Adult Stem Cell Growth Treats Cornea Disorders

stemcellar writes with a link to the ScienceDaily site, reporting on a method for adult stem cells to grow cornea stem cells. This use of differentiated stem cells in therapies on specific parts of the body is fairly novel, the article states, and could have numerous applications in medicine. "The research undertaken by the ophthalmologist has shown that, from a small biopsy sample, the new growth technique enables the growth of the number of stem cells thus obtained to the point of obtaining sufficient for the treatment to be effective. The cell sample is taken from the limb of the healthy eye - the ocular structure responsible for the transparency of the cornea. The importance of this growth method lies in the fact that it enables the characterization of the cells obtained, i.e. determining the quantity and viability of the units to be used."

Comments

Look Ma no anti-rejection medication!

[mrnick]

I like this kind of medicine. It uses your own body as a donor I am sure your left eye wouldn't reject cells from your right. rejection is the major problem with transplants today (beyond demand surpassing supply).

Now bring on the clones and grow me a new liver! I just bought a new bottle of Jim Beam! :)

Nick Powers

Re:Look Ma no anti-rejection medication!

[MisterBates]

no fucking body fucking cares what you fucking have to fucking say

Excuse me, but ummmm . . . you're the one that posted as AC.

Re:Look Ma no anti-rejection medication!

[bandmassa]

While you're cloning your liver, get 'em to do me a new pancreas, I just bought a big tub of ice cream ;-)

Not Globally Approved

[erbuc]

This is great stuff! The only problem is that the US Government won't approve such a treatment. I work for a Medical Tourism company in Thailand and we are already working with Theravitae on their Adult Stem Cell programs that do the same thing. It is being used for Coronary Heart patients and Diabetics with PAD. The patients own Adult Stems Cells are used and so far there is a 75% success rate that the patient recovers from the conditions they had prior to treatment. The Government in Thailand has approved this and US citizens can travel to Thailand for such treatments. I really hope the US wakes up to it's serious health problems soon.

Re:Not Globally Approved

[ameyer17]

I am not an expert on federal law, but I thought Bush was allowing adult stem cell research.

Re:Not Globally Approved

[FiniteElementalist]

I am not an expert on federal law, but I thought Bush was allowing adult stem cell research. Yeah, what Bush did was refuse to provide federal funding on new lines of embryonic stem cells from after the time of the decision, but he wasn't opposing adult stem cells at all, much less banning research on them or use in treatment.

I don't know what the GP is all about, maybe just an advertisement?

Re:Not Globally Approved

[erbuc]

Research yes, and embryonic stem cell research as well. But Adult Stem Cell research was pushed aside a few years ago in order to direct funds elsewhere.

The company that I spoke of actually picked up shop and moved to Thailand, had their research approved, and have a working fully approved product today. So this research in the US is already a reality for others.

I do not want to supply links or mention the company again as it may be construed as advertising and I do not wish to abuse my privileges here. Do a Google search and you can see there are quite a few testimonials out there and that other parts of the world are quickly leaving the US in the dust on this matter.

Re:Not Globally Approved

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know what the GP is all about, maybe just an advertisement?

He's talking about the fact that the US expects companies to actually test and document that their treatments work before selling them to the public.

Damn that meddling FDA, snake oil capitalism can't stand the government intervention.

Re:Not Globally Approved

[Attila Dimedici]

It has always been faster to get approval for new medical treatments in other parts of the world than in the US. The US requires a high level of experimental proof that a treatment is effective and that it does not cause more harm than good. This requires quite a bit of time. Sometimes this means that people have to wait longer for an effective treatment to be available than we all would like. However, in the 70's there was a cancer treatment that was hailed as a wonderful, effective treatment of cancer and "wasn't it a tragedy that you had to be rich enough to travel to Mexico to get this treatment". It was Laetril, it took a long time and it appeared to be an effective treatment (anecdotally), but after years of study it proved to not be very effective and to cause more harm than it healed.

Re:Not Globally Approved

[buswolley]

I told you, using dead babies is not the way to go. Adult stem cells, skin cells; those are the ways to go.

Re:Not Globally Approved

[ArcherB]

Any ban on this treatment is not due to any research ban. There is a 7-15 year lag time for new drugs and treatments to get approved by the FDA in the US. While we don't get the very latest in treatments, we're not exposed to treatments in the beta stage either.

Re:Not Globally Approved

[Firethorn]

Yes, it does generally keep the number of Vioxx type cases down.

I don't think that it's too bad when on average the FDA revokes drug approvals less than once a year - while approving dozens a year.

FDA approval is tough and getting tougher.

Re:Not Globally Approved

[HiThere]

That's one way of putting it. It's perhaps true as far as it goes.

OTOH, the US colludes with companies that want to suppress unpleasant results. By this I mean results internal to the company that have shown a treatment that a company is proposing is dangerous.

So, yes, there's more red-tape in the US. But it doesn't necessarily help the end-user. Sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn't. Combine this with SLAPP lawsuits, and you have a system that tilted significantly against the average end-user (not necessarily against the average citizen...that would require a different analysis...but SLAPP lawsuits would definitely weigh significantly against both the end-user and the citizen).

Re:Not Globally Approved

[DoWhatsRight]

I think "not globally approved" is misleading. The real issue is "not US FDA approved". Some of the critics like to imply that countries accepting the benefits of Adult Stem Cell Therapy are "backward", Third World, or, don't "know better". Adult Stem Cell Therapy is being practiced in such obscure places as: Brazil, Thailand, Germany, and Singapore, to name a few. I've been to Thailand, pumped 5 figures into THEIR economy, received a dose of MY OWN STEM CELLS, and (less than 2 months later) I'm doing things I haven't been able to for 2 years; complex things such as climbing the basement stairs without fainting. See my posts down this thread, as to exactly why our bureaucracy denies victims this life-saving breakthrough. Kevin

Re:Not Globally Approved

[DoWhatsRight]

"There is a 7-15 year lag time for new drugs and treatments to get approved by the FDA in the US." After my first heart attack in November, 2004, the Cardiologist said "two months, could be two years."; followed by the admonision to "Put your affairs in order." 7-15 was not an option. The FDA takes that long to repeat the same studies, over and over, in different locations, with different doctors, each one biased to "proving" his pro or con position, through the manipulation of his "findings". Dr. Amit Patel, at the University of Pittsburg, found Adult Stem Cells, injected into infarcted cardiac muscle, generated re-vascularization, restoring cardiac function. (Other trials had shown corrolary results.)Rather than wait for redundant trials, Dr. Patel took his research to Thailand, and the company 'erbuc' is not advertising in his posting. Over 200 people (I was #204, I think)are now experiencing mild to drastic improvement in their lifestyle. For two years, I couldn't climb my basement stairs without fainting. Less than 2 months after receiving MY OWN STEM CELLS, I climb as I please. How many poor schlubs will die over the next 5, 10, 12 years of "beta"? (While we don't get the very latest in treatments, we're not exposed to treatments in the beta stage either.)Tell them "Just hang on, we'll get you fixed-up, eventually." Read my posts down this thread, and see why they may NEVER get the help they need! Kevin

Re:Not Globally Approved

[plunge]

This is mostly because countries like Thailand don't much care if these sorts of treatments have terrible side-effects: they consider their citizens expendable in the pursuit of profit and business.

Have no fear though, if a Republican wins in 2008, America is sure to head in that direction eventually.

Re:Not Globally Approved

[erbuc]

You are obviously one of those people that don't own a passport.

Thailand has very strict medical standards and has better facilities and better trained doctors than most places in the US. The adult stem cell therapy is performed in Thailand and Singapore and both are equally as good from a quality and performance perspective.

The government has also instituted a 30 Thai Baht ( $1.00 ) Medical Scheme for Thai residents to get most common treatments.

Doesn't sound like an 'expendable' attitude to me.

Re:Not Globally Approved

[plunge]

Any government willing to deliver unproven, untested treatments, especially those with a very high chance of long-term side effects (and one the major ones in this case are cancer) is not acting responsibly or protecting it's citizens from being used as guinea pigs.

May not quite be ready for prime time

[ameyer17]

from tfa:

The results to date achieved amongst the group of rabbits, with induced limbic insufficiency and which then had a transplant of adult stem cells, showed recovery of the corneal epithelium in 60% of the treated animals

Not knowing anything about the risks, alternative treatments available, and potential effects of non-treatment, 60% might not be particularly good. I mean, a 60% success rate is a 40% failure rate. On the other hand, this treatment is new and likely could be further optimized.

Re:May not quite be ready for prime time

[rob1980]

I think that success rate is going to have to come up a bit, but at the same time I wonder how much of those 40% of treatments that failed resulted in the subject experiencing some kind of harmful side effect. If it's small enough more people may be willing to roll the bones and hope they just don't fit into the .01% category.

Re:May not quite be ready for prime time

[timmarhy]

since when has a low rate of success been a measure for what treatments you give a patient? plenty of people embark on treatments with a success rate of less then 10%. it's the side effects and any resulting damage caused by a failure that you have to weight up against the risk of doing nothing.

in all likelyhood, people trying this aren't likely to get any blinder if it fails, so who gives?

Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[thrill12]

... because I think that this new technology is exactly not meant for the purpose of abuse, in all its forms (alcoholism, self-inflicted injury etc.). This is ofcourse mainly an ethical discussion, but honestly: why should society pay for someone who ruined their own lives, even if healing can be 100% ? It still costs money, you know.
(I know you meant the last remark in jest, but it helps making my point ;)

Re:Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[headkase]

We need to ditch money soon. Money just represents unused energy or resources and capitalism is a method for allocating the surplus under conditions of scarcity dependent on goal(s). We not developing countries anymore in the West. We live in the land of plenty and our primary activities are trending into knowledge applications. Abolish copyrights in favor of a cooperative creative commons let everyone use everything and be amazed at what the stone-soup parable has to teach. Spare resources would still need to be managed so give the logistical planning functions to computers while a human sets the goals it evolves against. Capitalism has served its purpose here so stop treating it like religious dogma and envision a better way.

Re:Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[timmarhy]

so make it an option for pay for it with a excess on top to help subsidise it to treat people who are in a bad through through no fault of their own. that way, the wealthy have the chance to help others while getting what they want (new liver or what ever). there are plenty of people out there who have more money then sense, who would gladly fork over $100,000 for a new liver to abuse.

Re:Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[PopeRatzo]

Capitalism has served its purpose here so stop treating it like religious dogma and envision a better way.

The one day I don't get mod points...

Our health care system, shrinking middle class, hell, shrinking working class, are signs that the American-type of capitalism is losing its relevance. Lately, the ones benefiting the most from it are spreading the canard that somehow, capitalism is "ethical". Every week, I hear on talk radio somebody say that capitalism is somehow "biblical". That's usually followed by the notion that if we could somehow just stop all this silly "helping poor people", things would get better. Then the stuff about "fewer regulations" and "less government" (which somehow always turns out to mean "more government"). Capitalism can no more be considered ethical than a lion in the jungle could be considered "kind".

Whenever I hear someone, like the GP say "but honestly: why should society pay for someone who ruined their own lives, even if healing can be 100%?" I have to wonder, if the US is, as some say, a "Christian Nation" and "Blessed by God", has it done us any good?

Re:Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[that IT girl]

I have to wonder, if the US is, as some say, a "Christian Nation" and "Blessed by God", has it done us any good?

I feel I have to point out that, after legislation after legislation is passed to chase God OUT of the country, people can't complain when He's no longer there to protect it.

Re:Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Uh, no. What was chased out was the vestiges of a state-sponsored God. People may still pray and worship or not pray and worship as they please, and this is as it should be. Before, children had to participate in state-sponsored prayer and were subject to state-sponsored religious education. I don't understand why Christians thought that it was good idea. Indoctrination in the name of God is still indoctrination. State sponsored prostelyzation for any belief doesn't really make sense in view of the religious freedoms that we are supposed to be able to enjoy.

Re:Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[Anonymous Coward]

I am aware of laws that protect separation of church and state, without which there could be no freedom of religion. Some supporters of theocracy falsely view such laws as attacks on religion when nothing could be further from reality.

Re:Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[Jeff DeMaagd]

The problem is that your post does not acknowledge any difficulties with the idea. I don't think there has been a successful large scale system like that, and it's been tried. It's not a new idea.

It would be easy to think one can trust a computer to better guide the economic system, but who makes it? Who maintains it? Do we trust those people to not jury-rig it? In the end, it still comes down to "do you trust the system"?

Even to answer the question that the grandparent post asked, should a physician be expected to spend his or her effort to repair the damage of chronic self-inflicted damage? If a society is free, would a person be free to do that damage to themselves?

Re:Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[Anonymous Coward]

Whenever I hear someone, like the GP say "but honestly: why should society pay for someone who ruined their own lives, even if healing can be 100%?" I have to wonder, if the US is, as some say, a "Christian Nation" and "Blessed by God", has it done us any good? You clearly have no understanding of Christianity or personal responsibility. Not surprising.

Re:Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[The Spoonman]

after legislation after legislation is passed to chase God OUT of the country, people can't complain when He's no longer there to protect it.

Please, keep your stupidity to yourself. We passed legislation keeping YOUR god from trampling on the rights of the brainwashed followers of other gods as well as those who don't believe in any of your fairy tales or voodoo. As for his "protecting" it, thanks, but I can do without his "protection". His protection means people fly planes into our buildings, millions of people are killed in concentration camps, blacks are strung up by the neck, children are told to drink the Kool-aid, Palestinians are killed and forced from their homes or people are set on fire in Texas. And, yes, I'm aware I'm lumping in the atrocities of all religions that have occurred in the last hundred years together. You morons need to wake the fuck up and see that YOU are responsible for all of the "evil" in the world. In fact, without you there would BE no "evil".

You don't like the legislation, too fucking bad. This is a secular nation, founded to keep idiots like you in check. Our founding fathers HATED religion, so if you don't like it you can get out. Go over to the Middle East with the rest of your psychotic friends where you belong and leave those of us with morals alone!

I've said it before, I'll say it again...if only the Romans had used hungrier lions, this would be a much better world.

Re:Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[Anonymous Coward]

Hasn't this been tried? In places like Russia, Cuba, China? How successful has that been?

Perhaps you should stop treating your faux utopia as religious dogma and envision reality.

Re:Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[drinkypoo]

I have to wonder, if the US is, as some say, a "Christian Nation" and "Blessed by God", has it done us any good?

Most so-called Christians are nothing like an actual Christian.

The first and most important admonishment is that you Do Unto Others as you would have them Do Unto You. This is not a passive sort of activity. This is an instruction to go out and do things. Help that old lady across the street. Pick up that hitchhiker. You know what I'm talking about.

Now, this sort of activity puts you out - it's inconvenient. And it can even be dangerous! But the whole point of this is that you can't create the kind of world you want to live in without acting as you want people in that world to act. Some eggs will be broken in the pursuit of this omelet. But what the hell? That's how it always works.

I would say that just as you are not a true patriot if you are not willing to be arrested for your political beliefs, you are not a true christian unless you are willing to die for your world.

The corollary to that is that it must not be a violent death, at least, not by violent actions on your part. Anyone who is bombing abortion clinics or dragging a man behind their truck is quite simply not a christian. It's turn the other cheek, not throw the other fist.

This is not a Christian nation. There isn't one, and there never has been.

Re:Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[multimed]

Before indicting capitalism because of the problems with the healthcare system, why don't you stop and consider whether it actually is a capitalist system. There isn't real competition in as far as consumers being able to easily shop around between different providers. No price transparency means people can't be good consumers and make decisions based in part on cost. There's a hodge-podge of government funding - to the effect that private providers get under-paid for services provided for some individuals so they compensate by charging others more.

I would much rather see the government tweak the current system to actually put market forces to work than overhaul completely into a more socialist approach. Private life and auto insurance work just fine and are very competitive, why can't health insurance work the same way?

Re:Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[Moridineas]

Most so-called Christians are nothing like an actual Christian. That's the stupidest thing I've heard today :-P Who are you to define who is a Christian and what they should act like? Nobody, that's who! Terms like Christian are entirely self-defined terms!

It's great that you have a strong idea about what being Christian means, and that--in your view--it's a positive thing. However what about the person who says if you let gays marry you're not Christian? What if you suffer a witch to live? :-P What if allow abortions? the truth is there are many hundreds of thousands if not millions of definitions of what a Christian is. You've defined yours, but you don't have any power to define anyone else's.

Re:Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[DittoBox]

Funny, I was listening to a podcast the other day that was claiming that (without saying the magic words) communism was biblical. Its a funny old world.

Re:Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[Guuge]

You can't rebut the GP's point and have to resort to personal attacks. Not surprising.

Re:Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[Anonymous Coward]

Our founding fathers HATED religion, so if you don't like it you can get out. You like the argument from authority, eh?

You should check out what George Washington had to say about religion in his Farewell Address to the Nation:

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

Do you actually believe that these are the words of a man who "HATED religion"?

Or are you just bullshitting, like so many other internet atheists?

Re:Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[Guuge]

What about injury due to birth complications? The mother knew the risk but decided to get pregnant anyway. What about injury in a car accident? The risks of driving are well-known, but someone chose to drive anyway. What about sports injuries? Anyone who plays football clearly understands the risk of injury. What about problems resulting from high blood pressure? The patient clearly should have been eating healthier food.

At some point, we have to decide who is responsible for judging and delivering punishment for self-destructive behavior. In the meantime, it seems logical to pursue the highest standard of health possible.

Re:Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[headkase]

Did any of them have well developed economies and information infrastructure with the programming talent to make it all go? I'm not talking about throwing capitalism away for physical systems - banana's still need to be shipped to the grocery store. What I was talking about was Intellectual Property. Information is so cheap to throw around the world that when applying the ultimate extension of open ideals to something that benefits from an economy of scale - information dissemination costs are ultra-cheap with bits - then kill all expectations of profit from creative endeavors and submit to the logic that what you get back be it a free operating system or a game or a utility - whatever - will greatly outweigh your minuscule contribution to human civilization. Get over it and start downloading.

Re:Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[toddhisattva]

We need to ditch money soon.

If anybody needed proof that there is such thing as too much Star Trek....

Re:Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[ArcherB]

We need to ditch money soon. Money just represents unused energy or resources and capitalism is a method for allocating the surplus under conditions of scarcity dependent on goal(s). We not developing countries anymore in the West. We live in the land of plenty and our primary activities are trending into knowledge applications. Abolish copyrights in favor of a cooperative creative commons let everyone use everything and be amazed at what the stone-soup parable has to teach. Spare resources would still need to be managed so give the logistical planning functions to computers while a human sets the goals it evolves against. Capitalism has served its purpose here so stop treating it like religious dogma and envision a better way.

Wow! You are saying that capitalism has worked so well, we should ditch it for a system that doesn't. You do know that once you dump capitalism, all the benefits go away with it, right?

Didn't think so.

Re:Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[ArcherB]

Uh, no. What was chased out was the vestiges of a state-sponsored God. People may still pray and worship or not pray and worship as they please, and this is as it should be. Before, children had to participate in state-sponsored prayer and were subject to state-sponsored religious education. I don't understand why Christians thought that it was good idea. Indoctrination in the name of God is still indoctrination. State sponsored prostelyzation for any belief doesn't really make sense in view of the religious freedoms that we are supposed to be able to enjoy.

Does a cross on a Christian Soldier's grave at a memorial cemetery force anyone to participate in state-sponsored prayer and become subject to state-sponsored religious education. How about a Cross in a building at a Public University? What about muslim foot washing stalls at the entrance to a public area at a state sponsored university? Oh, yeah, that one was allowed because there was no Cross involved.

Re:Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[ArcherB]

Please, keep your stupidity to yourself. We passed legislation keeping YOUR god from trampling on the rights of the brainwashed followers of other gods as well as those who don't believe in any of your fairy tales or voodoo. As for his "protecting" it, thanks, but I can do without his "protection". His protection means people fly planes into our buildings, millions of people are killed in concentration camps, blacks are strung up by the neck, children are told to drink the Kool-aid, Palestinians are killed and forced from their homes or people are set on fire in Texas. And, yes, I'm aware I'm lumping in the atrocities of all religions that have occurred in the last hundred years together. You morons need to wake the fuck up and see that YOU are responsible for all of the "evil" in the world. In fact, without you there would BE no "evil".

I'm impressed. You, my friend, are a master of logic. Bad things have been done in the name of religion, so let's ban religion. What an awesome idea. Let's translate that to other tools that have caused harm. Cars. Cars have killed millions, possibly BILLIONS. They are ruining our environment with their exhaust and roads. Of course, let's go further. The car would not run without wheels. And wheels were used on carriages before there were cars. We must ban the wheel! MAN! Man invented the wheel, religion, cars, exhaust, murder, the works! MAN MUST BE BANNED!

Your logic sir, lead the way!

Yes, I realize that this example is ridiculous, but no more so than claiming that because some bad people have done bad things in the name of religion, then ALL religion must be bad. Need I remind Spoonman that Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were fine examples of states with no religion. Does Spoonman not think that Hitler and Stalin were evil? That kinds throws out his No religion, No evil theory.

Our founding fathers HATED religion, so if you don't like it you can get out.
Really?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights... Why then, is Creator capitalized as if to mean God? Why are men created equal, and not just born that way? (CREATEd... CREATionist... get it?) The founding fathers claim that Rights come from God, but they hated religion? They opened every Congressional session with a prayer, but they really meant for religion to banned in public? By guaranteeing "FREEDOM OF RELIGION", they really meant to ban it? Granted, not all were devoutly religious, but as a group, they really were.

So I guess you'll be leaving now?

Re:Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[Cairnarvon]

Except that the "do unto others" bit, like "love thy neighbor" and "thou shalt not kill", was only meant to apply to Jews, as you'd know if you'd read it in context. There's nothing in the Bible opposing enslaving or murdering other "races", and it positively encourages killing unbelievers.
You're right in saying that by the standard of the Bible, American Christians aren't true Christians, but it's not because they are all-round love-spreading machines. If anything, it's because they eat pork and shellfish and don't stone their kids to death.

Quite frankly, it time to dump this backward religion altogether.

Re:Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[The Spoonman]

Bad things have been done in the name of religion, so let's ban religion.

Exactly. Your flawed attempts at logic by extrapolating to include cars notwithstanding, the banning of religion would be the greatest achievement mankind could hope to achieve. As to banning cars...nyuh-uh, not the same. A car is an inanimate object, religion is a set of codes designed to promote evil behavior. To follow the logical course of the argument, you'd have to say "murder is bad, we should ban all murder!" We don't allow other criminal conspiracies, this is just one more we need to get rid of.

Really?

Yes, really.

Why then, is Creator capitalized as if to mean God?

Oh, I see the problem, you're confusing belief in a creator-type with religion. Not the same thing, chuckles. Jefferson, for example, would be better classified as a "theist". He hated christianity, and the voodoo surrounding their little cult. He believed in a creator, but not in the flawed "moralism" that comes from religion. His belief in "freedom of religion" would have been better expressed as "freedom FROM religion". In other words, folks were allowed to believe what they liked, they just couldn't force it on anyone else. If Jefferson were alive today, he'd be an atheist or at worst an agnostic. Similarly for Washington, Franklin and most of the others. Christian apologetics might like to try and convince the world of their twisted version of history, but the truth lies bare for all to see.

And, thus, the greatest failing of the United States. The mistaken belief that any religion would keep to itself. By its very nature, religion requires its members to force it down the throats of those who don't want it. And, if they won't take it, they're exterminated.

Does Spoonman not think that Hitler and Stalin were evil? That kinds throws out his No religion, No evil theory.

Of course I believe Hitler was evil. He was a christian, and everything he did was an extension of that. Try reading Mein Kampf some time. As to Stalin, well, he had been raised in the Russian orthodox church, so sure...evil is implied. He did try to do good be getting rid of the religious, perhaps that's why he's portrayed as such a monster?

Re:Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[Moridineas]

That's silly too. One can easily find historical texts--dating back hundreds of years (I'm familiar with a some Byzantine / maybe 700-800s in particular) that explain WHY christians don't need to get circumcised, can eat pork, can eat shellfish, etc.

The idea that to be a good christian one also has to be a good jew is actually a relatively NEW idea!

the point is "true Christian" doesn't mean jack shit. There is no one checklist of things that a Christian MUST do/believe and CAN'T do/believe.

Re:Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[PopeRatzo]

To some extent, George Washington was a politician who had his own religious yahoos to deal with. If you read the words of some of the real founding fathers, like Paine, and Franklin and Jefferson and others, you'll find a clearly stated distaste for popes and bishops and even scripture. They believed that God could be best experienced in the beauty of Reason and in the workings of a natural Universe, not in some superstitious Iron Age documents.

Re:Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[Anonymous Coward]

To some extent, George Washington was a politician who had his own religious yahoos to deal with. If you read the words of some of the real founding fathers, like Paine, and Franklin and Jefferson and others, you'll find a clearly stated distaste for popes and bishops and even scripture. This was Washington's farewell address. He was voluntarily leaving the political world and going into a quiet retirement. He had no need to deal with 'religious yahoos'. And anyway, if you care what Washington thought about the place of religion in public life, you might as well go with the words that he actually said and wrote -- rather than hypothesizing, without any evidence, that he really meant the complete opposite.

As to George Washington's status as a founding father: He was the principal military leader of the American Revolution. He was both a delegate to and the president of the Constitutional Convention. He was the first President of the United States -- the only one to be elected unanimously by the Electoral College. His re-election was of course unanimous as well.

On his death, the House of Representatives adopted a resolution naming him "first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen." The Senate sent a letter of condolence to President Adams saying, "To lose such a man, at such a crisis, is no common calamity to the world: our country mourns her Father." During the 19th and 20th centuries, Washington was known popularly as "the father of his country".

I call that a pretty impressive CV. I'd be interested to know what more you require for a person to be a 'real founding father'.

Re:Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that the "do unto others" bit, like "love thy neighbor" and "thou shalt not kill", was only meant to apply to Jews, as you'd know if you'd read it in context. What the???? what context are you reading that in... i suppose you also think that when it mentions Christ coming for both the Jew and the Gentile you think that applies to the Jew only as well?

There's nothing in the Bible opposing enslaving or murdering other "races", and it positively encourages killing unbelievers. Firstly, yes there is, (it depends on what you mean by enslaving (kind treatment of slaves vs the cruel treatment that usually comes with the word enslave), and it was required that if there were slaves that they were to be well treated) Secondly, if by killing unbelievers your referring to the old testament where the israelites go into other lands and drive them out, then before sticking up for the poor people that were driven out and murdered as unbelievers, why not study the atrocities that these unbelievers were committing against women and children. Im sure you'll see why it wasn't such a bad thing after all (like world war 2 and going against the atrocities Hitler was committing)

American Christians aren't true Christians, but it's not because they are all-round love-spreading machines. If anything, it's because they eat pork and shellfish and don't stone their kids to death. I'm sure your able to find a new testament passage that backs the pork and shellfish, and stoning kids bit up..... and let me know if you do... because i haven't seen it yet.

Re:Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[ArcherB]

A car is an inanimate object, religion is a set of codes designed to promote evil behavior.
Really? Love thy neighbor. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Do not covet thy neighbor's wife, neighbor's ass, neighbor's wife's ass. Honor thy mother and father. Turn the other cheek. All that is Evil? I think your definitions are a bit skewed. My church feeds the hungry, clothes the poor, and gives aid to those that need it. We do not force religion down their throats in exchange either. Sure, the offer is there, but no one is forced to do anything. It's not a trade. It's a gift. And the Bible says it's our duty to do that sort of thing. We don't give something and expect something else in return. If all this is what you call evil, you really need to look up the definition.

Also, I think your view of history is a bit off. This page lists all of the founding father's religions. Strange. They are all listed and none of them are labeled "Atheist". 100% are listed as some flavor of Christianity.

It doesn't matter. You are either completely misguided or a troll. You are no different that the Creationist who believes that God created Adam and Eve 6000 years ago and nothing will change their minds. No matter how many facts I present or how many times I disprove your assumptions, you already made up your mind as to what you believe and nothing can sway you from that. Your hatred for religion has become a religion in itself. You are like a "9-11 Truther" only mixed in with hate and bigotry.

Either way, I'll pray for you.

Re:Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[drinkypoo]

That's the stupidest thing I've heard today :-P Who are you to define who is a Christian and what they should act like? Nobody, that's who! Terms like Christian are entirely self-defined terms!

Those are very convenient weasel words, but this is one of the most important admonishments from a man who is considered to be an avatar of their god, and cited from a sermon considered to be one of his most important. It is in fact considered to be a central tenet of christianity.

Christianity is organized religion, and it definitely is not intended to be self-defined; they will in fact tell you specifically what you need to believe, both in the majority of churches and in the "good" book itself. Of course, there's many versions of that book and all in common use today are pretty heavily bastardized -- which should tell you as much as anything else what fucking charlatans the people selling the faith are.

With that said, I don't really think that all Christians are bad people. I just think they are nearly all hypocritical when they claim to follow Jesus, who would (if you can buy a portrayal of a guy for whom there is no reliable historical evidence of existence - all non-biblical accounts are hearsay and there are zero eyewitness accounts, again, outside of the bible itself) certainly be dismayed by their behavior but who would ostensibly be forgiving and attempt to teach them their error -- as he [again, supposedly] did with very little success in his life. You can argue that the spread of Christianity is a great success, which in some terms of course it is, but it's also done great ills.

Re:Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[Moridineas]

Those are very convenient weasel words I don't know what that means!

from a man who is considered to be an avatar of their god Wow, what kind of nonsense is this? Just because you've seen a word in a video game clearly doesn't mean you know how to properly use it--this also shows a distinct lack of understanding in Christianity. This coming from a person attempting to DEFINE christian? Color me less than impressed!

It is in fact considered to be a central tenet of christianity. Ok, great, you've isolated "a central tenet" of Christianity. Do I take it to mean that you're backing off from the claim that that this one thing is the SOLE definer of Christian or not?

Christianity is organized religion, and it definitely is not intended to be self-defined; they will in fact tell you specifically what you need to believe, both in the majority of churches and in the "good" book itself. Of course, there's many versions of that book and all in common use today are pretty heavily bastardized -- which should tell you as much as anything else what fucking charlatans the people selling the faith are. Oh ok, so Christianity is an organized religion. Well, let's temper that--MOST sects of Christianity believe in some amount of hierarchical structure--but by no means all! One of my best friends growing up was "non-denominational." His church met at people's houses, places in the mall, wherever they could find. They did bible readings, and discussed things. There was no ordained minister. Hell, my friend din't even acknowledge that Catholics were Christian! papist idolaters don't you know.

So let's be very, very clear. Just because YOU have some stilted idea of who is Christian, and what Christians believe and act like, you're only talking about a VERY small number out of 2 billion people.

Your argument is so...simplistic it's shocking. You rant against "them" and mock what "they" say--but who is them? Protestants? Catholics? Pentacostals?? Non-denominational? African pseudo-Christian-Satanists? Santeria? Mormons?? Greek Orthodox? Russian Orthodox?? Nice jump lumping 2 billion people into one group that you've apparently got a bone with. I just really don't understand this kind of "us versus them" polarization. The world isn't black and white, and neither is Christian or non-Christian black and white.

I have no idea what the point in your last paragraph is, other than a screed against Christianity in general? Completely immaterial to the discussion at hand. Long story short, believe it or not, drinkypoo is not the arbiter of who is Christian and who is not. You know what percentage of americans think Mormons aren't Christians? You have any guess as to whether Mitt Romney thinks of himself as a Christian or not? Who's right?

Re:Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[Cairnarvon]

The historical texts are meaningless if they contradict the Bible, which is still by definition Christianity's only holy text. //The idea that to be a good christian one also has to be a good jew is actually a relatively NEW idea!//

Is it? Matt 5:17-18 disagrees with you. "New Covenant" or not, the laws of the OT are still supposed to apply. //the point is "true Christian" doesn't mean jack shit. There is no one checklist of things that a Christian MUST do/believe and CAN'T do/believe.//

I'll agree that "true Christian" doesn't mean anything, but not that there's no such checklist. The Bible is just that.

Re:Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[Cairnarvon]

Secondly, if by killing unbelievers your referring to the old testament where the israelites go into other lands and drive them out, then before sticking up for the poor people that were driven out and murdered as unbelievers, why not study the atrocities that these unbelievers were committing against women and children. Im sure you'll see why it wasn't such a bad thing after all (like world war 2 and going against the atrocities Hitler was committing)

Hitler was Catholic, and the Nazi regime had the full support of the Church.
Though even if he had been an "unbeliever", so fucking what? How does that justify anything? Does that mean genocide against vegetarians is justified because Hitler was a vegetarian too?

I'm sure your able to find a new testament passage that backs the pork and shellfish, and stoning kids bit up..... and let me know if you do... because i haven't seen it yet.

Fun fact: the Old Testament is part of the Bible too, and your Jesus said the laws are still in effect.

Re:Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[drinkypoo]

Ok, great, you've isolated "a central tenet" of Christianity. Do I take it to mean that you're backing off from the claim that that this one thing is the SOLE definer of Christian or not?

Show me where I said it was the sole determiner of whether or not you are Christian. Come on, show me.

Can't do it? There's a reason for that.

There's actually a number of things that you are required to believe by all major sects of Christianity to be considered a Christian - otherwise you're a heretic. For example, you have to believe in the holy trinity. If you don't, you're a heathen. But that's not even what I'm talking about. I'm talking about demands attributed to god, either through his own words to various people or by Jesus' words, which are in the bible.

Re:Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[Moridineas]

I'll agree that "true Christian" doesn't mean anything, but not that there's no such checklist. The Bible is just that. Which is perfectly true except for human interpretation!

Christianity--as practiced by a majority of adherents--has never been a religion in the mold of Islam (or, in the mold of the dominant theological schools about Islam). In Islam, the Qur'an is seen as the literal and exact word of God--the words in the Qur'an were transmitted directly from God through Muhammad to people. Some people--including many Muslims!--would argue that there is no room for interpretation there. I think the vast majority of Christians WOULD say there is room for interpretation, and that being Christian is not just a checklist.

Re:Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[Moridineas]

Show me where I said it was the sole determiner of whether or not you are Christian. Come on, show me. 1) Most so-called Christians are nothing like an actual Christian. (followed by 2)
2) The first and most important admonishment is that you Do Unto Others as you would have them Do Unto You. (followed by explanation of how this works)
3) you are not a true christian unless you are willing to die for your world.

Ok, so as I understand your points 1,2,3. ACTUAL Christians (#1) must obey this doctrine (#2), or are not true christians (#3).

That would seem to me to imply that that's it--the whole shebang right there.

Or did I misinterpret something?

There's actually a number of things that you are required to believe by all major sects of Christianity to be considered a Christian - otherwise you're a heretic. For example, you have to believe in the holy trinity. If you don't, you're a heathen. But that's not even what I'm talking about. I'm talking about demands attributed to god, either through his own words to various people or by Jesus' words, which are in the bible. Well sure, unless you're a unitarian, a Mormon, or a Jehovah's witness.. but hey, those millions of people don't matter by your standards??

demands attributed to god, either through his own words to various people or by Jesus' words, which are in the bible

Hmmm.. that's a lot of things!!!

Re:Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[shrubsky]

"why should society pay for someone who ruined their own lives...?"

Was there an implication that society would pay for this procedure, rather than the one receiving it? I don't have a problem with some idiot buying himself a replacement liver (or pancreas, or whatever) with his own dollars. If we're talking about forcing me to buy it for him, then I agree completely.

Re:Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[Cairnarvon]

Still, an interpretation that goes against both the letter and the spirit of what is by definition the only real guideline to Christianity is a pretty worthless one. And I think you'll find that in the US especially, Biblical literalists outnumber liberal christians by quite a margin (even if most of them don't even know what the Bible actually says).
The world *would* be a better place if everyone used common sense in interpreting their religion (it'd be a lot less religious, at the very least). Unfortunately, almost nobody does.

Re:Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[Moridineas]

That's a good question.

Biblical literalists outnumber liberal christians? Hmmm... I don't know, I'm not sure I buy that at all! I mean only around 1 in every 5 americans go to church every week according to most polls I've seen.

I've found that many people seem to think of America as a place where everyone walks around with a bible (and a hamburger...and an SUV...and a gun). Particularly Europeans think this--I've read some BBC articles discussing faith in America that I absolutely had no idea was about america at first! I don't think that's the reality at all though. I think religion certainly plays a more public role than in many parts of Europe, and this leads to that conception, but still--1/5 of people go to church every week! just how religious can that remaining 80% of the population be?

Re:Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[that IT girl]

...the hell? I was just pointing out a trend over the past few decades or so. For example, violence in schools going up as they got rid of prayer in schools, and then the moment of silence after the pledge of allegiance, and now I'm not even sure they do the pledge anymore. Things like that. You can get as angry as you want but I'm just looking at facts. I never said I was a proponent of any particular religion. Although as angry a person as you seem to be, I'll gladly not be a follower of whatever you believe.

Re:Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[The Spoonman]

You can get as angry as you want but I'm just looking at facts.

No, you're making them up, and that's why I'm angry. In this day and age when information is available by just typing a couple of keys, people are not only still ignorant, but making up their own facts as well. For example, by taking 30 seconds and looking up the stats on Google, you'd see school violence has been decreasing for a long time. You might want to claim isolated incidents show things spiraling out of control, but anecdotes don't reflect reality. Oh, and BTW, violent crime rate is down across the board. Teen pregnancy is down. Alcohol and drug abuse are down. I'll let you spend the short amount of time necessary finding that information. So, if we follow your "logic", and fill it in with facts, removing god from school was a good thing. Big surprise.

Re:Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[Copid]

I was just pointing out a trend over the past few decades or so. For example, violence in schools going up as they got rid of prayer in schools, and then the moment of silence after the pledge of allegiance, and now I'm not even sure they do the pledge anymore.

You might also want to look at the alarming trend between a lack of pirates on the high seas and global warming.

Re:Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[The Spoonman]

All that is Evil? I think your definitions are a bit skewed.

Oh, I get it, the one or two sentences in the whole book that might be construed as "good" are the end-all and be-all of your religion, then? How 'bout...

Do not covet thy neighbor's wife, neighbor's ass, neighbor's wife's ass.

The penalty for which, is death (Leviticus 20:10).

Honor thy mother and father.

The peanalty for which, is death

Do you follow the 10 commandments, too? If so, how many people have you personally put to death for working on the sabbath (Exodus 31:15)? How 'bout muslims or buddhists (Deuteronomy 17:2)? Have you attacked their towns and destroyed all of the inhabitants (Deuteronomy 13:13)? Since I denounce the reality of your delusional god, I can only assume you're trying to track me down so I can be stoned to death (Leviticus 24:16), right? Just like 'em faigs (Leviticus 20:13)!

Now, I can hear the squirmy rationalizations coming...forget 'em. God's law is perfect (Psalms 19:7). You can claim they have no relevance, but if that's the case, why follow any of them? Most often I hear that atheists are masters of situational ethics, yet any christian who hasn't put to death at least one unbeliever is denying their own beliefs in favor of expediency.

My church feeds the hungry, clothes the poor, and gives aid to those that need it.

I'm assuming that's with the money you got from selling all your stuff so you could get into heaven (Luke 18:22), right? I like Luke, he's full of Jesus' love. You hate your father and mother (Luke 14:26), right?

This page lists all of the founding father's religions.

Up until I left catholic school at the end of the eigth grade, I was still listed as "catholic" myself. So? Washington, for example, never did anything more than give lip service to being a christian. Perhaps there might be a reason for hiding your atheistic beliefs during a time when people were literally burned alive for less. Hmmmm...wonder what it could be?

It doesn't matter. You are either completely misguided or a troll.

I know the feeling. Look at it this way, you're at least not arguing with someone completely delusional. Let's face it, you can defend your religion all you like, but the simple fact of the matter is your religion is responsible for the German holocaust, Jonestown, Waco, Salem, the Inquisition, the Crusades, etc, etc, etc, etc. Defend as you like with what YOU think your religion is, but the fact is it's been responsible for more bloodshed, horror and evil in the world. The fact that it can be twisted to such ends, while all the while decrying its "message of peace and love" just proves how delusional you really are.

nothing will change their minds. No matter how many facts I present or how many times I disprove your assumptions

Of course not, for the simple reason that I have truth and rationality on my side. You have delusion and fairy tales that tell you to kill your children. As for "facts", where are the "facts"?

Your hatred for religion has become a religion in itself.

Religion is the absence of rationality and the submission to a shared delusion. I look at the evidence before me and see what's true. By his own laws, your god should be stoned to death outside the city's walls, yet you cling to him as a loving father.

I'll pray for you

Thanks, I'll rub my lucky rabbit's foot for you. 'Course, I don't know how lucky he was since he lost a foot and all... :)

Re:Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[ArcherB]

There's this new thing out. It's called the New Testament. It means that the punishment for sin is no longer death. It means we don't have to be perfect.

I know the feeling. Look at it this way, you're at least not arguing with someone completely delusional. Let's face it, you can defend your religion all you like, but the simple fact of the matter is your religion is responsible for the German holocaust, Jonestown, Waco, Salem, the Inquisition, the Crusades, etc, etc, etc, etc. Defend as you like with what YOU think your religion is, but the fact is it's been responsible for more bloodshed, horror and evil in the world. The fact that it can be twisted to such ends, while all the while decrying its "message of peace and love" just proves how delusional you really are.
You call it delusion. I call it faith. You are correct in that I can not prove anything. Then again, there is so much accepted in science that can not be proved either, but it's widely accepted as fact.
Mankind is responsible for those atrocities and so much more. Are you saying that I should abandon mankind? Besides, MY religion was responsible for none of those. However, I will agree that religion has been misused for some pretty horrific atrocities, but atrocities happen with or without religion. It has just become an excuse, or enabler, for some. But blaming religion as a whole for the misdeeds of a few is like blaming black people for OJ murdering his wife.

Of course not, for the simple reason that I have truth and rationality on my side.
Funny. I was thinking the same thing, minus the rationality part.

You have delusion and fairy tales that tell you to kill your children.
Uh, nowhere in the Bible does it say to kill my children.

As for "facts", where are the "facts"?
The facts that our Founding Fathers had religion. I listed a site with their affiliations. Those were the facts. The Constitutions states Freedom OF Religion, not freedom FROM it for a reason (another fact). I find those truths to be self evident.

Thanks, I'll rub my lucky rabbit's foot for you. 'Course, I don't know how lucky he was since he lost a foot and all... :)

Thanx! I appreciate the gesture. As to the luck of the rabbit, my fajita dinner was pretty unfortunate for the cow, but lucky for me if my wife doesn't burn it!

And sorry if I flamed a bit earlier. That was counter to what I'm trying to "preach" here and I apologize.

Re:Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[jmccay]

Fun fact: the Old Testament is part of the Bible too, and your Jesus said the laws are still in effect. Well, that's not entirely true. You'd know that if you had read the Bible. I suggest you read the books of Acts.

Re:Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[jmccay]

Is it? Matt 5:17-18 disagrees with you. "New Covenant" or not, the laws of the OT are still supposed to apply. Have you noticed Jesus never preached to the Gentiles, and his main audience was the Jews. If you read the book of Acts, following the OT laws was brought up in the early church. Paul, and Peter, argued against placing the yoke of the OT laws on the Gentiles since there forefathers were unable to bare the yoke. If I remember correctly, James, the brother of Jesus, agreed to a point. I will leave finding the answer to this as homework. (Hint: read the book of Acts.) As for a true Christian, that would be a follower of Christ based on the Bible.

Re:Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[PopeRatzo]

I'd be interested to know what more you require for a person to be a 'real founding father'.

Since we're talking about the way religion influenced the founding of the country, I'd say that a requirement would be some intellectual connection to the concepts and values that formed the basis of the new Nation. Since we call them "fathers", I'd say that having a part in the "conception" of the nation would be an absolute requirement.

Washington was a brave general and a great President. I don't count him as one of the men who conceived of the USA, however.

Do you disagree that the men who conceived the country were mostly hostile to the influence of organized religion on men's lives?

Re:Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[plunge]

What the hell are you talking about? Crosses ARE allowed on individual graves in memorial cemeteries for goodness sakes.

Like many people, I think you are mightily confused about the nature of endorsement and accommodation and what people want.

The basic doctrine that most SOCAS groups advocate is that the government should not use its authority to specially privilege one religion over another: it should be religiously neutral. That doesn't mean, however, that it cannot give reasonable accomodation to the needs of religious observance done by individuals, or in spaces in which all individuals are equally allowed to express religious or any other ideas. The basic rule of thumb is that if you want a government space to have religious expression, it has to become an open forum where all religious expression is equally allowed. Likewise, basic and reasonable accomodation must be made so that people's religious beliefs do not preclude them from taking part: that is NOT the same thing as endorsing them: it's recognizing that they have particular needs and accomodating those needs of individual citizens acting as individual citizens.

It cannot and should not be able to create places where one and only one religion is held up as official.

Re:Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[plunge]

The founding fathers did not hate religion. The major ones were neither orthodox Christians nor deists (though ironically, many of the orthodox Christians at the time went as far as to clal them atheists, despite the fact that they were not).

What they did understand, however, was that religion and government were both better off the more they were allowed to simply operate without any special secretarian authority over the other.

Re:Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[plunge]

Honestly, they didn't have much choice. Many of the claims made by the early Christians were so preposterous to educated Jews that it's no wonder the movement had so little success with them. Most of Jesus' followers were either illiterate and mostly ignorant of rabbinical Scripture, or cranks and outsiders, like Paul. Not a single major rabbi from the time converted to Christianity or even felt that it's claims passed the laugh test (mostly because the definition and veracity of a messiah were very clear, and Jesus fulfilled none of them: his followers tried to invent a whole bunch of subsidiary prophecies he was supposed to have fulfilled in order to draw attention from the reality that all the main qualifications were very obviously missing).

Re:Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[plunge]

Ah yes: because someone has a dream where a lobster is chucked at him by a watery tart, all of a sudden it's no longer moral to stone your bride to death on her father's doorstep if you discover she isn't a virgin.

Compelling reasoning indeed.

Re:Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[The Spoonman]

There's this new thing out. It's called the New Testament. It means that the punishment for sin is no longer death. It means we don't have to be perfect.

A nice thought, but not valid:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law." Matthew 5; 17

Followed up by:

"Those filled with unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, hate for god, despite, proud, boasters, inventions of evil things, disobedience to parents, without understanding, covenant breakers, unnatural affection, implacable or unmerciful nature: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death". Romans 1 :29-32

Whisperers?

You call it delusion. I call it faith. You are correct in that I can not prove anything. Then again, there is so much accepted in science that can not be proved either, but it's widely accepted as fact.

Such as? The Big Bang? That's why it's called a "theory". There's a lot of evidence to support it, but it's not treated, pun intended, as gospel. If someone comes along and verifiably proves the Big Bang was a wrong path, science will accept it and move on. On the other hand, religion, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary of all its beliefs continues to believe in them. That is, until the unerring voice of god on Earth decides to change them after 1600 years. :) As for the "delusion" part, it's not meant as an insult. The definition of delusion: "an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary".

Mankind is responsible for those atrocities and so much more. Are you saying that I should abandon mankind? Besides, MY religion was responsible for none of those. However, I will agree that religion has been misused for some pretty horrific atrocities, but atrocities happen with or without religion. It has just become an excuse, or enabler, for some. But blaming religion as a whole for the misdeeds of a few is like blaming black people for OJ murdering his wife.

Name something on par with any of the atrocities I've mentioned that wasn't inspired by religion. As to the black's analogy, not comparable. "Black" refers to a person's skin color, not their thought patterns or outlook on life. Being "black" does not, by definition, provide you with a set of rules and morals you're supposed to follow that were written by iron-age shepherds. It does not tell you how you're to interact with those who are not "black". For example, just because one is black does not mean they are required to hate gays. Being a member of most religions does (even if you chose not to follow that particular credo).

Funny. I was thinking the same thing, minus the rationality part.

Nice! :)

Uh, nowhere in the Bible does it say to kill my children.

Exodus 21:15-17 "And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death"
Exodus 21:17 "And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death".
Deuteronomy 21: "and they shall say to 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. Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

The facts that our Founding Fathers had religion. I listed a site with their affiliations. Those were the facts. The Constitutions states Freedom OF Religion, not freedom FROM it for a reason (another fact). I find those truths to be self evident.

Okay, I will grant you that the

Re:Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[Cairnarvon]

I'd pick "being a creationist" as a metric over "going to church". Over half of all christians in the US (44% of the total US population; about 80% of the population is christian) believe the Earth is 6,000 years old, remember? Since that length of time is based on counting the generations in the Bible, I'd consider those people biblical literalists.
I don't know how many Old Earth creationists there are, or if they'd count as biblical literalists, but I think it's fair to say they're also insane religious nuts. Compared to Europe (well, western Europe anyway), everyone in the US essentially *does* walk around with a Bible.

There are, of course, sane pockets, where you can actually walk down the street without encountering a creationist, but I'm afraid you're outnumbered.

Re:Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[Moridineas]

~shrug~ I don't know that I believe any survey that reports that 44% of the US population believes the world is 6000 years old and I would LOVE to see just what question they asked! I honestly have never heard one person that i've met--ever--say something like that (and I grew up in North Carolina--"the south!"). I am not denying that there are certainly people (especially in the more rural and deeper south) who are young earthers, but 44% seems like an insane number.

It's like the evolution / creationism debate. Do I believe in creationism? Hell no! BUT, depending on the question, I might have to answer that way. Can I rule out some external force "guiding" evolution in a few instances? Maybe with genetic engineering? No I can't. That doesn't mean I believe it's true either..

It always amuses me to hear people from elsewhere telling me how things in the US are (well, vice versa too--I have very distinct ideas about many places in Europe too!) :-)

Re:Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[Anonymous Coward]

"This is ofcourse mainly an ethical discussion, but honestly: why should society pay for someone who ruined their own lives, even if healing can be 100% ? It still costs money, you know."

Because of people like you, as well as the parent who wants to nuke his liver, I'm against national health care. One wants to impose waste on it, the other wants to restrict lifestyles because of financial interest. Both are ethical extremes that fuck up what should be a simple decision, but people are generally not known for self-regulation.

Of course, all this overlooks an assumption you made: who said SOCIETY is paying for it? Isn't the individual who drinks a function of society as well? Hell, in the US, your costs are taken out of your paycheck in the form of group payments, insurance costs, etc. In countries with national health care coverage, it's taken out of taxes; they've paid IN, so why shouldn't they exercise their right to the service? Hell, for all you know, the drinker has paid in more than someone else, similar to how the US social security system limits payments to those who have overpaid into the system several times over.

Further, who the hell are you to restrict services based on a societal argument. I'm uninsured. I pay everything out of pocket. If the service is available, and I need and can afford it, who the hell are you to tell me what I can do with my own cells? Even in HMOs and national health care systems, there are still elected procedures that are available. If someone smokes, or deliberately fucks up their organs, let them pay the cost.

As to ethics, look at your counterargument--someone drinks, nukes their liver, you don't want to pay for it--so you want them to die? If not, then you want to impose lifestyle restrictions? Santorum would be proud of you.

Re:Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[jmccay]

That's the wrong part of Acts. Keep reading. I will give you a hint. It involves Paul.

Re:Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[plunge]

No, it's not the wrong part: it's an example of the sort of thin reed on which bizarre and arbitrary moral assertions are made.

Of course, I don't believe for a second that the reasoning of the actual Paul is in accord with his character in Acts either.

Re:too bad this research wasn't done in the U.S.

[Anonymous Coward]

rather: too bad blatant trolls get moderated up on slashdot

Re:too bad this research wasn't done in the U.S.

[timmarhy]

unfortunately the kind of stupidity your reffering to is learnt, not genetic.

Re:too bad this research wasn't done in the U.S.

[donaldm]

I think you have Jesuits mixed up with Jehovah's Witnesses. Jesuits are a religious order in the Catholic Church and most Catholics as with many other religions don't have any issue with blood transfusions. Of course most people don't like the thought of having a needle in their arm or other places but will accept this if it means alleviating pain or saving their life.

Not that surprising...

[WheelDweller]

Adult stem cells, I'm told, have had lots of applications (hence the research money available for it). It's the embryonic stem cells that don't seem to have as many applications.

It's just kinda creepy to see so many people trying to get government funding of stem cells from the "people who won't vote" (to put it mildly). It's like one party in America loves to put a bounty on the heads of the unborn; ever notice?

I know embryonics are in the grey area, but the willingness of people to cannibalize babies just seems wrong, in general.

Re:Not that surprising...

[Anonymous Coward]

Babies (real babies) have psychological sophistication slightly greater than an insect. Sure, we develop very rapidly as we approach toddler stage, but the ugly shit-machines that people think of as babies are little more than meat and potential. Embryos which is what embryonic stem cells are harvested from, aren't even meat. They're more like tadpoles. Using phrases like "cannibalise babies" is intellectual dishonesty of the highest order. We are not cannibalising babies. We are removing insentient, parasitic tumours completely reliant on their host. They are, at this point, no more alive than a plant. The only argument you can possibly put forth in their favour is potential, and if you ever consider potential, you are launched immediately into an endless torrent of paradoxes. EVERYTHING has the potential to bring about something good. EVERYTHING has the potential to worsen our situation. The only option is to do nothing or go mad.

Re:Not that surprising...

[that IT girl]

What is worse--letting someone die who has already experienced life (to some degree) or never giving a conceived, living being a chance at all?
Mod me flamebait if you want, that's not what I'm trying to achieve. Just something to think about.

Re:Not that surprising...

[foniksonik]

The traditional argument for this response is to say: "Putting a value on the tissue of the unborn will create a black market for said tissue and encourage commercialization leading to fetus farms where young women are paid for their eggs for use in treating the elderly and the sick"

Research will use what is available as you say from 'tissue destined for disposal', but a commercial venture based on that research will not be satisfied with simply collecting what happens to be available. They will push for active harvesting to maintain a steady and predictable supply of embryonic tissue. It's a very slippery slope.

I'm imagining that if this became legal that it wouldn't be our own neighbors providing the tissue.. it would be poor people from 3rd world nations. Who knows what evils people will be capable of when the goal of the process is to create genetically anonymous donor tissue?

Re:Not that surprising...

[atchon]

Though this is a good question to ask its not accurate for stem cells. Stem cells come from in vitro fertilization clinics because each couple fertilized multiple eggs which are then screened for the best one and injected back into the mother. Afterwards you usually have 8-9 or so leftover fertilized eggs, which are then frozen, but they can only remain frozen for so long. So the real question is do you donate these extra fertilized eggs to stem cell research and potential help millions of people, or do you just chuck them in the fire. Either way the cells die but one way helps the other just gives off smoke. Of course Bush promotes these eggs being adopted, but of course some parents don't want to donate their eggs to another person. Now we also have that group which claim they can cause normal cells to revert back to embryonic stem cells, though I haven't heard if there was any more information than the initial claim.

Re:Not that surprising...

[MtViewGuy]

A moron President, pandering to the vocal minority that constitutes his base, has cut off the largest source of potential funding for a line of research that looks far more promising, at least to the large majority of professionals who study stem cell therapies.

Ahem--if embryonic stem cell research is promising all the private pharmaceutical firms (and big-time investors like Warren Buffett and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation) would put up lots of money without government help to fund such research. As such, it appears adult stem cell research has shown major promise (some 80+ therapies based on adult stem cell research are now in serious development), while embryonic stem cell research has pretty much come up "squadoosh."

Re:Not that surprising...

[Sunburnt]

What is worse--letting someone die who has already experienced life (to some degree) or never giving a conceived, living being a chance at all?

The first, since the second is incapable of having any experiences at all if it is destroyed (either through the normal procedures of IVF or through research) before forming that capability, and cannot be said to have lost anything. Indeed, even giving such a potential being the status of a moral agent is certainly arguable.

I don't have any mod points in this thread, and I wouldn't mod you Flamebait if I did, but if /. had a "-1 Questionable Equivocation" then your post might be a bit lower.

Re:Not that surprising...

[Sunburnt]

The traditional argument for this response is to say: "Putting a value on the tissue of the unborn will create a black market for said tissue and encourage commercialization leading to fetus farms where young women are paid for their eggs for use in treating the elderly and the sick"[...]It's a very slippery slope.

Gee, sounds scary, but why anyone might feel compelled to accept a slippery slope argument in the consideration of public policy is beyond me. There is enough demand for IVF treatments to provide a surplus of donor tissue, at any rate.

Re:Not that surprising...

[sohare]

Ahem--if embryonic stem cell research is promising all the private pharmaceutical firms (and big-time investors like Warren Buffett and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation) would put up lots of money without government help to fund such research. As such, it appears adult stem cell research has shown major promise (some 80+ therapies based on adult stem cell research are now in serious development), while embryonic stem cell research has pretty much come up "squadoosh." I'm not sure from what Neo-con news source you're getting your information, but that's absurd. It is true that there have been some impressive advances in adult stem cell technology. But do you know what those were? Inducing pluripotency in skin cells (in mice). That's right, making adult stem cells more like embryonic stem cells.

Despite all the good, cheery values social conservatives claim to protect, their draconian policies will always be the number one enemy of progress and enlightenment. It's a wonder that such antiquarian busybodiness still festers in otherwise evolved nation states. Mayhap it is not such a wonder when the ultimate form of veracity is considered to be peridolia, anecdote, pseudoscience, intuition, and hynagogic visions.

Re:Not that surprising...

[Sunburnt]

Ahem--if embryonic stem cell research is promising all the private pharmaceutical firms (and big-time investors like Warren Buffett and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation) would put up lots of money without government help to fund such research.

Doubtful, since they could lose this investment were another pandering President to push through further legislation. (See Human cloning, Clinton presidency.) Of course, since it's unlikely that even this country will elect another Bush, we're likely to see the next Congress bring public policy in line with majority opinion by overturning this particular political prop, so there'd still be no point for serious private investment without first knowing the amount of government funding available.

while embryonic stem cell research has pretty much come up "squadoosh."

Didn't I already answer this objection once? Like I said, this is putting the cart before the horse by expecting a science that has not been seriously funded to compete for publication space with one that has - especially silly when the reason for the funding restriction is not based on efficacy, but on vile political maneuvering.

Re:Not that surprising...

[eli pabst]

Wrong. Adult stem cells are essentially just easier to use for certain applications where the adult stem cells is easily differentiated into whatever tissue you are trying to grow. Which is why there have been a number of successful uses of adult stem cells, particularly in hematologic disorders because blood progenitor stem cells have been extensively studied, so we know how to make them do what we want. By definition, an embryonic stem cell can do anything that an adult stem cell can do (adult stem cells come from embryonic stem cells) and more. However we've only really began studying embryonic stem cells, so the problem has been figuring out the various signals that make a stem differentiate into what we want to make. Adult stem cells are just "easier" because they've already partially differentiated, so there are less steps. It's the fact that they've already partially differentiated that makes them somewhat limited (ie a blood progenitor stem cell can only become various types of blood cells, but can't become a spinal cord nerve).

Re:Not that surprising...

[DeadCatX2]

Research will use what is available as you say from 'tissue destined for disposal', but a commercial venture based on that research will not be satisfied with simply collecting what happens to be available. They will push for active harvesting to maintain a steady and predictable supply of embryonic tissue. It's a very slippery slope.

It's capitalism. If making as much money at the expense of any and everything else was not the core principle of our society, the slope would not be nearly as slippery.

Re:Not that surprising...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because taking Stem Cells from Embryos that are going to be destroyed as medical waste in a furnace in 10 years anyway is "cannabalizing babies"...

Re:Not that surprising...

[MtViewGuy]

It is true that there have been some impressive advances in adult stem cell technology.

And some of them are already in use for various types of therapies. Like I said earlier, why aren't the private pharmaceutical firms and big investors putting their own money into embryonic stem cell research, instead of waiting for a government development grant? Given the meager results from embryonic stem cell research done in Europe and Asia so far, is it small wonder why people object to government-funded embryonic stem cell research, which could turn into an expensive boondoggle?

Re:Not that surprising...

[Anonymous Coward]

Frackin strawman much? There's a difference between a baby and a ball of undifferentiated cells.

Re:Not that surprising...

[foniksonik]

And of course there is no black market in transplant organs right? **/**Seems that with the number of people offering their organs for donation to those in need that there would be plenty to go around.**/**

Re:Not that surprising...

[foniksonik]

Two wrongs do not make a right... (hoping that I'm agreeing with you).

Re:Not that surprising...

[HiThere]

I think you're neglecting the need for a good genetic match. That's pretty much going to limit it to people who are pretty much like the patient. Either that, or the patient will be on immunosuppressants for the rest of his life, which isn't going to make for a popular treatment.

Re:Not that surprising...

[TheSync]

The traditional argument for this response is to say: "Putting a value on the tissue of the unborn will create a black market for said tissue and encourage commercialization leading to fetus farms where young women are paid for their eggs for use in treating the elderly and the sick"

And the problem with this is what anyway? Last time I checked, it was embryonic stem cells (from a mass of undifferentiated tissue without a nervous system or anything, which is the definition of stem cells), not fetal stem cells (which is a different subject).

Plus how is collecting eggs going to be cheaper than keeping cell lines going?

Besides, wouldn't it be better for IVF patients to make money on their unused embryos rather than have the economic waste of throwing them away?

Re:Not that surprising...

[TheSync]

Like I said earlier, why aren't the private pharmaceutical firms and big investors putting their own money into embryonic stem cell research, instead of waiting for a government development grant?

Most of the basic R&D in the US is really carried out by government funded researchers. Applied companies just pick up the basic results for free and then specialize them into patentable intellectual property.

I'm not 100% sure if this is an issue of socialist R&D pushing out private R&D, or an issue that basic R&D is too far ahead of useful applications in time to be effectively covered by I.P. laws, or simply an issue (like surface roads) of too many transaction fees to effectively do basic R&D privately on a massive scale.

Re:Not that surprising...

[Anonymous Coward]

You make a good point about this. So - embryonic stem cell research obviously isn't ready to go beyond lab animal experimentation!

Re:Not that surprising...

[Lady Jazzica]

"Despite all the good, cheery values social conservatives claim to protect, their draconian policies will always be the number one enemy of progress and enlightenment."

We're trying to protect the lives of innocent children.

Why not do medical experiments on random adults? That would advance science, wouldn't it? But we don't do that, because it would harm innocent people. It would be draconian to perform medical experiments on random adults, even though doing so would lead to more "progress and enlightenment", as you call it.

Re:Not that surprising...

[Copid]

I'm not 100% sure if this is an issue of socialist R&D pushing out private R&D, or an issue that basic R&D is too far ahead of useful applications in time to be effectively covered by I.P. laws, or simply an issue (like surface roads) of too many transaction fees to effectively do basic R&D privately on a massive scale.

That's the key. While pure research drives our long term innovation, engaging in it for its own sake is a very risky proposition for a company. By its very nature, pure research doesn't promise anything in terms of results, so an investor has to put an extremely high risk premium on the investment. The result is that you have to have a potential for colossal profits in order for it to be worth the risk. Otherwise, the prudent thing for a profit seeking firm is to take its research money and put it into something with a more predictable yield.

It makes sense for government to step in here because the risks of research investment and the benefits of its results are spread across the population as a whole (much like an insurance scheme), so research that would have been profitable but could not be done because it was seen as too risky actually gets done. It's a definite net win. We pay for the winners and the losers in research, but the winners outnumber the losers, so we all win. If we had to select one particular research investment (like a private firm would), we'd never do it because the likelihood of ending up with nothing is too high.

Re:Not that surprising...

[plunge]

"Adult stem cells, I'm told, have had lots of applications (hence the research money available for it). It's the embryonic stem cells that don't seem to have as many applications."

Even researchers that are against embryonic stem cell research still admit that embryonic research is extremely promising and important insofar as our knowledge goes.

Saying that because adult stem cells are productive that this invalidates any benefit from embryonic stem cell research is like saying that because we can cure cancer we shouldn't bother trying to cure AIDS.

"I know embryonics are in the grey area, but the willingness of people to cannibalize babies just seems wrong, in general."

IMHO, an embryo is only in a "gray area" if you happen to be a complete loon. A bunch of cells without ANY of the functional characteristics of a person is as far on the clearly not of moral concern side of things as one can get. A fetus is very very legitimately on the gray area side of things. Something with no nervous system, that could subsequently develop into any number of fetuses later on, or none, and has no concerns, feelings, or even nervous system, much less one that is developed enough to have experiences and interests, is not.

Re:Not that surprising...

[plunge]

I belong to an organization called the Snowflaky society that demands that everyone have unprotected sex at every opportunity so as to minimize their murder of potential people.

Think about it: my parents ALMOST didn't have sex the night I was conceived, BUT THEN THEY DID!!!!

I really dodged a bullet there: my life was in the balance, but they made the right decision and decided to save me from eternal oblivion. Phew.

Re:Not that surprising...

[plunge]

The really amusing and ironic thing here is that if adult stem cell therapies develop to fruition, the result will be.... cells that are essentially like embryonic stem cells, to the point where you could implant them in a womb and they could grow into a person! That means that there are hundreds of thousands of "potential people" in your body right now that you, with your murderous refusal to allow them to develop, are denying the potential life they deserve!

The reality is that human sexual reproduction is just a subset of asexual reproduction. There is no start of new life: we are as much simply biomass that buds into new individuals as any other biological organism, we just happen to have a process of gene juggling included to complicate matters.

Re:Not that surprising...

[plunge]

"We're trying to protect the lives of innocent children."

Also, careful not to step on that toadstool over there, tiny invisible pixies live inside it that you might crush to death!

Ah the worries of people who live in a fantasy world where a blastocyst is an "innocent child."

"Why not do medical experiments on random adults? "

Hmmm, let me try to explain this in terms you might understand: Because they have magical glowing balls of spirit energy inside them, put there by the wizard Zanzibar, and such experiments would damage them.

i am sick of you bleeding heart liberals

[Anonymous Coward]

always about the children with you people. first it was 'stop child labor', then it was 'stop child sexual abuse', now it is 'stop harvesting organs from children'. where is this going to stop? i suppose next you are going to take away underground child fighting?

people like you are what is holding this country back. i suggest you move to some workers paradise like canada, where they dont even know what an MRI machine is, or how to do labial resurfacing, but at least they all get the same crappy free health "care", which involves 19th century bone drills and hacksaws in order to 'balance your four humors'.

please move, american cant deal with any more like you.

Re:i am sick of you bleeding heart liberals

[Guuge]

Even worse, they support the barbaric practice of having women put children in their bellies! That's cannibalism, folks. Furthermore, these children are completely naked. Those liberal child-consuming pedophiles must be stopped!

Re:So if it is Adult

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that supposed to be witty or insightful? Because honestly it's pretty moronic.

I don't think ANYONE has ever objected to scientific usage of adult stem cells, or embryonic stem cells on any basis but that getting them requires destroying embryos.

But hey, it's much easier to paint your enemies as crazed fools interested only in a standard of morality that you personally don't understand? please.

perhaps people who oppose experimenting on jews

[Anonymous Coward]

could simply stop using the information derived from captured nazi scientists!

i agree, we have to do something about these moronic bleeding hearts and their soapbox whining about 'ethics' and 'morality'.

Re:So if it is Adult

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody has objected to ADULT stem cells and ADULT stems cells have been where ALL the breakthroughs have come from. He was just being a moron.

Metaphysics != Ethics

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just sick. Harming an imaginary being living inside a stem cell is not the same as murdering people.

It's a wedge issue

[John Jorsett]

It's just kinda creepy to see so many people trying to get government funding of stem cells from the "people who won't vote" (to put it mildly). It's like one party in America loves to put a bounty on the heads of the unborn; ever notice?

The main utility of embryonic stem cell research is as a wedge issue to portray those who object to it as knuckle-dragging, sister-marrying, holy-rolling retards whose fondest hope is for the poor sick to die of their infirmities. Personally I don't have a problem with the use of fetal cells from artificially-created (for purposes of possible implantation) embryos that would just end up being discarded anyway. However, I can understand the objection of those who do, just as I understand, but disagree with, the objections of those who don't want Nazi prisoner medical research used. It isn't clear to me that having government involved is such a terrific idea anyway: Californians passed a proposition back in 2004 to have the state fund embryonic stem cell research to the tune of $3 billion. Last I heard, the agency that administers the money was still arguing with various pressure groups about how to allocate most of it.

Gedachtenexperiment...

[Anonymous Coward]

A Harvard bioethicist whose name I currently forget (if you don't believe me I'm happy to take the credit myself) has pointed out that even people who claim to believe that embryos are morally equivalent to babies generally DO NOT really believe that...

How do we know? Simple thought experiment:

A fertility clinic is on fire, and about to collapse. You have to choose which to save - door number one, a baby in a waiting room. Door number two, a liquid N2 tank with 40,000 frozen embryos. You can't save both. Which do you choose?

Well?

Re:Gedachtenexperiment...

[Lady Jazzica]

Another thought experiment:

A building is on fire, and about to collapse. You have to choose which to save - door number one, your beloved spouse in a waiting room. Door number two, a liquid N2 tank with 40,000 frozen adult strangers. You can't save both. Which do you choose?

Many people would choose to save their spouse. That doesn't mean that they don't believe those strangers aren't human beings. It's just that one's emotions often influence what one does. It's like how people care about the hunting of cute baby seals, but don't care about the hunting of uglier animals of equal "value".

In your example, a baby has more emotional appeal than a tank. Similarly, if it were a choice between a baby and several adults, most people would probably save the baby. I imagine most men would save a woman rather than several men, even if it were stipulated that they never see her again. But in these cases, it doesn't imply that one group is more human than another group.

So your gedankenexperiment doesn't really prove what you think it does.

sorry for this but...

[aschoeff]

I read that at first as "Aqua Teen Hunger Force Treats Cornea Disorders"

and then when I did a double take, the first two words looked to be "Adult Swim .. .. .. .."

Guess I need to cut down on my pointless animation intake! I say that with adoration, by the way.

URL to the original story (in Spanish)

[nublaii]

This is the site and the original story ;) http://www.cun.es/nc/la-clinica/departamentos-y-se rvicios-medicos/oftalmologia/al-dia/noticias-del-d epartamento/noticia/back/27/actualidad/un-nuevo-me todo-de-cultivo-de-celulas-madre-adultas-disenado- por-la-clinica-eficaz-en-el-tratamien/

Thought experiment? Meh...

[R2.0]

The problem with thought experiments on ethics is that the proposition has as much to do with the outcome as the experimenter. For instance, you would probably get a different distribution of answers depending on the number of embryos or babies. Same goes with the Prisoner's Dilemna and the Radium Cure - modify the premises slightly, the answers can change drastically.

It also depends on the ethical system you are using.

From a strictly utilitarian point of view (the framework you seem to set as the standard), the number is irrelevant - 2 embryos should outweigh 1 baby, much less 40,000. What if it were 40 million embryos?

A rights-based decision would probably come down squarely for the baby, as we as a society have determined strongly that babies have rights, but are still debating about embryos.

A duty-based decision would be tougher - what is our duty toward the future vs. our duty toward the present. Could break either way.

A care-based decision would break for the baby, UNLESS it was the *decider's* embryos as part of the 40k. Many would not care for someone else's baby as much as their own genetic stuff.

Finally, you are proposing a false equivalence - that the moral value of an embryo is equivalent to that of a baby. Right now the pro-choicers are sticking to the party line on the moral value of embryos - it's negligible. They then paint pro-lifers as hopelessly naive (or hypocritical) for considering embryos the equivalent of babies. Unfortunately, the pro-life movement has pretty much bought into this absolutist view, playing right into an argument that they can't really win. But that doesn't mean that the pro-choice movement is correct, either.

It is possible to accept that an embryo has less moral value than a baby, but still has greater value than "a lump of cells". A more nuanced view could have a great impact on how we make moral and policy decisions. Unfortunately, "nuance" is in short supply all around.

Re:So if it is Adult

[cavehobbit]

Man, no humor left around here.

Chill, children.