Slashdot Mirror
Harvard Scientists to Clone Human Embryos
An anonymous reader writes "Harvard University scientists claim they will soon start trying to clone human embryos to create stem cells. Even with the history of controversy and fraud researchers hope they can one day use the newly created stem cells to aid in battle against many diseases. From the article: 'The privately funded work is aimed at devising treatments for such ailments as diabetes, Lou Gehrig's disease, sickle-cell anemia and leukemia. Harvard is only the second American university to announce its venture into the challenging, politically charged research field.'"
The law states that no FEDERAL FUNDING may be used on stem cell research except on the stipulated stem cell lines, some of which have been revealed to be not very useful. This project isn't using federal funding, it's using private funding, which Harvard professors can probably easily get. Therefore this research is legal. Right now, the current tide of public opinion is turning towards MORE stem cell research, not less. In fact, Nancy Reagan made a plea to Congress to expand federally funded stem cell research. I don't think the Bush government will shut it down, especially with the midterm elections coming up where Republicans need to harp on more "solid" issues such as gay marriage instead of getting bogged down in an issue where the public opinion is not clear and seems to be swinging in the opposite way of what they want.
You I guess I don't think it's bad that people die. They are going to die eventually anyway what a few years more or less. Let's face it most people aren't going to do anything all that great in their remaining years anyway.
My father was supposed to die many years ago. The doctors permormed miracles and brought him back from the edge of death. But he is not the man he used to be. He suffers from many disabilities as a result of his illness and the operation used to save him. He is continually miserable too. He is my father, when he finally dies I am going to be profoundly sad and it's going to change my life but I still think he should have died back then. I don't believe in god and I don't think he is going to heaven or hell. I just think it was a mistake to force him to live when his body had given out, just to resurrect him as a crippled and sad old man. I hate seeing him this way and I have made sure I have a living will so that I will never be in his position either.
evil is as evil does
The question of which came first, the chicken or the egg, exists because an egg is clearly not a chicken.
KFG
What you've done is base your reasoning on an emotional plea rather than a logical framework. It is a tragedy when someone so firmly entrenched in the human community passes from us---of that there can be no debate, and that depth of tragedy does not exist in cases of abortion, IVF, and other examples of the destruction of human embryos. We will all miss the guy with the family more than the embryo we never knew.
But that was never the claim of those with a religious objection to the act. Religious and moral objections center around the question of the Rights of Man and at what stage in life those rights are accorded to us (Embryonic? Fetal? Infant? Puberty? Adulthood? etc...). The religious arguement is that those rights are accorded to each individual as soon as that individual comes into being. In short, "God bless everyone...no exceptions". Others argue that those rights are prematurely granted and shouldn't be accorded until birth. The law takes a graduated approach, saying that rights are accorded piecemeal as we move through the stages of life, and the most basic of rights (the Right to Life) is granted (conditionally) sometime around the third trimester of pregnancy.
Nowhere in the discussion do the religious folk claim that the people who would be saved don't deserve to be saved, just that the price is too high.
That argument in an (WAY) oversimplified nutshell: You and four others are in a hot air balloon and the balloon begiuns to sink into a volcano (too much weight!). Some quick calulations reveal that if just one of you jumped overboard the rest would survive. Do you toss someone overboard? If so, how do you determine who? Destruction of the embryo to save other lives is akin, in this argument, to saying that you determine the person to toss overboard by evaluating their life and determining which one has the fewest friends and family who will miss them, or alternatively by which is least capable of fending off the forced toss.
There are, of course, arguements on boths sides and such implausible scenarios can always be gamed in logical debates like this, so don't carry it too far. I'm not trying to get into a tit-for-tat over the specifics of the fantasy example, but rather just trying to show you the gist of the argument.
Many people would vehemently disagree with you. There are quite few "clear cut" moral decisions in life. If there were, we wouldn't need to argue so much about them.
Disclaimer: I am against the destruction of embryos in this context for religious and moral reasons. I am not approaching this from an unbiased perspective (like anyone does!). Your mileage may vary. Do not stare at happy fun ball, etc....
Tom Caudron
http://tom.digitalelite.com/
-Tom
I'm not armed with enough information to be able to accurately guess the percentage of zealots in the anti-abortion group. If I had a gun to my head, forcing me to wager I'd say the large majority of zealots are anti-abortion. But there must be an equally strong correlation between feminists yelling "My body, my right!" Yes - it's a cop out, but I think that the reasonable individuals outnumber the zealots, perhaps moreso on the pro-abortion side.
I won't dispute the extreme example, because I understand the point you are trying to make. My response is probably equally extreme. If the "host" was forced into a situation of accepting a parasitic backpack brought about by no action of their own, then I would say cut them free. However, partaking in sexual activity protected or otherwise you must assume responsibility for the reprocussions. It's something you learn in sex ed, hell, it's something you learn early in life. It's something every person faces every day. Speed, you may get pulled over and ticketed. Buy drugs, you face the possibility of being burned in a sting. Don't show up to work, you face the possibility of being fired.
My point is that the people making the argument have no bearing on the issue. The question is a reasonable one, and rather than trying to answer the question we spend more time trying to villify and mock those asking it.
So you think that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were all about saving innocent Japanese and US military lives? Maybe you should do a little research into it. There was no one reason for using the bomb. Yes, they wanted to avoid a costly (in lives and money) D-day style invasion on the Japanese home islands. They also wanted to show off their new weapon to the Russians. They also wanted to know what effect these new weapons would have on a populated city. This is why they chose Hiroshima, it was never bombed before, so they wouldn't confuse the damage from the atamic bomb with damage from previous bombings. Why was it never bombed before? Absolutely no military presence, all civilians. Humanitarian mission indeed.
There were other options, like blockading Japan, which would have avoided using atomic bombs and avoided casualties from an invasion. The fear was that Russia might invade after a while in that scenario. Another plan involved detonating an atomic bomb high over Tokyo harbour to demonstrate the power of the atomic bomb. But they only had two bombs at that point and it would be several months to build more if that didn't work. Also, if it did work, they wouldn't have been able to study the effects of a nuke on a city. And it wouldn't have sent as strong a message to Moscow. And scaring communists is a great humanitarian cause, right?
Also, Nagasaki is even more questionable. The Japanese were willing to surrender after Hiroshima, but they wanted to be able to keep their Emperor. The US demanded unconditional surrender, so they bombed Nagasaki. The Japanese surrendered unconditionally, after which the US allowed them to keep their Emperor anyway. Yes there is value to giving something because you are magnamonious in victory as opposed to making a concession in a peace treaty. But is a point of honour worth 100,000 civilian casualties?
Anyways, the use of atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is morally ambiguous at best. At worst it was a war crime. I guess it all depends on your perspective.
I appreciate the civil discussion - just want to throw that out there first. I thought the tone of your original post was likely tongue in cheek, but the subject goes beyond (maybe falls short?) religion. Additionally I'm mostly playing devils advocate. I don't know exactly where I stand on the issue, and have gone rounds on both sides of the argument, both what you've offered, and what I'm saying. I guess maybe I'm just trying to drag more folks towards my fence of indecision.
.001% that birth control fails will bring about an tremendous, life altering result. That is why I feel that two people engaging in sex must accept the possibility - no matter how unlikely that an unwanted pregnancy may be the result. Also, there are far easier outs than keeping and resenting and/or mistreating a child. You can see it coming can't you? A mile away even, I'm sure. Adoption. It's gotten to a point that it's literally so easy that you can drop your newborn child at a doorstep in a basket with a note saying "Free to a good home" and walk away.
It is certainly unfair that a broken condom or that
The cost? Medical bills, possibly some derision for the adoption or the pregnancy(you can't please some folks), and a body that isn't going to spring back like it once would. No small cost, and perhaps harder than an abortion. I say perhaps because of the four women who've told me that they've had abortions, all four would near tears when they speak of it. Two that I still keep in contact with mourn the loss(one of which was a rape), yet when pressed would admit they'd probably do it again.
As far as legal precedents - laws conflict. Roe Vs Wade may support the pro-choice crowd, but if a pregnant woman is murdered it's considered a double homocide. Using the legal system as a basis for argument then would suggest that an unborn child is only a life if it's wanted. Would it be considered a double homocide then, if a woman was shot in line at an abortion clinic? Such thoughts feel atrociously callous.
I hope that we as a people can strive to a compromise with this issue, though it may be a paradox that can never be solved.