Vegan. We made an odd couple- I am big into hunting, and she didn't think that humans should even have domesticated animals. Yet we got along well.
One big sticking point for me: Women who are vegetarians and won't eat Jello, yet use lipstick! (Unless you get the animal free version, lipstick contains gelatin.)
And yes, I am all for vegetarianism. It isn't something that I have the discipline to do (It would have to be discipline for me, as I don't have an ethical problem eating animals)but I guess my veggie friends will have the last laugh when i die of heart disease....

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Eslyjah]

I completely understand why people might object to this. However, I can't seem to be able to muster any sympathy for them. I don't think government should subsidize anything; not research, not business, not the arts. I suppose it's human nature to think that whatever you're working on is so important that it demands the sacrifice of everyone else, but I just don't buy it. Government funding of research may or may not provide scientific advances, but there is one thing it will surely create: whiny researchers who want more funding.

Furthermore, the idea that the government gets a better return on investment in research than do private firms is not a serious one.

Finally, are you suggesting that it's a good use of our tax money to subsidize satellite TV? TV? Really? I would like it more if people watched less TV and spent more time doing something constructive.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Zak3056]

Thank you for your excellent summary of the issue--I wish more people on either side of this debate could look at it as objectively as you have.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Cossack58]

umm... Objective criteria: Doesn't involve the destruction of human life (that's pretty objective) There are a lot of Americans that feel that it's wrong to use federal tax dollars to destroy human life (in any form) so the restriction is NOT based on "one man's personal religious [or philosophical] beliefs." This debate is not that different from those related to the nazi experimentation on jews or their eugenics programs. All of these denigrate or ignore the dignity (or sanctity, if you're religious) of human life.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[CrazyTalk]

Obviously, the Germans weren't going to willingly let anyone go. But that was a human decision on their part, not a physical impossibility.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[blahplusplus]

"Why should we not examine the important ethical questions? There is absolutely no doubt that significant scientific benefit could come from cloning or farming of humans in more developed forms. So should we push forward with things such as that, full force? Or should we take pause ask important questions that define our very humanity?"

The thing most people miss is that nature naturally destroys unfertalized eggs every month, how many eggs inside a women's body that will never see the light of day and die with her body upon her death? You can't in one sentence say embryo's are objectionable while nature/the human natural body itself kills millions and billions of embryo's naturally by itself.

Embryonic stem cell research is no more objectionable then a woman having her period. End of story. People just refuse to think with a very wide scope, how many eggs are there within a woman's body or "potential people" right now dying every day with peoples entire bodies due to sickness, illness, accident, etc? We going to have a "save the sperm too" or do sperm not count somehow? Whenever I jack off am I killing hundreds of millions of potential people? It's ridiculous argument.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[smallpaul]

You know, I, personally would never go through what some would go through to have a child. My wife and I were trying to have a second child and we got to the point where insurance would not cover it. I said we can't go any further. While it saddens me a little, I stil have my son. I do not want her to risk her life trying fertility drugs and possibly have 3 or more kids to take care of. Don't get me wrong, I love kids and God gave me a wonderful child to love everyday, but I personally feel if God wants us to have another child it will happen.....the normal, old fashioned way.

Maybe God is trying to tell you to adopt.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[hqm]

If Mengle had experimented on embryonic clusters of cells, it wouldn't have been a serious ethical issue. Experimenting on sentient humans is different. If I have to point that out to you, it is hard to see what the point of pursuing this further is.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[|/|/|||]

Wow. You see the world from a perspective that I can't imagine. I hope we can discuss this issue and both gain a better idea of how others think.

First off, you say:

"We're talking about what's ethical, not about what God wants." That's too huge to deal with in this post, but I think most Christians believe that what God wants == what's moral.

This logically follows, but for the purpose of political debate it's a moot point. Christians may believe that what God wants == what's moral, but in this country we can't legislate based on that belief. In my view, it would be immoral to legislate based on that belief! Going back to the previous paragraph:

From that perspective, it's kind of irrelevant what scientists (no offence intended), or dead Greek philosophers, or George Bush, mean when they say 'human life'

you see that, legally, it does matter what these people mean when they say 'human life'. More specifically, what really matters is how we, as humans, define 'human life' and when (if ever) it is OK to destroy that life. Christians may be able to come to a conclusion easily, but how can they present their argument to a secular person? They can't subject others to laws based on a definition that's grounded in a belief in the supernatural.

So how do we come to a fair conclusion? I think a lot of people have a problem figuring out how to define what is right and what is wrong and why we should do one vs. the other. Traditionally we have fallen back on passing the buck to God - God says what's right and wrong and we merely have to follow those definitions. OK, that's nice and simple, but I think that a truly moral person should have better reasons for their behavior than "God said so." It's the difference between a kid that obeys the rules to avoid a spanking and a kid that obeys the rules when there is no threat of punishment. I'm not talking about the kid being well trained, I mean the kid is mature enough to understand why those rules exist and to obey them for the same reason that adults enforce them.

Does anyone know a secular answer that's more satisfyingly grounded?

Better than hedonism? I should think so! Here's my personal moral foundation: treat others as you would have them treat yourself. Yep, the standard golden rule. Why does this work, though? Why is the golden rule "right"? First off, I think that it works because it's physically ingrained in our behavior. Humans have lived in cooperative groups for millions of years, and groups that didn't follow this kind of rule probably didn't succeed. You can benefit yourself in the short term by lying, cheating, and stealing - but it does not benifit the group. In the long term, the destruction of the group means your destruction, also. I know by instinct that I should treat others fairly and with respect, and I can expect to demand the same fairness in return. I may not get it, but I will shun those who do not follow the rule, as will the group (human society) as a whole.

Now, why is the golden rule right? You probably realize by now what my answer is, but maybe you don't. We do have different perspectives, after all. I would say that it is "right" because it works. In fact, what benefits humans as a group is what defines "right" "good" or "moral"! Look at it from my perspective: I don't believe in God. I don't believe that the morals that we follow were given to us by God. I think that they were made up, over a very long period of time, by humans. I, personally, am almost entirely sure about this (if that sounds weak, I am equally confident about the existence of gravity). The morals that we live by today exist because they are the morals that allowed us to succeed. There is no ultimate good and evil, there are only the things that we label as good or evil for the benefit of us all.

This is the kind of groundwork that we're going to have to lay in order to finally c

Re:s/creating/destroying

[KaushalParekh]

Don't be so sure. The patent rights for a gene sequence go to whoever first discovers it. You can have a plant growing in your garden for years and then be sued because it contains a patented gene sequence. Ludicrous? Yes.

You can not patent the "sequence" of a gene. The whole genome sequence is freely available to the public.

In simple terms what you could patent is the discovery that "this piece of sequence does that" or how it functions in nature and how can it be utilized.

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome /elsi/patents.shtml

Re:s/creating/destroying

[edwdig]

I would argue that an embryo is precisely an equivalent to someone on life support. Left outside of an uterus there is absolutely no hope that this embryo will sprout into a full blown human.

The same argument can be made about an infant or a toddler. If you left an infant or toddler in the woods on their own, the odds of them surving to be an adult on their own are almost zero. Very young children are only slightly less dependant on others than they were when in the womb.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Arpie]

"(...) purported scientific use{ful,less}ness of the (...)"

Regular expression inside text. Love it. Spoke like a true geek, my applause to you.

Apart from that, nice post, BTW.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Irish_Samurai]

The interesting facet you bring up, that most Americans are ignorant about Stem Cells, is a real grey area - a grey area exploited by both sides of the coin.

Who gets to detirmine what the criteria for ignorant is? How is that criteria applied? To say that most Americans are ignorant on subject X is a completely elitist and useless statement. I know what the definition of ignorant is, but that information does nothing to map the threshhold of its applied definition.

The jury is still out on exactly what stem cell research can and cannot help. The only reason intelligent people agree that it can't cure EVERYTHING is because that is the only sane stance to take. An absolute cure all technology is just too good to believe, and most likely too good to be true. So, by default, you must assume it cannot cure everything. Come on, they are still doing research on how to GET the cells.

There are also people out there who understand the available research data, but prefer to lean their arguments towards the ethical implications. In the perspective of their opposition, they are often deemed ignorant. I think the biggest contributing factor is a widespread belief in situational ethics and moral relevatism. Their application creates paradoxes such as the acceptance of embryos being destroyed during fertilization procedures while their destruction for research purposes is not accepted. If you are unable to resolve that conflict internally, and thereby take an opposing view, you are ignorant.

It's statements like that that create the real hurdles in an open and honest debate on the subject. The only purpose they serve is to shift focus from the central arguments at hand, to making one feel that they have to defend their intelligence.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Cossack58]

Hey, how's this: we find some poor, miserable soul just scraping by in Africa or India some other third-world dung-heap and we harvest his organs to benefit "sick individuals" of means in the US and other "first world" paradises.

after all, a healthy american or european is much more valuable to the world than some pathetic starvation-bloated, non-educated african, right?

man, we'd just blow past all this stem cell nonsense and get what we really want anyway--an endless supply of organs to swap out.

we'd be doing the third-worlder a favor by putting him out of our misery. of course, we'd do it all very painlessly and humanely. after all, we're not nazis.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[mudetroit]

You are missing the flaw in his arguement though. It isn't whether or not an embryo is the same as someone on life support. The question, based upon his conjecture, is whether or not it is the same as someone on life support with no chance for survival. Now, I can except, with some reservations, the arguement that an embryo is the same as a person on life support who has a chance to survive without it at some point. This type of patient is the exact kind of patient that I would have a problem with the removal of life support from. Would it be okay to take life support from someone out of open heart surgery because we discovered their organs might be useful to someone else? I doubt that anyone would agree to that concept. That is what a good number of people see embryonic stem cell research as akin to.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[mapmaker]

I never understood why vegetarians won't eat eggs. (I understand why Vegans don't)

Vegetarians do eat eggs. My GF is a vegetarian, and she eats eggs (only free range tho) as well as dairy products. Foods that come from an animal but don't cause its death are fair game. A vegetarian is just someone who doesn't eat animals. A vegan is someone who doesn't eat animals or animal products (like eggs, milk, honey, etc.)

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Martin Blank]

I know of at least one person who believes that all abortion should be outlawed, even in the cases of rape or incest, or where the life of the mother is at stake. The person is quite adamant about this, but is still struggling with the question of IV fertilization, and admits that he has not yet had time to come to an answer that will placate his mind. He is so strongly against abortions, but by opposing IV fertilization, he would be against someone -- presumably one of the couple is healthy and would not otherwise have problems -- being able to have a child.

Note that the context of this discussion came about with the explicit exclusion of adoption as a solution. It was limited solely to the question of what to do with the leftover embryos.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Alex P Keaton in da]

I prefer brown eggs. I like getting them while they are still warm. People never believe me until they actually try them, but eggs that have been out from under the hen for just a few minutes before you cook them taste very different than what you get at the supermarket, or even free range eggs.
A lot of city folks will buy free range stuff that is 5 times as expensive than the regular stuff, yet not very different in either taste or the way the chickens live. I know city dwellers like to think that those of us who were raised on farms are idiots, but we do get a chuckle out of being able to sell an egg for $2 because the chicken was, um, "happy"....

Re:s/creating/destroying

[lgw]

Because the goal of the restriction was to score political points, not to achieve results. I suspect the goal was really to restrict research as little as possible while placating the religious faction of the GOP, but it's harder to tell with this Bush than with his father.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[knodi]

Goldang fence-sitters. If you can't pick a side, it's because you don't have the grapes. Maybe we could grow you some, if you ignorant religious zealots didn't ban medical science. Or maybe you could just harvest a pair by killing somebody's baby- you people don't mind killing babies, do you?

See? I don't even know which position to set up as a straw man! The trolls will starve. :-(

Re:s/creating/destroying

[mdielmann]

You, sir, are a fool.

Your argument doesn't even stand on its own merit, let alone the elements you don't touch.

We are all dependant on outside elements to survive. People don't do too well off of our planet for long-term survival, and nothing but serious infrastructure (on the scale of planetary assistance) is going to change that. So now we have the question of how much support should be called "capable of supporting life on its own". A fully developed infant with some significant damage which has no hope of going off of life-support equipment and surviving is not the same as a ball of cells which can be implanted into a suitable environment for a mere 9 months and have a reasonable chance of surviving for 70+ years. That's the first flaw in your argument.

Comparing the destruction of life or the potential for life (if you believe that logical fallacy) for the possiblilty of improving the lives of others to the stifling of research in a purely observational field is also inherently flawed, unless Gallileo was dropping differently-sized people off of buildings to see which would hit first.

And to cap it off, you mention your own concern for producing embryos for the sake of research, while earlier you said they were less alive than an infant. Either you're above that threshold where moral (and possibly at a different point, ethical) considerations apply or you aren't. If there is no moral or ethical impact in taking already-produced embryos for medical research, then why would there be for contracting to produce embryos for medical research? And if that point hasn't been sufficiently defined for someone's satisfaction, why would you be surprised that he doesn't want to move in that direction?

Perhaps you should look into the history of cadavers in medical research. You may find more logical arguments for what you appear to be trying to present in that realm than in either life-support for (and transplants from) people with no hope of recovery or the whole Gallileo situation. It's a very good fit actually, and more interesting still when considered after the decades where it was raised. Spontaneous miscarriages could also be a relevant topic.

For the record, I'm for embryonic stem cell research in theory, but am very concerned about the moral implications. I'm more concerned about those implications since virtually no discussion or standards have been raised in the scientific field. There has been far more in the transplant field, mostly because people often have to die to be donors. I'm not convinced this is different for embryos.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Retric]

Government's get a better return on investment from innovative research than private firms. BR>
Take Satellite TV which is really an outgrowth of several gov funded research programs such as Radar (British), Rockets (Germany, US, Russia), Digital Computing, (British, US) Ect. Now all of those programs and much more where needed to get satellites into orbit but the these Governments got more than just TV satellites out of them they also got weather sat's, GPS and SPY sat's Ect. No single company would find research into rocketry, computing, and radar as useful as these governments do because they get revenue from any person or organization that uses that technology.

Because Governments get revenue from research until the end of time vs. 20 year patents they are much more motivated to release research to everyone and to look into things that don't pay off for years. Do you think the US Gov got less value out of UNIX than Bell Labs?

Research is the only reason why you're not sleeping naked in the woods. Every thing from the P4 to the most club is a direct result of past research. But hay just because it was so useful thought human history does not mean it will continue to be so. Let's slow down avoid looking into things that will not pay off in the next 5 years because that's about as long as corporations are willing to wait and that's just fine with you.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[rhsanborn]

I think a better analogy to an embryo is putting a person into space without a space suit or other barrier between them and their environment. If the embryo were to stay in its natural environment and was generally left alone, it would grow and do it's thing unfettered.

Just as a human can survive in his environment, but if someone decided to hurl him into space to see what would happen and justify it because it would have taken "extraneous means" to keep him alive is absurd.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[edwdig]

The moral and ethical beliefs of millions of Americans include the mistaken belief that all Catholics keep guns in their basements and that everyone else but their chosen protestant denomination is going to Hell, too.

Catholics with guns? That's just bizarre... maybe some Southern Protestant denomination, but Catholics? Catholics are probably one of the least likely groups to have guns.

I'm not saying there are no ethical issues. If we see people creating fetuses for the purpose of extracting stem cells, many could legitimately consider that morally and ethically reprehensible---myself included. However, as long as you are extracting tissue from a fetus that is going to die anyway, not taking advantage of those cells would be equally morally and ethically indefensible.

Well, the Republicans seem to try to frame the issue as creating embryos for the sole purpose of using them in research. They try to keep the conversation as far away from embryos that are going to be destroyed anyway as they possibly can. I assume they're just trying to tie the issue to abortion and hoping to use it to help on that battle. I think most people are of the mindset that if the embryo is going to be destroyed no matter what, you might as well benefit from it if you can. The Republicans just seem to be afraid of that starting down a slippery slope...

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Idarubicin]

I never understood why vegetarians won't eat eggs.

The mistake is in assuming that "vegetarians" represent a homogeneous group with a uniform way of thinking. It's rather similar to presuming that you know how someone thinks just because they say that vote Democrat/Republican/Green.

Some people are vegetarians (or don't eat eggs) because they are opposed to factory farming. Some want to eliminate cholesterol from their diet. Some think animals are just too darned cute to eat. Some have a visceral reaction because they've seen where eggs come from. Some feel that eating only vegetables has less ecological impact. Back in my undergrad days, I knew people who went vegetarian mostly because they couldn't afford meat. A. Whitney Brown once said "I am not a vegetarian because I love animals; I am a vegetarian because I hate plants".

Similarly, there exists a range of deep and nuanced opinion and reasoning on both sides of the stem cell issue. (Then there's the stuff that the politicians and pundits spout; it's better suited for growing vegetables.)

Me, I think I'm going to have steak for dinner.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

President Bush is the first president to allow federal funding of any kind to human embryonic stem cell research.

I'm going to have to disagree with this assertion as it is factually incorrect. By default, there is no restriction on what federal funding of science can be used to research. Bush was the first president to restrict the way federal funds can be used to research embryonic stem cells. James Thompson researched human embryonic stem cells from 1995-1998 mostly funded with federal grants and resulting in the first isolation of human embryonic stem cells. At that time talk about instituting a ban on stem cell research began and after Bush's election two years later, restrictions were placed on how labs that received federal moneys (most of them) could research stem cells.

there was a restriction on federal funding of research

This, also, is incorrect. The restriction was on which labs could receive federal grants based upon what type of research they did, not what research could be performed. Since nearly all labs are dependent upon federal grants this required the creation of wholly independent labs to research stem cells to prevent all the other projects from losing their funding as well.

There is absolutely no doubt that significant scientific benefit could come from cloning or farming of humans in more developed forms. So should we push forward with things such as that, full force? Or should we take pause ask important questions that define our very humanity?

The purpose of the government is to restrict our freedoms when necessary for our society and otherwise to leave judgement up to the individual. If you don't think cloning is ethical, or have doubts about it, then you are free to not partake in any cloning. The federal government, however, should not get involved until you can provide reasonable proof or evidence that it will cause problems to society or until a supermajority of the people decide that it is unethical and a danger to society.

I am saying that there should be ethical debate and discussion: as I'm sure many would agree, just because you can do something doesn't necessarily mean you should.

With this, I agree entirely. I think there should be frank and open discussions. I also think, however, barring an agreement of the majority, the government should not get involved and tell individuals what to do. Everyone has the right to decide what is ethical or unethical for themselves. They just should not try to decide for others and try to use the government to enforce their morals on others.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Newton's Alchemy]

What everyone fails to understand is that the word "life" should be thought of in a biological and scientific way, and not a spiritual way. Consiousness is what we need to be concerned with, not life. My cells are alive. They're constantly being shed. Cancer cells are alive. They should be destroyed. A chicken is alive, yet millions are slaughtered every day without a thought to their existences. Why does a cow have less right to life than I do? It's because we made up this whole 'value' thing and we measure it by the presense of our consious being, our 'soul.' Someone without a brain has no consiousness. This is empirical fact. I can prove this with a slide rule and a potato. The ONLY ethical question should be if destroying these embryos harms consiousness. It does not. Our common human empathy is what gives us value to each other, and to a lesser extent animals as well. We know dogs feel pain and can be happy, so can we, so we have that valued commonality. We have no commonality with an embryo. I have never been an embryo. The body I am in may have grown from one at one time in the past, but who I am is more than a clump of cells. Who I am is a person who, over many years of living consiously in this world, has developed a mind and awareness of my self in this world. I think therefore I am. Ask someone who says they were an embryo what it was like. What was their favorite memory from being an embryo?

Re:s/creating/destroying

[twiddlingbits]

MY criteria for Ignorant is repeating what you hear on CNN/FOX/MSNBC/etc. versus taking the time do look at the FACTS and form an educated opinion. You may choose a logical argument or you may chose moral/religous arguments but CHOOSE for yourself not based on what someone with a vested interest tells you. That is a cop out, but it is very very common. I'm FAR from being an elitist, but it is a FACT as seen in almost any controversial topic that the masses tend to beleive what they hear from the mass media (pro/con on the topic). Americans tend to not want to dig in and THINK about anything but would rather take the opinion that a "talking head" espouses. I'm not asking anyone to DEFEND their intelligence, you act like my post was a troll. If people who show they had signs of intelligence then they would NOT have to defend the perception that they had none. That would lead to each side presenting intelligent, factual arguments instead of "baby killer" and "panacea" arguments which are 99% BS. But BS sells and facts walk these days, which is a damn shame.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[oringo]

Quote: "Just because something is nothing more than an amalgam of cells - or a single cell - doesn't mean it doesn't represent, even if only philosophically, human life. Why is it valid in the macro scale, but not micro?"

I don't think that kind of logic works here. Are you suggesting that one embryonic stem cell is the atom of life? What if you take away one electron from that cell, or one piece of membrane protein? Does that make it lifeless? Let's say you start taking away protein molecules, at what point do you say it's not a life any more? If you never stop, you can claim an atom to be a life. My point is, we don't have a mental barrier of a life form, period. Why are we protecting meaningless embryos when real, grown-up humans are starving in other places of the world, such as Africa? Give me a break!

Re:s/creating/destroying

[mathi]

My question, if stem cells lead to a cure for cancer, will those who opposed the stem cell research boycott the treatment, and die?

They will use the treatment, because the treatment is not bad (unless the medicine is extracted from embryos), but the method to obtain the knowledge to make the treatment.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Tikiman]

I would argue that an embryo is precisely an equivalent to someone on life support. Left outside of an uterus there is absolutely no hope that this embryo will sprout into a full blown human

Is this enough to deny human rights? As of today, you are correct - from a few days to 22 weeks or so, the only "life support" that can sustain such a human being is a woman's uterus. But as technology gets better, this requirement will disappear. Today, we can save babies born at 22 weeks - clearly they deserve human rights, even though they are being kept alive with artifical life support. A few years ago, these babies had "no hope" of survival. But surely if they are human beings with rights today, they would have been human beings with rights a few years ago.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[smallpaul]

The moral qualms come from the fact that today, they're discarded as a side effect of trying to help couples start a family; to bring a life into the world that will be cared for and nurtured, and to propagate our species.

If it is wrong to destroy embryos then what does it matter what the reason is? It isn't as if our species is in danger of extinction due to our low birth rate. People who want to have biological children want it. They don't need it to survive. How can the destruction of embryonic human beings be justified in order to give people want they merely want?

Furthermore, why would their wish for biological children take higher precedence than the saving of lives?

Re:s/creating/destroying

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I personally feel if God wants us to have another child it will happen.....the normal, old fashioned way.

I've noted many times that almost all successful, mainstream religions are founded on people absolving themselves of personal responsibility. Your statement is just a way of saying, "I'm not responsible for what happens god is. It's all god's fault."

I lose a good deal of respect for anyone who makes such a statement. If god wanted that baby to survive he'd pull him out of the river himself, why should I get my feet wet? Take responsibility for yourself already. If you have more children or not is up to you and your wife and biology (and a little physics). Don't expect god to knock her up or change her biology.

As an aside, please don't have any more children. We're suffering both an overpopulation problem and a problem with orphaned children. There are thousands of 8-15 year old children with no families and no homes. Most of them are minorities. Please adopt one if you want another child.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Eslyjah]

Look, you've twisted my words (when I have explicitly said the opposite) to allege that I am in favor of somehow slowing down the pace of research. You've also clearly demonstrated that you don't understand the idea of return on investment. The only reason the government can launch all those fun satellites is because they have invested on the order of a trillion inflation-adjusted dollars into the endeavor. What do we have to show for it? Satellite TV, weather forecasts, GPS, and espionage--all good things! But is it a good return on a trillion bucks? I don't think so.

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance." -- Murray N. Rothbard

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Clod9]

>All joking aside, the fact is that nobody wants abortion.

But most of your post is predicated on a joke. That South Park episode is specifically poking fun into the debate, but it isn't a realistic scenario. Few will go get pregnant in order to make money (although you can't claim NOBODY would do this). The relevant question is whether, once someone gets pregnant, do they have an abortion or keep the child? Take the 19-year-old college student who becomes pregnant, and suddenly realizes that the consequence of her sleeping around is that her life and career is going to become orders of magnitude more difficult and complex with a child around. If someone like that told me she was thinking of not raising the child, I'd respond that the ethical thing to do would be to give birth and let someone else raise the child. But that's a hard road -- it carries risk. Instead, if the research institute on campus is willing to pay her $500 and all medical expenses to abort the fetus, that makes the abortion option (the unethical one, in my view) much more attractive.

In short, I believe you're wrong. If nobody wanted abortion, then we wouldn't have nearly so many. The simple fact is that MANY people choose abortion. I want to get people to choose it less often, and so paying them to have abortions is counterproductive.

> The stem cell research industry will not need to pay people to have abortions.
Initially, no. But if there's money to be made on a commercial process that requires live, healthy cells from a newly-harvested fetus, you know there will be money offered. I don't know enough about the science to know how soon we'll get beyond the need for a fetus (today's announcement is great, because it brings hope that we can get around that), but I don't hold out a lot of hope. What I am sure of is that there are lots of people, scientists and businessmen included, who will take the short cut if that's where the profit is.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[arbitraryaardvark]

2) Do you think that the government should not fund any research, only corporations? Do you think the government should not fund research for a cure for cancer? Or any other disease?

That is correct; I think government, particularly the federal government, should get out of the scientific socialism business. With maybe some limited exceptions about research that brings down the cost of whatever are indispensible government services (and nearly everything is dispensible.) It makes no more sense to think the government should write the checks than the mafia or the church. Big government is like a tumour or tapeworm holding back the market economy from being what it could be. From menengle to lysenko to the FDA, government research is a chain of horror stories and lots of really bad science.
Since my continued life depends on rapid advance of tech, this concerns me. That said, currently government funds about 1/2 of science research, and much of the current rapid advance in tech does come from this. I'm not saying a government dollar spent on science is the worst possible use of a government dollar. I am saying government should get out of the way, while market driven and open source methods take over the function of driving science and technology.
I did agree with your points 1 and 3.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[hcob$]

Unfortunately, the [expletive deleted] Republicans have created this politically charged anger over the abortion issue. The dyed-in-the-wool religious right folks don't want to feel like they are changing their stand on destroying a fetus.

Pot to kettle: "You're black."

Re:s/creating/destroying

[mathi]

No form of R&D is a licence to print money

So not true! Ask the scientists who developed printed money!

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Jason Ford]

Instead, if the research institute on campus is willing to pay her $500 and all medical expenses to abort the fetus, that makes the abortion option (the unethical one, in my view) much more attractive.

The question is: are campus research institutes paying women to abort their fetuses? If so, that is a perverse incentive, and should be stopped. I claim that many woman, faced with the difficult choice of considering an abortion, will donate the aborted fetus for research purposes. The financial incentive should disappear.

Also, you seem to have made the same mistake that the Anonymous Coward did in my statement about the desireability of abortion. Do you want a tetanus shot? Do you think one should be available in case you are careless around rusty nails? I'm not trying to trivialize abortion; I'm trying to use an innocuous analogy. I believe you would be hard-pressed to find people in this country who would like for the number of tetanus shots given per year to increase. (Well, outside of people who would profit from it directly.) Yet, when you need a tetanus shot, you would like for one to be available.

Abortion is far more serious, but still similar enough for the analogy to hold. I'd like to see the number of abortions performed around the world to decrease. In fact, I'd like it if there weren't ever another abortion. And, like you, I believe that any perverse incentive (like money) that encourages women to have abortions is both counterproductive and morally suspect.

I agree with you that, if there is money to be made on a commercial process that requires live cells from a newly-harvested fetus, money will be offered. I differ from you in that I don't think that this will be the case, based on the unfortunate number of aborted fetus that are already available on a voluntary and non-commercial basis. However, if you should need support in any campaign to remove perverse incentives from abortion, I will help you.

Finally, how representative is your 19-year-old college student of women seeking abortions in general? Is she the 'welfare queen' of the abortion world?

Re:s/creating/destroying

[gstoddart]

Scientifically, an embryo is, strictly speaking "human life"; so, when and why is it ok to end such life, regardless of the state it may be in?

Well, since you're the first person to categorically make this statement, I'm going to call you on it.

Is the concensus of the scientific community that an embryo is, by definition, a human life? What is the threshold -- two cells? four cells? 8 cells? 256 cells? What if they just turn into a little non-viable blob that the body rejects and it's just discarded by the body?

Just because something is nothing more than an amalgam of cells - or a single cell - doesn't mean it doesn't represent, even if only philosophically, human life.

According to whom? I don't remember seeing that we've introduced into law that the definition of a human life is as soon as you have two cells. And I sure as hell don't recall that the philosophical argument has really been resolved. As I recall, during the initial stages, that little cluster of cells has the potential to become a human life ... but it's not definitively established as such.

See, if I reject several of the bulit-in definitions you have for when human life starts, much of the rest of what you say becomes nonsense to me.

You make it sound like most of the debate which would need to occur around this subject is actually a foregone conclusion. IMO, it isn't.

Cheers

Re:s/creating/destroying

[greenegg77]

A little nit-picking here - an egg is not an embryo. An embryo is created when sperm fertilizes the egg, thus merging the DNA from the father with the that of the mother. So, to use your anology - an egg is the cake mix, the sperm is the milk, and they form a cake.
The question is not if it is ok to throw out the cake mix or the milk, but is it ok to throw out the cake while it is baking. Would you not say that the cake is no longer just cake mix and milk, but something more, something unlike its parent components?

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Darby]

Should people be able to have abortions?

I'd have to say absolutely positively with no doubt whatsoever. Turn it around. Say that you ban abortion. What you are doing by this is taking somebody who knows far more about their own abilities, personality and desires than you do. They know far more about their ability to raise a child than you do. They have a far better idea of what type of person they will be able to raise given their resources and prospects than you do.

You take this person, put a gun to their head, and tell them that they will be forced to spend 9 months "disabled" and then spend the next 18 years raising another person.

If this person fails to accomplish all of this to your satisfaction, they can then be sued or prosecuted over that. Even if they knew full well that they were in no way fit to be a parent and tried to take the moral course of not inflicting all of that suffering on society and upon their child.

Obviously abortion shouldn't be encouraged so what needs to be done is make sure that everybody is aware of how pregnancy occurs and what methods are available to prevent it (both basic simple biological facts).

But to pretend that a lump of cells should have *greater* rights than a living breathing person is utterly abhorent to the very concept of human rights.

The simple fact is that nobody can say absolutely what's best in all possible situations. The only possible way to be even remotely consistent is to leave the choice up to the one person who understands the issue and who will be overwhelmingly affected by it.

Should people be able to have abortions purely because of their lack of planning? I'm against it.

So where do you stand on the issue of sex education for schools? What about making condoms freely available to anybody of breeding age?

Typically (note, that's a word that includes the idea of "not always" i.e. possibly not you, so don't get your feathers all ruffled) people who take your position on the abotion issue take the diametrically opposed position on these. They feel none of that should be done. So they oppose abortions due to lack of planning while at the same time preventing people from being given the tools they need to actually do any planning. It's a really vicious and mean spirited game.

Should people be paid big bucks by research clinics to have abortions? Definitely not

I think this one gets a big Duh!

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Mornelithe]

No, you're missing the point. These embryos aren't going to go on to become babies at all. It's a choice between:

1. Using them for research
2. Throwing them away

There is no, "let them go on to become babies" option. There's nowhere to put them so that they'll grow. There is no life support for these particular embryos anymore. They've already been taken off life support.

The original point was that, once you decide to take the baby off life support, do you donate the organs, or bury it? He argues that most parents would choose to donate the organs and save other lives.

He's not arguing that we should pull people off life support to harvest their organs when they have a chance of survival. That's a straw man.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Irish_Samurai]

I didn't mean to infer that you were an elitist, and after re-reading my post I could see how that conclusion could be drawn. I also didn't think that you were asking anyone to defend their intelligence, I was merely trying to point out that the term ignorant is useless in an atmosphere of debate. People who are called ignorant feel the need to defend their intelligence. I apologize if my statements were offensive.

The subject I was attempting to address was how difficult it is to lock down a criteria for who's opinion to register and who's opinion to ignore. Your application of the term ignorant has an almost identical criteria as mine, but I have found that its use is too problematic inside the arena of debate. I agree that Americans have a huge deficit when it comes to critical thinking skills. They either don't know how to create their own opinion, can't articulate their opinion, or have confidence issues when developing an opinion contrary or offensive to the popular opinions splashed across the media.

Another aspect of this problem is that many talking heads take a poll BEFORE they begin stating their opinion. These people's jobs depend on some chunk of the population agreeing with them. This being the case, is it really so difficult to believe that a majority of Americans agree with an opinion that was DESIGNED to be agreable with? The population at large was ASKED what they would like to be told, and it was in turn told to them. Detirmining and applying criteria for who can and cannot think for themselves becomes a very case by case oriented task under these circumstances.

I have no particular disdain or for your use of the term ignorant, nor do I disagree with your criteria for its usage. I am merely trying to state that the term is too unweildy and innacurate to be used in debate, and that the practice of casually throwing the term around whenever people disagree needs to stop.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Barlo_Mung_42]

Many of us vegetarians do eat chicken eggs. Personally I make sure they are local free range eggs. The issue for me isn't the eggs themselves but the living condition of the egg layer. Same goes for milk and cheese.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[demachina]

"Just because something is nothing more than an amalgam of cells - or a single cell - doesn't mean it doesn't represent, even if only philosophically, human life. Why is it valid in the macro scale, but not micro?"

Oh that question is so backwards. Actually it appears in the eyes of the right to life crowd life is vastly more precious and sacred in the micro scale than it is in the macro. People like Geroge W. abort these supposedly sacred lives all the time, not in an abortion clinic, fertility clinic or research lab but in the steets of Iraq or bygone years the jungles of Vietnam or hills of Korea. They abort sacred lives of people who have families to support, and which families and societies have spend yeart nurturing, raising and educating.

Why exactly should we be spending this vast energy debating stem cell research while we seem to spend very little energy debating the rightness or morality of the wars we start. Well the opponents of the wars spend a lot of time fretting over them but the "right to life" people advocating them lately don't really seem to much care about the morale issues of sending people to kill and be killed, and its not even in self defense. They create slogans, catch phrases and build false cases to justify killing this supposedly sacred life and then just do it.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[jjr1]

No one is being replaced by a robot, at least until all the kinks are worked out - Homer Simpson

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Christianfreak]

Otherwise, in the vocabulary of the Anti-Choicers

And there you have it. Society is divided on an issue, the two controlling parties politicize, the media parrots each side's position over and over again and demonizes those who dare to disagree and we end up with idiots and distraction from both sides which the government uses to remove more of everyone's real rights, and give more of our money to corporations.

Your point is valid, but if you want to be heard please try not to take pot-shots at the other side, someone my actually be inclined to listen to you if you aren't insulting.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Retric]

Macroeconomics is not a simple discipline and I agree with Rothbard that having a vehement opinion on such a complex issue with little background is irresponsible so I suggest you check your numbers before responding.

As you reduce government funding for research you slow down 'the pace of research' so if you want to eliminate gov funding you want to slow down that pace.

Rocketry is used for Science (Hubble + weather sat's, probes ect.), Military (ICBM's, Surface to Air / Air to Air Missiles ect, Spy satellites, Secure Communications ect), Telecommunications (relay Satellites in LEO), Navigation (GPS), Broadcasting (TV, and Radio) and much more and as such it has been worth far more (over time) than the one time 1 trillion$ cost you named. Some specific research programs where of little value where others have become cornerstones of the economy (The Internet) but most of them would not have been funded to the extent they where by private funds.

Many people wished they would have dumped funding into MS when it was starting up but few people will fund the next ruthless 19 year old collage dropout bent on dominating his industry. Government programs might be wasteful in the amount of cash and the directions into which it flows for most endeavors, but with basic research there is no way to know if and when it's going to pay off. Risk drives the economy forward but few people are willing to take this risk. That's one of the main reasons why government funded research is so vital.

The field of trauma surgery was pioneered by military research for the purpose of saving lives on the battlefield, but it's provided incalculable benefits to the public as a whole. Now clearly trauma surgery would have advanced without that military effort, but what private source was going to pick up the slack if they where not interested? In this case it's not a binary question will research take place but the extent and the form of that research.

PS: Most people think of Aviation as a private endeavor started by a few rugged pioneers with their own money but look into the history of development from that point to modern jet's and see how much of that was paved by government spending. We would probably have an aviation industry without government money but it would not be using jet's to the extend and nearly as early without that research.

PPS: On a basic level economic concepts like the rule of diminishing returns seem to limit economic growth, but as efficiencies increase so does the average resources available to individuals and organizations increases and so to does the point at which that comes into play. (Simplified example: A company could spend twice it's R&D budget to increase it's GPU efficiency by 3% which may or may not be worth it, but as they move from a single core GPU to a 50 core GPU the value of that 3% might increase because they could lower the clock speed and increase their yields more as the complexity of the chip increased. ) Increases in efficiency's continuous alter the value of a given technology / research.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[mOdQuArK!]

Really? Government-financed research is at least in the public domain, and any entrepreneur who can see an opportunity is welcome to take the results of that research & run as far & as fast as they can go.

By contrast, and especially with the current state of our "intellectual property" laws, anything developed by a private interest will be doled out at whatever rate will maximize profit - and any attempts at competition will be ruthlessly stamped out.

Do you really think leaving basic research up to private concerns yields the most benefit for society?

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Retric]

Research is not a zero sum game. If I take 100$ from you today and give you 10,000$ in 5 years then you may or may not have a problem with it, but that's a vary different issue from the fallacy of the broken window.

The "PUBLIC WORKS" section has some merit but it forget's the long term economic gain from that work. To employ a man as a butler it might cost as much as it would to have him digging a ditch but at the end of a year there would be many ditches but little value from the butler.

PS: Stop posting AC and you might get me to debate you but until that point that's as much as your getting form me.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[twiddlingbits]

"Another aspect of this problem is that many talking heads take a poll BEFORE they begin stating their opinion. These people's jobs depend on some chunk of the population agreeing with them." Yep, it's kind of a pre-poll to see if a real poll will get the right answer. I tend to strongly discount formal polls as they answers can be skewed by the way the questions are phrased, the selection of those polled, the statistical methods, and several other things. If you ask the question the right way you can get any answer you want :)

Re:s/creating/destroying

[mikehoskins]

Regarding the debate, Bush is losing.

Most Americans now think the ban should be dropped and the government should "fund research that would use newly created stem cells obtained from human embryos".

Most Americans thought slavery was a good thing and that "people of color" should not have the same rights as those who were not "people of color."

So, I'm afraid I have no clue what point you were trying to make.... Does 50.00000001% or 99.999999999% make it *right*?

Of course not.

I wonder how barbaric we will look 50, 100, or 150 years from now.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[linzeal]

Because all of the pro-life movement became tainted with terrorism similiar to the way islam is being demonized today because of bin laden. Prolife sentiment is growing faster than news media will acknowledge for fear that revealing that will spark more scrutiny on Roe v Wade. Reactionary laws do not make for anything but baseless or dangerously unethical mores to be followed, look at corporate personhood and in utero dehumanization for an example. The science of Roe V Wade has been superceded by new understandings on how life works before birth yet it remains as a reminder that a judiciary in this country has more power than any product of the scientific method.

Until prolife concerns become almost exclusively secular and therefore rational in nature to stand in contrast to the increasingly unscientific claims from a proabortion status quo nothing will change. I for one think it repulsive to create 100's of humans to dispose as waste but my ire is even greater for women who choose to abort past 6 months of gestation in certain unmentionable states across the nation.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[kurzweilfreak]

As long as that rebuilding process doesn't involve any organs derived from stem cell research, right?

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Mornelithe]

The fact is, there is no relevant difference between even a single celled embryo and an adult human except time

Oh, and a brain, and the ability to experience pain, and so on.

There's no difference between an adult human and an amoeba, except three billion years of evolution.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

The answer to the question why do good vs wrong vs whatever feels good is simple. If everyone did what ever they wanted without regard to others there would be anarchy, great if you are the strongest, meanest, most invulnerable mother f'cker otherwise, you/society acts in an somewhat altruistic manner, so that social pressures persuade others to behave in a similar manner. Thus allowing society to advance and continue. Now, the question of good vs. wrong in any singular situation for any one person is clearly a cost/benefit calculation

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Macka]

I want to get people to choose it less often

Its none of your dam business. It's the mothers choice, and should only ever be the mothers choice. Its her body and her life (not yours) and you should have no say over what she chooses to do with that. Keep your dam nose out of other peoples affairs

Grrrrr!!!

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Clod9]

> Say that you ban abortion. ...

True, if a complete and absolute ban were enacted, that would lead to disaster of a different sort. The problem in this country is that we have no way of finding a reasonable middle ground between two (or more) very opposed groups. We can't even agree on a set of moral principles that can guide our conclusions about the various cases. Rape? Genetic defects discovered in the womb? Minors living under their parents' authority and responsibility? Mentally retarded parents? Prostitution? The list is long, and legislating these things case-by-case is impossible. I also believe federal legislation is counterproductive, and that individual states should have different rules. But that's just me.

You say that a mother should have rights equal to or greater than those of the unborn fetus. That's acceptable. But what precise rights does she have? And what rights does the fetus have? In our nation right now, the she is all-powerful and the fetus has essentially no rights. I think this balance is very wrong.

>The only possible way to be even remotely consistent is to leave the choice up to the one person ...

I disagree. I think there are lots of options, and both the law and medical practice should me more specific about navigating among them. Roe-vs-Wade and the Bush-supreme-court-nomination are both clubs used to bludgeon our society, and we need much finer control than either.

>So where do you stand on the issue of sex education for schools?

Excellent question, one I haven't fully thought out. I think sex ed should start no sooner than 6th grade, and should be a mandatory part of a larger health curriculum (the same one that helps kids understand how to deal with food so they don't get obese). I think it should be set down in print that the best way to avoid pregnancy and STD's is ... not to have sex. Condoms are not the best way to achieve either. Also, when I was in high school I think a lot more people thought their friends were having sex -- that it was acceptable and desirable behavior -- than was actually the case, and that education (real education, involving student discussion and role-playing and what-not) could have helped debunk the myth. I have no idea what the climate is in today's high school, though.

"making condoms freely available" -- this phraseology has a catch. In one sense, they already are freely available, anyone can buy them at the grocery store. You don't need a prescription, and neither does a 14-year-old boy. But I remember the first time I bought one, and I realize that hardly any 14-year-olds are going to do so even if they think they ought to. So, much as it pains me to say so, they need to be available at the school health office or wherever. I have a big problem with the idea of paying my tax dollars to support the sexual escapades of some pimply-faced teenager, but a much bigger problem with abortion. (Something inside me still says "if they're old enough to be having sex, they're old enough to be taking responsibility for themselves." But reality trumps my personal morality on this one.)

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Weezul]

Scientifically, an embryo is, strictly speaking "human life"

Total b.s., its a living cell which is genetically human and could grow into a real human if implanted. But you can take the DNA from a skin cell, implant it into an egg to make an embryo, and grow a human too. Who cares?

If it ain't even got nerve cells, it their ain't no moral issues with killing it.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Eslyjah]

Though I am an economist by profession, I will grant you that I have still more to learn about my discipline. You have committed several fallacies that suggest to me that you have even more to learn.

I agree with Rothbard

Rothbard was an anarchist, and did not support government-funded research.

As you reduce government funding for research you slow down 'the pace of research' so if you want to eliminate gov funding you want to slow down that pace.

Not necessarily. Less government intervention leads to a more competitive economy which leads to innovation and economic growth. Innovation is what we're looking for, and we get it for free in a competitive environment. Economic growth increases our ability to afford research. Furthermore, lower taxes increase the funds available for private research.

it has been worth far more (over time) than the one time 1 trillion$ cost you named

Maybe, but firstly, could the private sector have done it for less? I think so. Secondly, my $1 trillion estimate is for the space program alone. If you want to count all government research in the last century (adjusted for inflation) it would be much higher.

Risk drives the economy forward but few people are willing to take this risk.

Firstly, lots of people are willing to take risk. There are entire industries devoted to taking risks and managing risks (think private equity and hedging instruments). I risk money in the stock market every day, and I'd bet that you do too, if you are saving for retirement. Secondly, pooling of risk makes even longshot investments palatable. Indeed, what you are advocating by supporting government-funded research is one big risk pool. I think that approach is wrong. I think we should let smaller risk pools compete against each other (and therefore perform better). Furthermore, I do not think we should coerce people, through the power of government, who do not want to be involved in such a risk pool to "invest" through taxes. Let profits accrue to those who risk money in the arena, and let those who prefer to sit on their money do so.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[gerf]

I hear ya brotha! /gets eggs fresh from behind the barn as well...

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Clod9]

By this logic, if my child is a pain in the neck I ought to be able to cut his throat and burn him in the wood stove. And if you discover that I have done so, I should say "mind your own business!"

I violently disagree with the idea that all people should keep their damn noses out of all the affairs of other people.

Unless, of course, you claim that "a fetus is not a human being" and has the same rights as, say, a fly. But if you say that, then we can have a meaningful discourse about the nature of life, man, and society. But I don't think you want that.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[cmburns69]

I'm glad you cleared that up! ;)

However, the point of the OP was that these sorts of questions must be answered before the debate can be reasonably started.

You cannot argue the high level issue (is it right to kill a human for species advancement?) until all parties agree on the definitions involved. The definition of what makes a human is a perfect example, and you even allow for dissenting opinion.

However, if the two parties do not agree on the basics, they will not be able to logically accept the other side's arguments, and can never come to a consensus.

Thus the argument "Any abortion is murder" is only a valid argument when you accept that all fetuses are human. If that's not accepted by the both sides, then the entire argument has no meaning to the dissenting side.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Frogbert]

That isn't the question, the question is:
Knowing these people were going to die anyway would you prefer their deaths to have a scientific purpose or no purpose at all?

Re:s/creating/destroying

[uptoeleven]

A little more nit-picking here.

You ask is it ok to throw out the cake while it is baking?

Let's define "baking".

In terms of embryonic stem cell research the "baking" is not that the cake has been in the oven. It's not even that the cake has been waved in the general direction of the oven. The cake in the case of stem cell research is more at the stage where the person with the mixing bowl thinks "Ooo I'd better put the oven on" then puts the bowl down, wanders over to the oven and switches it on. It's the baking that's done at room-temperature while the baker is at the oven peering through inches of grime at the temperature guage trying to work out whether that half covered number is a 5 or a 9.

When a woman miscarries do we have a full-blown funeral? No.

Moral questions are being raised and left unanswered by people whose beliefs preclude the concept of making the laws, by which they live, apply to new situations. Is it not the prime duty of all people to ensure that those who are alive are able to remain so? In some religions abortion is permitted where birth would damage or even kill the mother. Therefore some religions are already drawing a distinction between living and the "not-yet-living".

Would it not be sensible to assign a sliding scale to the viability of embryos? Thus a 2 or 3 day old clump of stem cells is clearly not viable and therefore not as "alive" as a foetus after 3 months. And a foetus at that stage is not as alive as a feotus after 6 months, which in turn is not as alive as a baby just about to be born.

How "alive" is a bunch of cells at 2 or 3 days? Is it as alive as a full grown adult dying from a disease that could only have been researched and cured had stem cells been available?

Also since stem-cells are the building blocks of life, surely these synthesized stem cells are just as viable and able to produce a live baby as the stem cells sourced directly from an embryo?

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Listen Up]

I completely agree with you.

On another point is the entire hyprocracy of people in this country. They will fight to the bitter end about stem cells, because they believe they are 'alive', even if it means the loss of possible medical breakthroughs and scientific understanding for millions/billions of people. But, they are perfectly okay with killing tens of thousands of soldiers and civilians in wars to protect millions and billions of people. Religious people: Either you are for or against killing. You can't have it both ways, because one is a direct contradiction of the other.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Dan D.]

I like a good sound argument like this. I think you do justice to the non-"right to life" side, but I think this:

The idea that we are killing human life by using the Embryonic Stem Cells will be stood on its ear as soon as we can make a human from a skin cell, or any number of cells not currently involved in reproduction. So is it that the gene is sacred? Or the fact that a cell is involved in reproduction? Is a person created from a skin cell going to be just as valid/human as a "natural born" person.

diverts the point of the argument. It may be the case someday but its also a big leap from anything that's currently possible to assume that reproductive cells *won't* be involved. What I could see occuring is a redefinition of "reproductive", but "what if" doesn't really serve anybody. I think its important to note that a consistent Right to Life argument usually involves saying that once fertilization has occured and that a human will at some point in the future probably form, then its "life." Whether that is correct or valid etc is a debatable point, but it doesn't immediately become invalid when you switch what caused the "at some point in the future."

I think, when you look at life and humanity from a consciousness/value perspective --then it is a lot easier to deal with new advances in science and leads to rights and ethical treatment for new type of life we have not yet considered.

This is a very bad way to argue, just because it makes it easier, doesn't mean one should accept it. That is very nearly the opposite of "principled." Which is usually a good thing to have in a particular ethic.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[yrogreg]

The real question then becomes whether commercial researchers feel that it's worth their time and money to pursue this research.

Which they have traditionally declined, preferring drugs that treat common ailments over those that treat relatively rare ones.

It's only been in recent years that they've viewed it as possible to make a profit from less common, chronic conditions, where a patient will continue to need a (potentially expensive) drug for the remainder of their natural lives. This is also how funding for AIDS treatments took off in the pharmaceutical industry. It's also, as I understand it, a big part of the reason the public sector's heavily involved in the vaccine business.

I don't actually know where stem cells fall in this sense- medical people: are these patients only going to need a couple of treatments, or are stem cell treatments likely to be a life-long thing? In other words, is this the sort of thing that commercial researchers would ever seriously consider sinking funds into on their own? Or are we really depending on public backing to ever see an results from this?

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Darby]

I also believe federal legislation is counterproductive, and that individual states should have different rules.

In general, I'm probably pretty much in agreement with you on this one.
I do feel that the federal government has a responsibility to make sure that states don't take away rights which are specifically guaranteed in the constitution. So, for example, I think (some) anti-discrimination laws are good and (sadly) necessary.

I probably wouldn't lump abortion in there as there will for the forseeable future always be states where it is legal.

In our nation right now, the she is all-powerful and the fetus has essentially no rights. I think this balance is very wrong.

I think this balance is right, and further, I don't see how it is possible to have it any other way.

In the broadest sense, how could you ever grant a right to something that has never asked for it?

No fetus has ever expressed any sort of desire, thought, sentience, or anything of the sort.

Given this, how could you decide what they want? How can you decide what is best for them?

I understand your argument, but my 2 major issues with it are:
1) It proposes giving weight to the thoughts and feelings of something that by definition doesn't have them.
2) Power will be removed from people over what goes on inside their own bodies, and it won't go to those who you propose need more as they are entirely unable to wield it. This power will go to somebody, and those people I don't trust at all (for any value of "those people").
Giving a state (as in US state, or as in Nation) that kind of power over the most intimate details of a person's life is totally inconsistent with the possibility of a free society.

I disagree. I think there are lots of options

All of which suffer from the problems above.

I think sex ed should start no sooner than 6th grade,

I'd say no later. I guess we hit a sweet spot on that one ;-) I would hope that it would be totally unnecessary as the parents should certainly have handled it before then.

and should be a mandatory part of a larger health curriculum

Great.
I'd also add a defense from mass media manipulation course as well.

I think it should be set down in print that the best way to avoid pregnancy and STD's is ... not to have sex.

It's the truth, ain't it?

I have a problem when it is pushed as the only way and disinformation is spread deliberately though.
As a matter of health, it's society's concern. As a matter of morality, that's up to the individual parent. So no teachers telling the kids how great it is either.

Also, when I was in high school I think a lot more people thought their friends were having sex -- that it was acceptable and desirable behavior -- than was actually the case,

Or maybe less thought so than was the case. As I think we agree on, it's largely the ignorance and disinformation that is the problem.

(Something inside me still says "if they're old enough to be having sex, they're old enough to be taking responsibility for themselves." But reality trumps my personal morality on this one.)

They totally should be. I think putting an emphasis on fixing the problem rather than punishing the victims ( whether the mother, the baby, or the fetus) would do more to help than laws that, in my mind, are inconceivably invasive.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Skye16]

The analogy goes as follows:

When making a cake, you have your cake mix and your egg, milk, and oil (actually, I don't know if you need milk or not, as I haven't made cake in a few years, but lets say, for the sake of argument, you do need milk.).

All the ingredients, separately - are they a cake? I think the answer is a resounding no.

So you mix them together. You now have cake batter in a bowl. Is it a cake yet? No. This is akin to a sperm and egg combining. Is this cake batter now a cake? I would say absolutely not. It's merely cake batter (and quite tasty). Is our newly formed zygote life? I would say no, it's a zygote. I CAN be life, much as our cake batter CAN be cake. But neither of them are there yet.

So, we put our cake batter in a pan and we put that pan in the oven. Now, as soon as that cake batter goes into the oven - does that make it a cake? If you opened the oven a mere microsecond after inserting the pan, does it become a cake? I say no. I say it's still just cake batter.

On the flip side of that token, one microsecond before the cake is "done" (let's say we've set a timer), if we open the oven, is the cake still cake batter? I would say absolutely not. It's now a cake.

Now, the question is, when, in that progression of insertion to extraction, does the cake batter turn into a cake? I honestly don't know. Same with the zygote that turns into an embryo that turns into a fetus that turns into a baby. At some point it passes a threshhold from being just batter (maybe begging to solidify - or at least "spongeify", if you're baking it properly) to being a cake (maybe with a little "raw", "unspongey"-ness to it, but still able to stand on its own and accept our favorite icings). Where does it cross over from being mostly batter to mostly cake? Can you pinpoint it?

Let's say you can. What it is, I don't know, but with the marvels of modern science, let's say we figure it out, and everyone knows the moment when cake batter turns to cake. We know it, but the truth is, it doesn't matter so much. What matters is that, the moment the batter goes in the oven, or shortly thereafter, it's not yet a cake. What matters is, the moment the cake comes out of the oven, and shortly before, it's no longer batter.

To say that life begins at conception is, in my opinion, like saying cake begins at mixing. A silly statement. To say that life begins at birth is, also, in my opinion, like saying a cake doesn't exist until its time is up and it has been removed from the oven. Another silly statement. What is the object in the oven, that goes from batter to cake? Is it just mix and eggs and oil and (maybe) milk? Is it cake? Or is it something different and unique, unlike its parent components and also unlike its "final" form? I could say that the cake batter/cake is, indeed, something different. Something in transition. Does it get the same rights and protections as regular cake? No. For starters, it's a really bad idea trying to smear chocolate icing on a pan of cake batter. Does it get more rights and protections as the batter? No, it gets more. I know I was never allowed running around like a monkey when a cake was baking. "You'll make it fall!" I don't know whether this is true or not, but I do know that my monkey-like shennanigans weren't inhibited when the cake was being mixed or being frosted.

In any event, I strung that analogy out a bit more than I had meant to, but so be it. To answer your question, "is it ok to throw out the cake while its baking" - I would say yes. And I would say no. It depends on whether it's mostly batter, or mostly cake. :)

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Skye16]

Also, when you mention the egg is not an embryo - I'm aware. IVF procedures usually have multiple eggs being fertilized at any given time. Once they determine which eggs have been fertilized and which haven't, they then insert (more than one) egg into the uterus. It often happens that many of these zygotes/embryos die, but usually at least one makes it through. Sometimes a lot more than one. But they usually still have some left over, to make sure that the lady has, indeed, been impregnated, and if not, then they don't have to go through the entire IVF procedure again. They can just insert new zygotes/embryos that they have sitting around from the last time through. This is good if she isn't pregnant. But if she is pregnant, and she knows she doesn't want any more children, the zygotes/embryos are either frozen or destroyed.

Or at least that's what wikipedia told me :)

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Xtravar]

A human is someone that an existing human can relate to. I think this is a good definition.

You could put Hitler and a Jew in a room together, get them to laugh at the same jokes, and they'd consider each other human. You can't put an embryo and a human in a room together and expect them to relate any more than a human and a frog.

Furthermore, when you boil down the traits of a person between nature and nurture, we tend to be more forgiving toward unchangeable, genetic characteristics and judge more upon learned characteristics. An embryo has nothing to judge, therefore it means nothing to us. A human is someone we can judge.

If you don't accept this logic, look at how we treat children vs adults in the eyes of the law. The older you get, the more responsible for your own actions you are, and the more rights you have. We judge people based on the characteristics they learn, or have not corrected through learning. We give children extra chances when it comes to crime. For some reason, they aren't considered fully human when it comes to the inalienable right to vote.

An embryo is just a stage to the creation of a human being. Is it horrible to kill one? Sure, just as horrible as it is to slaughter cattle, chickens, and other farm animals for food. In fact, carrots and potatoes are killed, too, during harvesting. Pro-life... pro-life is a misnomer. People are going to abort babies and eat steak and mashed potatoes no matter what craziness ensues.

So there's your debate. Boo hoo, "it could have been a kid". Well, then every guy who masterbates is guilty, and so are the girls who let their eggs go to waste every month. Oh, one gamete is not a life but two together is? Get with the program. There are MILLIONS of people using birth control RIGHT NOW and there's not a thing you can do about it. "But... they could be having kids!!!" OH JOY, more brats to make noise in movie theaters.

And on a side note, people who have funerals for miscarriages are retarded.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[a whoabot]

It's an interesting thing to think about, hmmm...

I think the position he's communicating is that a human life is like the cake. The cake is not a cake until it is done. Until then it's just a bunch of ingredients, which may or may not be something special, something "unlike" the ingredients themselves. So a human being is not there until the embryo/foetus(exact terminology I'm not sure on) has finished gestation.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[MetaPhyzx]

Most Americans thought slavery was a good thing and that "people of color" should not have the same rights as those who were not "people of color."
So, I'm afraid I have no clue what point you were trying to make.... Does 50.00000001% or 99.999999999% make it *right*?
Of course not.
I wonder how barbaric we will look 50, 100, or 150 years from now.

You mean those Americans who interpreted and used Scripture to reinforce that slavery was ok? It's ok, because there were Americans at that time who's religious conviction was questioned because they argued that (and in some cases, risked life and limb to ensure) that those who were enslaved should be freed and afforded the protections of white male Americans. Americans as a whole seemed to buy into the notion of a Manifest Destiny as well.

Fast forward to today, and I don't see anyone not in favor of embryonic stem cell research harboring or hell implanting themselves with fertilized eggs to birth these unrealized humans. It's hard enough to get them to adopt the multitudes of unwanted Children here in the United States. Get in where you fit in, I suppose.

How barbaric it is will be judged as in due time, who knows. There's so much to judge from this time. Wars for oil; the WHOLE of faux religious extremism; democracy itself; the treatment and acceptance of homosexuals, on and on. I don't know.

Don't get me wrong; having a moral center is important. To be honest, in ways it is at the heart of our humanity. Yet that has to be balanced with the GOOD of humanity as a whole, realizing that the majority of it may not be in agreement with your own compass.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[dgatwood]

Currently, there seem to be two camps: for and against. The most prominent "against" figures are against any extraction of stem cells from any new embryos. This is our President's position, etc. That's the position I'm arguing against.

Of course there are ethical concerns. There are ethical concerns with everything. That doesn't mean that there should be an essential moratorium on useful research until those concerns can be eliminated. These rules have to develop organically. As people realize that practices have gone too far, they come up with rules to rein in those practices.

As for the assertion that these can be implanted and 9 months later, become a person that can live for 70+ years, that's simply not true. They can only safely be implanted in the mother. The risk of rejection would otherwise be considered unacceptable. Thus, they can't ever become someone else's child. And someone going to a fertililty clinic wants his/her own child anyway, or else he/she would simply adopt. Thus, once the mother of those frozen embryos decides that she isn't having any more kids, that's it. There is no possibility that those will ever become viable human beings.

-That- is the situation that I'm comparing to a dying infant on life support. The only thing that can happen to that clump of cells is freezer burn.

All other cases are ethically distinct and must be evaluated on their own merits. Embryos created for research are an obviously different case, as the question is whether the research is worth the creation of embryos to discard. I would say no, others would say yes. That said, this will probably never happen because there will likely always be an ample supply of leftovers from fertility clinics.

And of course, there's the final case, which is the case of embryos where the mother hasn't yet decided that she has had enough children. However, those are unlikely to be discarded or used for stem cell research because it costs too much money (almost always out of the parents' pockets) to create those embryos. They aren't going to just decide to throw them away on a whim.

Barring a substantial change in the economics and/or supply of embryos, it is unlikely that any of these ethical issues are likely to come up in the near future. The only issue that is likely to come up is the case of frozen embryos that are going to be discarded.

I just can't see how anyone could argue that it is better for them to freezer burn than to be used for good. It just doesn't make any sense to me... and I'm usually very good at seeing both sides of sticky issues, but this one... the other side is just too far beyond my comprehension....

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Alex P Keaton in da]

Wow- I stand corrected. Growing up on a farm, I guess I know nothing about eggs. We country bumpkins always appreciate some city folk settin' us straight!!!

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Wolfier]

Most Iranians think Bikini is a bad thing and that "infidels" should not have the same rights to enter heaven as those who were not "infidels".

So, I'm afraid I have no clue what point you were trying to make..... Does 0.0000001% or 99.99999999% make it *wrong*?

Of course not.

I wonder how civilized we will look 50, 100, or 150 years from now.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[theStorminMormon]

I'm still forming my opinion in regards to invitro fertilization (I'm against harvesting embryo's, and people like you who demand consistency have made me question my previous acceptance of in vitro fertilization). One commonly accepted principle of ethics (nothing is accepted by everyone) is that intention influence s (or even determines) the morality of an action. So if I shoot you because I think you are going to kill me it's not so bad, but if I shoot you because I want to kill you it's murder and bad. So when it comes to the topic of in vitro fertilization you have to ask whether or not it is immoral to try to have a child knowing that some of the children you successfully conceive will die. Considering the infant mortality rate for most of human history, you see that humans have a long-standing tradition of having kids only to have them die (before or after birth). Thus the argument can be made that there is a moral difference between trying to have a child and, with the intent of creating life, accidentally creating additional life that will be killed, and on the other hand creating life just to be harvested. Personally I think that there *IS* a difference, but I also think that trying to have kids while some of them will die accidentally is not at all the same as tossing out spare embryo's. Nonetheless, my point is that there is a difference between in vitro fertilization and stem cell harvesting. And I don't think anyone is genuinely concerned about harvesting frozen embryo's (which will eventually be allowed to die without being born) AS MUCH as they are afraid that if it starts there it will end in harvesting. I also believe that if I were ever to go in for in vitro I would want to at least discuss the possibility of trying to minimize the number of extraneous embryo's. Oh yeah, one more thing. There's also the question of cost-benefit ratio. Cynical as that sounds, it's a part of ethics. We could all drive foam-covered cars with only 20 horsepower and that would prevent thousands of accidental deaths a year. But it's not worth it to us. So people die because as a society we drive fast, heavy, powerful cars. Is that immoral? If not, then why would it be immoral to follow a practice of in vitro fertilization (knowing that lives would be lost) because the alternative, trying one egg at a time, is too costly? But harvesting, on the other hand, is unlike either because instead of allowing lives to be lost because it's not practical to expend the effort to save them all, we're DELIBERATELY ending lives. So there's another difference (which I like more than the intention difference). So I understand your point, but it's not so simple.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Chanc_Gorkon]

You know, adoption IS an option. How is saying that it's God's will that we not have another child not taking responsibility? Maybe financially, we have done everything we can within our means (we have) and maybe there are biological means for getting around this that we don't agree with (making embryos and implanting multiple ones til one takes and killing off the rest is something I find morally reprehensible). How does that make my opinion wrong?? At least I have the guts to post this on Slashdot. That's more responsibility then the average Slashdotter. Most Slashdotters don't even have enough guts to say they believe in God!

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Smallpond]

Why? An egg is a live human cell, a sperm is a live human cell and the resulting zygote is a live human cell. Is there some kind of magic about conception? Do you believe that a soul is created at that instant? Life is a process, not a moment or a creation with a distinct beginning and end.

Life doesn't begin at conception, its already there.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Moofie]

Maybe those people don't think that the "leftover embryos" shouldn't be discarded.

Me, I think it's kinda irresponsible to have people spending zillions on fertility treatments when there are lots of kids (real, living, meat-based children) who need good homes.

I don't think that my predilections should be codified in law, but I do think you're perhaps being a little prejudiced...

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Moofie]

Whoops. Tripped on my negatives. First sentence should read:

Perhaps those people think that those 'leftover embryos' shouldn't be discarded.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[atgrim]

Unlike cake batter, once the egg and sperm come together, either naturally or technologically, it will become a human being. It won't become a dog or a hamster or a teradactyl. It will become a human child.

That point made, I agree with the point that a stance must be made and maintained. I had completely forgotten about invitro. That will add to my thoughts. Thank you.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Itchy Rich]

Human embryos will ALWAYS mature into humans. They will NEVER be anything but. If this is the case, then by definition, a human embryo is a human being.

By definition, science cannot say that embryos are human at any particular stage without first defining what human is.

I would disagree that a fertilised egg is any more human than an unfertilised egg with a sperm sitting next to it. Fertilisation is just one step in a very long process during which millions of potential "humans" are lost without ever being known. The "moment of conception" as the definition of being human is an arbitrary one brought about by social conditioning.

Since nobody seems to be offering a definition on which people can agree, any arguments concerning embryos will remain a point of debate.

You're only trying to justify something to yourself that you know is wrong.

I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm talking about scientific method.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

How is saying that it's God's will that we not have another child not taking responsibility?

Because that is exactly what it is, assigning responsibility for what happens to god instead of yourself. By saying you've done all you can and now it is up to god, what you're also saying is that you've tried, not found an answer, and now you're giving up. There's nothing wrong with giving up. Maybe, there is no physical way to achieve your goal that you do not find immoral. The fact remains that making things happen is your responsibility and if you don't find a way, accept that failing as your own. A person who accepts personal responsibility for themselves will not write a failing off as God's will.

At least I have the guts to post this on Slashdot. That's more responsibility then the average Slashdotter. Most Slashdotters don't even have enough guts to say they believe in God!

First, posting about your religious beliefs on Slashdot is not necessarily a good thing in everyone's minds. Some people think it is immoral, disrespectful, or impolite to be pushy about their religious beliefs. Other people may very well not believe in your christian god, and would of course find lying about it unethical. Still other people regard religion as a very private matter that is between them and god, and not to be discussed with others at all. Assuming for just a moment you are only speaking to people with the same religious beliefs as you and who feel speaking out about their religion is a good thing you're still only making a devil's comparison. You've also probably killed fewer jews than Hitler, how does that make your failure to take personal responsibility for your life any less real?

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Retric]

Is such a practice bad because nobody wants ice creame cones? NO! It's bad because you could have gotten so much more with the $100.

That's a nice assumption. But it's based around a zero sum game. Gov research has a higher net payoff than anything private industry can do with the money therefore it's better for everyone involved to have that money spent in that fashion. Research is a high-risk game but over time on average it has the highest ROI of any endeavor. The entire semiconductor industry is based off of government research that would not have occurred with private backing.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Some_Llama]

"Life doesn't begin at conception, its already there."

It is actually hard to bare a child, lots of times eggs get fertilized but then don't properly develop/attach/etc and are flushed out during a woman's monthly cycle...

To believe that all fertilized eggs "WOULD" one day become a person is just foolish... there is a lot more that goes into it (look at the rates of miscarriages in this country alone).

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Some_Llama]

"You mean those Americans who interpreted and used Scripture to reinforce that slavery was ok"

This always bugs me, scripture doesn't say slavery is OK, but was actually dealing witht he issue of slavery in that modern time.. it was the first time that slaves were given the same rights as other people.

Scripture demanded that if someone had a slave, they had to be given time off, had some limited birth rights, and were to be freed and given assets after 7 years of "service".

Scripture didn't start slavery but demanded that if a Jew was to have a slave, they had to be treated with basic human rights and eventually freed.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Retric]

Rothbard was an anarchist, and did not support government-funded research.

I stillagree with Rothbard on this point.

I am more an investor than a traditional economist but they are sufficiently related that I have done a lot of research into economics. As such I feel better about giving investment advice (22% ROI last year 18% seems to be my norm but it's still a small sample size.) Some of this stuff is gut feeling like 'I think it's a good time to move some cash from US stocks to foreign funds for the next few weeks..' but a lot of this is based around what makes money over time. The best company to invest in is one that is paying small dividends with the money it can't find anything truly productive to do with and I feel governments work the same way. The average investment pays around say 8% a year after inflation if the government feels it can do better than that it should do so, but if it can't then it should avoid doing that. Not that most governments act that way but the programs that pay a high ROI are worth it because of the ROI not because the government is doing it.

The problem is that there are many programs with a high ROI that are not going to get funded without government money. Take the recent 30% efferent solar cells that are soon to go into production either government or private funding can pay for their research, but the company doing to most innovative research is working with limited funding. Having the government give them 50mil would probably provide a vary high ROI to the economy but so could a lot of other research projects in this area. However, giving that same 50 million to pay for medicine for the poor would probably provide a low ROI. Paying off 50 million in debt could also have a low ROI but when choosing between them it's not a bad idea to pick the highest ROI until dumping more money into it would have a lower ROI (with that extra cash.)

Now it's hard to guess what the ROI of something like fusion research is going to provide 'but few people are willing to take this risk.' I am all for private research, but while it tends to be more innovative than large projects it is slower. My point is not that research should be going with small or large risk pools but rather that if the government is not funding research then most of that money will be spent on things outside of research. I don't think the gov should spend all that high a % of the GDP on research but there are probably 20 - 200 billion$ / year worth of high risk / high average ROI research that can be done each and every year but is not going to take place without government funding.

Let profits accrue to those who risk money in the arena, and let those who prefer to sit on their money do so.

That's a cold statement. The government's job is to help the populace by providing goods and services that are best preformed by a large body working for the good of the community. I understand risk and am willing to take it but I don't think the government should try to act in my best interest rather it should be aiming for the good of society as a whole.

PS: I don't expect to ever go into prison but I think it's a good idea to separate those with HIV in prison from those without because it would be good for society if we reduced the number of people that become infected with the disease. It would be a fairly simple and cheep process to designate a few prisons or areas as quarinted that would have an increasable ROI, but nobody wants to go there because?

PPS: Maybe, but firstly, could the private sector have done it for less? I does not mater if they could have done the research for less money if they where not going to do that research.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Retric]

By this point / Rothbard I am talking about those with little knowledge screaming about economic issues. I think you have a reasonable grasp on the subject but in general I agree with him on that issue.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[EvolutionKills]

A cookie is just a cookie, but a newton is fruit and cake!

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Eslyjah]

Retric, thanks for a spirited discussion over the last couple days. I think we have established where our differences lie:

The government's job is to help the populace by providing goods and services that are best preformed by a large body working for the good of the community.

This is what I disagree with. I think the government should specialize in those things tasks which are inherently governmental in nature, such as keeping the peace, enforcing contracts, and providing physical infrastructure. The moment the government begins providing goods and services, in my view, it has overstepped its bounds. This is not because I dislike goods and services, nor is it because I am unwilling to pay high taxes to support governmental functions. It is because government participation in the economy is neofeudalism. Citizens are told to "shut up and do what you're told," which, in this case, is fork over tax dollars for scientific research. Now, as I have been at pains to say, research is good, but, as Hayek said, "If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."

I also disagree that private institutions will simply not do the research in question (though even if they did not, my first argument still stands). Between private, for-profit firms, and private, non-profit institutions, I think all the bases are covered. It's clear that you do not, but such is life: people disagree.

I suppose I will leave you with a final question: who decides? Under your scheme, who decides what gets funded and what doesn't? Should it be technocrats in Washington? That's an elitist attitude, and the technocrats have no accountability. Should it be the voters? Most of them do not know the issues. I propose that we leave it to the market, which rewards people who make good investments and punishes those who make bad ones. It never makes anyone take an unwanted risk, and it provides plenty of risk opportunity for those in search of more rewards, and funds are never misallocated for long. It may be cold, but if I want something warm and fuzzy, I'll get a dog.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Retric]

Eslyjah: Thanks, I like to debate / discuss with people who have a reasonably consistent / logical view point. My political stance is all over the map so focusing on a single issue to debate become a problem. If you want to continue / expand this feel free to drop me a line a jkirbyjobs in hotmail.

When it comes to political funding for research I agree that there are a great number of problems with it overall but a simple example of the cancellation of the supper colidder project should demonstrate what happens to over the horizon scientific projects after government funding dries up. (So clearly there are gaps in what private money will pay for in terms of research.)

My basic views on scientific progress are that it's is a basic feedback loop. Basic Science > Applied Science > Increased Economic Efficiency > More Money for Basic Science. As such there is no way for anyone in the dark ages to build an ICBM but the overall cost of basic science keeps going up as the easer subjects have been explored. Assuming we survive we might know all there is to learn from Science in 10,000 years whatever we do but by dumping more money into Basic Science now you can slightly alter the level of economic growth. In that way I view basic science as infrastructure in that it promotes long-term economic growth but has little value to individual segments in society.

When it comes to goods and services I don't want individuals or companies building ICBM's. O they can make the rocket but the basic bomb should be made from someone who is less concerned with the bottom line than the level of safety for society. This apply's to high level encryption software / hardware used by the government and a few other such items whose design and development should be tightly controlled.

As to services I think it's a good idea to give people some basic services like legal / tax advice and monitoring the food supply, but this should be small scale. As in a few good websites and a few hours per year of professional advice. It's not that private industry can't provide these services but rather that it's a bad idea for people to give up on them. AKA: the bank is about to foreclose on my house what can / should I do?

I don't like the way that most of the government is run. I think spending more money than the rest of the world put together on our military is insane. I think SS should be limited to the oldest ~5% of the population (as people live longer you need to wait longer to retire) and those who are demonstrate-ably incapable of gainful employment (Quadriplegics not those with minor back problems) but provide a livable income to those people. I hate the idea of Medicare I have no problem with a form of socialized care that will pay for ~3k / year of basic care as it will help pay for things like proper care for broken bones which will help society for little real cost but paying for expensive minimally useful medicine for old people is stupid. I know that such systems are never going to be in place but for most things the government does as most of the value is had for the first 1/3 of the cash. EX: The public school system could be reasonably effective and run for 1/3 of the year per student. You could teach most people to read, write, basic math (up to trig), basic science, and provide materials for interested students to look into other areas in their free time with the ability to easily test out of most subjects after demonstrated ability. But our system has become closer to government subsidies daycare. Not that I think it should be cut but rather the insane amount of cash we spend on most things means that a few percent here or there can get a lot done.

I think that tax cuts for the wealthy are a stupid idea. If you want to help the economy talk with the fed or subsidies loans for small business to grow / expand, don't just give people money because they happen to have a lot of it.

As to accountability the system we have now works by trading what people w

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Kafir]

Scientifically, an embryo is, strictly speaking "human life"

Ever heard of "HeLa cells"? A woman named Henrietta Lacks died of cervical cancer in the 1950s, but her cancer cells have been cultured ever since. They are, strictly speaking, "human life"—they are genetically human, and they are indisputably alive—but it's hard for me to imagine what ethically significant distinction could be made between HeLa cells and any single-celled organism—say, Escherichia coli.

so, when and why is it ok to end such life, regardless of the state it may be in?

I find it difficult to understand why genetic "humanness" should be ethically relevant; embryos are no more able to feel pain, or fear, or to regret their deaths, than are HeLa cells, or stem cells, or the millions of skin cells I shed each day. Embryos do have the potential to develop into walking, conscious humans—but, with advances in cloning technology, so will every cell in my body (save erythrocytes and sperm).

Why should we not examine the important ethical questions?

Certainly we should. But to imagine that it is human molecules rather than human consciousness that define humanness is to engage in magical thinking, not ethical reasoning.

Speaking of which—

The ethical considerations are important: should we also clone humans?

Assuming the problem of telomere damage is dealt with, human clones will be equivalent to time-delayed twins (natural clones), so the question "should we clone humans?" is essentially equivalent to the question, "should we have children?". If we are [creating clones/having kids] to harvest their organs, or to "replace" dead children, then there are certainly ethical questions to answer. But cloning, per se, is not the primary issue. The ethical questions that relate to cloning as such derive from the unknown health consequences—clones may be prone to cancer and premature ageing. But substantially the same ethical concerns apply to any medical experimentation involving reproduction or children.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Kafir]

Nicely put. You'd probably like Philip K. Dick's short story, "The Pre-Persons", if you haven't already read it.

Macka and others who frame abortion as the simple, obvious right of the woman involved are presupposing that the fetus has no rights of its own, which should be a (if not the) central question in the debate over abortion. (Also, those who take the "her body, her life" position should, to be consistent, support legalized prostitution. I don't know how many of them do.)

Unless, of course, you claim that "a fetus is not a human being" and has the same rights as, say, a fly.

I don't see why humanness, for ethical purposes, should be a discontinuous, either-or variable. Clearly it is unreasonable to say that a 38-week fetus has the rights of a fly, while a newborn baby has the same rights as you, me, and Abe Vigoda, but it doesn't make much more sense to extend those same rights all the way back to the mindless, microscopic fertilized egg. I would say that factors like the ability to feel pain, to fear death, and to enjoy life are more relevant than any arbitrary, excluded-middle definition of humanity.

Personally I'd say that late-term abortion is sometimes wrong, and infanticide is sometimes right. Location (in or out of the womb) is not in itself a factor with ethical relevance.

Anyway, I'd guess there's quite a bit I disagree with you about, but you're dead on about the lack of rational debate, at least.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Vitriol Angst]

I think its important to note that a consistent Right to Life argument usually involves saying that once fertilization has occured and that a human will at some point in the future probably form, then its "life."

Good to see the basis. That is basically what I thought RTL was holding. But again, how is there any principle to uphold in this "Life" that is a group of cells. I don't see any ethics that makes it murder to kill human cells -- I give blood and I wash with soap.

This is a very bad way to argue, just because it makes it easier, doesn't mean one should accept it. That is very nearly the opposite of "principled." Which is usually a good thing to have in a particular ethic.

Easy and simple is not the opposite of Principled, it is the opposite of Difficult and complex. You must be thinking of Expedient, which isn't where I'm heading. You are assuming I've forgotten principles... but the first part of my argument mentions that we cannot come to any terms on any subject based on relative ethics or emotion. Principles are a set of rules based on morals and/or ethics. I know all about the Moral argument -- it has a history of about 70 years. But the church is pretty inconsistent and actually supports abortion before that--I've discussed the purpose and history of "Nunneries" but we don't need history to make values judgments. Religion hasn't done much to stop atrocities -- just keep things orderly.

In my "Ethics", I see conscious life as valuable. If I'm brain dead then pull the plug and don't try to keep a bunch of tissue "alive". And if consciousness hasn't formed, then there is No One there to murder. We can all argue about various aspects of the soul -- but there is no "Ethics" there, only morality.

I'll agree that you can "what if" things to death. But this "what if" I'm making is very pertinent. It is within the next 10 years a reality. It also puts a cross-hair on the whole issue; "what is sacred, human DNA, living cells, or reproductive cells?" The answer I get back "reproductive cells fertilized with human DNA" is very specific. But it also doesn't address the morality of someone who is born in a non-tradiitional manner. This is just Intelligent Design --which is we throw in the "Unknowable Power" wherever something exists that we don't understand. The soul used to be seen as drawn in by the first breathe and expelled with a persons last. Once we figured out breathing and air -- well the soul became electricity. After a few experiments making the muscles of frogs jump and the Frankenstein novel, the soul moved into some energy thingy. I'm not dismissing the idea that people have a soul -- I just think that my argument about Consciousness explains what harbors a soul (or what has moral value) better than the "human fertilized reproductive cells".

Just as the Universe does not revolve around the earth, the Soul does not revolve around human reproduction. All these moral assumptions are based upon some "soul spark" that zaps into the cell once sperm meets ovum. The bible mentions none of this. And when I meet a "person" who has been created without the method of genes delivered in this manner to a reproductive cell I will treat them as I would anyone else.

But I'm not too worried about this issue. Abortion has tripled during the Bush years, after declining to 50% under Clinton. With Republicans around, it will never be illegal nor infrequent. I personally want abortions reduced, but that would require things like sex education, availability of contraceptives and generally less ignorant teenagers -- all of these things are getting rarer and rarer. The Anti Abortion issue is just a political tool to get a base excited and to get people arguing while we get our pockets picked. If there were anything Moral about the Anti-Abortion movement, they would volunteer to financially help these unwed mothers who go to clinics to get their lives back. Personally, I'm more concerned about energy and global warming right now.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[arbitraryaardvark]

Really? Government-financed research is at least in the public domain, and any entrepreneur who can see an opportunity is welcome to take the results of that research & run as far & as fast as they can go. Good point.

By contrast, and especially with the current state of our "intellectual property" laws, anything developed by a private interest will be doled out at whatever rate will maximize profit - and any attempts at competition will be ruthlessly stamped out. Bad point. The best way to maximize profit is usually to sell non-exclusive licenses to whoever is willing to pay, which in turn is people who will use the tech most widely.
Patents at most bottle up an idea for 17 years (forever in computer time, but short as to overall history.) But usually, if a patented idea isn't made available via cheap licensing, somebody else finds an alternatie method to do the same sort of thing. When it comes to ruthlessly stamping things out, government is the expert, with a little competition from wannabe governments known as organized crime.

Do you really think leaving basic research up to private concerns yields the most benefit for society? Absolutely. I'd pick Dick Rutan or Edison over Idi Amin or Mao or Schumer any day.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Doc Ruby]

Then consider how much private research is built on public research (such as at universities), and the privatization of science is an obvious ripoff of the public. We pay for their product development, we indemnify their risks, and then we pay for the products. They keep the profits.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Itchy Rich]

Who cares what "science" says? You seem to put an awful lot of stock in "science". What, precisely, is "science" that its ability to define something overrides every other consideration?

Scientific method is what's responsible for you being able to drink cold drinks and use the internet. Without it, we would not be having this conversation. I think that means we should at least give it due consideration. Don't you?

You don't want to listen because admitting that there MIGHT be a God would deal a serious blow to everything you believe.

I never said I didn't believe in God. Perhaps you should calm down and read the thread again.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Mornelithe]

Fine, then substitute 'single-celled organism from 3 billion years ago' for amoeba.

Are you arguing that there aren't organisms that haven't had to adapt/change significantly in a long time? Sharks, for instance, haven't changed in a while, because they're well suited to their environment.

Humans are at the end of a 3 billion year chain of adaptations. Amoebas, or at least amoeba-like creatures can be found toward the start. So, yes, they are less evolved in a sense.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Macka]

Sorry for the late reply. I've been indisposed for a while and forgot about this thread. However I do have further views on what you wrote.

By this logic, if my child is a pain in the neck I ought to be able to cut his throat and burn him in the wood stove

How exactly is this an extension of my logic? I was talking about the mothers rights when she's carrying a fetus. When a child is born its no longer part of the mothers body, so there is no connection between your logic and mine.

Unless, of course, you claim that "a fetus is not a human being" and has the same rights as, say, a fly

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. I think Kafir's reply summed it up nicely when he said:

but it doesn't make much more sense to extend those same rights all the way back to the mindless, microscopic fertilized egg.

And this is my position. When a fetus develops to a point where it has a beating heart and it can move around, then that is where I make the distinction between a fetus and a child. Prior to that its just a collection if interesting cells with the potential for life. Its very much an extension of the mothers body, not independent of it, and she has the right to choose what she does with that in exactly the same way she does a nail clipping.

At the moment in the UK a woman can have an abortion up to (I think) 24 weeks. Personally I think this is way too late as 3D scans have shown a baby is quite well developed by that point. Week7 I think should be the cut off point as the fetus doesn't have a fully functioning heart at this point, doesn't have eyes, ears, arms or legs and isn't capable of independent movement. By week nine it is capable of moving in its own and that makes it distinct from the mother.

Prior to that point I don't think you or anyone else have any rights to tell a woman what she should do with parts of her own body.

Great!

[BlackCobra43]

How long till we see anything coemfrom this?
Months? Nah
Years? Maybe.
Decades? Seems to be the most likely.
Don`t mean to rain on this parade, but if there's one thing that's even slower than game develoment (*cough*DNF*cough*) it's medical research.

Re:Great!

[biglig2]

Perhaps you'd like to try this totally untested stem-cell treatment for that nasty cough of yours?

Re:Great!

[LexNaturalis]

That's (mostly) true, but that doesn't mean we should stop doing medical research. All it takes is a single breakthrough/accident (i.e. Penicillin) to change modern medicine. Medical research is very expensive, and time consuming, but it's also worth it, in the long run. So you're right that it's slow, but that still doesn't rain on my parade.

Flamebait

[1967mustangman]

That would mean generating the valuable cells without using a human egg, and without creating a human embryo, which some people, including President George W. Bush, find objectionable. = FLAMEBAIT

Re:Flamebait

[slavemowgli]

Insightful, too, though. The president has a moral obligation to do what's best for the country as a whole instead of acting out of his own personal religious beliefs.

Re:Flamebait

[MillionthMonkey]

That would mean generating the valuable cells without using a human egg, and without creating a human embryo, which some people, including President George W. Bush, find objectionable. = FLAMEBAIT

Even if it should say "destroying" instead of "creating" in that sentence, why is it flamebait?

Re:Flamebait

[pilgrim23]

Bush would just dash the petrie dish to the floor and immediately be arrested by the FCC....

It is illegal to make......
an obscene clone fall...

Re:Flamebait

[wahsapa]

what the fuck did you just say?

Re:Flamebait

[Red Flayer]

The president has a moral obligation to do what's best for the country as a whole instead of acting out of his own personal religious beliefs.

Strictly speaking, he does not have that obligation, nor that power. He can recommend to the Congress "such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." He must do what is necessary to uphold the law of the land.

But the power to act lies within Congress, and any recommendation by the President is based upon his personal opinion, which may or may not reflect what is best for the country.

This is why there is a separation of powers, so that the Congress can hold a President, who either oversteps his authority, or is an idiot, in check.

Re:Flamebait

[modecx]

GWB has the power because he has congress by the balls. Even within his own party, significant dissent from the official party line is enough to get one instantaneously labeled "unpatriotic", and you're excommunicated from anything important--you might as well resign because even your own side won't have much to do with you.

Separation of powers is a good idea, but it does practically no good when the majority of the representatives are on leashes.

Re:Flamebait

[Red Flayer]

Agreed, with one caveat:

It's not GWB who has Congress by the cojones. The Powers That Be have GWB by the balls as well as Congress.

Follow the money trail... all the non-corporate-interest legislation and executive orders are just red herrings to keep the (R) and (D) voter bases motivated.

Pay no attention to the man* behind the curtain.

*gender doesn't really apply to corporations.

Re:Flamebait

[modecx]

No, you're absolutely right. I've thought the same for a while, basically. Either GWB is an evil super genius, or he was installed by a controlling insterst/corporatiins/seceret society/whatever. I really should thank that Occam fellow one of these days.

Though it seems to me that the administration is the one pulling Congress' chain more than anything; by association or by their own will, who's to say... One thing's for sure: the oil companies have never had it so good!

Re:Flamebait

[Guppy06]

The only obligations he has are to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States. When it comes to spending or not spending, said constitution seems pretty clear as to which branch of the federal government controls the federal purse strings. It happens to be the one designed to represent the people as a whole, at least far more effectively than a single office-holder.

What we have is a Congress willing to surrender its responsibilities and a President willing to assume them. This is certainly nothing new, but it's not reason enough to call this centralization of power doesn't give him any sort of "moral obligation."

Before anyone starts flaming..

[RailGunner]

Before anyone starts flaming Christians or George W. Bush - Christians are not opposed to stem cell research - only the source of stem cells being aborted humans. We have no problem with stem cell research when the stem cells come from umbilical cords or adult cadavers.

Please keep that in mind before you start bitching about us Christians being anti-science.

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[MightyMartian]

Before anyone starts flaming Christians or George W. Bush - Christians are not opposed to stem cell research - only the source of stem cells being aborted humans. We have no problem with stem cell research when the stem cells come from umbilical cords or adult cadavers. Please keep that in mind before you start bitching about us Christians being anti-science.

I'd like to explore your belief that all Christians are against using aborted fetuses. I wasn't aware that I was in the midst of the Spokesman of God and all things Christian.

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[Tebriel]

mod parent up. There are plenty of sources of stem cells without ethical issues surrounding them.

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[Anonymous Coward]

What if embryos are about to be destroyed? Can the cells be harvested from those?

Please do not resort to the slippery-slope argument for these questions. Thank you.

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[pointbeing]

I'm just glad I am not a witch (I'm not made of wood).

But do you weigh the same as a duck, heretic?

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[SlayerofGods]

I wasn't aware that I was in the midst of the Spokesman of God and all things Christian.
That would be the pope... who is also against it ;)

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[fireduck]

So what is your stance on the destruction of unused embryos at fertility clinics? Why hasn't there been as vocal outcry from Christians regarding that as there has been for stem cells from embryos?

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[Fulcrum of Evil]

There are plenty of sources of stem cells without ethical issues surrounding them.

Care to name some? I was under the impression that embryos were the only suitable source for a lot of research.

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[rootofevil]

I wasn't aware that I was in the midst of the Spokesman of God and all things Christian^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^hCatholic.
That would be the pope... who is also against it ;)

let me help you with that

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[RailGunner]

So what is your stance on the destruction of unused embryos at fertility clinics?

Completely against, since I personally believe life begins at conception. Therefore, destruction of these embryos constitutes the destruction of human life.

Why hasn't there been as vocal outcry from Christians regarding that as there has been for stem cells from embryos?

I don't think enough Christians really understand what's happening at fertility clinics. More and more people are starting to notice, however, and will soon speak up against it.

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[SashaMan]

The point you're missing, though, is that the embryos that Bush and other religious groups object to using are NOT "aborted humans". They are embryos that are created through in vitro fertilization THAT ARE GOING TO BE DESTROYED ANYWAY (a bunch of embryos are often created for IVF so that a couple will have additional options if initial pregnancy attempts fail). The problem I have with Bush and his religious pals is that they basically just want to stick their heads in the sand and somehow pretend that these embryos won't be destroyed anyway. In fact, I imagine many couples would WANT their extra embryos to be used to advance life-saving techniques, rather than being flushed down the drain.

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[MightyMartian]

Well, the whole point of my post, which some moderator decided was flamebait, was that the parent was pretty clearly indicating that Christians (as in all Christians) have a problem with using aborted embryos. It's pretty damn obvious that there are a good many Christians out there that do not have a problem with it. There is clearly more than one type of Christian, and it's pretty arrogant (and likely extremely inaccurate) to pose one's own beliefs as being The Beliefs that define Christianity.

That's part of the problem with any debate of this kind, you simply have people whose world view is so black and white that they cannot imagine a fellow Christian not sharing their precise opinion on any given subject. We see it with stem cell research, with the debate over evolution and with contentious social issues. And yet it always seems a bit of a cheap rhetorical ploy, defining your view as the "Christian" view, thus making it a strictly religious debate, and one which is likely to get other Christians who don't sit on your side of the fence up in arms. It also has the unspoken insinuation that anyone who disagrees with you, whether they claim to be Christian or not, is clearly not a Christian.

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[Shin Chan]

Last time I checked the pope was Catholic and he can kiss my semi-Christian ass.

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[learn fast]

Here's a poll. Scroll down to table 2-b:

"Stem cells come from embryos left over from invitro fertilization, which are not used and normally destroyed. Many medical researchers want to use them to develop treatments, or to prevent diseases, such as diabetes, Alzheimer's or Parkinson's disease. On balance, do you think this research should or should not be allowed?"

Should be allowed: (respondents by religion)

73% Total
67% Catholic
77% Protestant
66% Other Christian
58% Born-Again Christian
75% All other non-Born-Again Christian

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[GreyWolf3000]

Why do you believe life begins at conception? The only Biblical support that comes to mind for that belief comes through taking a couple of passages involving God "knowing" humans in the womb. To take that and extrapolate that the belief that what happens at fertility clinics is murder is completely isogetical and unwarranted.

I don't think enough Christians really understand what's happening at fertility clinics.

A lot of couples that couldn't ordinarily have children are able to have conceive through in vitro fertilization. I can't see how this is considered a bad thing.

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[Zemplar]

I'm just glad I am not a witch (I'm not made of wood).

But do you weigh the same as a duck, heretic?

"She's a Witch!"

"Buuuuuurrrrrrnnnnnnn Her!"

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[Derling Whirvish]

What if embryos are about to be destroyed? Can the cells be harvested from those?

Should we harvest corneas, bone marrow, kidneys, liver, pancreas, lungs, heart, and any other transplantable organs from death-row prisoners just prior to their execution?

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[MightyMartian]

Last time I checked, Catholics were Christians, but do please try to raise the spectre of that moronic religious war that started with that semi-mad ex-priest named Martin Luther. I just love the US, one of the only places left in the world where Protestants are still fighting the old war, unless of course there's some political edge to be given by kissing up to Catholics.

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[Derling Whirvish]

I imagine many couples would WANT their extra embryos to be used to advance life-saving techniques, rather than being flushed down the drain.

So what's preventing someone from using those embryos "to advance life-saving techniques"? Nothing is. A researcher just can't use federal funding to do it. There's plenty of private funding out there.

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[vertinox]

Please keep that in mind before you start bitching about us Christians being anti-science.

Ever thought about taking up Buddhism? No, but seriously as long as the abortion wasn't initiated for the fact of getting stem cells then it's just a sin to let them go to waste instead of using them for research that could save or prolong the life or ease the suffering of those who are now living.

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[Rycross]

Very interesting link. It certainly makes me believe that much of the objection to stem cell research comes from common misunderstandings.

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[eheldreth]

On a completely different look at in vitro fertilization and if we as a society should allow it is the fact that there are a lot of orphaned children that need families. By allowing in vitro fertilization we not only generate the ethical questions raised above, but also create an environment in which children that would have been adopted by otherwise children less couples are raised without proper parental love and care. I think we would be better off finding caring homes for these children, than just creating more children through artificial means.

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[Tebriel]

bone marrow, fat cell, umbilical cord, growing fetus, where cells can be gathered without destroying fetus...

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[n-baxley]

The objection is that if the use of these embryos for stem cell research is allowed then the demand for them will rise sharply. What then happens when all of the "natural" embryos are used up? There will be money, possibly federal money, available to entice someone into creating more embryos. Now the embryos are not just a byproduct that would have been thrown away anyway, but the product itself. Therein lies the problem. It's currently a byproduct because there is no market for it, but if the market is built the system will be abused.

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[dgatwood]

Yeah, but a lot of Catholics think he is wrong. Myself included. Papal infallibility was a concept that might have made sense when it could reasonably be assumed that the pope could reasonably understand all of the ramifications of a position. That is no longer the case.

IMHO, JP2 was wrong when he pushed so hard against birth control. One could reasonably argue that htis has resulted in genocide in Africa through the AIDS epidemic. Could JP2 have known something like that would happen? No. Did the decision seem right to him and other Catholic leaders at the time? Yes. Was it right in hindsight? Probably not.

For the most part, I'm a good little Catholic, but sometimes I think the pope goes too far. I am certain that among Catholics, I am not alone in this belief. There are some areas that the Church should simply stay out of. What happens between a husband and wife in their bedroom is one of those areas. What happens in medical research facilities is another. There are many more. God help us if the pope ever starts handing down edicts on technology issues. :-)

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[PenguinBoyDave]

I agree that life does start at conception. Having been through the birth of three of my own. Being able to hear the heartbeat just days after conception is enough proof for me. I'm in favor of Stem Cell Research, but only on a limited bases. I'm not anti-science, but I don't like the possibilities that unrestricted testing could mean.

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[lawpoop]

Then you should have a problem with in vitro fertilization, because that process creates dozens of embryos which are never implanted. There are thousands of embryos in the blastocyst stage sitting in freezers, and they will be thrown out sooner or later.

Stem cell research does not have to pull stem cells from aborted fetuses, but can get stem cells from unused blastocysts from the in vitro fertilization process, ones that would be thrown out otherwise. They are not aborted.

So you have no problem with that, right? Or if you do, you are then opposed to in vitro fertilization?

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[Tikiman]

So what is your stance on the destruction of unused embryos at fertility clinics? Why hasn't there been as vocal outcry from Christians regarding that as there has been for stem cells from embryos?

There has been a vocal outcry - google for embryo adoption. It's becoming a bigger and bigger issue because, by and large, couples are unwilling to offer their embryos for destruction in a research lab - I have seen estimates from 5% to 25% of the time. Furthermore, pro-choice advocates oppose federal funding for embryo adoption awareness programs because of the use of the term "adoption" rather than "donation". The outcry is getting louder, but it is not nearly as high as with abortion due to the numbers - up 100-000 400,000 frozen embryos total vs over 1,000,000 abortions per year. But as more and more people become aware of issues with IVF (sometimes up to 30 embryos created at a time), more people will begin to object.

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[Troed]

Being able to hear the heartbeat just days after conception is enough proof for me.

Are you Christian then, since your definition of "proof" seems more based on "faith"?

The embryonic heart starts beating 22 days after conception, or about five weeks after the last menstrual period, which by convention we call the fifth week of pregnancy. The heart at this stage is too small to hear, even with amplification

http://www.drspock.com/article/0,1510,9851,00.html

After 12 weeks you can hear it with amplification, according to the above source.

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[vertinox]

Very interesting link. It certainly makes me believe that much of the objection to stem cell research comes from common misunderstandings.

That or the majority of Fundementalists don't know how to use a computer. ;)

No, but seriously, why don't I see any Muslim, Jewish, Agnostic, Buddhist, or any other faiths mentioned in the poll? Is abortion just a Christian issue to be dealt with by a Christian society? I don't think it's that simple.

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[revscat]

But other nations have no such proscriptions against federal funds (China, Philippines, EU, etc.) and are bypassing us as a result. Private enterprise cannot solve every problem.

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[jafac]

Please keep that in mind before you start bitching about us Christians being anti-science.

I reserve such opinions for debate on "Intelligent Design".

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[CRCulver]

I'd like to explore your belief that all Christians are against using aborted fetuses. I wasn't aware that I was in the midst of the Spokesman of God and all things Christian.

The Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, which together make up the majority of Christians, are squarely against using aborted fetuses. Therefore, it is reasonable to present their opinions as the general Christian thought on the subject. The abortion-friendly mainline/oldline Protestant denominations are increasingly miniscule in terms of numbers.

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[MightyMartian]

And you commit the exact same fallacy in reverse that the original poster did. There are all sorts of Christians, from the narrow-minded Fundie types that we see spouting off about how gays are going to hell and the US is really a Christian state, to the very liberal types who don't want to push their own beliefs on the general populace. I have met Christians from all over the spectrum, and they're just like everybody else, plenty of saints and bastards to be found. Some branches of Christianity I find quite ludicrous and probably detrimental, but most of the mainstream types are usually very reasonable, and understand that there is no single form of Christianity, not even within the same church.

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[PenguinBoyDave]

I hardly consider anything from Dr. Spock science. I'll stick to the two doctors that we have used who had the machines to hear much sooner than 12 weeks. I am a Christian...but my definition of proof in this case is that my ears and those of our doctor heard a little heart, and low and behold, nine months later, a kid popped out. My definition has nothing to do with proof or faith. There is room for both. I didn't need faith to know my wife was pregnany...the doctor had the proof.

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[CRCulver]

Papal infallibility was a concept that might have made sense when it could reasonably be assumed that the pope could reasonably understand all of the ramifications of a position. That is no longer the case.

The Vatican is very large bureaucracy, the Pope has advisors on all things, and he can be presented with all sides of an issue. It isn't just a guy handing down edicts without any investigation beforehand.

Furthermore, if the "idea of papal infallibility" is out of date, you'd essentially be suggesting that the Holy Spirit has abandoned the Church. After all, the pope is said to defend the Faith under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. If the pope is no longer totally in change then, you would be saying, Jesus wasn't being sincere when he said that Hell could not ever prevail against the Church. So, by rejecting papal infallibility, you're essentially rejecting the entire Catholic theology.

Now, I'm Eastern Orthodox, so don't think I'm a Catholic trying to call you a bad churchmember to make myself feel good. I'm just saying that if you wish to make a statement about your church, you should follow its logic to the end, because otherwise you might step into heresy fairly easily.

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[MightyMartian]

Never the less, it appears that religious lines don't reflect opinions on stem cell research. Beyond that, my experience with Catholics is that while the Vatican may try to make the Church look like a tightly-bound, dogmatically religious bunch of followers, the reality is that many Western Catholics are very liberal, and don't see eye-to-eye with the opinions of the Pope. In the Protestant camp, there's the classic lack of unity which has plagued it since the beginning, and the notion that there is one Christian position on any of this is just plain wrong, but a useful rhetorical device nonetheless.

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[clonan]

Sorry, not the same thing.

That would be like getting a heart transplant and having the doctors replace it with an extra bicep...it may look the same on the surface but it isn't going to pump much blood.

Adult stem cells are a completly different thing and cannot be used interchangebly. Actually the goal of using embryonic stem cells is to learn enough to beable to ture adult cells into true stem cells. No reputable scientist wants to use fetal embryonic stem cells for long term treatment...we want to use your cells to treat you as an adult.

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[Fweeky]

Please restate your opinion in the form of a rational argument, rather than using emotionally laden but ultimately meaningless words.

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[Anonymous Coward]

There actually has been an outcry about the frozen/forgotten and destroyed embryos from fertility clinics... in fact there is a deep sadness among many. Unfortunately, it is a topic that has not garned much media support even though President Bush has himself made reference to the issue.

However, to provide you with a link, the following is one effort to save the lives of these tiny children that you refer to:

http://www.nightlight.org/snowflakeslanding.asp

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[Derling Whirvish]

But other nations have no such proscriptions against federal funds (China, Philippines, EU, etc.) and are bypassing us as a result.

Your politics is showing. Do you seriously believe that the amount of money that the government of the Philippines devotes to embryonic stem cell research exceeds the amount of money allocated to researchers in the United States by private corporations and foundations?

Private enterprise cannot solve every problem.

Government programs cannot solve every problem either.

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[SlayerofGods]

Ever heard of Sodom & Gomorrah? You can bet quite a few people died when the whole city was destroyed by God.
Besides you don't even need to turn to the bible to find examples of the evilness of your God with respect to life.
I'm sure that tsunami God sent to 'help' the people in SW Asia was really appreciated.
Oh and remind me to thank God for AIDs, some of his best work. I never thought he'd be able to top the Black Death, but he is omnipotent.

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[Troed]

Sure - we can go further. This seems to be the top-of-the-line for home use: http://www.fetalbond.com/

8-10 weeks

Can you elaborate on your first comment about "just days"? How many is that really? (I can find many sources to the ~22 days claimed by Dr. Spock before the heart even begins to beat)

Sorry for this, but I found your first comment about a baby heart being heard just days after conception quite disturbing, since it's simply not true.

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[SlayerofGods]

Oh snap, how could I forget the flood; when god specifically wiped out all the wicked of earth.

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[GypC]

Are fertility clinics Federally funded? That's really the only issue at hand with embryonic stem cell research...

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[GlassHeart]

The objection is that if the use of these embryos for stem cell research is allowed then the demand for them will rise sharply.

In other words, it's moral and legal to create and destroy embryos if you at least partially want to have a baby. It's immoral and should be illegal to do exactly the same thing without wanting to have a baby.

I hope you realize that making the same action legal or illegal depending on ultimately unverifiable human motives is futile. It's like saying parents can beat their children if they really meant well, but not if they just had a bad day at work.

How much do you need to want to have that baby for some of your embryos to be legally diverted to research?

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[jdavidb]

Why do you believe life begins at conception? The only Biblical support that comes to mind for that belief comes through taking a couple of passages involving God "knowing" humans in the womb.

It's a good thing that I believe that conception should denote the beginning of legal personhood based on philosophy and science rather than my religious beliefs, which I don't think should influence the law at all.

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[smallpaul]

If the destruction of embryos is wrong, why does it matter whether it is done as a side effect of impregnating women or as a side effect of medical research? Either way there is a for-profit market generating embryos destined to be destroyed.

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[SlayerofGods]

Ohhh the bible is just the cliff notes. That makes sense, God is all powerful, but yet can't express himself properly.

Please, that's BS
This new take that bible is not to be taken literally is an attempt to give meaning to a book that has largely lost it's meaning in the modern world. The bible was written by combining a bunch of second hand stories and by a bunch of people with nothing better to do then follow around a guy who said he was the son of God.
If your willing to admit that the is not the word of God then why obey it at all?
For all you know Moses was lieing when he said the commandments were written by God and he jotted them down himself. But you still believe that killing is against god don't you? Why do you pick and choose the parts of the bible that need 'interpreting' and the parts that are clear? I'll tell you why, because it's an attempt at justification of your beliefs. Your weak mindedness can't allow you accept that there might be no God, that some question might go unanswered, that you need God to give your life meaning. And so when forced to choose between what's right (example being women's rights, which the bible is also against) and your faith that says they shouldn't have any rights you try to have your cake and eat it to.

The hypocrisy of it all just piss me off to no end.

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[wolfemi1]

Hmm.... perhaps we should build a bridge out of her!

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[revscat]

Your politics is showing. Do you seriously believe that the amount of money that the government of the Philippines devotes to embryonic stem cell research exceeds the amount of money allocated to researchers in the United States by private corporations and foundations?

Well, yes.

Government programs cannot solve every problem either.

Where did you get the implication that I thought they could? Some != all. The primary libertarian strawman is that those who do not believe the free market can solve every problem think that government can. It's ridiculous.

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[Idarubicin]

What then happens when all of the "natural" embryos are used up? There will be money, possibly federal money, available to entice someone into creating more embryos.

Really?

It's pretty easy for the federal government to first pull the funding from any group that tries such a thing, and also to make such an act a criminal offence.

Trading in human organs is forbidden by law and that's backed up by the threat of jail time. There isn't much of an illegal organ trade in the United States, despite the presence of many highly motivated buyers and sells.

Regulate the supply. Eliminate funding for researchers who obtain embryonic stem cells by inappropriate means. Researchers can't publish without explaining where their cells came from, so they have to follow the rules.

I'm not sure why there would be an insatiable and growing demand for embryonic cell lines anyway. With other tissue lines, biologists are generally satisfied with one or two representative cells lines per organ or per disease. Creating and maintaining new cell lines takes a lot of time and effort, and if everybody works with different cell lines makes it harder for researchers from different labs to compare results.

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[jerktar]

There are over 400,000 frozen embryos in fertility clinics around the US, that will most likely be destroyed. I think it would be hard to use up frozen embryos at a rate greater than they are created.

--gabe

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

The objection is that if the use of these embryos for stem cell research is allowed then the demand for them will rise sharply... It's currently a byproduct because there is no market for it, but if the market is built the system will be abused.

So if people enjoy shooting at cars, and occasionally kill someone that's ok, but if we allow salvage companies to make a profit recycling those cars there will be a profit motive and more people will shoot at cars?!?

What the hell kind of logic is that? Either it is right or wrong. Embryos are naturally aborted about half the time. More embryos are aborted when more are created using fertility drugs. This has been the case for thousands of years. Now all of a sudden, it is wrong for that to happen and we have to minimize the number of times it happens? And we have to minimize it not by banning fertility drugs or researching ways to prevent embryos except when desired, but by banning the use of dead embryos for medical research? I'm sorry but if you want to stop embryos from dying you're going about it the least efficient way, and a way that is most detrimental to your fellow humans (you know the ones with developed brains that can think and move and do things). I try to be open minded about spiritually based beliefs but it is really, really hard when you beliefs are not even consistent with one another and then you come up with convoluted arguments as to why it is ok sometimes, but not others. Make up your mind.

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[n-baxley]

Well, what I was saying really doesn't make any moral judgements, but rather just states the potential "slippery slope" that federally funding embryonic research creates.

I don't think that embryos should be used for research in any case. There have been very encouraging steps taken using adult stem cells that I think it would be more productive to spend the time and money using that resource of willing donors than fighting this moral battle over embryos.

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[n-baxley]

The distinction is that the sole puprpose of creating embryos for research is for their destruction. I'm not going defend in-vitro fertilization. With the huge surplus of children up for adoption both here and abroad there are plenty of ways to raise a child without in-vitro. That said, I can certainly understand why people do it and I AM more sympathetic and forgiving of that use than of creating embryos purely for the purpose of destroying them. Sure it's a bit two sided, but motive does have something to do with the validity of an idea.

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[n-baxley]

You may be correct. I'm no stem cell researcher. But to me it seems that the simplest way for this research to move forward is to grab one of the various alternative methods of obtaining stem cells and run with that rather than enter the politically charged and morally ambiguise area of embryonic stem cells. There has been a lot written about adult stem cells. Why not use that source were you have a willing and legally consenting group?

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[demachina]

"the following is one effort to save the lives of these tiny children that you refer to:"

Geez, why don't you people spend ALL your energy keeping the MILLIONS of young children alive that are starving to death each year, and those are nasty painful deaths, instead of obsessing over Terry Schiavo or giving birth to every stand of DNA in existence. The thing right to lifers don't get is DNA is in fact incredibly cheap to the point of being worthless. It is really easy and fun for most couples to create more if you need them. When you obsess over turning them all in to living organisms a mother nurtured for 9 months and which after birth have to be fed, clothed and housed in a world that is running out of food, energy and space you are creating more problems than you are solving.

Bottomline is unless we reach a point where we have stabilized world population growth, and all the babies born in to the world can be properly cared for and have a chance at a decent life, trying to maximize birth rate is INSANE.

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[n-baxley]

You may be correct? I honestly don't know how many embryos it takes to do the research involved. I just see this market forming as a realy possibility. Why deal with the parents of these 400,000 who have obviously kept them for some reason when you can go hire someone to generate some with no strings attached?

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[Darby]

IMHO, JP2 was wrong when he pushed so hard against birth control. One could reasonably argue that htis has resulted in genocide in Africa through the AIDS epidemic

So far so good. It is also arguable that it has caused continued poverty and even increased it.

The converse to those arguments are barely arguable at all though. There are very bizarre twists of reasoning that people often attempt to use, but the pro and con on those arguments are in no way on anything like an equal footing.

You were doing pretty well until you totally blew it here:

IMHO, JP2 was wrong when he pushed so hard against birth control. One could reasonably argue that htis has resulted in genocide in Africa through the AIDS epidemic

Of course he could have known and he did know.
His disgusting policies with respect to one of the most fundamental of all human rights, the right to control when where and with who you choose to reproduce were pushed in the face of tremendous opposition from people of morals due to the fact that any theoretical benefit was nothing compared to the very real and well know liabilities in such immoral and unhuman policies.

Did the decision seem right to him and other Catholic leaders at the time? Yes.

Certainly, but what you are leaving out here is that the purpose of this policy as well as the purpose of any other policy instituted by the Catholic Church is intended for the primary purpose of maintaining and increasing the power of the Catholic Church. I'm really sorry you've made it this far in life without realising that that is an absolute fact of power structures. They inevitably seek to promote their own power.
I'm certainly not singling the Catholic Church out on this one. It is an unavoidable fact of life though, so it would be better for everybody if you realised that, started looking at every situation with that fact in mind, and responding accordingly.

The alternative is you having "faith" that the pope really must have had the best interests of people in mind when he made decisions that had no other possible effects than those which everybody besides religious zealots predicted.

It was obvious what would happen with aids and poverty with the Catholic Church's inhuman policies. Were you able to step back and look rationally at the issue, it would be obvious to you as well and you wouldn't be attempting to apologize for the pope.

It's a basic rule of life. Watch the money, watch the power. There is your explanation. This holds in almost every single action taken by every single political or religious leader.

Was it right in hindsight? Probably not.

Oh where is there one single possible grain of doubt there?

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[Log from Blammo]

A suitable pair of humans, given enough rhythmic musical accompaniment and C2H5OH as catalysts, will not require any money, federal or otherwise, to attempt to create more embryos.

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[PenguinBoyDave]

Hey...no harm, no foul. I double-checked with the Mrs. She said it was about 7 weeks, so please accept my apology for speaking out with the wrong dates.

Hey...I'm not afraid to admit I was wrong. It would only be the 2nd time though :)

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[GlassHeart]

what I was saying really doesn't make any moral judgements, but rather just states the potential "slippery slope" that federally funding embryonic research creates.

You point out that there will be a market demand for embryos, which begets embryos as products, arriving at what you refer to as "the problem". For that to be a "problem", there has to be something wrong with producing embryos to sell to research, as opposed to producing embryos for reproduction. That is a moral judgement.

I don't think that embryos should be used for research in any case. There have been very encouraging steps taken using adult stem cells

Sorry, do you oppose embryonic stem cell research because it's immoral, or because it's unnecessary? What if adult stem cell research hits a dead end?

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[dgatwood]

Furthermore, if the "idea of papal infallibility" is out of date, you'd essentially be suggesting that the Holy Spirit has abandoned the Church. After all, the pope is said to defend the Faith under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. If the pope is no longer totally in change then, you would be saying, Jesus wasn't being sincere when he said that Hell could not ever prevail against the Church. So, by rejecting papal infallibility, you're essentially rejecting the entire Catholic theology.

Well, JP2 actually rejected it when he asked for forgiveness for the whole Gallileo thing. If the previous pope was wrong, then JP2 was right to reverse the Church's prior condemnation. If the previous pope was right, JP2 was wrong. Either way, one of these two popes cannot have been infallible. Of course, some would claim that this was not intended to be an official church doctrine proclaimed by the pope, and thus infallibility did not apply. Well, perhaps not specifically with respect to Gallileo as an individual, but in general, the decree that the earth was the center of the universe was clearly within those bounds, and thus, should have been infallible. Despite attempts to come up wiht newer and better limitations on this infallibility to work around the issue, there truly is an inherent contradiction here.

I believe that God intervenes in our world, and that the Holy Spirit is very much alive and well in the Church. I don't believe that He feels the need to nitpick every little thing that the pope says anymore (if He ever did). That means that sometimes a pope will make as mistake.

Sometimes people will follow the pope in that mistake---occasionally with devastating consequences, e.g. the crusades, the inquisition, etc. Most of the time, however, God intervenes. When we see schisms in the Church, this is often God's way of saying "Maybe you'd better rethink that." Of course, in some cases, the schism may simply be because people are unwilling to accept what is right. It's always hard to say. In any case, it is easier to judge these things in hindsight, far harder to make the calls in the first place... and for that, even when I disagree with the pope, I do respect him.

Do these mistakes mean that the gates of Hell will prevail against the Church? No. They mean that the Church is a church of men, with all the problems that entails, but in the end, on the whole, it will remain a body of believers that shall stand together in truth, rejecting that which they know to be wrong, whether it comes from the outside or from within---and therein is the most important thing to understand---that God is working through all of us, not just the pope, to make this world a better place, and that we must all do our part.

The pope is not the church. The pope is its spiritual leader. History has shown that the church can stand even when that leader falters. So, too, I am confident, will it continue to stand.

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[CRCulver]

Well, JP2 actually rejected it when he asked for forgiveness for the whole Gallileo thing. If the previous pope was wrong, then JP2 was right to reverse the Church's prior condemnation.

Infallibility can work in two ways. One is the infallibility of ex cathedra statements, and there have only been two of those so far. The other infallibility is that of the Magisterium in general. Galileo has nothing to do with either one, and so the Pope's statement was not a contradiction as you think.

Sometimes people will follow the pope in that mistake---occasionally with devastating consequences, e.g. the crusades, the inquisition, etc.

The Crusades were defensive wars against Islamic expansion; just look at how fast Islam spread through traditionally Christian lands in the 7th century and after, and all this expansion was by force. Although a few Crusades turned out badly, in principle they were generally necessary to save Christendom from the Muslim sword. The dreaded Inquisition was a secular Spanish institution and has no relation to the Vatican's office with a similiar name; in the last decade numerous book have been written to show that there was no terrible oppression on behalf of the Church.

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[n-baxley]

Of course this is a moral judgement! I oppose it because it is against my morals. The fact that it currently appears unneccessary should make it a desirable option for those that want to study stem cells and have the same morals, as well as those who simply want to avoid the political pitfalls of using emryos in research. If adult stem cells hits a dead end I would encourage looking for another alternative.

In my mind embryonic life holds the same value that full-born life does. I'm not crazy about the embryos that are left over after fertility processes, either, but I think it's a harder moral line to draw.

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[10Ghz]

I don't think enough Christians really understand what's happening at fertility clinics. More and more people are starting to notice, however, and will soon speak up against it.

So, you are not content with messing things up in schools, abortion-clinics, scientific study, AIDS-prevention, same-sex marriage and the like, you are hell-bent on messing things up in fertility-clinics as well? Why don't you just mind your own business? Seriously? If I want to hear your opinion on something, I'll ask you for it. But no! Instead we get the "We think this is bad, and therefore you shouldn't do it either! yes, we are pushing our opinion on you, how do you like it?"

Why do I get the feeling that Christians are ruining this place for the rest of us? Nothing is too insignificant for the Christians to stick their holier-than-thou noses in to. Things that used to be working smoothly are ruined by a bunch of religious extremists.

And if it's not the religious whackos ruining everything, we have corrupt politicians and corrupt megacorporations and lawyers finishing the job. And the sad thing is that it's the same everywhere.

It's too bad that we have no off-world colonies. We could live somewhere else, and have a few million kilometers wide sign saying "All you religious whackos, politicians, corporate monkeys and lawyers: STAY THE FUCK OUT!"

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[10Ghz]

Furthermore, if the "idea of papal infallibility" is out of date, you'd essentially be suggesting that the Holy Spirit has abandoned the Church.

I'd say that the Holy Spirit was never with the church to begin with. Seriously, why does apparently almighty God require a mortal man to carry out his work? If God is almighty, he could do the work himself.

I believe that mans relationship with his god is a personal matter. There should be no churches telling how to believe and how to worship. What's the point? There are dozens to choose from (both Christian and non-Christian), so most of them (or all of them) are wrong anyway. I for one find it strange that people have a need to be told how they should believe and how they should worship.

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[GlassHeart]

If adult stem cells hits a dead end I would encourage looking for another alternative.

Just to take this thought to conclusion, and if there aren't any alternatives?

In my mind embryonic life holds the same value that full-born life does. I'm not crazy about the embryos that are left over after fertility processes, either, but I think it's a harder moral line to draw.

So the worst reasons for infertile parents to reproduce is still more important, in your mind, than the most promising research to treat the most beloved terminally-ill person?

You also contradict yourself. If embryonic life has the same value as full-born life, then there cannot be any confusion to the morality of killing embryonic life leftover from fertility attempts, or even those deliberately prevented from implanting in a uterus. They must all be murder.

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[StormKrow]

Okay, to the moderator that modded this: Flamebait.

Get a clue dude. Why is it that any time someone takes a "religious right" stance or makes an observation thereof, someone feels the need to mod the post flamebait. READ the post you idiot. He was just stating for clarification the stance of the majority of Christians and the limits of that stance. Hardly flamebait. I'm neither conservative, nor Christian, any THINKING individual can see what this post for what it is.

To the mod: You Sir, are a tool. (NOW it's flamebait.)

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[WhiskerTheMad]

That's right! Attack the poster, not his ideas!

And another thing...

[imstanny]

I just read an article about this, don't know how close it is to this one, but it was stated that the converted stem cells retain the DNA of the doner. The significance of this is that any organ or body part derived from that stem cell could be safely transplanted into that person without fear of rejection. Nifty.

Re:And another thing...

[Strudelkugel]

The Dawn of the Replicant approaches...

Re:And another thing...

[asoap]

I read the f-ing a. You are correct, they are the same thing. Although in the article the fact that the stem cells still contained chrmosones from the host was considered a negative. They want to create stem cells that can be used like medicine and be injected into anybody, without fear of rejection.

I don't understand why this was a negative either. Couldn't they just use my cells as a host so that they will be perfect for me?

Maybe someone else can clue us in.

Re:And another thing...

[Just Some Guy]

I just read an article about this

<western>We don't like yer kind 'round here.</western>

Re:And another thing...

[fbartho]

From what I remember from other articles concerning transplantation of organs/cells... its not the DNA that triggers the rejection... at least not right away... Initially your body recognizes cells as foreign by their surface proteins... each person has a more or less unique pattern... hence why family members are more likely to provide good transplants... the proteins are close enough... That's how certain diseases get beyond our defenses... they infect a cell, and suddenly have our surface protein pattern and hide from our immune system...

This is also why some of those stem cell lines that had been created on a feed of mouse(?) skin and blood were contaminated... the surface proteins bled between the cells, and suddenly the stem cell lines had mouse proteins and thus could never be implanted in people... the host would immediately notice the proteins and would attack the cells as a foreign body "rejection"

Great news!

[Swamii]

Even though this is good news for science and the future of medicine, this is Slashdot; I feel like I should start an inflammatory politically charged internet argument that will result in hundreds of follow up posts and lots of angry name-calling.

So, allow me start us off:
I hate Bush. Discuss.

Re:Great news!

[rAiNsT0rm]

OK, You are an idiot. Finished.

Re:Great news!

[Epistax]

I.. I love lamp.

Re:Great news!

[erlenic]

Boy, you need to listen to more patriotic country music and stay away from all those hippies at the local college. They'll rot your brain out. That's why you hate America. But with time...and country music...you can heal your wounds. Try shooting guns too...lots of guns.
</stereotypical redneck accent>

Re:Great news!

[Tmack]

I preffer shrubberies myself...

tm

Re:Great news!

[Swamii]

AM NOT!!!!111lol!!!omg!wtf!!!rotflmao1111!!!11111tehb utcher1! u r jus an meen slash dottar.

Re:Great news!

[Swamii]

Only teh eval peeps love lamps!!!111 OMG! LOL!!111

Actually, in all seriousness, I tried out Apache on my machine. But when I navigated to my website, all worked well until I tried to download files. The download would start but never actually transfer the bytes over. Any ideas?

Re:Great news!

[Methuseus]

I hate bush too. I like it nice and smooth down there.

Oh, you're talkinga bout President Bush? I hate him too, but for different reasons....

Re:Great news!

[Swamii]

I, myself, prefer holy hand grenades.

Re:Great news!

[rAiNsT0rm]

OK, done? You happy now? Wow this was useless. And some time I'd like you to ask the Iraqi women who were captive in Saddam's Rape Rooms, and the people that were electrocuted, dipped in acid baths, and tortured for years how much they hate G.W. Bush. WMD mean nothing, we know he gassed the Kurds that was WMD, maybe they should just live in fear for the rest of their lives or until he gassed them again.

I bet you couldn't intelligently discuss history, GW Bush, or Iraq except for the headlines you read in the N.Y. Times or see on CNN. Most people can't, but they will shout how much they hate our current president with no fundamental understanding of why. No president is squeaky clean, they never would make it to president if they were... It is sad, but true. I'm an independant and feel GW has done a decent job and acted on issues that have sit idly by for years with presidents who were afraid to touch the issues. Take a look at Clinton or JFK sometime and you will see that GW is actually quite clean as far as U.S. Presidents go.

Re:Great news!

[Swamii]

Life on Slashdot's kinda laid back
Ain't nothin' ol' leet boi he cain't hack
Late to rise
Late to the sack
Thank God I'm a Slashdot-ar.

Well pitiful life won't do me no harm
Raisin' me a DOS prompt
Renderin' a farm
Reapin' jus what I sow
Hatin' on the MS TCO! Yes Sir!
Thank God I'm a Slashdot-ar.

Re:Great news!

[Swamii]

I hate bush and gore. Think of the children! We don't want our kids seeing hairy bushes or violent gore.

Re:Great news!

[Ferromancer]

I hate Bush. Discuss.

No wayz! that band is teh AWESOME! And Gavin is soooo hott!

Re:Great news!

[jafac]

And some time I'd like you to ask the Iraqi women who were captive in Saddam's Rape Rooms,

. . .never mind the Iraqi boys who are raped in front of their parents by contractors at Abu Ghraib.

Ask the writers of the new Iraqi constitution about what their plans are for women's rights. Or rights for Christians. Or rights for Sufis, or other non-Shia muslims. Those groups all had more rights under Saddam's regime than than under any Islamic republic.

and the people that were electrocuted, dipped in acid baths, and tortured for years how much they hate G.W. Bush.

Or the people "rendered" to other countries where torture is legal.

WMD mean nothing, we know he gassed the Kurds that was WMD, maybe they should just live in fear for the rest of their lives or until he gassed them again.

Maybe I'd believe the Bush 43 Administrations' outrage over Saddam's gassing of the Kurds if fellows like Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld, John Poindexter, Paul Wolfowitz, while in Ronald Reagan's and Bush 41's Administration, they had said something about Saddam's Kurd-gassing ways. They never said a damn word. They sold him satellite photos, gave him aid and support, and shook his hand. The individuals in the White House today have ZERO credibility when it comes to criticizing 3rd world dictators who oppress their people. Between the Shah of Iran, Pinochet, the Contras, Marcos, Al Qaeda, and dozens of others these people have aided supported for over 30 years, aided and supported in their torture, oppression, abridgement of rights, they'll have a hard time convincing anyone that they've suddenly changed their ways, and now are champions of freedom and human rights. Maybe if they did more to expose drug and arms dealing, money laundering anonymous bank accounts in the Caymans, and the Bahamas, which would have exposed how the Saudi Royal Family finances terrorisim, I might be convinced. Maybe if they fought for more liberal elemants of the Iraqi political landscape to win in the election, instead of illegally funnelling reconstruction funds to help Ahmed Chalabi and Shiite Religious Fanatics to win, thus putting Iraq on a path to become the next Iran, maybe I'd give them a chance.

But this criminal gang is not working to make Iraq more free. They are the enemies of freedom, the enemies of human rights, the enemies of liberty. Their goal is endless, profitable, conflict, strife, and war.

Re:Great news!

[WillAffleckUW]

I preffer shrubberies myself...

Ah, yes, but are they African shrubberies, or North American shrubberies?

Personally, I'm kind of partial to South American shrubberies ...

Re:Great news!

[Swamii]

Hey man, hear that wooshing sound? That was the joke going right over your head.

In reality, I'm a religious conservative, see my blog. :-) I support Bush, somewhat. I don't know if he could be considered a righteous person, but given his opponent's stances on cultural & religious issues, I'd much rather have Bush in office rather than Kerry.

Re:Great news!

[Swamii]

That band is no more. Say hello to Institute, Gavin's new outfit.

Re:Great news!

[rAiNsT0rm]

I didn't read your blog, I wasn't even really going after you... I knew you were just poking fun at the flamability of this "news" story. I got the joke and played along... but I did think you were serious in your initial Bush bash. I'm not going to defend the guy... I didn't vote for him. (see above independent statement)

I just figured I'd stir things up a bit more. Such as the other reply to me. While there are valid points I love how the average anti-bush people never actually address the issues at hand. "Well Bush's Daddy didn't do this or that... blah blah blah" Well Bush is, he's standing up and doing something... maybe we have funded this stuf in the past... and to some extent we still do. Your damn right I'd be skeptical if the 'ol U.S. was in my country claiming to be there out of the kindness of their hearts. We can only move forward, right or wrong in anyones eyes the world is a tiny, tiny, tiny bit better with Saddam out of the picture.

Sorry to have got the Bush bit wrong.

Re:Great news!

[Swamii]

No problem. I couldn't really tell if you were going along with the flame bait or just taken in by the inflammatory, political below-the-belt shot at the end of my post. :-)

Re:Great news!

[rAiNsT0rm]

Umm, exactly what are you talking about. Raping boys in front of parents in Abu Ghraib? Man, the shit people make up to vilify the U.S. Do you even realize the extent of torture and rape and executions that occured in Saddams Regime? Hell even 100 raped, tortured, and killed little boys in front of their parents is a damn major improvement over the previous mass killings/tortures/rapes/etc. It simply is not happening, if the worst you fucks can come up with is some panties on a few arab heads and nude photos... hell that's like Disneyland compared to beheadings and mutilations. This is war asshole, bamboo reeds under fingernails isn't even out of the equation if needed to get INFORMATION out of these bastards to help PROTECT your sorry ass. To torture for the sheer fun of it is twisted, to get information to save lives is what it is all about. Saving *your* life. Try and register that in your brain.

New's flash women's rights aren't too important in most of the world. Not even here in the good 'ol U.S. of A. But they have improved steadily and that is why there are things called amendments, ever notice that is where women got into even our system? Basics first, things will improve and let the system run it's course. Trying to force too many changes at once to meet some idealistic American view is stupid and would just better ensure failure... oh, yeah but that's what you people want. You want this to fail to please your ignorant selves, damn those who could benefit and prosper you have an agenda!

The best you can come up with is well they can just move people to where torture is allowed? I'm not even dignifying that lame ass attempt at a rebuttal with a response... just let it display your ignorance.

Do you know how many dictators and bloody regimes there are in the world? A lot. We have been and continue to support many of them. Not just Bush but the beloved Clinton and others, I'd be very happy to start eliminating them one at a time. It may take a while and it may lead to a lot of lost lives on both sides, but this is a start and if enough leaders had the balls to continue it and not let up a bigger impact could be made in millions of lives.

*gasp* politicians criminals?!? no way! You just figured this out? You get a gold star dickhead. Except for the fact that this mission has had no profitable agenda and who the fuck is so stupid to believe that anyone would want endless conflict and strife... except for the exact people we are there to thwart? Again another rediculous statement with no rational thought behind it whatsoever. Stop and think about your statement and then realize the fallacy. Yeah they sure seem like enemies of freedom, human rights, and liberty... Saddam stood for nothing but the most virtuous morals and codes hell he was damn near a saint compared to evil Bush... wake up dipshit!

Re:Great news!

[Guppy06]

"So, allow me start us off:
I hate Bush. Discuss."

No you don't.

Re:Great news!

[Swamii]

Aaaack! You've found me out! Run for the hills!

Re:Great news!

[khellendros1984]

You hate bush so much? So, get your significant other to shave! Stop being perverted in this obviously sciento-political debate!

Re:Great news!

[demachina]

"I got the joke and played along..."

Suuuuuurrrrrrreeeee. Dude you bit like a starving dog with read meat dangling in front of him.

""Well Bush's Daddy didn't do this or that... blah blah blah Well Bush is, he's standing up and doing something.."

Yea he's doing something alright, he walked straight in to quicksand and he is currently up to his neck and on his way down.

You see George W's dad IS vastly smarter, better informed and more sophisticated than his goober son. His dad was an A student, his son C at best. His dad was studying the world, was ambassador to China, and head of the CIA while his son was playing baseball, snorting cocaine, pickling his liver and chasing women. His dad was smart enough to realize that Saddam really and truly sucked but letting Shia clerics take over Iraq, which is the inevitable result of elections, will be just as bad if not worse for the U.S. in the long run. He smartly left well enough alone and didn't get the U.S. bogged down in a $300 billion dollar quagmire with thousands of dead and wounded Americans.

The ush and Co. in to taking down Saddam for them, by selling Cheney and Co. bullshit stories about WMD's. Either they bought it hook, line and sinker or they were so thirsty for war they ran with it even though they knew it was Bullshit.

Chalibi is an Iranian agent when it suits his needs. The Iranians have been trying to take down Saddam, and free their Shia brethren in Iraq, since pretty much since the Iranian revolution and never been able to do it. They just managed to sucker the U.S. in to doing it for them and it cost them $0 dollars and $0 lives. It cost the U.S. $300 billion dollars at least and 1800 lives and counting. When its all said and done and the U.S. finally gets sick of the place and leaves their will be a Shia Islamic government that looks a lot like the Taliban or Iran, in fact the area around Basra, the Shia capital, is already looking like Taliban town.

George W. has in fact laid the foundation for a potential Shia fundementalist Islamic empire, hostile to the U.S., across all the biggest oil fields in the Middle East. The Saudi oil fields next door to Iraq are in areas dominated by Shia's too. Who won the war in Iraq, it wasn't all the peoples of Iraqi, it wasn't the U.S., it was the Iranian's and their Shia brethren in Iraq. Well the Kurds made out alright too though the day they try to secede the Turks will probably invade them. The Turks hate the Kurds as much as Saddam does, and have killed their fair share too. Saddam didn't gas the Kurds for no reason. The Kurds were waging a bloody civil war against Iraq to gain an independent Kurdistan. Their brethren are still waging a war in Turkey to achieve the same goal.

George W., he will be known throughout history with this signature line .... what a goober .....

Re:Great news!

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate all forms of shrubbery.

Re:Great news!

[rAiNsT0rm]

I agree the Shia will have the upper hand and that has been a problem all along. They are radical, extremist, and outnumber the rest of the population... who didn't see that coming? I'm sure though that something will be done to at least even the playing field a bit as this is no secret and many more intelligent folks are working on this than anyone wants to admit.

Look, I've never said Bush was a god and should be worshiped... I'm only saying that of the choices he was the best pick (I still think Nader could do more for the individual American and our country than Bush or Kerry as his life has been dedicated to it... but foriegn policy would have been a different story) He made an attempt to rid the world of a major blight and he has to some extent. WMD existed (how do you think he gassed the Kurds?) and he no doubt took the extra time allowed him to get rid of any hot potatoes he was holding. To me WMD is a non-issue. Bush is an intelligent man, sorry to say. But everyone likes to bash him here so I'll not try to change your mind. Clinton was a scholar, look how much it mattered he still got caught with his dick in some minimum-wage interns.

I think Bush will no doubt have a strange legacy, but if all politicians care about is their legacy nothing gets accomplished and no risks are taken. I'd rather have a President make an attempt to right some wrongs and have it go a bit awry than to just have another assclown sit idly by with his thumb squarely planted in his ass (or one of the nearest intern).

Re:Great news!

[demachina]

"who didn't see that coming?"

The entire Bush administration apparently. The delusional neocons thought a western secular democracy would automatically break out when Saddam went down. It was delusional and flew in the face every historical and contemporary fact on the ground. Either that or they thought they could strongarm a supposedly sovereign government in to writing a constitution and doing what the U.S. told them to do, or rig the elections and get their puppet Allawi in. They may still succeed in the later in the next round of elections.

"WMD existed (how do you think he gassed the Kurds?) and he no doubt took the extra time allowed him to get rid of any hot potatoes he was holding."

The Kurd gassing was more then 20 years ago, no one in the U.S. gave a damn at the time. This was just a propaganda tool to get suckers like yourself salivating to take Saddam down. The Kurds were waging an armed insurrection against Iraq and Turkey. Most governments suppress insurrections ruthlessly, the Turks have too, do you want to take the Turks down? If the Kurds lived in the U.S. and tried to secede the U.S. government would crush them just like Saddam only probably more so (you know like Lincoln did in the Civil War). The American fixation on it now is insane. So what if he gassed them. He could have bombed and strafed the village and the outcome would have been the same. If you want to have retroactive toppling of governments over WMD's, the U.S. should be the first to go down since it nuked hundreds of thousands of civilians in Japan. What exactly is the difference other than the U.S. loves its double standards.

"Clinton was a scholar, look how much it mattered he still got caught with his dick in some minimum-wage interns."

He was still a vastly better President than George W. could ever hope to be. Men are men, many chase women. George's dad had an affair in office too, IMPEACH. George W.'s life up to about 40 was nothing but doing drugs, chasing women and getting hammered, why aren't you upset about that. Clinton was a victim of an 8 year right wing witch hunt that did grievous damage to the nation, they never found anything after hundreds of millions of dollars worth of searching other than he lied about sex which is what married men do when caught cheating. The one thing they did achieve is they soured the country on the Democrats by constantly bombarding the public with false accusations against the Clintons for eight solid years. It worked, they finally got power back. Contrast this small transgression for which there was an impeachment circus versus the Bush administration which lies about everything, stuff that matters. They lied about stuff that is squandering hundreds of billions of dollars and getting thousands of people killed and maimed for life. You sure seem to have a another odd double standard here. I"M OUTRAGED BECAUSE CLINTON HAD SEX AND LIED ABOUT IT versus Bush lied us in to war ... ho hum ... thats OK.

Re:Great news!

[jafac]

Umm, exactly what are you talking about. Raping boys in front of parents in Abu Ghraib?

I'm talking about the second set of photos and videos that the Pentagon will not release. In violation of a Judge's orders, they refuse to release these photos.

If photos and videos are what it takes before people like you understand what's really going on, and believe the truth, then I say we need to release the photos.

The rest of us, don't need to see them - they've been described in the press, and we believe. We've been lied to by these people before, and they're not even denying it anymore. They're just covering it up now. And hoping that flag waving morons like you don't catch on.

Do you even realize the extent of torture and rape and executions that occured in Saddams Regime? Hell even 100 raped, tortured, and killed little boys in front of their parents is a damn major improvement over the previous mass killings/tortures/rapes/etc.

So you're saying that even if the US did it, it's okay, because it's being done less now?

You sick fuck.

This is war asshole, bamboo reeds under fingernails isn't even out of the equation if needed to get INFORMATION out of these bastards to help PROTECT your sorry ass.

Torture does not work to extract useful information. Ask ANY professional interrogator. A tortured prisoner will lie to get the torturer to stop. Torture serves only one real function: To terrorize the enemy.
Unfortunately, it causes the enemy to fear capture so much, that they are willing to die fighting to avoid capture. And it lowers the bar on ethical treatment of our own soldiers when captured.

To torture for the sheer fun of it is twisted, to get information to save lives is what it is all about. Saving *your* life. Try and register that in your brain.

Use whatever excuse makes you feel better. Kid yourself that it's being done to save lives. The fact is, it's being done as a psy op. Try and register that in your brain.

You can't defend freedom by destroying freedom.

New's flash women's rights aren't too important in most of the world.

They're important to women.

Trying to force too many changes at once to meet some idealistic American view is stupid and would just better ensure failure.

Ah, so we should put Saddam back in power then? Because forcing too much freedom on them at once to meet some idealistic American view is stupid? I'm so glad 1800 American soldiers died to make sure that Iraqi women who used to have jobs, now will no longer be permitted to leave their houses, and will be beaten for not wearing a burkha.
Yes. This is happening. You won't hear about it on Fox News.

I can buy the argument that we don't want to force too many changes too fast - but the fact is, the womens' rights situation in Iraq is moving backwards. They had more rights under Saddam. They will have less rights under the new regime. New rights aren't being forced on them - only the rights to oppress others, and we forced it on them with bombs and guns.

oh, yeah but that's what you people want. You want this to fail

If that's what you need to tell yourself to ease your troubled conscience at backing this immoral "war" then I guess that's what you have to do. But going through life willfully ignorant of facts and reality is going to lead you to disaster. I wouldn't otherwise care, but you're taking the rest of the nation with you. 51% of us may have wanted that at one point, but enough of us have now seen the truth - Bush's approval rating is at 36%. The 15% who've changed their minds certainly wanted this war to succeed at one point, did they change their minds because they want it to fail? Or do they now see that we're going to fail because it's all been a lie, and it's being run by incompetent, arrogant fools?

I didn't want this war to happen in the first place. I was content with going into Afghanistan and bringing the 9/11 perpetrato

Re:Great news!

[rAiNsT0rm]

I find your rants amusing. You see I'm an Independent. I don't give a flying fuck for Bush or Clinton, or any other corrupt-ass dem/repub. I think for myself, not get involved in group-think political lables.

The simple fact is most people have some serious issues to even WANT to be a president. They are power-hungry, status-hungry, and could give a rats ass about those they are supposed to be serving for the most part. Bush at least has some morals and is a fairly normal guy as far as presidents go. He doesn;t have to be on stage playing a saxaphone to be "cool" he also speaks plainly and matter-of-factly and does not try to hide his past. He is who he is. No pretentiousness, no hidden aspects to his life... he may not be proud of his actions but he doesn;t shy away from them either. Clinton is the only elected president to EVER be impeached, again I'll take Bush over Kerry or Clinton anyday. Kerry seemed to have a big need to imagine his war hero status in quite unhealthy ways, and then pair him with Edwards who has won more money for bullshit healthcare suits and that was a real winning package wasn't it?

Saddam showed he could access and use WMD quite easily. I needed no mention of WMD in any way shape or form to go after Saddam... he needed to be brought down, it should have happened in the first Gulf War.

Your arguments are shallow and useless, you see I have no dog in this race... but I can see right through your attempts to try to justify a vile, despicable human in Clinton. Wake up and see what he really was and who he is. He is nothing to be proud of. Bush isn't on my top president list of all time either but at least he went for something that needed done and has done his best with all of the political wrangling and red tape to accomplish a goal. I personally would have had Saddam assasinated quietly and quickly and been done with it. However this would still have led to Shia reign, at least this way we have some hand in keeping order. No matter how you handled it there were no easy ways in and out that would lead to any stabilization, if you or anyone has a better solution I'd sure love to hear it because this was a losing proposition no matter how it was handled nor by what political party handled it.

Re:Great news!

[demachina]

Well for someone who doesn't have a horse in this race you sure seem fond of Bush and willing to trash Clinton. I'm suspecting you are one of the many lately who were raging Bush fans when he was popular and are now distancing yourself from him now that he looks like a goober with plummeting approval ratings, and failing at every thing he tries lately. For an independent you sure seem fond of everything Little George does.

"Clinton is the only elected president to EVER be impeached"

Whoopie. And what does that prove other than the House was controlled by a bunch of right wing nut jobs who were so blinded with hatred for the Clintons and so hungry to lynch him, that they impeached him when there was no case, and the Senate being a more moderate body promptly and sensibly shot it down.

I don't have any real fondness for Democrats but I'd take Clinton or Gore in a heartbeat over Bush, especially if they had a chance to just be President instead of being constantly hounded by right wing nut jobs so they can't do their job. Bush, on the other hand, has had a free ride for no obvious reason and he deserves some hounding.

"if you or anyone has a better solution I'd sure love to hear it"

Yea, take a true conservative's approach. STAY THE HELL OUT OF IT, until it directly threatens U.S. security which in Saddam's case would probably be never, instead of getting in the middle of something that was more about Israel's security than America's. Me personally I could have cared less that Saddam invaded Kuwait, the Emir is just as despicable a ruler as Saddam, the only thing in his court is he is a Bush family friend. Let the Saudi's etc deal with it, it threatened their security they have plenty of money and weapons.

Re:Great news!

[rAiNsT0rm]

Clinton was an ass, plain and simple, it matters not which political affiliation you subscribe to. He admitted to banging an intern, theres his semen on her dress, his lame ass definition of "is" is, his willingness to sell out America and our safety, he is no angel. He also is a pretty useless human being with no moral compass nor is his life a model for anyone.

I never have been a bush fan, never will be. I din't vote for him. I find him to be an honest human being, flaws and all, and he has done his best to right a wrong that has needed done for some time. Al-Quaida was in Iraq (they just accepted the blame for a recent rocket attack on a ship) our fight is to rid them and terrorism. I think it is amorphous as the "War on drugs" and probably impossible. But it is a worthy cause to make any headway to eliminating terrorism. In all of your comments you fall back on other dictators/problems, so what your saying is there are lots of bad guys doing bad things so why bother? Sure there are a lot of fucked up rulers/dictators in the world, rather than just throw up your arms and give up that is all the more reason to begin to exterminate them one at a time until other ones fall in line or be next on the list.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think this is America's fight... it should be a worldwide front against tyrrany and opression. All of our safety and lives are at stake, directly or indirectly.

Re:Great news!

[demachina]

"Clinton was an ass, plain and simple.."

In this paragraph all you proved is you fell for the right wing propaganda, hook, line and sinker. Clinton's affairs counted for zip in the cosmic scheme of things. Again it was the ONLY thing they managed to pin on him after eight years, and hundreds of millions in taxpayer subsidized, witch hunting. You spend a hundred million going through George W.'s past with a fine tooth comb he wouldn't fare nearly so well. Its mostly a tribute to how tasteless the right win was in publishing in graph detail every aspect of a private sexual affair so school children could be subjected to it and the religious right could be pumped in to a frenzy. It was just character assassination and it obviously worked on the weak minded like yourself.

"He also is a pretty useless human being with no moral compass nor is his life a model for anyone."

Please explain to me again how it was the George W. spent the first 40 years of his life being a drunk, doing cocaine, ducking his guard duty, and chasing every skirt in sight but you consider him a pillar of morality. Is it because he decided he wanted to be President, quit drinking and claimed he found Jesus so you forgive him all past transgressions. Again very weak minded on your part to fall for his facade.

"I find him to be an honest human being,"

Every fact completely flies in the face of that. He's lied about his drug use, he lied about his guard record, his administration has been a non stop lie fest. Where exactly did you develop the delusion he was "honest", other than because he, his handlers and his TV ads told you he was. Geez man, wake up think for yourself for a change.

"In all of your comments you fall back on other dictators/problems, so what your saying is there are lots of bad guys doing bad things so why bother?"

No it classic conservatism. Conservatives oppose the U.S. playing nanny to the world, and spending our tax dollars and getting our citizens killed trying to rearrange sovereign governments to our liking. Its a never ending exercise in futility. Since the U.S. hasn't been able to resist this temptation for most of the last century its installed more bad governments and dictators than its removed. This leading to the obvious conclusion we would be better off staying out of it until and unless it actually impinges on American security which the Taliban, Al Qaeda and Afghanistan did.

"Don't get me wrong, I don't think this is America's fight... it should be a worldwide front against tyrrany and opression"

Thats nice because in the eyes of most of the world the U.S. has been a leading supporter and purveyor of tyranny and oppression for the last 100 years. Read about the Philippine-American war, a war American schools don't teach their kids about much, but which taught a lot of lessons about being an occupying power like we are in Iraq. Or Google TPAJAX the CIA sponsored coup in Iran that replaced a sovereign government with the Shah of Iran, a ruthless dictator rivalling Saddam, and which happened to transfer Iran's oil field contracts in to the hands of American oil companies. The Iranian people hated the Shah so bad they opted for a repressive Islamic regime over him and being a U.S. puppet, and hate the U.S. to this day. Interestingly it appears the Iranians were the real winners of the Iraq war, one they conned Bush and Co. in to by sending Chalibi to the White House to lie about WMD's.

GPL'd Biology?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ooops, I read that as
"U.S. scientists were successful in creating a new human embryonic stem cell from source."

Do stem cells run on Linux?

Re:GPL'd Biology?

[most_unique_name]

Do stem cells run on Linux?

No, but I've heard rumors that someone in Australia has Linux running on stem cells . It's messy to install, but once you get it going you'll be on the top 500 list in no time.

Inevitable

[Anonymous Coward]

Science, like life, will always find a way :) Btw with regards to the first post, I believe that the line defining a person varies according to ethical belief, and argument 99.9% of the time in matters involving such belief tend to be pointless. I could make an argument saying that masturbation is mass murder and at the other end, that a child does not qualify as a sentient being. I personally believe neither, but I'd just like to point the futility in arguing such points unless either side is willing to keep an open mind.

I still long for the day...

[csoto]

when we can have baboons, fish and any other creature with eight asses. What a glorious day that will be!

Re:I still long for the day...

[pagej97]

That would be almost as good as having elephant-pig chimera... almost...

Re:I still long for the day...

[Lord Ender]

Didn't you ever hear that song by Lover Boy? Elephant and pig DNA just won't splice!

Morals vs progress

[Lord_Dweomer]

It is always fascinating to see what holds us back from scientific progress. I'm not saying one side is correct on the issue of stem cell research (although personally I'm all for it) but it really makes you wonder how far we'd be along scientifically if we did not have these debates. Sure, we might all be dead because of it, but we might also be immortal.

The other fascinating thing to see is what sorts of scientific loopholes people discover to get around these moral issues. In this case, it serves a dual purpose, but interesting nonetheless.

So at the dreamers end of the scale of possibilities, where do the geneticists on here think we'll be in 10 years once we've charged ahead with developing stem cell research?

Re:Morals vs progress

[MightyMartian]

To me the ethics issue is rather a moot point. Since the laws do not ban those embryos from being aborted, it seems to me that the law has already dealt with the ethical issue. Now what's left is to see whether those embryos will be used for research, and possibly to cure a whole host of disorders, or whether they'll be tossed into the burner with the kidney stones and bandaids.

This whole debate is simply railing about closing the barn door after the cows have come home. If all these people who find stem cells from aborted embryos so despicable really meant it, they'd be demanding an end to the use of reproductive technologies such as in vitro fertilization. I still wouldn't agree with them, but at least there would be some consistency in their platform.

It would be one thing if we were talking about actually producing an embryo whose only purpose was to produce stem cells. Yes, that would be a pretty thorny issue, but these embryos already exist and it seems to me that if they can be used to produce therapies with promise for everything from Alzheimers to spinal cord injuries, then it is cruelty in the extreme to withhold those embryos that are being aborted legally anyways.

Sure, down the road, we probably won't need embryos at all, and our understanding of developmental biology will allow us to do all these things and much much more, but for the moment, this research holds an enormous amount of promise, and is using what is already there.

Re:Morals vs progress

[nfgaida]

Btw, it is actually "closing the barn door after the cows have escaped" not "closing the barn door after the cows have come home".

Re:Morals vs progress

[n-baxley]

The objection is that if the use of these aborted embryos for stem cell research is allowed then the demand for them will rise sharply. What then happens when all of the "natural" embryos are used up? There will be money, possibly federal money, available to entice someone into creating more embryos. Now the embryos are not just a byproduct that would have been thrown away anyway, but the product itself. Therein lies the problem. It's currently a byproduct because there is no market for it, but if the market is built the system will be abused.

Re:Morals vs progress

[pagej97]

Then couldn't they just forbid federal money being spent to compensate people for providing fetuses, rather than denying money to medical researchers trying to cure disease????

No better way to say it than...

[The Woodworker]

From the perspective someone who has had 3 people in their family die of cancer.

They find it objectionable...fuck'em. Let's see what their attitudes are when their ass is on the line.

Re:No better way to say it than...

[Spy der Mann]

They find it objectionable...fuck'em. Let's see what their attitudes are when their ass is on the line.

You haven't heard of Jehovah's Witnesses, huh? They refuse blood transfusions because they consider it a sin. Many have died because of that.

In any case, i doubt christians will ever get the chance to test their attitudes... stem cell research is still in a very primitive stage. And I bet people might live longer if they stop consuming trash food and begin doing exercise instead of watching TV eating french fries or something - "couch potato" is certainly not an adjective applicable to christians, you know...

Finally, christians have a clear attitude towards death. A christian (at least one worthy of the name) will accept death as part of God's will. So I think embrionic stem cells is something christians can definitely skip.

Re:No better way to say it than...

[garcia]

Let's see what their attitudes are when their ass is on the line.

Plenty of people put their faith on the line and trust their lives to their doctors and to the miraculous works of their respective god(s).

We aren't *only* talking about the political gainings brought by supporting the religious right here.

Re:No better way to say it than...

[theStorminMormon]

For starters, I don't think anyone has proposed any use of stem cells to fight cancer. So while I respect the emotion of your position, you seem to have no grasp of the actual specifics of the issues whatsoever. That makes you both passionate and uninformed. A dangerous combination. Putting that aside... My grandfather - who was extremely healthy, relatively young, and whom I was very close to - passed away last summer from stomach cancer. My wife's mother (I actually LIKE my mother-in-law) has been battling breast cancer for 15 years and is currently going through yet another round of chemo. Diseases like this suck, and I hate them. But the truth is that I believe that even if I myself had cancer, I would refuse a treatment that involved using stem cells from an aborted embryo. For the same reason that I would refuse to have my life spared by the killing of an infant, a toddler, or any other human. Sure, you can taunt me and claim that I don't know because I haven't been there and that such high-minded principles fall by the wayside in the struggle for life istelf. But those are my principles, and they are what I beleive in. No matter how bad the experiences in your life have been I think you need to be open to the possibility that other view points can also have compelling motivations and stir up just as much passion as your own. Finally to the argument in general, I'm specifically opposed to stem cells harvested from destroyed embryos. I am also uncomfortable with the use of "discarded" embryos, and I am also uncomfortable with the whole notion of discarding (or even freezing) embryos that are left over from fertility treatments. I say "uncomfortable" and not "opposed" because I think conviction should be a function of both your opinion of the relevant facts and your degree of certainty in the relevant facts. I think it would be good if more people followed that principle.

Re:No better way to say it than...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I would refuse a treatment that involved using stem cells from an aborted embryo.

I respect your desire to not be treated with stem cells and promise not to use them to treat you. Now please don't try to keep my tax dollars from funding research into embryonic stem cells and don't ever try to stop me from using embryonic stem cells to treat my own illnesses. You see there has to be respect for other people's opinions in both directions if you want people to respect yours.

Re:No better way to say it than...

[dbenhur]

I really have to respect opinions so firmly rooted in fact.

For starters, I don't think anyone has proposed any use of stem cells to fight cancer.

From the National Institutes of Health's Stem Cell FAQ:

Healthcare Questions

1. Why are doctors and scientists so excited about human embryonic stem cells?

Stem cells have potential in many different areas of health and medical research. To start with, studying stem cells will help us to understand how they transform into the dazzling array of specialized cells that make us what we are. Some of the most serious medical conditions, such as cancer and birth defects, are due to problems that occur somewhere in this process.
...

2. Have human embryonic stem cells been used successfully to treat any human diseases yet?

... HSCs (hematopoietic stem cells) are now used in order to treat leukemia, lymphoma and several inherited blood disorders.

Re:No better way to say it than...

[theStorminMormon]

I stand corrected, I hadn't heard those yet.

Re:No better way to say it than...

[theStorminMormon]

There's a difference between respecting an opposing viewpoint and conceding to it. I certainly respect your opinion, just as I would have respected the opinion of Southerners in the 1850's who believed they were within their rights to secede from the Union. I live in the South and I still think they were right on that point. But I also believe, as pretty much everyone does now, that all people of all races are entitled to the same fundamental human rights. And so while I would have respected the viewpoint of the South, I believe I would have sided with the North to fight slavery. So while I respect the noble ambition to cure diseases that steal innocent lives, I believe there are certain moral lines that we should not cross in that quest. For example, I think most of us can agree that it would be morally wrong to clone yourself and then use your clones as mere organ-replacement donors whenever necessary. Similarly, I believe that at the moment of conception a new human life is formed, and I do not believe that it is ethically right to "harvest" those embryo's to save other lives. In future generations I sincerely believe that people will look back at us with some of the same revulsion with which we now view slave traders and others who stood by and watched the abuse of fellow humans proceed unchecked. If there's one thing we should have learned by now, it's that you can not judge humanity by things like location, size, or development. And yet we're still falling for the fundamental mistake that if it doesn't look like us, it must not be like us.

Re:No better way to say it than...

[dbenhur]

I think conviction should be a function of both your opinion of the relevant facts and your degree of certainty in the relevant facts.

Look, you're entitled to your ever so condescending opinion. But please don't pretend you've made any effort to reconcile it with relevant facts. Three minutes with Google quickly demonstrates that your lead premise is fundamentally mistaken.

Cancer curing and remediation is not an obscure application of stem cell research which someone making a modest effort to understand might reasonably miss; it's one of the principle areas of interest in the field and there are currently practiced therapies using adult stem cells harvested from blood and marrow.

"+5 Interesting," my foot.

Re:No better way to say it than...

[william.gunn]

So, basically, what you're saying is that your opinion about what policy should be comes from a demonstrably uninformed gut feeling?

I bet you have and voice opinions about genetic engineering, alternative medicine(how many books on herbal healing do you have on your shelf?), and evolution, based on how you feel about the topics or what your equally uninformed coworkers or neighbors told you, too. That doesn't make you a horrible human being, it just makes you one of the people who isn't cut out to be a scientist. People used to admit that they didn't understand the science, and therefore weren't really qualified to have an opinion. I wish you people would either follow the prerequisite of understanding the issue before opining upon it, or kindly piss off and let us get back to doing our work.

Re:No better way to say it than...

[theStorminMormon]

Wow... that's a lot of anger. You might want to look into that. I had typed out a long response, but I realize in hindsight that this is probably just flamebait. What serious scientist would attack me for a failure to "follow the pre-requisite understanding of the issue" in the midst of making absurd assumptions about everything from my sources of information to the books on my shelves? Physician, heal thyself. On the off chance that you are an actual scientist, however, and that your post was made in seriousness, I would like to point out that by exhibiting such a remarkable tendency to judge on the basis of very little relevant information you undercut your desire to have non-specialists let you get back to doing "[y]our work". In quick defense of my own post, I think any careful analysis of the logic of my post would quickly reveal that the specifics of any potential application of stem cell research are utterly moot with regards to my central thesis. And on a final note I realize that this is an issue that sparks a lot of emotion, but you don't succeed in winning any points with anyone by allowing your emotion to make a straw man out of whatever post happens to strike your ire at the moment. I may not be versed in some of the medical aspects of the research, but I don't whip out my degree in philosophy and try to force scientists out of the realm of an ethical debate.

Re:No better way to say it than...

[theStorminMormon]

I understand that you googled where I fail to do so. But google factoids and wiki articles do not an argument make. The simple fact is that for my argument, and for me personally, it makes no difference whatsoever whether stem cells are a potential cure for cancer or AIDs or the deadly whooping hiccup. It's utterly irrelevant to my simple point which I will restate for you: I believe that a fertilized egg is an individual and unique human life, and that it is morally wrong for us to destroy that life in order to save another life. From an ethical standpoint, it doesn't matter if we save that life from disease A or condition B. Now in my OTHER, and INDEPENDENT point, I mischaracterized someone as ill-informed and passionate, and opined that that was a dangerous state of mind to be making policy decisions. The fact that the person was NOT in fact misinformed doesn't negate my point. You needed to actually demonstrate that me being misinformed about cancer research was germane to my other points. You're welcome to try it, but you don't even seem to be aware that you actually need to make that implication yourself. Scientists you both may be, but logicians you certainly are not. Keep swinging at the straw men all you like, but if you don't understand the logic of my post than we're not communicating and the rest is just tinkling brass and sounding cymbals.

Re:No better way to say it than...

[theStorminMormon]

I don't think your logic holds up. Let's just say that we're talking about slavery. I'm an abolotionist. I say the african slaves have rights. You're a southerner, your livelihood depends on slavery. You could easily say to me "Look, I understand your moral compunctions. So don't own slaves. But the rest of us have our families to provide for, so don't stand in our way."

Of course you don't see it that way, because to you embryo's are not human and africans are. But to understand my viewpoint, you have to understand that whether or not you agree with me, I feel just as obligated to stand against stem cell research insofar as it involves the destruction of innocent life as I would have been to stand against slavery.

Re:No better way to say it than...

[theStorminMormon]

If you don't think that life begins at conception, when do you think that it does begin? While an ultimate definition of life is not something I even claim to have a grasp on, to me the distinction between a sperm (or an unfertilized egg) and a fertilized egg is enormous. A sperm can't "grow up" to be a person, it's fundamental nature has to be changed. It's no more "alive" than any random carbon molecule that may become part of a living organism. A fertilized egg, on the other hand, contains all of the genetic information necessary to develop into a full human. Yes, I said "to develop into a full human", but this doesn't imply that it's not already essentially human. We could just as easily say an infant is not yet "fully human", or anyone before puberty. But even though we can make convincing arguments that a 2-yr old is not, in fact, a person, we choose to treat all human lives as fundamentally equal. I believe that all borders between person and non-person, human and non-human that occur along the developmental path of a human being are artificial. I believe a 5 yr old is not one iota "more" a human than a 2-yr old. Nor is a newborn more "alive" than a 9-month old fetus. Try drawing a line wherever you like, but I think they all fail except the one at conception. Before conception there is no person to talk about, no independent human life. A sperm is no more alive than a white blood cell. Ask a short question... get a long answer.

Re:No better way to say it than...

[Xyrus]

For starters, scientist have been proposing growing organs and tissue by coaxing stem cells and growing them on scaffolds. In doing so, and diseased organ be it cancer or otherwise, could simply be replaced or patched without fear of rejection from the patients body.

I would call that a worthy cause.

You have your issues, and that's fine. You're entitled. But others have their own ideas about what's appropriate and what's not.

In that regard, I applaud you with stating your views, and not ramming them down other people's throats. :)

~X~

Re:No better way to say it than...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

In future generations I sincerely believe that people will look back at us with some of the same revulsion with which we now view slave traders and others who stood by and watched the abuse of fellow humans proceed unchecked. If there's one thing we should have learned by now, it's that you can not judge humanity by things like location, size, or development. And yet we're still falling for the fundamental mistake that if it doesn't look like us, it must not be like us.

It's fine to believe that life begins at conception and that all life is meaningful. So here are some questions regarding that. Is human life more meaningful than animal or plant life? At what point in conception does life start. According to science sperm and Ova are both alive, even if they never meet. Both have the potential to be human beings some day. Do you find the death of sperm to be objectionable?

You claim we're falling for "the fundamental mistake that if it doesn't look like us, it must not be like us." I don't agree with that at all. The truth of the matter is, an octopus is much more deserving of life than an embryo at the stage you are talking about. An octopus can think and feel and move and survive on it's own. An embryo is a partially developed bundle of cells with no brain, no thoughts, no feelings, no abilities, and no chance of surviving on its own. For that matter, it is not even an individual, it can still be divided into parts and be the basis for twins or triplets.

Everything I have said is something scientifically determined, but the value that is placed upon things is very unscientific. You may value a severed human finger kept alive in a jar, more than you do the life of a kitten. Both the finger and the embryo are human cells with no consciousness, but to my mind the kitten is a lot more important and a lot more like me. If people found a way to use a severed human finger repair my mother's broken spinal column I'd chop mine off gladly. If they found a way to use stem cells to do the same thing I'd have no ethical objections to that either.

Placing value on life is always a subjective thing. Some people value all life, some only humans and animals, some only humans, and still others only a subset of humans. Most people have reasons for their beliefs, often rooted in religion. Personally, I don't object to the taking of life in and of itself. I think their are valid reasons to take plant and animal life, like for food and that there are valid reasons to take human life, like self preservation. I do believe that all life is worthy of respect and should not be wasted. I don't kill animals unless I plan to eat them. Human embryos, however, at the stage of development we are talking about, die all by themselves. More than half of them that develop die in the womb with no help at all. The particular ones we're talking about have already been removed and are thus assured of death. Personally, I'm all for making any use of them that can be. At least that life will not then be completely wasted.

Our fundamental difference of opinion is that you think that the lives of these embryos is more important than the possibility of saving a fully developed human's life. I'm sorry we can't agree on this. I'm also very concerned that you, and people like you will attempt to zealously stop any use from being made of these little bundles of cells to the point where you will prevent saving or improving the lives of people I care about. I urge you, maintain your belief if you will, but please do not try to legally enforce your will upon others.

Re:No better way to say it than...

[theStorminMormon]

First of all, I'd like to say that I like debating you. You have understood all of my points and responded with good arguments of your own, and so far none of us have had to resort to weird personal attacks (or Hitler referrences... ooops) But I think for the msot part we're going to just have to agree to disagree. I'm actually a lot more open to your viewpoint than you might imagine. I'm not dead-set against stem cell research, it just goes against what I believe as I understand things now. I do believe that all life has value, but not that all life has the same value. I value human lives above others forms of life, although I'm a fairly strong animal-rights person too. I think how we treat other life, both animal and human, determines a lot about our own internal natures. Once we get to human life, however, I think it is both dangerous and wrong to start generalizing about what kinds of human life are more valuable than others. I think even engaging in that kind of judgment is immoral (I'm saying nothing about specific cases). I think a binary decision is called for even if it is not entirely reflected in reality because it's a safety-measure to prevent the persecution of minorities. So, as a pragmatic approach to reaching a moral ideal, I figure it makes the most sense to set up a "minimum standard" for humanity, and then treat everyone that reaches that minimum standard as having an essentially equal value (circumstances can effect the value later on). Then the question is - where do you set up that minimum standard? My research into abortion - which is more my area of expertise, filled me with a passionate belief that our current standards are hideously high. Essentially I start with an adult human and work backwards. Through puberty into childhood, then into infancy. A lot of physical changes take place, and certainly an adult is more a person than an infant (who may not even have a concept of self). But I think fundamentally an infant is a human just as much as you or I. Once we get back to newborn and cross the birth threshold, I don't think anythign changes. Passing by the tedius details, I can comfortably go back to AT LEAST 8-9 weeks (when most abortions start). At that point I passionately believe we are still dealing with a human life. The most persuasive argument for this is pictures (not of abortions, of healthy, developing babies). The first clear demarcation I find is at/around conception. And I admit that things get hazy there. I need to learn more. But if you're looking for a binary moment where life begins (remember, even I think this is necessary from a pragmatic standpoint) I can find no alternative to conception. And something about that just deeply resonates with me. A new human life begins somewhere. It doesn't begin with a sperm. I feel no more identity with the sperm I grew from than with food I eat. At best, a sperm is 1/2 of my essential genetic identity, but it's not a whole anything. But I can comfortably trace my own development to conception and say "There, that is where I started." Well, I've stated my viewpoint as best I can. I appreciate yours. And I'm going to continue to fight against EMBRYONIC stem cell research that harvests from embryo's because I'm just unconvinced that it's really going to be this great panacea, because adult stem cells offer similar benefits, and now more than ever because it's clear that, with extra research, we will be able to create embryonic stem cells without killing embryo's. That is something that I can enthusiastically get behind.

Re:No better way to say it than...

[william.gunn]

I really wish people like you and I could see eye-to-eye, but I just don't think we can. See, there's one type of people who based their opinions on how something strikes them, and how it makes them feel, and then there's the other type of person who has no opinion except that which is hard-won through slogging through the nitty-gritty details of an issue. I spend 90% of my time working in the lab, and I understand a very little about biological issues. So I get surprised when I hear from people who I KNOW know less about the issue than I do, opining as if their opinion is worth listening to. My span on this earth is finite, so I've had to come to grips with the fact that I can only know and do so much. With that in mind, I don't presume to have a worthwhile opinion about how people should run their businesses, churches, or about what artistic expressions have merit. However, I do have an opinion about stem cells, and it's one that should be listened to, because I am in the trenches every damn day. Can we just be friends? All I want is for y'all to go back to doing what you're good at, and let us get back to what we're good at, which, incidentally, is attempting, with ethics and integrity, to improve the quality of life for everyone on this planet. About my rhetorical style: Everyone who speaks publicly used a blend of logic, incitement, and ridicule. It gets you noticed, lets everyone know how you really feel, and makes your point to both the people assessing your words on the basis of their merit and to those more attuned to the emotional impact of your words. To do otherwise would be pretending to live on Spock's planet. Regarding my "pulling rank": You wouldn't pull out your philosophy degree and force scientist out of an ethical debate, because we're not in them. We avoid them like the plague, and on the few occasions we get baited into one, generally feel ashamed afterwards.

Re:No better way to say it than...

[theStorminMormon]

I appreciate the tone of your response. And I really don't get any pleasure out of just disagreeing with people, but I just can't stress stronly enough that a knowledge of the science of stem cell research is insufficient to make policy decisions.

It's really simple. If I, or any other non-scientist - comes into your lab and starts telling you how to run your experiments you can laugh us out of the building. That's your area, not ours.

But when you come out of the lab, and we come out of our churches/universities/other jobs and discuss POLITICS, then no one of us gets to pull absolute rank over the others.

You say about scientists and ethical debates "we're not in them". That's the most telling comment you've made. Because you ARE in one, whether you like it or not. It's very telling that you can't seem to recognize it even as your waist-depp in it (although early you did say that your job, as a scientist, is "attempting, with *ethics* and integrity"). No matter how you try to make the ethical implications of embryonic stem cell research go away, it just won't happen.

Re:No better way to say it than...

[william.gunn]

I agree that a knowledge of the science is insufficient, and there are other considerations to be made, but I stand by my statement that a thorough understanding of just exactly what the issue really is is a prerequisite. Maybe there's a reason that every scientist rolls his eyes at this issue, and just possibly that's because many of the considerations you think are important actually fall away once you understand what's really going on.

Try this zen riddle out for size: There is no point at which life begins. It's a continuous thread of existence from greatgrandmother to grandmother to mother to child to grandchild to great grandchild, forever. You can no more answer the question "Where does life begin?" now than you could for the first being to ever exist. At which point did life itself enter the universe? There is no point at which you can say, this isn't alive, but once this gene gets expressed, on once this cell moves from to here, or once this cell divides 3 times, it's all of the sudden a human, whereas before it wasn't.

What is life? It's that which we're fanatically attached to, but that which matters least, really. I'm not in the business of extending life, I'm in the business of alleviating suffering (and, in the process, finding out some cool stuff).

So this whole debate falls to reduction ad absurdum. Pick your favorite place to say life begins, or don't pick a place at all, it doesn't matter because there is no right answer. Science can never say, this is alive, but this isn't. That's a question of epistemology, where evidence can never be brought to bear.

Once you've dispensed with the distractions, and refocused on what I feel is the important question, "How can I alleviate suffering?", then you get into another quagmire. At which point does the potential benefit of my work overshadow the suffering it might cause as I am carrying it out. Since these questions affect all of humanity, from the Christians in America to the Hindus in India to the Gaia-worshipping tribesmen of South America, you can't answer the question according to one particular ideology. You have to hold yourself to a higher standard, because you're answering to all of humanity. Here is the point at which there are no right or wrong answers, no easy choices, no litmus tests. You just have to discuss things with a group of people who are educated on the issue and honestly concerned about doing "that which is right" for everyone. How can anyone bear the responsibility of choosing that? How can anyone presume that they know what's right without any word given from upon high? It's inexpressible. It can't be written down, but deep with everyone is a internal sense of what's right and wrong. Once you've gotten past your knee-jerk reactions, and once you've gotten past your fear of the unknown, and once you've gotten past all these things, and you have to, because you're taking on the responsibility of making choices that affect everyone, so you'd better be as educated as you possibly can, then you can get in touch with that internal sense.

That's how this scientist approaches the issue. Of course, in reality, the particular dogma that a person has grown up with can affect their judgement, and their ego can get in the way, and all sorts of things can cloud judgement, but these things are minor influences to someone who is basically a good person. Most of us are, because society weeds out the creeps pretty well, but you have to accept that nothing is perfect in this world, and there are some genuinely evil people. That's why science is set up the way it is. You do some work, and before you can publish it, which is the thing you have to do before you can get more funding to continue working, you have to expose your work to your peers, who scrutinize it to see if there's any possible way in which you could be fooling yourself about what the data say. Usually there is, so you slowly make corrections and a clearer picture emerges. Any serious scietific endeavor is too much for on

Re:No better way to say it than...

[theStorminMormon]

I think we can safely assume that at this point no one else is reading this thread. But the debate is interesting, and so I don't mind continuing. And furthermore you've said a few things that I just can't let slide. Not that they make me angry or anything, but they are issues I can't resist addressing. First of all I really don't think the question "what is life" is the question we need to be asking. That is a nice zen-type riddle, and equally useless from a policy standpoint. The question we do need to ask is what do we consider a human being, and what do we not? No matter how difficult this issue may be to resolve it is NOT one that we can simply ignore. In the past Jews, Africans, Hell, practically everyone has been considered subhuman at some point or other. Even Mormons were considered by some scientists for a short time to be a new, regressive race of humanity more akin to the "orientals" then to the ordinary white Americans. I can find a referrence for you if you'd like. Admittedly, it was scientists at a conference over a hundred years ago, but let's try to avoid the fallacy of assuming we are smarter than our predecessors, or somehow less prone to error in general. And so my point is that if we want to avoid some of the most tragic mistakes in history, we need to have a solid, workable understanding of who we want to extend human rights to. And while you say that life in general may pass mystically from generation to generation, I say that it is our best interest to lay down a line for when a unique instance of human life begins, and when it ends. We already have a working definition for when it ends. The cessation of all brain activity, if I'm right. We pronounce people dead, we write out death certificates. So, even though there's some ambiguity right at the very fringes (as with persistant vegitative state, and some people being resucitated after technically being dead) we have a decent, working cap for when life ends. So it's not like we're on some mystic journey here. We're just trying to put a lid on the other end to match the first end. So that's my case for why we need a definition of when life begins, and for why I believe it's practicable. I don't want to go through my whole spiel again of why I think conception is the best candidate. What you say is complicated beyond all measure is, in fact, not such a complicated question after all. On the other hand, what you claim is simple "alleviate suffering" is not simple at all. The obvious flaw in that little slogan is the text of a lot of B-sci fi moives. The surest way to eliminate suffering is to prevent/end life. I think you need to engage in a little more careful thinking about what exactly you mean by "alleviate suffering" because I don't think it's at all clear. Wouldn't you be alleviating suffering to wander about capping people who are depressed? It's an extreme example, but it's logically sound. If you're afraid of causing suffering to family and friends, no matter. Just start offing people who are terminally ill. Do it secretly. That way you cause no more suffering than would already be there, and alleviate a lot of painful suffering for everyone if the patient were to keep living for another few months, years, or whatever. Finally we stumble on what I believe is your most crucial flaw: "you can't answer the question according to one particular ideology." You seem to believe that there is a way for a person to find a non-specific meta-ideology. But this is simply not possible. There's really no use to searching for a neatral ideology, all ideologies are inherently biased. All you can do is work with one that has as few internal inconsistencies as possible, and be open to changing your idealogy as you grow as a person. But you seem to have the (unconscious?) opinion that a man of science can elevate himself above the masses of the religiously-biased. But science carries it's own biases with it. I suggest you do some reading on Kuhn if you are not aware of this simple fact. Actually, I take it back. There's

Re:No better way to say it than...

[william.gunn]

Let's see...I don't want us to degenerate into semantics here, so let me extract a couple things.

What is life, and what do we consider a human being? I don't think that clarifies anything, because your new question is just as vulnerable to reductio ad absurdum as my old one.

Should you be allowed to do things with my cells that you aren't allowed to do with my whole body? In the lab, I might kill millions of cells a day, and no one cares. What about my finger? At what point does it become OK? Whenever I have all kinds of non-sensical questions like this, it's a sign that I don't properly understand everything about the issue.

So we just don't know enough to be able to make a rational decision, yet, and we have to have a rational basis for where the line is drawn. I don't think we can just draw some arbitrary line in the sand, and go on forever not knowing if that was the right place to draw it or not. I'm in favor of trusting in people to know to "do the right thing", proceed with the science, and see if the issue becomes more clear with more time and more understanding of the issue. It's not like we're all of the sudden going to start trying to create frankenstein unless we're kept in check by the government. I just think that with slow, careful, considerate progress we may eventually come to a point where the emotions are taken out of it and everyone can see what is right. But we're not there yet, and you can tell because of the controversy. If we knew what was what, there wouldn't be any controversy, right?

Alleviating suffering: I think you know what I meant, but I'll clarify. I think it's terrible for people to be clinging onto life the way they do. A good christian who knew they had lived a good life, and had complete faith that they were in good standing with god, should be able to accept that the end of their life is upon them. A good Hindu knows that the body is only temporary, you only get use of it for 80 or so years, and then you gotta return it to where you got it. So the point I was making was that it's more important to try to live a good life while you're here than to drag things out unmercifully. I'd like to improve the quality of people's lives rather than the quantity. Even more so for someone's family to keep them artificially alive. How do you know they're not screaming in agony in there? Why the attachment to the physical form?

I do think there is a meta-ideology, and I think it is that internal sense that we (almost) all have. There's so much in common with all of the world's religions, which have grown and evolved over the centuries, back from when the world was much smaller, we didn't understand things as well, and small-mindedness was universal. Some of the things that were a part of religion in the old times aren't needed today. Don't forget that it was the church that came after Galileo. I get the feeling that the current debate is the exact same thing, just modernized. So there are parts of all the world religions which are the same, all independently derived. No one had to introduce the idea of loving one another to the Catholic church, though the Hindus had figured it out well before. Likewise, you don't have to believe in a bearded guy in the sky to be a highly ethical and deeply spiritual person. It's quite an amazing idea, when you think about it: You have everything you need to be a good person, already inside you. You don't need a pastor or clergyman to tell you that stealing is wrong, that lying is wrong, or that hurting people is wrong. Why do people do it then? I think it's because ego gets in the way. You tell yourself that it would make you feel better, or you convince yourself that the other person is a threat to you. So you have to be aware that there are animal urges, some of which are good and some of which are bad, and there are desires of the ego, which are the causes of people just not listening to that voice which is always there, telling you what's wrong and what's right. All t

Re:No better way to say it than...

[theStorminMormon]

You like the Kuhn reference? Yeah, I'm just full of suprises. I think we're winding down here, not because we've reached agreement but because we're starting to hit on philosophical issues at such a depth that I just don't have the time necessary to begin to go into the expositions of my own positions. I'm glad you've found the convo to be beneficial, in any case.

What do we consider a human being I don't think that this argument is as easy to reduce as you do. You give the examples of killing cells or a finger, and say that these are "nonsensical examples". But I think that they are actually quite clearly illustrations that it's really not that difficult to tell between cells and a human being. The cells you destroy do not cause a human life to end (assuming we're not talking embryos here). This is not really any different than the natural death epidermal cells are going through all the time. But there's a simple, clear, and obvious difference between killing a few cells and and killing enough cells to end a human life. In my case you'd have to kill a lot of cells, or at least very specific ones, in order to kill me. In the case of an embryo, it's fewer cells. But in either case the important fact is that if you kill the right amount of cells, the individual dies. I think this is a clear and obvious, you do not. We'll just have to agree to disagree for now.

Alleviating suffering I just don't have time to get into the whole "quality" of life thing. Let's just say that while I think the idea is sound at its very heart, it's been so wantonly misused that it does more harm than good at this point. Case in point, most people think it's a kindness to allow MD-assisted suicide in the case of someone with a terminal illness or major disability. But in actuality most people in that position who request death, when psychologically evaluated, turn out to be clinically depressed. After treatment for depression most decide not to die. So while I'm not saying we shouldn't allow people to be able to choose their own fate at all, I am saying that when people get carried away with the slogan they end up practicing an egregious form of bias. Namely if a healthy person attempts suicided we recognize it as a cry for help, but if a quadrapalegic tries it the whole "quality of life" argument has us refuse what is equally likely to be a cry for help. And after all, who needs more help? This is the reason the diabled community was so disgusted by "Million Dollar Baby". The "quality of life" and "right to day" movements are really thinly-veiled versions of American consumerism. We are the ones judging the lifes of others and finding their quality lacking. Americans throw things out instead of fixing them, and now we're starting to apply the mentality to people. As I said - we should allow the diabled to choose their own fate, but only in the context of even more support than we provide to our healthy population. If we're more likely to hand a sick man the cyanide than our attention and love, what does that say about us as a people? There's a lot more to this, and believe me I know this issue rather well, but we can carry on in email if you're really interested. I think you're falling for the hype.

Meta-ideologySure, there's a common thread throughout all (almost all) cultures. But I think peopel drastically overestimate the meaning this has for us right now. The differences tend to be more important, and even the "gut instinct" needs to be well-informed or it can lead to serious trouble. In case you hadn't noticed, the major religions share a common past of oppresion and bloodshed that's just as deep and long as their teachings of love and acceptance. And remember what they say about good intentions (eugenics, anyone?)

IgnoranceI'd love to have an interesting conversaion about faith. Personally I believe that knowledge, in an absolute sense, is unavailable to us. All we have our theories. This isn't to undercut science. Well-tested theories c

Re:No better way to say it than...

[william.gunn]

I'd rather keep everything on here, so it's in one place, but as you say, I think we've gone about as far as we can.

In the first point, about human life and some arbitrary number of cells being classified as human life, I can only urge you to read up on things, so you'll stop sounding as silly as you currently do. Honestly, mate, it's a poor showing.

Quality of life: Sounds like we both agree that people should be allowed to end their life, if they really want to, but we should encourage them to seek help for depression first. If by hype, you mean the teachings of the oldest philosophy in the world, then yes, I am falling for it, and quite hard.

Meta-ideology: see the oldest philosophy in the world.

Ignorance: Yes, I'd really like to "talk about my faith" with a mormon. I know where this is going already. You carry around a laptop in your backpack?

All kidding aside, you're absolutely right that all we have are theories. If you ever talk to any other scientist, they'll tell you the same thing. Absolute certainty isn't something you ever get. You can get 99.9999% certainty, as with the theory that more complex organisms have evolved from simpler ones, but every scientist worth his grant knows that any statement of fact is really an assertion of the most likely theory, according to the information they have, subject to change as new information comes in from ongoing experiments, which is why we need to keep going on ES cell research, so that we can get to a point where we have some good theories. We're so far away, and Singapore and Korea and Japan are going to kick our butts at the rate things are going. I've been to the conferences, man, you don't even know how bad we're getting our butts kicked, even at this moment. Hey, I know there are some dogmatic scientists, but that's where the whole scientific community comes into play. Be as dogmatic as you want, give poor reviews to papers and grants that come under your purview that don't fit the dogma, but in the end, the evidence will come out. Kuhn would say that happens after you kick off, but nonetheless the system as a whole converges upon the truth, unstoppably.

This is in sharp contrast to religious dogma, where the "truth" was cast in stone in ages past, and can never be changed, ever.

You see why I get irritated when someone tells me they have a problem with stem cell research? I think about this shit a lot, all day, every day(It's my job!), and I know we don't know enough to have any answers. We don't even know what the right questions are. So for someone to come along, not knowing how little they know, and to suggest that we draw some arbitrary line in the sand...they're basically saying, "I don't trust you to do the right thing, if and when you figure out what the right thing is." I think I'm pretty damn trustworthy, and we're made to seem like we're all a bunch of Dr. Frankensteins running around.

Re:No better way to say it than...

[theStorminMormon]

Alright, we'll keep it here.

As far as my poor showing goes, I thought we'd moved beyond condesencion, but clearly we haven't. If in fact I'm missing a point, would you mind at least pointing me in the right direction? I'm not exactly uninformed on the topic, but if there's some truly major aspect I'm missing, please send me in the right direction and rest assured I'll do the reading. But in the meantime lay off the tone or I'll whip out your amazing lack of understanding of both theology ("religious dogma, where the "truth" was cast in stone in ages past, and can never be changed, ever" is about the most unenlightened critique of dogma I've ever heard) and basic logic (straw man != ad hominem). But we don't need to go back to that level, so let's not.

Look, when people debate (on or off the internet) it's extermely rare that one person will ever admit being wrong on even an accessory point, let alone concede whatever the topic of the debate is. Because of that, there's a lot of grandstanding in debate. You're not really trying to convince the person your debating, you're trying to crush and grind them so that anyone watching will come away with the impression that you're right. It's essentially a spectator sport. This way you can support people who share your opinion and sway those who are unsure.

But because of this process, a lot of spurious stuff get's thrown into debates. It's easier to launch attacks then to defend against them, and so for this reason people like to lace their arguments with all kinds of implied attacks, relevant or not, just to put the other guy in the difficult position of having to write extremely boring, long rebuttals, or let the implied attacks stand as stated. In most debates neither the pro nor con representative really sticks to the logic necessary to the topic.

But here's my point - there is NO ONE else reading this. It's just you and me. So really, why are you still making all these asumptions about me? You say you're a scientist. I haven't questioned that. And when you say I'm so wrong it's poor, I actually ask you for more info (though you haven't convinced me of anything yet). I've made no assumptions about you, your profession, your lifestyle, your intentions, or your background. Contrast that with your "suprise" that I know who Kuhn is, your insinuation that I'm trying to "witness" to you, and was it you that had me down as the guy with the herbal remedy books on my bookshelves?

Look man, I don't feel any psychological need for your respect, but your approach presents us with 2 problems. First, you're just muddying the water, and second you seem to be revealing that you're more interested in an appeal to your own authority than in the strength of your claims.

It's clear to me that although you logically concede that theories are never certain, you haven't doubted the superiority of your own position since the time this debate started. And not on the basis of your logic, but because you're assumptions about me (the religious bumpkin, you probably think I live in Utah or Idaho too) only serve to bolster your own appeal to authority argument (yet another common logical fallacy). Your authority. You probably see that as a result of the strength of your position. I see it is as evidence of your dogmatic approach to your own belief system - and I don't care if you picked it up from the Hindu's, the Mormons, Nietzshce, or anywhere else. Though I've demonstrated time and time again that science is not sufficient to understand the policy elements of this issue, you continue to ignore that and act as though all the non-scientific disciplines, from economics to philosophy, have no valid right to be in this debate.

Look, all I'm saying is that it would be nice if you'd drop the arrogance. That's the worst thing about giving someone a PhD. They just never get over it ever.

Send me some links, or some article/books, and I'll try to find the gaping wholes in my analsysis. But if you're just going t

Re:No better way to say it than...

[william.gunn]

The day I meet someone who understands the science and the ethics as well as I do, and is still opposed to it going forward, then I'll shut up and listen to them. As it happens, I meet people who understand the many sides of the issue as well as or better than I all the time, and they're universally for continuing just a little bit more, just until we understand things a little bit better and the real issues become clearer. So that's my answer. We just don't know enough to be able to say, "Here is OK, but here is not, and this is why." Here: What your tax dollars are paying for.

The problem..

[Renraku]

The problem with stem cells is that conditions must be met for those cells to become differentiated cells.

Take a skin-type stem cell. It will have to have some kind of trigger to tell it to turn into a skin cell and not say..a nerve cell that attaches to the skin, or an oil-producing-cell, etc. These triggers are tiny, have to be given at the right time, and probably won't be easy to produce.

Its like having a batch of nano-goop that will eat the resources available and turn itself into an object, but you have to find out how to tell it that, by hand.

Don't believe the hype

[Mobile Unit of the G]

There's a lot more to the genotype of a somatic cell than DNA: cells accumulate a whole bunch of 'markers' such as methylated bases and proteins stuck to the DNA, and repeat units that fall off the ends of the chromosome with every cell division.

Nature has good mechanism for making sure germ line (reproductive cells) stay in a good state, but manipulated cells never seem to be 100% right. Clones often end up with poor health and life expectancy because of this, and I'm afraid stem cell therapy will end in poor results, maybe even cancer.

It's bizzare that stem cells have become such an issue for the left and the right. I see Democrats screaming at the top of their lungs so we can have more research into medical treatments that we can't afford, while Republicans are blowing the ethical issues entirely out of proportion.

Re:Don't believe the hype

[Log from Blammo]

...and both parties implicitly claiming that scientists are inherently less ethical than politicians.

Nah

[BlackCobra43]

They stopped doing that when those meddling "activist judges" started actually doing any thinking on their own. Didn't you get the memo?

Re:Infidels: ( +1, Patriotic )

[bigattichouse]

But you completely forgot to mention Flying Spaghetti Monsterism! I am sure the flying spahetti Monster would have something to say about stem cells... perhaps involving "mast cells" or some other piratey theme.

Stem cell research, and federal funding...

[dividedsky319]

Just wanted to mention a random fact that I heard about medical research and federal funding.

Say a company gets federal funds to research cancer, or MS, or any other disease. Most places are involved with the research of many diseases/cures/whatever.

If one lab, or one person even, involved with that company is researching stem cells, federal funding for ALL projects is cut off. Even if the stem cell research within the company is being funded entirely by private sources.

It's because of this policy that a lot of labs aren't able to do any stem cell research.

Re:Stem cell research, and federal funding...

[gregarican]

What was the source of this information you "heard?" Also a point of clarification. The Bush policy doesn't approve of embryonic stem cell research, not stem cell research as a whole. Everyone gets so torqued up about this subject they fail to differentiate. There are other areas of stem cell research just as promising that don't involve an embryo...

Re:Stem cell research, and federal funding...

[dividedsky319]

The source of it was my fiance who found out this information in one of her med school classes.

So while I don't have a link to support my claim, this was straight from a Doctor's mouth (her professor)

Re:Stem cell research, and federal funding...

[reiggin]

How is this "Informative" when he says he only "heard" a "random fact" yet he has nothing to back it up? It's heresay, rumor, speculation, and absurd. How about a link there, buddy boy? And how about you clarify with that link (supposing you even have one from a reputable source) that they're talking about stem cell research in general and not embryonic stem cells? There's a difference, you know.

Re:Stem cell research, and federal funding...

[Orne]

So, from a legal sense, that makes it heresay... after all, its "we heard from you, who heard from your fiance, who heard from their professor, who heard from the industry" that it is all or nothing when it comes to stem cells.

Which, of course, goes against there heresay that I read on the internet that privately funded stem cell research is still 100% ok.

Re:Stem cell research, and federal funding...

[chialea]

Privately funded stem cell research is still 100% OK. Getting federal funding for OTHER things that the same insitution is functionally impossible, I'm told. Still hearsay, but it certainly makes a lot more sense, and I've heard it from reputable sources. I'm on a paper deadline, so I don't have time to look it up for you, sorry.

Lea

Re:Stem cell research, and federal funding...

[reiggin]

Wow, it's really funny you say that because just the other day I heard from a professor that the moon landing was faked. So I guess it must be true since I heard it from a doctor.

Re:Stem cell research, and federal funding...

[dividedsky319]

Hey, I said I can't prove it with a link.

So prove me otherwise, otherwise I'll continue to believe a doctor's word over yours or anyone else's here.

Re:Stem cell research, and federal funding...

[Serveert]

I believe it's because if you accept federal funding, any federal funding, you cannot use the funding in any small way for your embryonic stem cell research.. Ie lighting, counterspace, et al used for the federal research cannot also be shared for your embryonic stem cell research. It is not cost effective to have a separate unit just for embryonic stem cell research, hence private organisations in the USA now study embryonic stem cells in very limited numbers. Straight from Bush's mouth:


  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.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20 010809-1.html

On that note

[Nf1nk]

I am against this, because I was only for stem cell research as a byproduct of killing babies.

Re:On that note

[Swamii]

I agree, as well, that people need to be killed. For this reason, I am against all humane medicinal experiments including stem cell research that does not require human embryoes.

Bring out your dead! -- and your living, for that matter -- so that we can perform fatal & lethal (lethal being more potent than fatal) experiments on our new-fangled overlords in Soviet Korea.

Re:I fail to see the problem

[gollum123]

Like u perhaps.......

Re:Can someone please explain to me...

[Brolly]

Actually, the National Institute of Health is the federal agency that assigns the funding in question. The NIH is part of the Department of Health and Human services, which is part of the executive branch, which the president is the head of. There's your constitutional basis.

And the economist might say...

[stienman]

Scientists were bound to find other less ethically charged sources of stem cells once the market for easy obtained cells was restricted. In other words, had the restriction not existed it would be unlikely that this path of research would have been explored as vigorously as it has.

As an aside, one reason the government's restriction on using federal funds is causing so many problems is due to the way research organizations request and use federal grants. If scientist A is doing embryonic stem cell research in scientific foundation XYZ's labs without government funding, then it is likely that
no one working in those buildings, or under the auspices of foundation XYZ can do legitimate gov't funded stem cell research. The reason can be as simple as part of the money of any grant goes towards the general lighting and HVAC "pool" of resources and then is used as needed. That means that some of the gov't funding is going to be paying for lighting in the area where stem cell research is going on that is lot eligible for gov't funding. It is possible, but costly (administrative costs as well as physically seperating mechanical and lighting systems) to strictly seperate all resources, but for most organizations it is more profitable to work completely within gov't guidelines and regulations so as not to restrict other research.

Of course these stem cells may have different properties than embyronic stem cells. But until we have some useful treatments involving the current fully-funded stem cells then why are these specific types of cells so coveted when we have no idea if they will actually be better or worse than other stem cells we can get from other resources? And why are run-on sentences so annoying?

-Adam

Re:What's The Prob?

[MightyMartian]

Yeah, he sure showed his morality and ethics with his remote viewing version of brain injury diagnosis.

Frist for President in 2008! Get the President who'll go wherever the polls point.

Brilliant

[BlackCobra43]

Any flamewar is sure to be punctuated by LOUD NOISES. We should take your example to heart (much like a trident) and all quote the immortal Brick Tamland.

Re:Infidels: ( +1, Patriotic )

[TheSync]

Flying Spaghetti Monster breathes life into embryos with his noodly tendrils.

Sometimes he doesn't even wait until after conception. Sometimes he breathes life into rocks. Don't hurt rocks!

Re:Can someone please explain to me...

[convolvatron]

its not illegal. its just that the agencies responsible for handing out research money, part of the executive branch, have made this their policy.

think about how many state laws have been passed under the threat of witholding highway fuding.

there are lots of ways the three branches can push something in and of themselves. they can choose to block something (veto, fillibuster, amendment), but it costs.

Re:Can someone please explain to me...

[OreoCookie]

Here you go.

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/98-611.pdf

This is science at its best

[dachshund]

I think if there's anything that anti- stem-cell research folks should glean from this, it's that scientists are knocking themselves out looking for alternatives to embryonic stem cell research. These aren't just a few "good guys" or religiously motivated researchers bucking the trend, they're mainstream scientists who are much more concerned with continuing this promising research than they are with winning any sort of debate. This should seem obvious to most people, but listening to the rhetoric on the other side, you might get a very different impression.

Unfortunately, a lot of this research gets picked up by the anti- side and used as evidence for the (false) view that scientists are just "lazy" or politically motivated, and there are lots of alternatives to embryonic stem cells just lying around if they were willing to use them. Unfortunately, most of these alternatives are not ready for prime time, and won't be for years, maybe decades-- if ever (in fact, you'll see many of them melt away, never to be heard from again once science proves them dangerous or unsatisfactory). Most scientists would like to see this research happening now, because even if it takes decades to result in a cure, a five year head start could mean useable treatments a few years earlier than if we wait. And in some cases, that could save thousands of lives.

You'll also notice that most of the embryonic stem cell research plans currently being proposed make use of excess embryos from IVF clinics, and only after effort has been expended to reduce over-production and boost embryo adoption (which currently is not very successful, but might take off with enough encouragement). Surprisingly few mainstream politicians and scientists are strongly advocating therapeutic cloning, although that technology has even more promise.

Re:This is science at its best

[tnk1]

Most scientists would like to see this research happening now, because even if it takes decades to result in a cure, a five year head start could mean useable treatments a few years earlier than if we wait. And in some cases, that could save thousands of lives.

Sure, and if we'd discovered this two hundred years ago, we'd all be immortal or something now. Or maybe not.

I mean, can someone tell me what the big rush is here?

The fact is that everyone is going to die at one point or another. If thousands or millions die tomorrow, there will still be thousands or millions to save tomorrow. It's not like the human race is depleting itself.

Living longer doesn't make the world a better place for anyone, by itself. Sure, you cure AIDS and then the same person dies five minutes or ten years later of something else.

What makes that extra bit of life worthwhile is a world you actually want to live in. It may be nice to save the old lady dying of a disease, but when you keep her alive for another decade, is she going to be any happier living on that tiny social security check for that much longer? Is she is going to appreciate the fact that you kept her alive by using embryonic "waste products"?

I think we've got our shit bass ackwards in this whole situation. We already have people living unprecendentedly long lives but there is still grinding poverty and an increasing amount of impersonal behavior, such as treating viable humans as waste products to be recycled for research.

Scientists aren't doing anyone a "favor" by looking at other options, they're doing what they should be doing: finding solutions that actually advance humanity rather than simply prolonging it in it's current form.

Re:This is science at its best

[william.gunn]

I would be tempted to mod you insightful, if only for the comment about people missing the point. I agree, the focus should be on improving the world for everyone.

However, since anytime a person who doesn't really understand the science enters a discussion like this they start to make comments like "embryonic waste products", we'd all be better off if you guys either educated yourselves on what's really going on, or, since not everyone can be both scientists and do their regular job too, just leaving the scientists to do the job as they know best, and accept that we really are trying to advance humanity. Having to tiptoe around stuff like this for no good reason is just making our job harder.

Accepting that our span on this earth is finite and we should focus on making our time good, rather than just long, is a strangely hard thing to accept. Accepting that your time is finite, that you can't know everything, and that you have to leave some things to the good judgement of other people, is hard, too.

Re:This is science at its best

[tnk1]

I'd be interested in your reasoning as to why I don't understand the science. To obtain new stem cell lines, you use embryos that would otherwise not be used. If they are created and not used, that would be a waste product of the process. Yes, there's other stuff involved, but the fact is that you farm embryos for the stem cells for new lines for research and eventually for actual usage if applications are developed and ever take off. That's the issue. There's not much science to get wrong there. The embryos are a waste product of another process.

It tends to be counter-intuitive, of course, to accept that extending our lives is not always going to take precedence over other considerations, because we are survival-oriented. However, quantity of life doesn't always make up for quality of life.

As far as other people's judgements, I accept that scientists know their science, but scientists are scientists, they don't always understand the social and ethical implications of what they are working on. Look at Oppenheimer. He knew what he was building, at least in abstract, when he was working on that Atom Bomb. Only after it was too late did he understand exactly what he was building.

While stem cell research is no atomic bomb, it is potentially worse, because people *want* the fruits of this research, as opposed to fearing them. That means that while we haven't killed anyone with a nuke in 60 years, the results of stem cell research could be in use constantly once perfected.

When it comes to ethics, a scientist knows no more than I would, and they are going to be biased towards their research. People who work on something for years are less likely to want to stop working on them once they've started, even if the results have unclear implications. While I'm not going to say that scientists are "lazy", they are understandably attached to what they've probably been working on for years. If outside pressure has forced research into more clearly ethical territory, even though it slows progress, we'll benefit from it in the end.

Your spelling sucks.

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate Busch too. Poor excuse for a beer.

Great Find.

[PacketScan]

This is a great find.. And look even the conservatives have nothing to complain about. Then again someone will find something objectionable. I'd like to see cancer and aids completely under control by 2015..

Re:Great Find.

[reiggin]

I'd like to see cancer and aids completely under control by 2015..

Then what exactly are you doing to make that happen, other than bitching about politics on Slashdot? How much money have you donated to research? I'm not saying you haven't, I'd just like to see someone state what they're doing rather than bitching about things all the time on Slashdot and saying what they'd "like to see." Heck, I'd like to see them bring back BJ and the Bear but it ain't gonna happen til I get up and do something about it. So I'm starting a letter writing campaign. Yeah.

Re:Great Find.

[sardiskan]

I know how to control the spread of AIDS. Stop having loose sex and sharing hypodermic needles. Then those that need blood transfusions will have less likely a chance of getting it.

Re:Great Find.

[Guuge]

Then again someone will find something objectionable.

Exactly. Some of these politicians don't get elected for their ability to come together and find solutions. They get elected and reelected in order to prove the superiority of christian religion over objective science.

Re:Great Find.

[PacketScan]

I'm a philanthropist.. So stick it buddy.

Re:Can someone please explain to me...

[anaesthetica]

Executive orders do not have (and never have had) the force of law. Congress can override them simply by passing a law contradicting the order, and the Supreme Court can strike orders down (and has in the past). The only type of orders that do have force of law are those made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress which give the President discretionary powers.

Re:Objective Morality

[Alphanos]

The question here is one of morality, not whether the science is valid or not. Surely you would not say that anything is moral in science, so how do you plan on objectively defining morality? The only method that is really practical in a democratic country is to define it based on majority opinion, rightly or wrongly, which is (in theory at least) the same way the legal system is set up. Whether you like it or not, it seems that the majority, or at least their elected representatives, view this particular type of research as an immoral thing.

Also, since it is an issue of morality, arguments based upon the merits of the science are mostly irrelevant. The lack of federal funding isn't due to the politicians (and public) not understanding what the benefits could be, but because they do understand that certain prerequisites exist which they are unwilling to accept.

Why the need to mention

[MECC]

Why mention George "DWI" Bush? Its just interesting Science.

Mod up MightyMartian

[bigwavejas]

Troll? Are you kidding me? MightyMartian has a very valid point.

Parent has absolutely no right to summarily speak for the entire christian community. Believe it or not there *are* varying levels of beliefs on this subject within the Christian community.

Speak for yourself

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a Christian who believes that NOT researching embrionic stem cells is a sin. I also believe that George Bush is going to burn in hell, as he is the proverbial "wolf in sheep's clothing."

Christians don't invade countries on the basis of lies. Christians don't steal elections. Christians don't execute people.

Christians don't act like George Bush.

Re:What's The Prob?

[B3ryllium]

Not true!

Jeb Bush will be the next POTUS. ;-)

Not "create", they "synthesized"

[FredThompson]

Nope, these guys didn't "create" a cell any more than a potter creates clay. They took existing material and manipulated it.

Re:Not "create", they "synthesized"

[william.gunn]

Actually, this isn't even new research. They fused a somatic cell and an ES cell, and found that some of the genes that were silenced in the somatic nucleus became expressed again. That's pretty much it, and it was entirely expected, given that scientists such as Jaenisch have been fusing adult and stem cells for a while now. Furthermore, the fusion product is tetraploid, and you've got no way to make it spit out the nucleus you want it to, and even if you did, can you be sure that those genes that were de-repressed aren't going to cause teratomas? Know what happens when you inject ES cells into an organism?

Every time a article about stem cells makes it into the lay press, it gets these ridiculous headlines...I mean, really, it's ridiculous. The headline should be "Scientist activates silenced somatic genes by fusing somatic cell with ES cell", but if you just read the comments, you'd think it was "Pointy-eared godless mad scientist takes time off from world domination plot to create life in a test-tube, just to piss people off."

Wake me up.

[Anonymous Coward]

When we can get our foreskins back...

Re:Screw you hippy tree hugging anti stem cell tur

[YrWrstNtmr]

I am sick of people being against this. If they don't want to have anything to do with stem cells, then don't.

They're trying not to. They'd rather not be forced to pay for it, via taxes.

Re:Can someone please explain to me...

[Derling Whirvish]

Executive Orders are simply orders handed out by the Executive (the President) to the workers subordinate to him in the Executive Branch. They don't apply to anyone else -- just to people who work in any Executive Agency. It's just a way by which the President can issue orders directly to the broad spectrum of workers in the Executive Branch by bypassing multiple layers of management.

It just won't be done here...

[delcielo]

Our religious/political climate will have little effect on France, Germany, the Asian continent, etc. This research will be done. Medicines will be derived from it, and its promise will be at least to some degree fulfilled.

It just won't happen here, and it may or may not happen as fast.

Source of unobjectionable embrionic stem cells

[christoofar]

You're telling me that Planned Parenthood clinics don't have any spare unplanned embryonic cells laying around?

Re:Source of unobjectionable embrionic stem cells

[theStorminMormon]

WARNING - DON'T READ IF YOUR SQUEAMISH Not to be grotesque, but if you're referring to abortions you should know that most of them take place further along - like after 8 weeks or so. By that time the little suckers have arms, legs, beating heart, all that jazz. That's why they use vacuum cleaners to suction them out, piece at a time (to be reassembled afterwards to make sure they got all the bits). Don't know how easy it would be to harvest stem cells from the mess that's left over.

I'm sick of having all this karma anyway.

[CosmeticLobotamy]

That's damn right. Plus, if we allow this, we have to allow people to eat their children's embryos. And if it turns out that eating the embryos does, in fact, give them the child's strength, then what's to stop them from eating other people's embryos? Or even their pre-teens? Imagine the problems that would cause. It's a very slippery slope that we shouldn't head down.

The bible disagrees with you...

[clonan]

As a strong christian I take great offence when people use the religion to justify everything.

The bible is actually PRO "abortion."

There are about a half dozen places in the bible that states life begins with the first breath...therefore according to the bible and christianity, abortion is NOT murder because the embryos are not human.

The only place that specifically talks about abortion in the bible states very clearly that killing a fetus does not warrant the same punishment as killing someone who has already been born.

Plus the parents right to choose is very strongly maintained. Parents were allowed to take unrully children and have them stoned to death if they wanted.

While it is absolutly true that Jesus exemplified children, you must read these lines in context. A child in Jesus's time was someone who has already been born...NOT a pregnant woman.

Now, I will be the first to say that in general abortion is bad. I think we should do everything possible to make abortion unnecessary. This however does not include banning the practice. If you ban it people will just go underground to get it and you will have a lot of women dying from massive hemorages.

So, if you want to object to stem cell research, fine. But you must do so without the assistance of the bible.

Personally I see no real ethical problem. A fertilized cell is the property of the parents and no one else. It is NOT a human. As it gets closer and closer to birth it becomes human...but as a single or small cluster of cells it is no more special than a cheek swab..(which btw can now be used to creat a person through the use of cloning).

Embryos deffinetly have value and should be respected but not as a human being.

Re:The bible disagrees with you...

[olewis]

References, please.

The bible, and therefore God, is most definitely not pro abortion.

Exodus 21:22 "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine."

Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."

Job 31:15 "Did not he that made me in the womb make him? and did not one fashion us in the womb?"

Psalm 139:13-14 "For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well."

Luke 1:13-15 "But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John. And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth. For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb."

Also, you are taking the verses regarding stoning disobedient sons out of context:

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear."

This is not a child the bible is talking about, but a grown man (glutton and drunkard, v 21).

Christians are not anti-science. Use adult stem cells. There is plenty of good research being done and already done with adult stem cells.

Re:The bible disagrees with you...

[clonan]

Exodus 21:22...I used this in my example...this shows that god does not consider a fetus to be a human being. Otherwise he would not "be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine" he instead would have been immediatly stoned.

Jeremiah 1:5, Job 31:15, Psalm 139:13-14, Luke 1:13-15 based upon the verse in exodus these now show that god new/formed/ordained these people from BEFORE they were even people. That seems a much more dramatic and meaningful interpretation while still maintaining the exact same essence and not contradicting other passages.

Deuteronomy 21:18-21...throughout the first 5 books we see time and again that parents have absolute dominion over thoes children that live in their house. Once a son moves on he is his own man. Once a daughter marries she is the responsibility of her husband. But we also see that the parents are responible for the actions of their children. They must redress any injuries/crimes the children cause. The ONLY escape from this for the parents is to have the child publicly executed. So this verse could be talking about an adult if the person still lived under his parents roof...but more than likley the guy would just move out rather than get executed so this had to most likely have been used on children.

I am a biologist. I work with adult stem cells on a daily basis. The truth embryonic stem cells (ESC) are as much like adult stem cells (ASC) as neurons are like red blood cells. They do two completly different things. Now it is true that ESC can become ASC, that doesn't mean that ASC can readily become ESC.

The goal of ESC research is to STOP the use of embryos for research. No one wants to use an embryo to cure disease. The goal is to learn enough about the ESC's and ASC's to turn YOUR ASC's into ESC's to treat diseases in you.

As far as christians not being anti science I couldn't agree with you more. As I said in the grandparent, I am a very strong christian, but I am also a scientist. To go back to the bible, we are instructed time and again to explore gods creation. Christianity is actually a CALL to science.

What is life?

[PIPBoy3000]

I think the biggest issue here is exactly how people define life. Right now the focus seems to be around "if there's conception, there's life", though there's all sorts of issues that make things complicated. Stem cells from umbilical cords seem fine to most folks because it's something typically seen as tossed away. Extracting bulk stem cells from people's brains is probably a no-no, though stem cells from fat tissue is fine.

The bottom line is that there's no obvious definition over what constitutes a living person and what isn't. As someone with a master's degree in biology, I've decided there never is going to be one ("life" will be one of those words like "justice" or "freedom" that mean many things to many people).

What people will find, of course, is that there's a way to reprogram adult cells so that it looks and acts just like embryonic stem cells. Of course, that means that you could turn it into something that looks an awful like a human being. If any cell in your body has the potential for turning into a full-grown human, does that mean liposuction is murder? If I create a stem cell from scratch, can I grow them to term and sell them as non-human slaves?

I'm not necessarily advocating either side in the debate, only that it's one of those ethical decisions rather than something science dictates as fact. I suspect it'll be argued over for many decades to come.

Re:What is life?

[Animats]

The dividing line for "life" is generally considered to be much lower. Prions, no. Viruses, maybe. Bacteria, yes.

Re:What is life?

[smchris]

Good point. Which highlights that "life" can only be the key issue for plastic shoe and belt wearing vegans with B12 deficiency.

No. It could be Christianity ("Every sperm is sacred") or some Hegelian idealism in which crushing a stem cell pivots the otherwise predestined course of history -- but it sure isn't pragmatic realism. Pragmatically, it's tissue bits.

It is such a shame that every advance has to butt it's head against the wall of darkness. How many have seen the old episodes of the early 60s Outer Limits type shows of the transplanted heart that leads the recipient to the heart's former spouse? Same thing isn't it? Instead of wondering whether an organ donation has "personhood" now we are anguishing the even more ridiculous proposition of whether cells have "personhood".

My cat, on the other hand, _there_ is a person.

Re:What is life?

[GypC]

The bottom line is that there's no obvious definition over what constitutes a living person and what isn't. As someone with a master's degree in biology, I've decided there never is going to be one...

Well, in that case, since I need a new pair of kidneys, I'll be taking yours, meatbag.

You see, by my subjective definition of life, developed by observing University students in their libraries, anyone with a post-graduate degree is undead (aka a zombie), and thus longer qualifies as truly "alive".

Re:What is life?

[PIPBoy3000]

You joke, but throughout the years, people's definition of who is human has changed wildly over the years. It used to be that in order to be counted as human, you had to be of the same ethnic background, religion, gender, and/or economic background. Of course, there's nothing in science that nicely categorizes people and non-people.

On a personal note, I would greatly prefer stem cell research to be more open than it currently is. I think it should be matter of course that growing new organs is a high priority. I had a coworker in the same boat as you. She's doing surprisingly well - got married, sailed around the world, and is coping with the progression of her eventual kidney failure. Best of luck to you.

Re:What is life?

[Tikiman]

The bottom line is that there's no obvious definition over what constitutes a living person and what isn't. As someone with a master's degree in biology, I've decided there never is going to be one ("life" will be one of those words like "justice" or "freedom" that mean many things to many people).

There is, however, an obvious biological truth that after conception, a new member of a species now exists. This marks the end of reproduction and the start of gestation for a new organism. This is just the basic biologically reality of things.

What people debate about is not whether a fetus or embryo is "alive" or "human", because it is obviously both. People only debate about the subjective value of such life. Science has closed the door on the debate of when biological life begins, we have even captured it on video. It only remains to debate what is the value of that life.

Re:What is life?

[PIPBoy3000]

I noticed that you used the term "obvious" several times. It's not to me.

There's a species of lizard that reproduces parthenogenically. Conception doesn't occur. Does that mean that it isn't a new member of a species? That it's not alive?

It's entirely possible that at some point in the future, something that sure looks like a human being will be created using methods other than conception. Somatic cell nuclear transfer is a likely candidate. If this happens, does that mean that it's not alive? Can it be treated as a slave?

As people's understanding and capabilities advance, things like this will become increasingly possible. What parts of a person are considered "self"? Can a doctor ethically remove parts of someone's brain? If I culture a mass of cells from my bone marrow and turn it into brain cells, does it have legal rights? If I inject the cells into my own brain and they integrate, should I be considered cojoined twins?

Science is weird and it's up to medical ethics to deal with these sorts of issues.

Re:What is life?

[Tikiman]

I noticed that you used the term "obvious" several times. It's not to me.

It is not obvious to you that a embryo/fetus/baby is a biological organism? That it is of species "human"? I am making no claims of "personhood" or "self", simply looking at when biological life begins, the kind that would be studied in a cource on developmental biology. Consider this table of contents of a biology textbook. Chapter 7 is titled "Fertilization: Beginning a new organism". Or to the Wikipedia article you cited:

Fertilization (also known as conception, fecundation and syngamy) is fusion of gametes to form a new organism

The inability to provide a universal definition of "life" does not prevent us from recognizing the plain facts of what we know about human pregnancy. By the same measure you would describe a 8 month fetus as a "human organism", so must a 14 day embryo be described.

Re:Objective Morality

[TheRaven64]

I agree. I would much rather live in a country which is hesitant to commit to stem cell research because of ethical grounds (with which I personally disagree) than one which allows `medical research' programs which involve torturing thousands of Jews, for example - the other end of the same scale.

Stem cell research should definitely proceed eventually, but only after clear ethical guidelines have been worked out that will prevent it degenerating into something along the lines of cloning entire humans as organ donors.

Re:What's The Prob?

[ThaFooz]

I don't know about Frist, a bit too crazy - but I'll put money down on Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (capable, right wing, and can win in the bluest of states) or Senator John McCain (the most honest and charismatic figure the party has had in years).

Regardless, right-wing politicians attacking stem-cell research is largely an election year show - just like abortion & gay marrage. When you can't win on your record, just energize you're base on emotional 'moral issues'. I doubt few of them actually care; look how much the discussion has quieted in the last 6 months despite several major breakthroughs in the science.

Extra embryos

[bobpence]

I would really like to understand why so many extra embryos are created when using IVF. I know that several at a time are used with each attempt at implantation, but why not "make" just enough for each attempt as it approaches? Is it not time-consuming to fertilize each egg? Are separately-frozen eggs and sperm less viable for fertilization?

I have about the same qualms as above about IVF, yet if really would make a difference for me if zygotes were created by 2's and 3's rather than by the score.

Those most likely to use IVF are also those most likely to pass on American values of liberty and tolerance to their children, so I am loath to be too critical.

Re:Extra embryos

[MightyMartian]

It's always been my understanding that IVF is pretty much a "throw enough sh-t against the wall, and some is bound to stick". In other words, it isn't an exact technology. I have no doubt that in fifty years reproductive technologies today will seem very crude, but we've got to get from point A to point B, and that means research, and if lines of research are discouraged or even forbidden, then it's going to be hard to get to point B.

The US should be very worried about all of this because American researchers aren't the only guys on the block, and, as with all sciences and technologies, the US risks falling behind.

Re:Extra embryos

[Skalizar]

It's a matter of odds (we went through this, unsuccessfully, now we are adopting instead of a second try). The drugs cause the woman to produce more eggs, some times many more. Depending also on the quality of the sperm, not all will fertilise. Some are even manually injected into the eggs to increase the number of viable embryos. They they grown and monitored and only the best 2 are implanted in hopes that 1 (and only 1) will stick. Any others that look good are put on ice for future attempts. This is the IVF process, not the same as whatever produces litters of babies. My wife produced 26 eggs, only 14 fertilised, only 7 grew into normal, implantable embryos. We implanted 2, they didn't take, she didn't want to go through all the needles again, so we persued adoption instead. It's funny how something like a big needle in the butt every day for several weeks will kill that biological need to reproduce.

You don't speak for "Christians" in any case

[ianscot]

Christians are not opposed to stem cell research - only the source of stem cells being aborted humans. We have no problem with

Hey, as long as you're speaking for all Christians everywhere -- evidently including me and my extended family, despite none of us ever having signed over any plenipotentiary powers to you -- why don't you go ahead and just tell us what God thinks? You're already speaking for other human beings whose minds you plainly DO NOT KNOW; why not go for the Go(l)d?

See, there's a subtle distinction to be made, there -- or really a not so subtle one, yeah? -- about your own views versus those of all Christianity. It's a distinction that you've missed a handful of times in the course of your three sentence post.

Which makes me a little wary of handing over any sort of moral authority to you and your like-minded authoritarian wannabes when it comes to medical science. You dig?

Re:You don't speak for "Christians" in any case

[ag-gvts-inc]

Yeah! And while you're at it: Bill Gates doesn't speak for Microsoft, national ambassadors don't speak for their countries, and the 'man on the street' doesn't speak for all men / women on the street either.

Y'see boy, Slashdot is a place where people can speak their minds...Hopefully without being flamed to a crisp for providing what is arguably an accurate perspective into the minds of _most_ Christians. Not to mention his viewpoint is probably the most simple (and therefore, most likely to be correct) interpretation of the pertinent Biblical principles.

Re:You don't speak for "Christians" in any case

[irenaeous]

I am a Christian. I don't speak for all Christians by any means.

I favor stem-cell research because I do not regard the embryo as human life until it has a functioning brain and nervous system. I regard "ensoulment" as occurring at that time. This can only occur well after the point when a zygote can be twinned or cloned. As a practical matter, I oppose abortion anytime after the zygote has become implanted in the mother's uterus. This position allows for stem cell research and in vitro fertilization -- even cloning.

An online article that discusses these issues is available at Cloning, Aquinas, and the Embryonic Person.

Baby Farms

[Shakes268]

I think a lot of the conservative outlook is not on the effect of funding it now but what happens down the road once precedents are set and the lines are ethics are crossed to a point of no return. Imagine large facilities that do nothing but farm embryos for stem cells. Ebay "Selling embryo!" and many other horrible things. Scavengers who kill pregnant women to sell off embryos, etc. It can lead to a lot of bad things if not kept in check.

Re:Baby Farms

[Guuge]

Imagine large facilities that do nothing but farm embryos for stem cells. Ebay "Selling embryo!" and many other horrible things.

So instead of outlawing the "horrible" things they decide to outlaw medical research? Either they're trying to impede science or they're just plain dumb. The truth is probably somewhere between those two extremes.

Re:Baby Farms

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Scavengers who kill pregnant women to sell off embryos, etc. It can lead to a lot of bad things if not kept in check.

One, the U.S. cannot legislate a stop to research. Already China and Europe are becoming more advanced than the U.S. with stem cell research in general. Two, it is useless to ban things that might contribute to a crime. Ban murder, not stem cell research; this last problem is already illegal. Three, passing more laws does not stop criminals from breaking them. If a murderer has to break 5 laws instead of 4 to kill a woman and steal her stem cells (god what a ridiculous argument to start with) then why does he care? People will want treatments for ailments and if they are illegal in the U.S. criminals will just perform them in secret clinics, there will be no medical oversight, and the money will go to organized crime which will make all our lives worse.

The problem I have is the anti-abortion crowd is using religious definitions of life to argue (very unscientifically) that an embryo is more alive and deserving of life than a carrot, and then extrapolating from that that it is morally wrong to encourage the deaths of embryos (most of which die naturally anyway). From this they further extrapolate that research that might use these dead embryos should be illegal. OK all you christians who are opposed to embryonic stem cell research out there answer this then, if stem cell research is morally wrong, why do you think your god designed them and the human body in such a way so that more than half of them die naturally at that stage?

Questions for anti-ESCR people

[Stickerboy]

From what I hear, most conservatives base their opposition to embryonic stem cell research based on their belief that life begins at conception, producing a unique organism that God grants a unique soul.

I have several questions for all of you:

1) Conception takes place before implantation in the uterus. If you don't already know, many contraceptives work by blocking implantation. Since a conceived zygote is being blocked from developing further (and will die), is this murder?

2) At the stage the cells are taken from (blastocyst), a biologist could divide the inner cell mass (any one of which is used for embryonic SCR) and what would happen is that twins or triplets would develop. If you believe each child is given a unique soul at conception, does that soul also divide into two or three? Or does God give "last-minute" souls out?

My point, if it's not clear, is that embryonic stem cells are taken at a stage when it is not individually unique. A lot of people also seem to be happy with either in vitro fertilization or birtch control pills while opposing embryonic stem cell research.

Re:Questions for anti-ESCR people

[MikeyTheK]

On 1, the Catholic Church believes that all birth control, save "the rhythm method" is wrong. As for the comment on invitro, the Church is also opposed to it because of the associated destruction of embryos. I believe that both of these positions are dead on.

Re:Questions for anti-ESCR people

[WombatControl]

My point, if it's not clear, is that embryonic stem cells are taken at a stage when it is not individually unique. A lot of people also seem to be happy with either in vitro fertilization or birtch control pills while opposing embryonic stem cell research.

That isn't entirely accurate. A blastocyst is a genetically unique individual, it has DNA that differs from both mother and father. I don't have problems with birth control, since embryos don't always implant naturally. I do have a problem with an environment where human beings become little more than commodities to be exploited. Where's the difference between harvesting "unwanted" children for medical research and ESCR? There are plenty of overpopulated countries where kids would just die of diseases anyway? Why not use them for research? Embryos are genetically unique individuals, which is why they deserve some measure of protection. A society that starts viewing certain human lives as less worthy of protection than others is not a society that's on a healthy ethical footing.

Re:Questions for anti-ESCR people

[GlassHeart]

Religious people have difficulty with this concept, but consider the notion that human life is not a binary property that you either have or not have. That is, a human sperm or egg cell has a bit of humanity, an embryo has more, an embryo implanted in a uterus has still more, a born baby has even more, while a brain-dead accident victim perhaps has less.

Once you can accept this, then the arbitrary, discrete, and approximate classes of humans according to laws make more sense. Before the second trimester abortion is usually legal. By a certain point, you can be legally murdered. Before 18 you can't vote. Before 21 you can't drink. If you're no longer able to decide for yourself, your next of kin gets to pull your plug. And of course, for a large part of human history we condoned slavery, where humans were bought and sold as property. Killing a human in war can also have very different results for you, depending on the circumstances.

I don't have problems with birth control, since embryos don't always implant naturally.

So let's say your car brakes have not been working very well, and somebody drains the brake fluids and you die in the resulting accident. Shall that not be murder, because the brakes could've failed on its own? I would think that the person who made it 99% likely that you won't survive would be accused of murder.

A society that starts viewing certain human lives as less worthy of protection than others is not a society that's on a healthy ethical footing.

We have not only "started", we've been doing this throughout our history on this planet. Doesn't mean it's right or moral, but I hope you're not surprised. What it does mean is that perhaps the morally consistent socity you seek might have some practical difficulties, such as not being able to kill invading humans from a "less moral" society.

Re:Questions for anti-ESCR people

[Tim C]

Are you sure that the Catholic Church allows the rhythm method? I'm neither Catholic nor particularly well-versed in such matters, but I was under the impression that sex other than for the purposes of procreation (ie trying to get pregnant) was a sin...

Re:Questions for anti-ESCR people

[demachina]

The hard core right to lifers are just as opposed to birth control pills as abortion. Its a hot topic lately that some pharmacists who are extreme right to lifers are trying to stop filling valid prescriptions for birth control pills because it violates their religious views. Not a problem in the city but in one pharmacy small towns it certainly could become a problem, especially if the right to lifers start seeking to shut down every pharmacy in the area that distributes birth control pills the same way they've sought to shut down abortion clinics, and in some areas have completely shut down access to abortions.

There is an ulterior motive to the right to life in a religious context. Maybe it is just based on moral grounds and the belief human life is sacred, but elimination of abortion and birth control also results in faster growth in the numbers of followers of that religion. Population growth for a religion leads to political power, less persecution, control of land and more dollars landing in the collection plate on Sunday. In the religion game:

        Power = Population growth

Catholic went from zero to 1 billion in 2 thousand years thanks to prohibiting birth control.

In a world bursting at the seems its turning in to a real problem that religions want to continue to maximize population growth. When you have a population of 6 billion and rising, many of whom can't be fed, life isn't quite as sacred as religions contend unless you want to achieve hell ON Earth.

In Israel an ulterior motive of giving up control of Gaza is population and population growth between warring religions. When you count all Arabs in Israel proper and the occupied territories they are rapidly approaching parity in numbers with Jews, and will soon out number them. Muslmis are breeding at a much higher rate than Jews in Israel. If Israel were to allow all Arabs to vote (which it never has in the the occupied territories) Arabs would seize control of Israel by democratic means. Israel is for all practical purposes an apartheid state because they don't let most Arabs vote, and very soon they will be a minority ruling a majority just like Whites ruled majority Blacks in South Africa. Once they spin off a million Arabs in Gaza into national limbo they maintain a hard majority much further in to the future.

The other paradox about supposed right to lifers like George W. is, if life is so sacred how can he justify sending actual living breathing human beings with lives and families who depend on them to die in optional wars like the one in Iraq. How is a living, breathing soldier or Iraqi civilian's life so meaningless as to throw it away for no clear reason, while at the same time you obsess over the existence of a tiny water bag full of DNA. I can see a right to lifer justifing killing and being killed if it was essential for survival of their family and society but the war in Iraq didn't qualify on that count in any way.

All in all you can understand right to life and maximizing population growth in the context of 2000 years ago or even 200 years ago when the world was relatively empty but today if it continues its going to lead to the eventual resource collapse of the planet.

Re:Questions for anti-ESCR people

[MikeyTheK]

Yes, I'm sure. Rhythm is the only accepted form of BC for Catholics. Unfortunately, there are two notes to be had as a result: 1) What do you call people who use the rhythm method? Parents 2) No, I'm going to let someone else take "rhythm" and make a funny with it.

Re:Questions for anti-ESCR people

[MikeyTheK]

uh, aside from abstinence.

Re:Questions for anti-ESCR people

[MenTaLguY]

Well, not quite. The teaching is that when you have sex, it's sinful to refuse to accept any responsibility for pregnancy (whether via contraception, or avoiding vaginal sex in favor of other sexual activities).

In and of itself, having sex when you're not fertile is fine. Sex definitely has other purposes beyond just getting pregnant, and those are good things too.

Would selective abstinence specifically at fertile times be a problem? That just depends on the intent. Doing it with the intent to never have children would be bad. Married couples are supposed to be willing to have some children if it is possible for them to do so.

Link

[dividedsky319]

Ok, so after looking at the NIH's website, I may not be 100% correct. I found a FAQ dealing with stem cells that are allowed to be federally funded vs stem cells that can't be federally funded, and as long as the proper accounting takes place to show where the money came from, you can still receive funding.

Link to the FAQ

However, this doesn't apply to the situation I originally proposed... other research grants, and stem cell research that can't be federally funded. Couldn't find anything on that.

Imagine a woman...

[alexborges]

With a beowolf cluster of eight asses per node...

That would be an ultra-scalable-broad wouldnt it!

Total agreement

[QMO]

"should be based on objective criteria, not on one man's personal religious beliefs."

My profession constantly faces opposition from religion-based laws.

(Note: It's not what you think. I'm a hitman.)

(Further note: I am not actually a hitman and, sadly, if I didn't add this part, someone out there would totally miss the point.)

Glass is half empty or half full...

[Gruneun]

A restriction on federal funding *is* a restriction of research
Your analogy of the driver's license would be reasonable if the federal funding was as easily obtainable as a driver's license.

A better analogy would be a homeless person asking for my spare change. If I disagree with the individual, for whatever reason, and decide I'll allocate my spare change to another guy on the street, or not at all, few people would actually accuse me of preventing that person from eating.

Re:What's The Prob?

[MightyMartian]

I can't disagree with what you say, though I think everyone has come to the agreement that McCain will never sit in the Oval Office. That the press and the Republican Party let a guy who spent the Vietnam War safely in the Air National Guard besmirch the character of a guy who was an actual POW will always be beyond me. But that's neither here nor there. What is real is that the Republican Party has become the party of the panderers. Whether guys like Frist really believe what they say, when you see a flipflop on stem cell research, you just got to wonder what values the guy actually has. The US is falling behind in the sciences, and these guys would happily win a few elections, and the future be damned.

Are you sure about that???

[clonan]

So the egg and sperm were dead before you tossed them in a test tube together?

The truth is, life is a continuous chain that extends back billions of years. This will be true regardless of what happens in a clinic.

While I agree with you on some parts, I think our overall positions are very different. I agree that the organism created by the combining of an egg and sperm starts at conception. I disagree on the point that it is a human life....

It is certainly a human cell. It has the full compliment of genes...but so does a skin cell. If you took a skin cell and put it in a petri dish would you call it a human life? Would you debate over it? Would some people kill over it? A single skin cell is fully capable of becoming a full grown human being through cloning. In fact there is only really a single step difference between growing up a skin cell and growing up a fertilized egg....

On top of that, the bible disagrees with your asertion that human life begins at conception. There are many different refferences to life begining with the first breath. Therefore human life only begins at birth... Plus the bible very clearly states that an unborn fetus is NOT the same as a child after birth. If you accidentally kill a child you could be stoned...if you accidentally caused a miscarriage you couldn't.

Re:Are you sure about that???

[rackbreaker]

I agree that the organism created by the combining of an egg and sperm starts at conception. I disagree on the point that it is a human life....

At what point does it become a human being? There has to be a line somewhere where a human being begins, and the only line that's made sense to me has been conception. What line do you use?

Re:Are you sure about that???

[Professional Slacker]

Viability. The day you can preform a C-section, pull the baby out and have it survive with no medical intervention that is the beginning of humanity, before that it's just a complex life form. That's not to say they don't have rights before that point, just not human rights. Nor does that preclude beings with rights (and due legal recourse (parents/legal guardians)) from intervening on it's behalf.

Re:Are you sure about that???

[clonan]

Simple...self sustaining life with only supportive care.

If you put a fertilized egg (or skin cell for that matter) on the sidewalk the survivability is measured in seconds. I say it becomes a human being when it IS outside the womb with simply supportive technology (i.e. incubater, ventalator, antibiotics, and I will even go as far as to say surgery).

If you draw the line anywhere else then the skin cell now has all the rights of a full human being.

Please think about the consequences of making embryos full human beings. Homo sapiens have one of the highest miscarriage rates of any species. Even couples that easily have children average 6 months of trying....that means 5 misscariages (even if the mother doesn't realize it) for every successful pregnancy. Now if the newly fertilized egg has all the rights of a full human the mother is in real trouble.

Say she and her husband have a falling out....she walks through a cloud of smoke leaving a building...she has a misscarriage...husband now has her charged with manslaughter, child endangerment etc. and she spends the rest of her life in jail.

While I admit that is an extreme example, it is still the logical end result of making a single cell a full fledged human being.

Re:Are you sure about that???

[clonan]

yes I know the verse...that is actually the exact verse I was thinking of. The bible clearly states that killing a fetus is NOT the same as killing a person.

If you kill a fetus in ancient Isreal you where fined money based on what the husband decided. If you killed a person you were immediatly stoned to death.

Obviously god's law dictates that fetus' are not fully human lives, although they do have value.

Southern Baptists don't think much of the Pope

[ianscot]

Sidenote: My Southern Baptist relations go to a church at which, commonly, people refer to "converting the Catholics to Christianity." They regard the Pope as the antithesis of Christian ethics... but they're not really clear on why any more.

I think the original reasons for animosity between certain protestant sects and Catholicism (w/capital C) had to do with the authoritarian nature of the Catholic power structure -- the priesthood, papal infallibility, and so on. However, at least for my relations, that's confused now -- they themselves have become so authoritarian that it's a question of which authority figure they think is infallible, which one has the pure and literal reading of the Bible down pat, and so on.

Also the Catholic church has recognized evolution as a revelation of God's work in the world for a while now, whereas the creationists who're so influential in the US and Australia (and nowhere else) have trouble with that.

Irony that the sitaution is solved...

[alexhmit01]

Stem-cell cures are probably two decades away, if proven viable.

No side of the stem-cell debate is AT all honest.

On the left...
The pro-embryonic research crew is 1, telling sick people that George Bush is killing them, when in fact they have a death sentence and stem cell research may cure FUTURE patents, but not likely the current ones.

This is more about politics than anything else. A prohibition on federal funds isn't a prohibition on research. Bush was the first President to approve ANY funding, and allowed it for pre-existing lines. That may not be enough lines for major research, but it should have given a start to doing some of the basic research to determine if this is viable. Unfortunately, people would rather play politics. I expect the pro-choice crowd to be EXTREMELY upset at this research, that manages to create research lines WITHOUT destroying life, as many of the vocal members aren't focused on the research, but a believe that every embryo destroyed someone secures their agenda.

On the right...
Federal funding is generally key to any EARLY stage research. Cutting off federal funds DOES slow down basic research.

This is a closet attempt to deal with their moral issues with IVF, not the activity, but the discarding of embryos.

If this discovery is confirmed then it means that Bush's compromise worked out wonderfully, whether you like him or not. He allowed the basic research to continue, and scientists found a solution.

Do you think that if every undergrad biology student could get a vial of embryos as part of a basic lab class (if you listen to the argument on the left that there is NO MORAL question), this research would have been heavily pushed or developed?

The pro-choice crowd was EXTREMELY excited about the ability to destroy more embryos as part of their "proof" that embryos aren't life. The pro-life crowd wanted to start developing embryonic rights. Somehow, Bush managed to placate the religiously motivated conservatives while allowing the research to go on, and low-and-behold, someone may have found a solution that solves the whole problem.

Alex

Re:Irony that the sitaution is solved...

[Theaetetus]

The pro-embryonic research crew is 1, telling sick people that George Bush is killing them, when in fact they have a death sentence and stem cell research may cure FUTURE patents, but not likely the current ones.

Not quite - current researchers say they're about 3-5 years away from starting human trials in repairing spinal cord injuries with stem cells. More here, though due to the halt on federal funding, this has been somewhat derailed (we were 5 years away in 2000).

Re:Irony that the sitaution is solved...

[dougmc]

Of course, your summary isn't really honest either --

The pro-choice crowd was EXTREMELY excited about the ability to destroy more embryos as part of their "proof" that embryos aren't life.

You're painting the pro-choice crowd with an awfully broad brush here. A large number of `pro-choice' people (including myself) don't really like the idea of killing embryos for whatever reason, but are pro-choice because we think it should be up to the mother (and father, though probably to a smaller extent), not the church or the government.

I suspect that there may have been a few pro-choice people who are as you said they are, but I suspect it's a small minority.

if you listen to the argument on the left that there is NO MORAL question

The `left' says there is no moral question? It may be that the `right' is generally `pro-life' and the `left' is generally `pro-choice', but these are hardly hard and fast rules. And I'm not aware of many `pro-choice' people who would claim that there is `NO MORAL question' about abortion (and stem cell research) at all.

Re:Irony that the sitaution is solved...

[JWW]

We're always 5-10 years away from true breaktrhoughs, which 5-10 years from now are still 5-10 years away.

See: Flying Car

I think the previous statement about 20 years is a fairly balanced guess, but we'll see about that 20 years from now. ;-)

Re:Irony that the sitaution is solved...

[Zak3056]

though due to the halt on federal funding, this has been somewhat derailed (we were 5 years away in 2000).

As the post you replied to noted, Bush was the first president to authorize federal funding for stem cell research. That being the case, I can't help but wonder what "halt in federal funding" you are referring to?

Re:Irony that the sitaution is solved...

[d34thm0nk3y]

I expect the pro-choice crowd to be EXTREMELY upset at this research, that manages to create research lines WITHOUT destroying life, as many of the vocal members aren't focused on the research, but a believe that every embryo destroyed someone secures their agenda.

The pro-choice crowd was EXTREMELY excited about the ability to destroy more embryos as part of their "proof" that embryos aren't life.

Wow...just....wow. How did such a blatant ad hominem attack get modded up?

Newsflash: pro-choice people don't go around destroying fetuses for fun. As much as some people would like you to believe...

Re:Irony that the sitaution is solved...

[monkeydo]

What a perfect example of the kind of disinformation the GP was posting about. The aritcle you cited is about adult stem cells on which there are absolutely no research restrictions. Further, every viable treatment to date using stem cells has been using adult stem cells as well.

Re:Irony that the sitaution is solved...

[Theolojin]

Not quite - current researchers say they're about 3-5 years away from starting human trials in repairing spinal cord injuries with stem cells. More here, though due to the halt on federal funding, this has been somewhat derailed (we were 5 years away in 2000).

Due to the halt? What halt? As a few other commenters have noted, President Bush is the first president to authorize federal monies to be used for embryonic stem cell research. He also banned federal monies from being used on any new embryonic stem cell lines. (The current lines allowed have already been "harvested," that is, the cells are already dead and thus federal monies are not being used to take life.) To say that federal funding has been halted is akin to saying that The US Military has halted its war against Michigan.

Re:Irony that the sitaution is solved...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, there's been considerably great results in stem cell research already. 65 viable treatments have been found. The only thing is, that is from ADULT stem cell research. The nice thing about adult stem cell research is that there are no sticky ethical/moral problems. The bad thing is, despite the fact that there's great results, everyone and their mother is focused on embryonic research.

A great link on adult rtem cell research is located at http://www.stemcellresearch.org/

Re:Irony that the sitaution is solved...

[Deslock]

"The pro-embryonic research crew is 1, telling sick people that George Bush is killing them, when in fact they have a death sentence and stem cell research may cure FUTURE patents, but not likely the current ones."

I've never heard or read any statements from embryonic supporters like that.

"I expect the pro-choice crowd to be EXTREMELY upset at this research, that manages to create research lines WITHOUT destroying life ... {snip} ... The pro-choice crowd was EXTREMELY excited about the ability to destroy more embryos as part of their "proof" that embryos aren't life."

I know many pro-choice people; none of them got upset or excited as you described, or even considered stem cell research as a way to hurt or help the pro-choice argument.

"Bush was the first President to approve ANY funding, and allowed it for pre-existing lines."

It's misleading to trumpet Bush for being the first president to approve funding when he was actually the first president to support restricting it. Clinton, on the other hand, was lambasted by anti-abortion groups for his support of the research while candidate Bush took a strong stance against the research before he softened his position:

"In 1996 and ever since, Congress has forbidden the use of federal funds for research involving the destruction of human embryos. 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. Presidential candidate George W. Bush opposed it. He opposed all federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research, no matter who extracted the cells.

{snip}

Bush's "first-ever" federal funding of embryo research was only first-ever because the forces on his side of the argument had managed to prevent it until then."

More info here.

Re:Irony that the sitaution is solved...

[bigpat]

No side of the stem-cell debate is AT all honest.

I take great issues with that sentence!

Clearly you should have capitalized the word 'ALL' not 'AT' for emphasis. Perhaps also capitalizing the word 'NO' would have been the way to go there, but you chose a very strange emphasis. Really you would have been better off not capitalizing any words at ALL for emphasis.

Re:Irony that the sitaution is solved...

[Theaetetus]

As a few other commenters have noted, President Bush is the first president to authorize federal monies to be used for embryonic stem cell research. He also banned federal monies from being used on any new embryonic stem cell lines.

... and since the lines they have are highly limited, that acts as a impediment to stem cell research.

Re:Irony that the sitaution is solved...

[John Newman]

What a perfect example of the kind of disinformation the GP was posting about. The aritcle you cited is about adult stem cells on which there are absolutely no research restrictions. Further, every viable treatment to date using stem cells has been using adult stem cells as well.

What a perfect example of not understanding the science at all . Neural stem cells cannot currently be extracted from adult brains without killing the donor. It may be possible to do so one day; it may not. You can't exactly dissect out a chunk of brain, like you can muscle or bone marrow, without ill effects. Models for generating neurons from any other adult tissue simply don't exist. Further, any therapy involving stem cells - including bone marrow transplants - involves a huge risk of tissue rejection and/or graft-vs-host disease. The only way around rejection is genetically tailored donor material - which can only be produced by nuclear transfer to generate customized embryonic stem cells. This article provides hope that can be done without first creating embryos. But the problem is fundamental, despite ill-informed talking-points that pretend it doesn't exist.

Re:Irony that the sitaution is solved...

[ikkonoishi]

Actually I think that research used adult and fetal stem cells, not embryonic.

Also it seems that their technique would work just fine without funding for new lines of embryonic cells.

In many cases, we now have the knowledge to grow neural stem cells in culture indefinitely. That is, we DO NOT have to continue to utilize fetal tissue. With certain growth factors and culture conditions we can keep the stem cells growing in a non-differentiated state, thus maintaining their stem cell status.

Re:Irony that the sitaution is solved...

[Nicolas MONNET]

Stem-cell cures are probably two decades away, if proven viable.

Just yesterday I read a story where severely burnt kids (3rd degree) were succesfully treated with stem cells. Those cells disappeared eventually from the skin (unlike skin grafts), but acted as a booster to the recovery process, promoting natural cell growth. Recovery was sped up several times, and on top of that, compared to standard methods, the skin was of much better quality with significantly less scarring.

So here it is. Unless you think wounded children should be left to suffer, I guess. You christbots love others' suffering, don't you? That's what you get from worshipping a god-on-a-stick.

Re:Irony that the sitaution is solved...

[John Newman]

Actually, there's been considerably great results in stem cell research already. 65 viable treatments have been found. The only thing is, that is from ADULT stem cell research

Every single one is a variant of the bone marrow transplant, which has been in clinical use for 30 years although we still don't quite understand how it works. The fact that BMT sometimes works in very limited circumstances with severe side effects is no reason to not pursue different and better therapies for other circumstances. Further, when used non-autologously, it suffers from the same fundamental defect as all non-autologous transplants.

The nice thing about adult stem cell research is that there are no sticky ethical/moral problems.

There's no sticky moral issue about a child being on expensive and debilitating anti-rejection drugs for the rest of their life? No ethical dilemma about degenerative diseases that have no hope of cure? No moral dilemma when the demand for organ transplants exceeds the supply by an order of magnitude? You take a very narrow view of what constitutes a moral problem.

The bad thing is, despite the fact that there's great results, everyone and their mother is focused on embryonic research.

Far, far more money is being spent on "adult stem cell" research, because BMT is an established procedure with a huge amount of clinical developmental research around it. But just as much effort is going into other adult stem cells as into embryonic research. Partisans on one side always try to frame this as "either-or". It's not. Let us do the research, and let the science determine what works and what doesn't, and what's best for a given job.

Re:Irony that the sitaution is solved...

[John Newman]

If this discovery is confirmed then it means that Bush's compromise worked out wonderfully, whether you like him or not. He allowed the basic research to continue, and scientists found a solution.

I can ignore your insulting but expected demonization of the "left", but this bit is just absurd. It's "comfirmed" that Bush is a genius? No, it's evidence that scientists are willing to make heroic efforts on behalf of all of us desipte the inane restrictions Bush put in place. There's no rational argument that the science will go more rapidly without federal support than with. There's no argument that the billions of dollars that have been appropriated from state taxes and private donations could have been spent more productively if the federal money was there instead. There's no question that the recent breakthroughs in Korea would have happened here first if our government acted as enlightened as Korea's (?!). There's no question that scientists have already left the US out of fear of further restrictions being enacted in the future.

It is patently absurd to assign any credit to Bush for the hard, innovative work of dedicated scientists. He put a huge roadblock in their path, and they're figuring out how to laboriously claw their way around it. I see this as yet another sign of how fast this field could have moved if we gave it a decent level of support.

Re:Irony that the sitaution is solved...

[div_2n]

we think it should be up to the mother (and father, though probably to a smaller extent)

This is off topic, but if men are expected not to have an equal voice in this choice, why are we expected to have equal responsibility once it is made?

Re:Irony that the sitaution is solved...

[monkeydo]

The cited article indicates that neural stem cells can be grown in culture, it also indicates that (as of 5 years ago) reasearchers were experimenting to see if stem cells from marrow could give similar results. Further, if you are generating customized embryonic stem cells, it shouldn't matter what line they originally come from.

Re:Irony that the sitaution is solved...

[grammar fascist]

I suspect that there may have been a few pro-choice people who are as you said they are, but I suspect it's a small minority.

It's the leadership of the pro-choice movement - I'm not kidding. These are the same people who declared that killing nearly-born babies would "weaken Roe v. Wade."

The `left' says there is no moral question?

Nearly every lefty I've had a conversation with says there's no moral question. Seriously.

Re:Irony that the sitaution is solved...

[will_die]

If we were 5 years away 5 years ago they would not of been doing the research using federal money, so none of the restritions would of effected them.
If they were that close to doing human experiment they would of easily gotten money grants from private sources.
They are no where near doing human experimentation and are not even really that close to doing primate research.

Re:What's The Prob?

[twiddlingbits]

Something EVERYONE has missed is : IF we restrict the research in the USA by Executive Order or IF we do allow it by Executive Order that is NOT going to stop the other biologists in other countries from doing the research. Right now S. Korea is the leader in the reasearch since they have no restrictions. Americans may find the ways of the other researchers morally repugnant but the simple fact is the rest of the world does not CARE what they think. And don't look to the UN to act on this matter and if they did no one listens to them anyway.

Why no cure?

[modecx]

Because they don't want you to be cured.

Re:What's The Prob?

[MightyMartian]

It's deeply ironic that the country which pioneered submarine warfare, nuclear weapons, spent billions on chemical, biological and space-based weapons research and even executes the mentally retarded is suddenly concerned about what happens to extra embryos generated by reproductive clinics. It's as if there is two United States, one which is a technological power house which has never had a big problem bending and breaking ethical and moral codes, and then there is this other United States where life is so incredibly precious that even an embryo that was going to end up in a garbage bin is so sacred that the mere thought that a researcher might use it to develop therapies is completely repugnant.

The rest of the world is going to go down this path, and the US can either be an innovator, or it can sit on the sidelines declaring its moral superiority (a questionable claim at best) and be reliant upon others.

Yeah

[QMO]

I wish Philo Farnsworth had developed electronic television without tax funding. People would be able to have one in their own home. Maybe more than one!

(I guess I'm feeling sarcastic today.)

My problem with this "debate"

[ifwm]

Is that one side refuses to listen.

Seriously, when was the last time you heard someone say "you know what, you're right, life DOESN'T begin at conception".

If you plan to debate a subject, you should try to keep an open mind.

Re:My problem with this "debate"

[tinnunculus]

I am sick and tired of the whole "When life begins?" debate. News Flash...It began about 4.5 BILLION years ago. That little genetic code in each of your cells has been reproducing since then. Countless generations of life forms and individuals have come and gone but that code sequence remains. If it had ever stopped you would not exist. Get some perspective. You can trace your ancestory right back to pond scum or something like it. Life is a continuim. We have to thrash these ethical issues out but it important to remember that there is no clear demarq in the sequence of life and we have to make life and death decisions as part of existence.

Re:My problem with this "debate"

[ifwm]

"I used to think that life and a soul began at fertilization. I don't believe that anymore. Happy?"

No, because you're lying.

Nice try though.

Re:My problem with this "debate"

[ifwm]

Well, I am sick and tired of asshats (you) making up things to argue about.

Life, in the CONTEXT of my post (you do know what context is?) means an INDIVIDUAL'S life. Not the origin of life, but when a single individual begins living.

Do you understand the difference? If not, then please try to let us more sophisticated individuals discuss this without your blathering.

Re:What's The Prob?

[twiddlingbits]

Well, if we could figure out a way for Stem Cell research to be vital to the National Defense, classify it Top Secret then we might get somewhere. Lot's of very controversial things get done in the "black world". The whole problem with Stem Cells was those darn scientists can't keep a secret ;) Since when have morals kept businesses out of an area where there is profit? My guess is that a LOT of US pharma companies are working in this area at their overseas facilities, or on thier own funds. If this stuff is going to be as good as they say you can bet the drug companies are deep in it with or without Federal Funds. The whole Federal Funds issue amounts to just a big smokescreen IMHO.

Someday is today

[gillbates]

Doctors hope to someday use embryonic stem cells as a source of perfectly matched transplants to treat diseases such as cancer, Parkinson's and some injuries. [emphasis added]

Currently, doctors are already using adult stem cells to treat diseases such as Parkinson's and some forms of cancer.

Which lends me to believe that the debate about embrionic stem cell research has very little to do with actually creating cures for diseases. It seems to me that the debate is more about the role of science in society than the actual results it produces. It would seem to some that science is man's highest endeavor, capable of doing no wrong. To them, anything, no matter how horrible, is justifiable in the name of science.

But what is really interesting is that the opposition to embrionic stem cell research is not an opposition to science or discovery, but rather an affirmation of the dignity of the human being. They see science as the servant of mankind, not mankind as the servant of science. The fundamental objection of embrionic stem cell research is not an objection to discovery, but rather that the research is being done with a secondary objective of allowing science to arbitrarily redefine what it means to be human.

And this is the fundamental battle over embrionic stem cell research. It has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with removing the role of the church from ethical decisions in public policy.

Interestingly, I still find it ironic that some people believe there is a conflict between science and religion:

• Religion finds answers the ethical questions facing all of mankind.
• Science explains the natural world.
• Together, with the ethical guidelines provided by religion, and the knowledge provided by science, society can make decisions which preserve both the dignity of the individual and benefit society as a whole.

I still find it strange that some people believe that science alone can answer all of the questions facing mankind, or that religion alone can sufficiently explain the natural universe. It's all knowledge folks; it enlightens those who are willing to accept it. Insisting that science somehow "proves" God doesn't exist, or that an ancient religious text "scientifically describes" the creation of the world benefits no one and only shows one's ignorance.

Re:Someday is today

[LesPaul75]

I still find it ironic that some people believe there is a conflict between science and religion

It's not ironic at all, really. There is a conflict, because the two simply disagree about certain things. Perhaps most importantly, they disagree about the creation of the universe. I agree that the two should coincide, because ultimately, they both seek to answer the same questions. I happen to think that there is an explanation that satisfies both the Bible's story and the theory of evolution, the big bang, etc, but this thread is already far enough off-topic.

Re:Someday is today

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Which lends me to believe that the debate about embrionic[sic] stem cell research has very little to do with actually creating cures for diseases.

So you postulate that embryonic stem cell researchers are doing that research just to serve as a foil to organized religion and that they don't really think the science holds any promise? I think that explanation is very, very far fetched. The research existed long before the public debate and it is much more promising than "adult stem cells" which is a media term for bone marrow and is really only useful for treating components of ailments involving the blood. I think you need to do some more research.

Re:Someday is today

[gillbates]

I think it is not so much to foil organized religion, but rather to assert science as the dominating factor in public policy. Perhaps the scientists themselves do research merely out of curiosity, but the other proponents of embrionic stem cell research are very much interested in removing the political power of religion. In order to convince the average person that religion has no place in public policy, these people must find an issue which can be distorted to fit their agenda:

• The first step is to convince people that embrionic stem cells possess the cures for numerous diseases.
• The second step is to downplay the whole destruction of human life issue and instead emphasize the quality of life issue for those already born. The goal is to foment sympathy for real people living with real diseases, and deny any dignity to the unborn.
• The final step is to seize power by portraying religion as opposed to healing because of their stance on the stem cell issue. Once religion has fallen out of public favor, there will be no politically significant objection to using government power to suppress minorities, etc, as neither science nor secular philosophy have established authority in the matter of ethics. Thus, it becomes easier to justify corporate sweatshops, monopolies, etc...

Re:Someday is today

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I never said they were not real stem cells. Bone marrow contains undifferentiated stem cells, and has been used for a long time to treat various diseases of the blood. That said, no one has yet shown any way to use it to treat nerve, or complex tissue damage, which is the focus of embryonic and umbilical stem cell research. Up until the embryonic stem cell debate you'd hear about doctors treating various diseases with bone marrow transplants all the time. Then, the media hubub around stem cells made it an everyday term and someone started calling them adult stem cells to differentiate them from embryonic stem cells.

Re:Someday is today

[william.gunn]

Man, how can you be so right and yet so wrong, all at the same time? Guess you must be human. I mean, you can't even spell embryonic correctly, yet you understand that the two fields should keep out of each others way. Then, without missing a beat, you suggest scientists are trying to define what it means to be human.

How do you keep two totally inconsistent ideas in your head simultaneously like that?

Re:Someday is today

[stefanPryor]

From your post: "The fundamental objection of embrionic stem cell research is not an objection to discovery, but rather that the research is being done with a secondary objective of allowing science to arbitrarily redefine what it means to be human."

So are you meaning to say then that only religion is to be allowed to "arbitrarily redefine what it means to be human"?

Or are you perhaps trying to say only religion can redefine "what it means to be human" in a way that is not arbitrary?

Or perhaps you are trying to say people engaged in science perfer that "what it means to be human" is only redefined arbitrarily?

Or perhaps you mean to signify something else by the above statement, could you please clarify?

It seems as if you are trying to say that science and religion each have a given realm of operation, or some such thing. If this is indeed the case I am curious as to why you beleive "what it means to be human" belongs only to the realm of religion.

I hope very much to hear back from you.

stefan

Re:Someday is today

[gillbates]

As religion has studied the full spectrum of mankind's endeavors, it only makes sense that they would be the best qualified to determine "what it means to be human." While science can inform us about the material aspects, it does not possess the ability, nor the intention, to tackle this particular question. But this does not keep atheist philosophers from treating science as if it were the gospel truth, and insisting on belittling any dissension as "religious dogma" - as if such was irrelevant to the discussion.

The interesting thing to me is that there's a greater consensus on the existence of God among theologians than there is global warming among scientists, yet some treat the existence of God as unproven and global warming as fact!

Here's a thought ...

[tilleyrw]

... that is best expressed by George Carlin:

A fertilized egg does not always implant successfully on the uterine wall and is then flushed with the next menstrual cycle.

So this means that every woman alive is a serial killer...according to the Roman Catholic church.

Re:Infidels: ( +1, Patriotic )

[ultramk]

I believe the accepted term is "Pastafarian."

Heretic. :-)

m-

Re:Dr. Josef Mengele

[vertinox]

Does that make it alright for Mengle to perform his medical testing on them?

Actually, Dr. Josef Mengele usually killed them as a result of the experiment and not the other way around. It's not certain wheather or not they would have survived starvation, forced, labor, and possible execution, but I don't think Dr. Mengele justified the killings that way. To him they were no more than lab animals in his demented mind.

Although, to answer your question would be better put:

Should we throw away the knoweledge gained through evil acts even if it saves lives and prevents suffering of people alive today?

Scarily enough, most modern medical knowledge have some influence on his detailed studies of the inner working of anatomy.

Nazi research

[John Jorsett]

I'd compare this issue to that of the exploitation of Nazi medical "research". Nazi scientists compiled a lot of data on what the limits of human endurance were, such as how much cold could be withstood before death ensued. You can imagine how they acquired that data. There were those who wanted to make use of it, because, after all, the people were dead in any case and perhaps some good could come of it. Others were horrified at the very idea of exploiting data that came with the taint of human suffering.

If we can benefit from the use of embryonic stem cells without the ethical and moral problems inherent in obtaining them from actual embryos, isn't this a win for both sides of the issue? I submit that anyone who objects at this point isn't interested in medical advancement, but has some other agenda, for which this issue is just a proxy.

A deliberate misinterpretation:

[QMO]

So,
Knocking people out is bad, but killing someone in a coma is OK?

50-70 is waay high

[tholm]

First, I think your 50-70 eggs number is high. We just did IVF and 25 eggs were gathered. A friend of ours has donated eggs twice and her highest number of eggs produced is in the 30s. Second, 25 eggs != 25 embryos. The eggs don't all fertilize and not all of those that fertilize make it. We started with 25 eggs and ended up with 5 blastocysts that were implantable. Healthy embryos that aren't implanted can be frozen, used in research, or donated to infertile couples. Oddly enough, the current administration has made it harder to donate embryos to infertile couples. I couldn't get very many details out of the nurse but thanks to W we will have to undergo (& pay for) more tests before our eggs can be donated to other couples. (more information appreciated if you have it)

Bush's 'stand' on stem cell research

[crovira]

means that a woman can never menstruate and that they should be f*cked immediately. Otherwise half a potential embryo dies and is flushed down the toilet (or something.)

The right-wingers make the argument that you don't know the potential of the person. Yeah Sure. Like the world needs another G. Dahmer, J.W. Gacy, J.V.D. Stalins, Saloth Sar (Pol Pot), or even someone like ME.

I actually wonder what all these sanctimonious twits are all excited about.

By their lights, every time a woman miscarries, she should be put on trial for murder?

By my lights, what's with them being all for capital punishment (retroactive abortion?)

Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here...

Pretty Sweet

[jerryodom]

I'm loving all the cool things they come up with in medical research. Its better than good science fiction in many cases. Come on doctors! Cure all that bad stuff before I get old. Daddy needs a cure.

Human cells CAN dedifferentiate.

[Fantastic Lad]

Stem cell research is largely an unnecessary scientific goose chase created thanks to orthodox science's willingness to be led by the nose.

A toenail cell can be made to de-differentiate into a stem cell. It's done by triggering built-in responses within the cell with micro-DC currents.

Salamanders can re-grow whole legs because all the cells in their bodies can de-differentiate, and do so.

The cells at the end of the wound, (where a leg was amputated), receive intructions through the DC nervous system to regress from 'shoulder' cells into a pulp of un-differientiated cells, from which a whole leg can then grow anew.

The DC nervous system is universal to all animal life, it sits beneath the regular nervous system, (far out-dates it, it is thought, in terms of evolution), and it plays a complex role in how cells develop and deploy.

The chances are, however, that you've not heard of this. There's a reason for that, and it has nothing to do with being, 'junk science'.

Acupuncture accesses the DC electrical nervous system. Metal pins are inserted into key points, and set to gently rotating. The rotating creates a micro DC current, which then activates certain aspects of the human body's natural systems. Accupuncture works for a reason.

You can read more about this in Robert O. Becker's Book, Cross Currents

Science, as it currently stands, is a highly limited affair which is only allowed to look in certain directions which won't upset the status quo.

-FL

Re:Human cells CAN dedifferentiate.

[Fantastic Lad]

It must be true...its in a book.(AND A MOVIE)

Never judge a book by it's. . . Heck you can't even see the cover.

-FL

What God wants

[pauljlucas]

I personally feel if God wants us to have another child it will happen...

This will probably get modded as flame-bait by the religious, but ...

This kind of thinking always dumbfounds me. Do religious people really think that some supreme being decides what should and should not happen for each and every one of the current 6.5 billion people on Earth 24x365?

What if a child contracts a fatal-if-untreated disease? By the "what God wants" rationale, God apparently wants that child to die. Who are you to go against God's will and try to save the child's life with modern medicine? (This is, in fact, what some of those "no modern medicine" religions believe.)

Re:What God wants

[BCGlorfindel]

By the "what God wants" rationale, God apparently wants that child to die
--
If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.


I guess assuming and inferring is good for the goose and not the gander? I think your also confused on the difference between an analogy and a strawman argument.

Re:What God wants

[pauljlucas]

I guess assuming and inferring is good for the goose and not the gander?

I don't see how you come to that conclusion. I neither assumed nor inferred that the OP himself believed in my extrapolation of his reasoning. All I'm saying is what my extrapolation is.

Why don't you address my point instead of quibbling over my sig?

Re:What God wants

[BCGlorfindel]

Why don't you address my point instead of quibbling over my sig?


Because the questions you used to make your point where rhetorical and implied answers obviously not held by most religions. If you really aren't familiar with those answers, here you go.


  Do religious people really think that some supreme being decides what should and should not happen for each and every one of the current 6.5 billion people on Earth 24x365?


It of course depends on the religion, but in chrisitanity the answer is no.

Long Answer: Christians believe that everything happens according to God's plan, but that does not preclude human free will. I think of it this way(flaws can be found in any analogy but if you try you should get my point).
  If God is outside of time then human beings can have free will and God simply set the initial conditions of the world such that everything would play out according to his plan. God being able to "see" the end result of those initial conditions can take into consideration the cumulative impact of billions of individual's free will. I'm not sure what agreement there is on God's level of direct intervention inbetween the beginning and end of time.


What if a child contracts a fatal-if-untreated disease? By the "what God wants" rationale, God apparently wants that child to die. Who are you to go against God's will and try to save the child's life with modern medicine? (This is, in fact, what some of those "no modern medicine" religions believe.)


Correct me if I'm wrong but this is just a combination of two questions:
1.If God is in control, why do bad things happen to good people.
2.If God is in control, we should not interfere with things like modern medicine.

Answer 1: Human free-will comes with no restrictions, even to the point of the freedom to do bad things to other people or to put ourselves and loved ones at risk (child getting sick from unknown conditions).

Answer 2: If you try and understand the christian perspective I gave on free-will then you should see that acting on that free-will is a good thing. It is actually according to God's plan, not against it. This trivially includes studying the world and learning to cure sickness with modern medicine.

If you where trying to address the fairness of children suffering/dying you will have to settle for God's promise to make things even post-mortum in Heaven. Again all the above replies are specific to Christianity but it is at least one religion and is logically consistent in it's philosophies on the questions you used. Whether you like the answer's is up to you.

Re:What God wants

[pauljlucas]

Christians believe that everything happens according to God's plan, but that does not preclude human free will.

So? I don't see how that answers my question. What does free will have to do with whether God has taken a special interest in whether the OP should have another child? This is about what God preumeably does, not what humans do.

Human free-will comes with no restrictions, even to the point of the freedom to do bad things to other people or to put ourselves and loved ones at risk (child getting sick from unknown conditions)

Again, I'm not talking about what humans do to others. If somebody has a child, does everything right, and puts that child at risk of nothing, and yet that child becomes afflicted with a fatal-if-untreated disease (whether the reason is known or unknown is irrelevant), and nobody's bad free will acted upon that child to cause the disease, then the only reason left, extrapolating from the OP's belief, is that God must want that child to die.

... acting on that free-will is a good thing. It is actually according to God's plan, not against it. This trivially includes studying the world and learning to cure sickness with modern medicine.

How do you know that? Can you prove that God does not want the child to die? If, according to the OP, God took a special interest in him and doesn't want him to have another child, then why can't God want somebody's child to die?

My problem with most religious folk is that their God conveniently wants what they've worked out to be rational and good.

This reminds me of the line that goes something like: If something good in nature happens, it must be part of God's plan; if something bad in nature happens, e.g., an earthquake, flood, tornado, hurricane, etc., it's just Mother Nature.

The debate has very little to do with religon

[RagingChipmunk]

I am against stem-cell research on the grounds that it should not be federally funded. Why should taxpayers subsidize Medical Industry research? Derived medical benefits will be patented and licensed by the corporation.

Subsidizing stem-cell research on the promise of cure-all-for-anything is no different than subsidizing hyper-drive research at Lockheed. Surely they'll tout the benefits of how great life will be once we "unlock the secrets of greater-than-light-travel". Snake Oil! Subsidizing stem-cell research fuels greed in the medical industry, breeds false hopes on the supporters of such legislation, heaps expense on the ordinary joe, and has very little accountability.

Re:The debate has very little to do with religon

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I am against stem-cell research on the grounds that it should not be federally funded.

Then you are opposed to all government funded research? I agree it would be best if each individual got to distribute their money to whatever research, if any, they thought would benefit them the most. The problem is, governments expand and grab more and more power. They rarely if ever, give any power up. Since we're stuck with them providing funding for research with our tax dollars shouldn't the 50%+ of americans that think stem cell research is important have their tax dollars go to stem cell research?

Thoughts on secular morals

[QMO]

I had (a version of) this typed out, then decided not to post, because I'm going to be mightily understood, probably even by people that actually know me. Then I changed my mind and typed (something like the original) again.

IMO, any secular argument about morals is wishful thinking and twisty logical acrobatics.
For example: IMO, there is no valid secular argument against murder, at least as long as no one (else) finds out that it was murder.

The secular arguments about morality that hold any water at all are dependent on helping a society hold together (e.g. if people fear murder from each other they can't cooperate well). These arguments fall apart if the deeds are unnoticed.

I firmly believe there are right and wrong. I also believe that doing what's right will make the society function better, and the individual happier (in the short run, the long run and the eternal run), but I've never heard (or read) any good secular arguments for specific morals or morality in general.

If you find any, let me know.

Re:Thoughts on secular morals

[Descalzo]

I have one.

What's the matter with you? How dare you question (insert topic here)? Didn't your mama raise you right? What kind of person are you?!

We hear this sort of thing a lot.

"Most people in this country support abortion?"

[stankulp]

Really?

Where do you get your statistics?

NARAL?

Abortion is so ugly that abortion supporters go insane when a photo of a Waring-blended fetus is shown in public.

http://images.google.com/images?q=aborted+fetus&hl =en&btnG=Search+Images

Makes you proud, doesn't it?

Re:"Most people in this country support abortion?"

[ag-gvts-inc]

Dear God man...after that, I'm gonna have to go home and hug my wife's extremely protruding belly. I'll need to feel a few kicks before I'll feel better.

Enter

[QMO]

Gil the ARM

Tom Cruise?

[Run4yourlives]

Is that you?

Re:Screw you hippy tree hugging anti stem cell tur

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Unfortunately, due to the tendency of bureaucracies to expand, the government has taken over the role of collecting from everyone money to be spent on research and then distributing that money to researchers. If the government never took on that role, there would be no problem. Since they have taken over that role, and are forcing everyone to pay taxes to support research then they ethically have to abide by the will of the people in distributing that money. I propose a yearly referendum. Everyone votes yea or nay on spending money on stem cell research and then the government spends money on stem cell research proportionally. I know I know it will never work properly. That is what happens when the government starts collecting unnecessary taxes in the first place.

And Cord Blood is ignore because?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm lost as to why Cord Blood is ignored, especially new discoveries like this http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7864 that they can make it embryonic in character? -- Or do we just want to push for Embryonic, blindly, because we don't want to allow anyone to question our ethics?

Re:Irony that the sitaution is solved...Feminist

[dougmc]

A very small extent. Especially in the face of feminist's "My Body" arguments.

Well, those arguments have a lot of validity to them. It is her body. (And why does that have to be a `feminist' argument? -- even if you don't believe that men and women are equal, you can still believe it's her body.)

But on the other hand, the father should have some say too -- after all, the embryo in there is half his genetic material.

It's not really fair that the man has no say in what happens to their embryo, but that's ultimately the way it works, because it's in her body and she should be the final authority about what happens to it (and by proxy what happens to the embryo inside.)

I don't really have a better solution (short of being able to safely remove the embryo and raise it somewhere else, but that requires technology we don't have yet), but I do feel justified in saying that the father should have some say. If it comes down to it, his say doesn't really count for much if she disagrees and doesn't care what he wants, but hopefully that's the exception rather than the rule.

Re:Screw you hippy tree hugging anti stem cell tur

[Guuge]

They'd rather not be forced to pay for it, via taxes.

We're paying MUCH more for their war than we're asking them to pay for our medical research. It's a shame that greed in the US has gotten so out of control.

Re:Can someone please explain to me...

[Guppy06]

"Congress can override them simply by passing a law contradicting the order,"

Why would they? That involves sticking your neck out, and letting such an order stand is advantageous in party politics (it becomes something to vote for The Other Guy next election, who, in turn, becomes the guy who put out these executive orders). On the other hand, if it turns out that overturning such an order becomes unpopular, the next legislative election will stack the deck in the president's favor.

Congress operates on the prisoner's dilemma. And the only possible "big win" in the system is that your party's guy goes to the White House.

"The only type of orders that do have force of law are those made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress which give the President discretionary powers."

I don't see anything in Article I allowing Congress any of the powers granted to it, especially the president. Of course, IANAL...

Strange

[DarkSarin]

This is one of those debates where I have truly mixed feelings.

As what most would term a conservative Christian, I certainly agree with many policies that Republicans consider important--abortion included.

Stem cell research, however, seems a little different to me. Yes, that was a potential life, but I see no problem with using it for research if was slated to be discarded/disposed of in any case. The sticky point comes in later, as some have noted.

Overall, however, I think that the possibilities are worth any risks and ethical risks. Should the government fund it? I think so, since this would allow us to determine if there really.

Re:Strange

[turbosk]

"I certainly agree with many policies that Republicans consider important--abortion included."
Good to hear that you agree with abortion.

"I think that the possibilities are worth any risks and ethical risks."
Because the ends always justify the means.

"Should the government fund it? I think so, since this would allow us to determine if there really."
You truly are broken, DarkSarin.

pax,
fred

Fair question. . .

[Fantastic Lad]

I'm not saying you're right or wrong, just wondering where your facts are coming from.

I don't really adhere to a particular school of thought. I think it is a good idea to go to many different sources when trying to learn. Different perspectives are required and allow you to cross-examine, which is essential when it comes to the New Age world, (which is literally swimming in nonsense).

I've been piecing things together from many different sources/experiences for several years now, testing and using basic logic to cancel out the falsehoods. So far I've got a fairly workable picture, albeit, with many blank spots.

Among my sources are three different channeling experiments which purported to communicate with various ethereal sources with access to a much broader range of knowledge than is generally available to Joe Public, and which were each well documented. These include, The Evergreens, (which claim to be a group of up to 3000 individuals who lived varied lives in this world and are now dead and spend time communicating through a fellow in BC, Canada.) The Pleadians, a group claiming to be alien intelligences channeling through a woman named Barbara Marciniak. Her 'valid' material is largely summed up in a book called, Bringers of the Dawn --Which is rather kitsch around the edges, but passed my various bullshit tests rather well. --And the third is from a source which is not quite so easy to get hold of; a series of communications with a similar group calling themselves the 'Cassiopeans', via a group channel led by a fascinating woman named, Laura Knight. --Whose little group manages an otherwise very solid news-reserver rather like slashdot for socio-politics which is kept at arm's length from their New Age beginnings.

Then there's Science from the Fringes, including a book I just recently dug out for a reference on Stem Cell research, Robert O. Becker's Book, Cross Currents. This one deals with aspects of electricity and magnetism and it's affects on the human brain and nervous system. It is solid stuff from a real scientist, and it serves to verify numerous small elements from the other sources. Another key book is one written by a fellow named, Richard Dolan. His book, UFOs and the National Security State is a watershed work, it examines the history of UFOs from the forties up to the seventies. (The Amazon reviews do this book justice, I think).

Carlos Castaneda provided an excellent series of books which introduce an interesting perspective on the spirit world and the use of energy. Good for people trying to get a grasp of all this, but a rather morbid approach with several built-in problems I later discovered while talking with a powerful Shaman.

Astrology, when thoroughly properly examined, is a good demonstration for how things are not as they are claimed to be by the conventional sciences. There's a lot of nonsense in this arena, so it requires a bit of earnest searching before you find the 'good' stuff and begin to see how it all works. (Essentially, small systems are not necessarily influenced by large systems, but are mirrored. Consider that one part of a graphic created using fractal mathematics replicates on b

life vs. minds

[Log from Blammo]

I am also of the opinion that consciousness trumps "human life".

The division between an intelligent being and human meat is nearly universally recognized, whether people like to admit it or not. Babies, toddlers, other children, incompetent or insane adults, and senile elders are not afforded the same legal status as other humans, despite having that hominid genetic blueprint. You can't just pop out of the womb and start filling out government forms, driving cars, and signing 2-year cell phone contracts.

We even invent non-human "people", like corporations and trusts, that have no bodies of their own, and even these have more rights than pre- or post-competent humans.

A true human-equivalent artificial intelligence would therefore be a person. In that metaphor, humans opposing the harvesting of embryonic stem cells would be roughly the same as the AI objecting to freshly-fabricated memory chips, originally designed and manufactured to support AI hardware, being diverted towards improved network routers.

A human embryo will not be a person for many years, and even that presumes that it will be able to catch hold of some ready-and-waiting uterine wall. Up until that point, it is just a thin sack of fat holding in a big blob of water and proteins. I don't weep for the almost-humans that fail to grab on to mommy's guts any more than I manage to care for the millions of sperm that can't figure out how to bust through a latex wall, or the eggs that don't get laid at the same time as the woman. (See also: Every Sperm is Sacred, from Monty Python's Meaning of Life)

The humans that we really ought to be concerned with are not the ones that cannot be seen without magnification, but the ones that write checks and pull triggers. I am not about to decide that a group of 3-day old cells is more important and worthy of continued existence than every other person on Earth, especially when most of those people can pair off and replace that clump of cells a million times over during a single night.

If it would make the critics fell better, why not just mandate that all people that receive lifesaving treatment from embryonic stem cells raise one of that embryo's in-vitro siblings until its 18th birthday? Because we don't need more people that freaking bad, that's why!

A creepy laugh

[Fantastic Lad]

Scientology is a creepy and messed up cult with a lot of twisted ideas. I think they were put here just to scare people away from really searching.

NEVER try to learn how the world works from a single source. The moment you open yourself up to many different sources and start cross-examining and cancelling out the crap, you begin to free yourself.

When you've got enough background, reading the Scientology stuff is a royal, (albeit creepy), laugh.

-FL

Re:Infidels: ( -1, That Was So Yesterday )

[thehomeland-org]

I suspect that mentioning Pastafarianism has become the new "someone talking about nazis" officially-finished conversation ender.

Re:Irony that the sitaution is solved...Feminist

[erlenic]

What about the embryo? It's his/her body, not the mother's.

"Pro-life"

[freeweed]

Should people be able to have abortions purely because of their lack of planning? I'm against it.

Which sums up exactly what I hear as the complete argument from the Pro-Life crowd:

You did something wrong, now suffer the consequences.

It's still a moral argument, but the moral they're trying to defend is something rather different than what is argued.

"Abortion is murder" is another cover-up for "sex is sinfull".

Re:"Pro-life"

[Clod9]

It's much more complicated than that, and it's not a cover-up. Abortion is not murder, but it is killing a human being. A mother is the one person who should go to the greatest lengths to protect her offspring, so the idea of the mother deciding to kill her offspring is anathema.

You're right that the "sex [outside monogamous marriage] is sinful" issue is an important facet of my viewpoint, but it can be viewed without religious bigotry on either side. Let's say the woman electing an abortion is covered under the same health insurance group with me -- then the cost of her abortion is spread over my paycheck. I strongly disagree with her decision and yet I'm forced to help pay for it. This is not hypothetical at all, I'm sure that among my thousands of co-workers there are a few at least who have opted to abort because they felt they already had too many kids, or because they had a career and now wasn't "a good time for a child". Privacy laws rightly prohibit me from knowing about their decisions, so if I have a beef, I have to support legislation up front that will let me have a say in the matter.

And the "sinful" part of sex is really not the overriding consideration at all. Not everyone who believes abortion is "murder" automatically believes that sex is sinful. It's perfectly plausible for someone to deny the sinfulness of sex (thus disagreeing with me), and yet accept the gift of life and either raise a child or give it up for adoption. It's even possible for people to change their minds as the whole chain of events unfolds.

Pro-Life means just that: FOR LIFE. Once the life is there, keep it. Don't dispose of it. If you don't want it in the first place, I say act responsibly...but even if you choose to act irresponsibly, you can still decide to act nobly.

Re:Irony that the sitaution is solved...Feminist

[kurzweilfreak]

The father's say in the matter counts for shit, since it's "her body", even if it's half his genetic material going there. The father gets no choice in the matter and still gets to pay some lovely child support for the next 18 years to the woman that "forgot" to take her pill. If she wants to be the final authority, let her take the full responsibility too.

I'm "Pro-life"

[zippthorne]

I believe that we are improperly focusing the debate however. There is only one question and both sides seem to avoid actually discussing it: What is a human being and what isn't? Anything that falls under the human being category deserves all of the rights of every person, so all of the questions become moot at that point:

If it is just a mass-o-cells, then any amount of experimentation or termination or whatever is acceptable. To perform experiments on a human being however is unacceptable without consent. Of course, how could you obtain consent from a four cell human? Ending the life of a human being of any age or state is unacceptable. There is a word for it and it is prohibited by both God's law and man's: homicide. There are circumstances under which homicide is acceptable, at least according to man's law. I am fuzzy about the concept of killing in self-defense theologically, but it is certainly legal and societally accepted.

As a result, my position causes me to be opposed to many forms of birth control, all forms of abortion*, and all forms of experimentation on embryo derived cells despite the possible gains.

I am reminded of a short story I learned in literature class (but I cannot remember the name) about a town that lived in perfect peace. They had no disquiet, no disease, and nobody suffered in any way. When their children turned 10, they would become old enough to learn the terrible bargain: the secret to their success was that a child under 10 must every so often be taken into a small cell to suffer in the darkness and his/her own waste, fed only bread and water until s/he died and was replaced by another child.

*a procedure which saves the life of the mother but results in the ancillary death of the child within her womb saddens me, but only that it must be done. I don't envy any mother or doctor that must make a decision like that.

Anyway, I base my position on the principle that life begins at conception: the clearly definable moment when the sperm penetrates the egg, causing an "instantaneous" chemical change rendering the egg perminantly impenetrable. As a result, anything that we do to that being following that event we do to a human and all the rules to all other humans applies.

The debate should center on that question and that question alone: what clearly definable event or state must occur before which, there is a mass of cells which we can do anything we want to and after which there is a human being?

Interestingly, no new laws need to be passed if we focus on the proper question. Once we have properly and satisfactorially defined a human being, existing law is sufficient to cover all current circumstances.

Re:OK, let's see...

[william.gunn]

What does being sick have to do with understanding the science? Not a damn thing. Therefore, how much weight should we give your family member's opinion? Not a damn picogram.

Where the heck did people get the idea that their demonstrably uninformed opinion should have anything to do with science policy?

Do you see scientists lobbying congress to outlaw the practice of praying to god because there's no proof for it? No, because we know we're not clergymen. Why then does every man, woman, and child with a high school understanding of biology think they're all of the sudden science policy experts?

Your final acronym indicates to me that this is an emotional issue for you, which kinda makes my point, doesn't it? What do you think would happen if all the scientists did as you suggest and fucked our selves right off to another country with less restrictive laws? The current pre-eminence of this country in science has lots to do with people fleeing presecution elsewhere(Look at the people involved in the manhattan project, for example), but there's no reason that process couldn't happen in reverse. Look at South-east Asia. They're kicking our asses. What would happen to your cure for cancer then? It would still be discovered, and would still be released publicly for the whole world to benefit from, because that's what motivates scientists. Why you people stand in the way of people who are geniunely trying to help, I'll never understand.

What is objective?

[Ogemaniac]

That's quite a subjective question, now isn't it.

As a scientist myself, my biggest concern with the layman's conception of science is that it is somehow "objective" or otherwise philosophically special. It is not. It has its unprovable assumptions, just like any other. Rather, it is simply a philosophy that seems to work really well.

If you would like to fund further science with your money, I fully support your effort. However, I see no philosophical difference between you forcing your neighbor to donate to your favorite research lab, and him forcing you to donate to your church.

How about we all just quit forcing anyone to donate to any of our pet causes?

Re:Screw you hippy tree hugging anti stem cell tur

[Allegro]

Please... we all pay for things with our taxes that we don't agree with. I, for example, don't believe in paying for the jailing of people for marijuana posession, No Child Left Behind, Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL), etc.

Re:Screw you hippy tree hugging anti stem cell tur

[Allegro]

Also, I don't believe in the death penalty... since we seem to be throwing the word "believe" around so casually these days.

Re:You are deeply mistaken...

[dgatwood]

Well, it sounds like we pretty much agree as to what is ethically acceptable. I'm not convinced we will ever see stem cell research go beyond those bounds. The cost of creating these fertilized eggs is substantial. Creating them in a lab for research would be stupid with an ample supply of (much cheaper) fertilized eggs being disposed of by fertility clinics after the mother has had all the children she wants.

If I'm wrong, though, -that- would be the time to tackle those issues. Blocking harvesting of stem cells across the board until those issues can be solved is silly, particularly if those issues never actually manifest themselves as anything more than a theoretical problem. It would be like a car manufacturer deciding that because the gas tank could leak, they were going to significantly increase the weight of the car by putting a double-lined tank, even though none of their cars has ever sprung a gas tank leak....

No one is for killing

[Ogemaniac]

That argument is childishly ignorant.

As for your main point, there is a key difference between the two scenarios.

In the stem-cell scenario, we are discussing the intentional sacrifice of one living human being for the sake of another. In the war scenario, we are talking about choosing between two alternative paths where many people will die, despite our efforts.

The difference lies in the intent. In the war scenario, we know that whatever choice we make will result in death, but we never kill an innocent person intentionally. In the stem-cell scenerio, we very deliberately kill innocent humans.

That is a profound moral difference which you seem to be skipping over.

I think what may be an issue for you is the following hypothetical war scenario (the Iraq war may or may not be an example of this, as only the future will tell).

Option A: Do something. Some people will die. A fraction of those directly, but unintentionally, by your actions.

Option B: Do nothing. More people will die than in scenario A. But you will have no blood on your hands.

If you think B is the moral choice, we have little common ground upon which to have a reasonable discussion.

Re:Screw you hippy tree hugging anti stem cell tur

[YrWrstNtmr]

Please... we all pay for things with our taxes that we don't agree with. I, for example, don't believe in paying for the jailing of people for marijuana posession, No Child Left Behind, Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL), etc.

Ok, so elect people who would spend your tax money the way you would like it to be spent.

Re:Irony that the sitaution is solved...Feminist

[dougmc]

What about the embryo? It's his/her body, not the mother's.

Of course. Remove it and let it live on it's own.

Re:Dr. Josef Mengele

[daemonenwind]

"To him they were no more than lab animals in his demented mind."

Exactly.

Sounds kind of like what people are saying about fertilized embryos, yes?

Big Deal...!

[weighn]

by fusing an embryonic stem cell to an ordinary skin cell.

BFW!! I made a new car by fusing a car to an ordinary hub-cap.

People will die either way

[Ogemaniac]

in both scenarios.

My point is there is a fundamental difference between choosing the lesser of two evils and causing one yourself. One should never intentionally sacrifice one person for the sake of another, nor does one have the right to.

If you think the typical conservative opinion is contradictory, try the opposite on for size:

"It is OK to sacrifice other human beings for the benefit of science and myself, but it is wrong to stop hundreds of thousands from being killed because I probably will kill someone while doing it".

Stem Cell Research and Temporal Ethics

[hackus]

Personally, I see the embryonic question of ethics of should or shouldn't we, purely a temporal one.

There are those of you who do not see embryonic cells as "people" or humans, just cells.

I think the problem with this perception is that it is purely a temporal one, not an ethical one.

Given enough time, those cells will be a human being, that is a fact.

Simply because these cells are not given the time to be a productive, thinking human person, doesn't close the ethics arguments.

What do we do with old people for example? There aer many elderly in our society who are just a productive as these embryos.

Do we experiment on them as well?

What it really comes down to is time. If you judge or take control of any persons destiny, during any point in there existence, whether they be an embryo or a elderly frail individual, you are playing God.

That game, jusding from the history of the 20th century, is a VERY dangerous game indeed.

-Hack

Re:OK, let's see...

[theStorminMormon]

You're unquestioning acceptance of the dogma that religious, ethical, and philosophical concerns have no weight next to scientific concerns in a policy discussion that obviously entails all of the above (and many others) makes you just as much a thoughtless automaton as any knee-jerk, fundamentalist Christian (or Muslim, Jew, etc.)

It's those who seek to preach the pre-eminence of their own sphere, be it anything from spiritualism to a specific religion to science to social sciences to atheism, who make reasoned debate on these issues impossible.

The fact of the matter is that we're not discussing a purely scientific matter. We're discussing policy that intersects with religion, ethics, science, medicine, economics and so on. And the debate needs to be informed by all rational and well-defended viewpoints that shed new light on the matter at hand. When discussing a policy issue no one sphere can automatically trump any other.

If you follow your own logic, than it makes perfect sense for a reverend to simply say, when discussing the policy of prayer in school, that the state has no business intruding on religious affairs, and that those who have not dedicated their lives to the understanding of theology have opinions that are worth, as you put it, less than a picogram. This is an insane approach to take, and it's ludicrous to think that a constitutional scholar's opinion should have no weight on such an issue because the religious nuts claimed it first.

You need to get beyond binary thinking. The religious fundamentalist may see the world in right/wrong with no middle ground, but your own dichotomy of religious/scientific is no more valid. It's just another case of people trying to impose a black/white world view on a manifestly more complex system.

Just because you are blind to the non-scientific aspects of this issue does not mean that everyone else should be. And, if you really are a scientist, I continue to be amazed that you have such a tenous grasp of basic logic. As long as you continue to demonstrate your absolute inability to think clearly and react rationally to this debate you make yourself to a scientist what Rudolph is to believing Christians - a self-marginalizing demagogue.

But,if nothing else, thank you for providing a case-in-point that irrational, dogmatic rhetoric can be found among the "scientists" just as it can be found (albeit with perhaps greater frequency) among the religious.

Horse manure -- he does NOT

[ianscot]

without being flamed to a crisp for providing what is arguably an accurate perspective into the minds of _most_ Christians. Not to mention his viewpoint is probably the most simple (and therefore, most likely to be correct) interpretation of the pertinent Biblical principles.

There's another post here, with a succint description of the results of a poll taken about stem cell research using discarded fertility treatment embryos. The question used in the poll is quite clearly stated. Substantial majorities of every subset of "Christians" indicated that "on balance, they would support such research."

Meanwhile, national ambassadors speak for their nations because they were appointed to those posts by people who won elections. I didn't vote for the parent poster, and s/he is making indefensible statements on my behalf. It's not a "flame" to point that out.

As far as the "Biblical principles" go, I would be more than happy to explore those with you if you attended my church. We aren't Biblical literalists, however, if that makes you nervous.

And here is your poll

[ianscot]

Here's that poll showing 70-some percent approval of stem cell research on the part of US Christians. I guess they must all be confused about "Biblical principles."

You folks live in an echo chamber, thinking you are representative of the world because you can only hear your own voice. It isn't so.

Re:And here is your poll

[ag-gvts-inc]

"Stem cells come from embryos left over from invitro fertilization, which are not used and normally destroyed. Many medical researchers want to use them to develop treatments, or to prevent diseases, such as diabetes, Alzheimer's or Parkinson's disease. On balance, do you think this research should or should not be allowed?"

(note: I've only read the page you linked. I've not done any additional research because I think I've got a pretty good grasp of the issues involved.) I've done some polling before and interestingly enough, they appear to be trying to push an agenda (or are only interested in issues about stem cells from embryos.) There appear to be no mention of alternative methods of obtaining stem cells.

I'll be the first to admit that a double standard exists with many Christians--allowing for embryos to be destroyed when they are created for IVF, yet decrying abortion and embryonic stem cell research. However I and many of the Christians that I know are not among them. If that is a representative sample of Christians, then I think either the Bible has changed (checks, nope.) or that people aren't following it as well as they might.

Now I'm coming close to sounding judgemental, so let me make it clear that that is not my intention. As far as denominational issues go, I really could care less. The root of Christian dogma lies in a set of beliefs that C.S. Lewis called _mere_ Christianity (see book by same name.) I think that from those beliefs one can build a set of values that are self-consistent and that can be applied to technological issues as well as more classical ones.

I believe that it is equally bad to destroy embryos left over from IVF as it is to abort a baby or to 'harvest' stem cells from leftover embryos. I wouldn't use IVF if my wife and I were unable to have children specifically for those purposes.

Believe however you will about the Bible's literalness or not (as per other post). That's not my concern. However, I don't want you thinking that I'm some knee-jerk reactionary type of individual. I've come to my conclusions through observation and lots of thought. I've seen too many knee-jerk people of all stripes to fall to that level of laziness. My belief system is as consistent as I can make it.

You folks live in an echo chamber, thinking you are representative of the world because you can only hear your own voice. It isn't so.

Dude, that can be said to you and be just as true. ;)

Re:s/creating/destroying-Mercy-killing.

[|/|/|||]

Well, if you follow my reasoning so far it doesn't allow mercy killing. Perhaps it can be extended to explore that case, but I haven't worked on it. Maybe mercy killing can be seen more as "giving up on recovering" rather than killing. I don't know.

As for the necessity of splitting hairs, that's just the nature of our complex world. The simplicity of "Thou shalt not" may be appealing, but it's appealing in the same way that the simplicity of being a mollusk is appealing. No decisions to make, just do what you do and then expire. Humans are moving on a trajectory away from such simplicity, to what pointless split-end nobody knows.

Having abortions to create stem cells?

[PenguiN42]

The problem is that if there is a demand for embryos, then more people will step in to supply them by getting abortions,

Woah. I hear this argument a lot, but it seems quite knee-jerk. Can you even get stem cells from an abortion?

The biggest source of embryonic stem cells right now is just-recently-fertilized eggs from fertility clinics. As in, before even implantation occurs. These eggs were fertilized outside of the body and I really can't fathom how you would "extract" something so tiny from a woman having an abortion -- especially before implantation!

And even if remotely possible, why do it when it's much easier to get donated eggs and sperm and create pre-implantation embryos that way? Finally, if you think it's still such a problem, it's very easy to create a law saying "byproducts of abortion shall not be used for research on stem cells." There. Problem solved.

It's totally a non-argument.

Re:Dr. Josef Mengele

[vertinox]

That would more like experimenting on people after they were gassed. Embryos aren't technially sentient beings yet. Only potentionally... Just like every cell in your body is.

Exterminating concioussness for self gain is actually considered murder (more so in Buddhism towards all forms of life). In the old testament God does not proscribe killing since he often commanded it. I think we have to get back to the original Hebrew word they have in the 10 commandments. But that aside... If you kill something that does not have conciousness then does it have a soul? A soul entails that a being has some sort of free will otherwise it cannot choose to be saved or not.

And this part is not towards you directly, but for the rest of people who dwell on the fact of punishment of life after death.

If you say these embryos have souls with modern Christian thinking then you must agree either they go to heaven or hell and if they never had free will in the matter will you say they go to heaven or would god send them to hell for things beyond their control?

Might I add. Hell is no where mentioned in the Old Testament. Just seperation from God... Do you think God would warn his chosen people from such a horrid fate?

Tell me. Where does your morality stand on this issue?

Re:OK, let's see...

[william.gunn]

you know, I carefully avoided the religion/science dichotomy, because it's a false one. It was created when people who don't understand the issues started poking around and, instead of asking for an receiving answers, criticizing that which they didn't understand. I'm totally not saying that science is the only consideration in any argument, but when you're talking about the physical properties of cells, it's a pretty good starting point, no? I completely understand that some people have allowed themselves to get stirred up about these things, but I stand by my statement, and if it's the only thing you take away from our little chat, this should be the thing: You have to understand the issues before you can expect to reasonably debate them. That's all I'm saying. Of course there are many different kinds of considerations that go into either prayer in schools, or into whether the government should fund research. Ideally, you'd understand all the spheres, but if you can't do that, start with the ones most germane to the discussion. In this case, you'll find that many of the perceived ethical considerations fall away when you realize that the question of when does life begin has not a thing to do with this discussion. It can't be determined scientifically when life begins. It just can't. So what do you do?

p.s. Since you're such a logician, What type of logical fallacy is criticizing someone, but not their ideas? What's it called when you overgeneralize to impute unfavorable characteristics to someone, so that you can then attack those characteristics? No partial credit, buster. ;-)

Re:OK, let's see...

[theStorminMormon]

Your main point, and your most interesting one, is that "many of the perceived ethical considerations fall away when you ralize that the question of when does life being has not a thing to do with this discussion". Two points on this.

1 - It's the first point you've made that can logically support your stance that non-scientists have nothing to contribute to this discussion (it's not enough to get you all the way there, but it's at least a step in that direction).

2 - You have to use ethics to prove that point. Unless and until you can give "ethics" a purely scientific, quantifiable definition, you're going to have to engage in an ethical debate to draw any conclusions about ethics.

So even though you say you've carefully avoided the religion/science dichotomy, I think you've fallen right into it despite all your protests to the contary.

As a last point, I think you just don't understand the question we're discussing. You say "when you're talking aboutthe physical properties of cells..." Sure, if that's all we're talking about, let the scientists have the arena to themselves.

But that's decidedly NOT what we're talking about. We're discussing policies about funding for such research (bringing in politics and economics) and the ethical aspects of the debate involve decidedly non-physical properties of the cells (do they constitute a unique human life is, I believe a mixture of science and semenatics, should that life (if it exists) be valued moves us even further away from science and into philosophy).

If you want to be an effective scientist, effective in the sense of having an impact outside the lab, you have to learn to embrace the non-scientific ramifications of your research instead of pretending they don't exist. Yes, I am as qualified as any to tell you what is required to be an effective scientist *outside the labratory* because outside the labratory (and outside the university) is where we all live.

"No partial credit?" WTF, mate? I don't even know how to respond to that. Since you're such a scientist, why don't you tell us what DNA stands for?* It's an ad hominem attack, but I try to avoid using too many technial terms when I critique other people's arguments since they're not in my classroom. Of course, I don't *have* a classroom either, but I figure I'll move out of industry and into academia eventually. I love the summer vacations.

*My point is that that's a dumb question, you don't have to be a scientist to answer it any more than I have to be a logician to know what an ad hominem attack is.

Re:Can someone please explain to me...

[anaesthetica]

I don't see anything in Article I allowing Congress any of the powers granted to it, especially the president.

The enumerated powers of Congress are listed in Article 1 Section 8. The powers of the Executive are vaguely outlined (but not enumerated) in Article 2.

The Constitution's not that long--you don't need a law degree to find that stuff out. It's not like it's some 400+ article European constitution...

Stages

[Descalzo]

"The division between an intelligent being and human meat is nearly universally recognized, whether people like to admit it or not. Babies, toddlers, other children, incompetent or insane adults, and senile elders are not afforded the same legal status as other humans, despite having that hominid genetic blueprint. You can't just pop out of the womb and start filling out government forms, driving cars, and signing 2-year cell phone contracts."

We afford them different legal status to protect them, not to exploit them. 15-year-olds can't buy beer or cigarettes because they aren't old enough to know better, not because of some plot to keep them down (despite what teenagers may think). A senile old man may be prevented from driving to protect me and him, not because he has served his usefulness and we want him to die sooner.

Re:OK, let's see...

[william.gunn]

Check the other message thread we've had going to see my response, because these two more or less converged. p.s. you left out "straw man". ;-)

Re:Can someone please explain to me...

[Guppy06]

It was late, I was tired, I missed a few words:

I don't see anything in Article I allowing Congress to delegate any of the powers tranted to it, especially to the president.

Re:OK, let's see...

[theStorminMormon]

OK, the debate has moved to the other thread. But you're confusing an ad hominem attack and a straw man attack. An ad hominem attack is when you attack a person then use that personal attack as basis for refuting their points. A straw man attack is different. That's when you pretend that someone espouses a particular view, and attack that view (even though the person may not espouse it). Usually you add a little subterfuge to this. For example, if I say I'm pro-life, and then you attack me because I would criminalize abortion and send women to jail who seek to end their pregnancies even to even to save their own lives, you would be using a straw man attack (because being pro-life doesn't necessarily involve prosecuting women under any circumstances, let alone when their life is on the line!) and the subterfuge comes in because someone who's not very well informed may think that "straw man" you are attacking is in fact the genuine article. So the two are related (especially if you use a straw man attack to then make me look like an idiot to then launch an ad hominem attack based on me being an idiot - an extremely common double-fallacy of internet debating), but not the same.

um...

[Run4yourlives]

Essentially, small systems are not necessarily influenced by large systems, but are mirrored.

Even a cusory understanding of physics - in particular relativity and quantum mechanics - shows that this statement is not reflected in reality.

Re:Can someone please explain to me...

[anaesthetica]

I apologize for being sarcastic above. You're quite right, Congress is not enumerated the power to delegate its powers to the executive. It's an unconstitutional abuse that has unfortunately become standard practice through years and years of unchallenged precedent.

Ummmmmm. . .

[Fantastic Lad]

Even a cusory understanding of physics - in particular relativity and quantum mechanics - shows that this statement is not reflected in reality.

I have a cursory understanding of physics, and as I understand it, small patterns are indeed sometimes seen replicated in much bigger systems. --I'm not saying I'm right about the founding principals of Astrology, but it's one of several possibilities I was thinking my way through.

Here's another entirely different one. . .

The sun is divided into 12 different segments, like an orange, each with a magnetic signature different from the one on either side of it. Living organisms have been shown to grow and react differently depending on the type of naturally occurring electro-magnetic radiation they are exposed to.

-FL

Re:Objective Morality

[Lars T.]

So would you have a problem with 'medical research programs' killing houndreds of blacks and countless others like mental patients, prisoners, soldiers?

Re:Irony that the sitaution is solved...Feminist

[unitron]

"The father gets no choice in the matter and still gets to pay some lovely child support for the next 18 years to the woman that "forgot" to take her pill. If she wants to be the final authority, let her take the full responsibility too."

If the man finds this situation unacceptable he should feel free to either keep it in his pants or have himself surgically altered *and* also use a condom. If the pregnancy is the result of her raping him I'm willing to concede that he has greater rights in the situation than might otherwise be the case.

Re:government funded research

[frankie]

I don't think government should subsidize anything; not research

...says a guy using WWW (funded by CERN) over TCP/IP (funded by Darpa), most likely on Explorer or Mozilla (descendants of Mosaic, funded by NCSA) with either a Yahoo or Google search bar (both started as grad projects at Stanford).

No one in IT/CS/etc can rightly complain that government subsidy of research doesn't benefit them.