Slashdot Mirror
The President, The State of the Union, and Genetics
At last night's State of the Union, the president said "Tonight I ask you to pass legislation to prohibit the most egregious abuses of medical research, human cloning in all its forms, creating or implanting embryos for experiments, creating human-animal hybrids, and buying, selling or patenting human embryos."
Jamie happened onto a link today which humorously and insightfully
addresses this bit from the speech. It's worth your time. Relatedly segphault writes "Ars Technica has an interesting look at scientific research and technology proposals included in Bush's State of the Union address."
Yeah, and Bush also wants to go to Mars.
Just cause he says it, doesn't mean it'll happen.
Too many Republicans oppose is extremist views on science. And those that don't will someday get a disease that has a potential cure in hybrid/cloning studies, and will then oppose the agenda.
Not panicked, yet.
This won't be the first warning sign. Once RvW starts to bend, THEN it is time to panic.
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
Maybe you guys disagree with Bush's proposal. But HOW would you change it? What would you remove?
Is it valid to sell or buy a human embryo? To clone embryos? To make human-animal hybrids?
As with all controversial issues, it's not possible to please everybody. So I'd like to ask slashdot what parts they agree and disagree with, and why.
Divorce rate stats are fun to play with. Here's another way of looking at it:
Roughly 66% of first time marriages last until one, or both, partners die. Thus the 33% who get divorced once are also fairly likely to get divorced a second time.
What he just proposed amounts to the banning of all human stem cell research in this country. This is a step back from even his previous allowance of certain stem cell lines.
Even more than that, the broad outlines if implemented specifically will outlaw virtually all human genetic research. Transgenic animals have enabled us to examine human disease conditions in detail, and methods of treatment.
This is typical pandering to the right-wing of his party, without consideration of either the ethical, legal, and even moral implications of his broad-based statement. I predict that over the next few weeks we'll see a host of officials on talk shows doing the "What he really meant was ..."
I'm still reading through the trancript. I try not to watch it live - I get too annoyed with the scripted "standing ovation" moments.
I have to admit wondering about his new energy program - I mean, really, wasn't it over 30 years ago that yet another Republican president promised the same thing?
The problem with that kind of thinking is that it snowballs. Every sperm and egg (even unfertilized) has the potential to be a sentient being. By your argument you need to save every single sperm and egg! This seems neither morally right nor possible.
Another thing: If Christians think that a human has rights and is alive at conception, then why do they celebrate birthdays? Why not conception days?
"A witty saying proves nothing." -- Voltaire
You make good arguments, and to some degree, I accept them. However I would guess that you are male, only because you didn't really address the other side of the issue: the rights of the mother. See, the question is not exactly "should we kill fetuses?", it's more a question of "how do we value the rights of the fetus in relation to the rights of the mother?"
A fetus is in nearly every sense a parasite. It grows into the uterine lining and 'hijacks' the mother's blood vessels. But a mother's body typically will not reject this parasite on its own, for obvious reasons. What rights does a woman have to control her own body, with the assistance of doctors?
Rarely do I see people offer any good policy suggestions in response to the abortion problem, they're either for full criminalization or full legalization. But the spectrum of possibility is far more diverse than that. Here's my suggestion: every abortion request should go before a judge. Abortion judges should be required to abide by a minimum federal list of standards for allowing abortion, including health of the mother, cases of non-consensual sex/fertilization, or the stupidity of a minor. Beyond that, locality-specific standards should apply. I personally don't think adult irresponsibility should ever lead to an abortion. Make the mother have the child, then if she still doesn't want it, give the child state-funded care and make the mother and father pay for it. (Requires DNA test at time of birth, which I think all children should have anyway, if only to shut down the Murray Show).
But honestly, despite being a blue voter all the way, I don't think the federal government has the authority to guarantee or deny abortion rights to cases not involving health of the mother, non-consensuality or minors. I think beyond that, each abortion request needs to be considered on its own merits by local magistrates.
Also, cases should be kept secret if the mother requests that. Nobody should be discouraged from requesting an abortion through fear of exposure/retribution. And people should have the option to 'order' their child mandatory, implanted birth control. Judges should also be able to order mandatory contraception in extreme cases, or when the mother/father simply don't have the income to provide for more children.
Now looking at my opinions as a whole, I would say they are expressly pro-life and almost guaranteed to reduce unnessecary abortions. But the funny thing is, the real 'pro-life' nuts out there would hate these ideas, because the foundation of their anti-abortion ideas are actually anti-sex ideas. They see abortion as a way of 'cheating' God's design for sex, a way of avoiding the consequences and they think of contraception in the same way. You can always tell the real nuts because they're the ones telling poor people NOT to use condoms. *roll eyes*