Slashdot Mirror
Obama To Reverse Bush Limits On Stem Cell Work
An anonymous reader sends this quote from the Associated Press:
"Reversing an eight-year-old limit on potentially life-saving science, President Barack Obama plans to lift restrictions Monday on taxpayer-funded research using embryonic stem cells. ... Under President George W. Bush, taxpayer money for that research was limited to a small number of stem cell lines that were created before Aug. 9, 2001, lines that in many cases had some drawbacks that limited their potential usability. But hundreds more of such lines — groups of cells that can continue to propagate in lab dishes — have been created since then, ones that scientists say are healthier, better suited to creating treatments for people rather than doing basic laboratory science. Work didn't stop. Indeed, it advanced enough that this summer, the private Geron Corp. will begin the world's first study of a treatment using human embryonic stem cells, in people who recently suffered a spinal cord injury. Nor does Obama's change fund creation of new lines. But it means that scientists who until now have had to rely on private donations to work with these newer stem cell lines can apply for government money for the research, just like they do for studies of gene therapy or other treatment approaches."
Anti-abortionists are going to have a field day with this. If stem cells can be harvested from aborted fetuses, and stem cells actually fulfill their promise as everyone expects they will, then getting an abortion suddenly becomes not so much the destruction of one life but the preservation of many.
If Star Trek has taught me anything, it's that neither "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one" nor "the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many" provide a solid foundation to base morality upon. It's sad that babies have to die to save lives, and it's sad that lives have to be sacrificed because of unwillingness to kill a baby. However, this dilemma can't be resolved at this level. But this latest policy move certainly gives some ammunition to one side.
Why do they need federal subsidies?
Indeed, and now that a reliable method of making stem cells WITHOUT KILLING has been invented.
Asshole.
I was told that Bush prohibited all stem-cell science when fetal tissue was involved. The article seems to imply that he only limited federal funding for such science.
Something doesn't add up.
Except your both idiots because stem cells came from nonviable sources that would have been destroyed no matter what to begin with like fertility treatment leftovers and umbilical cords.
Inconvenient how those facts get in the way of righteous anger isn't it?
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Indeed, and now that a reliable method of making stem cells WITHOUT KILLING has been invented.
Yes, precisely! There are proven stem cell treatments accomplished without killing human embryos:
Given the deep moral objection a significant part of the community has to the use of embryonic stem cells, and given that it looks like there have been large advances in the use of adult and other stem cells, why lift the funding ban? I mean, all other things being equal, wouldn't it be better to not wander into a moral gray area?
As I understand it, one of the major points of the ban was to discourage the field from becoming reliant on stem cells that required further destruction of embryos. I might be wrong, but from my understanding great leaps have been doing just that - that adult and other non-destructive forms of stem cell research have been fruitful. If that's the case, I don't understand the point of lifting the ban other than for purely political purposes.
I honestly don't understand how the "destruction of embryos" for medical research is worse than the "destruction of embryos" for IVF. The only difference I can see is that IVF is a procedure that conservatives have done all the time, while medical research is done by the evil liberal scientists.
All this hand-waving over stem cells strikes me as dishonest. The people who call killing embryos for research a tragedy have no problem letting them die en masse in other circumstances. For example, why aren't they pushing for medical technology to save every last fertilized ovum? I guess life isn't as important as scoring political points.
The difference is between taking part in evil (destroyed embryos due to fertility treatments) versus having no part in it. There are some things that the government should have nothing to do with.
"Reversing an eight-year-old limit on potentially life-saving science..." Currently unproven to save even one life, but proven to destroy human embryos.
To back up my post:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell#Embryonic
Chicken and egg problem, we know so little about stem cells that I do not know whether it is possible to make stem cells available by another route. If we discover that it is possible to remove this method of acquiring cells for research then the method can be stopped at a later date removing the religious objection.
On another front it is clear that religious intervention in science has severely limited the progress of some societies on Earth. Religion does change its interpretation of what the fundamental rules of living should be as societies change and science provides more accurate knowledge about the world but it often takes many lifetimes for this adjustment to occur.
All societies are facing severe threats from the overpopulation of the world, resource shortages, climate change and poverty. Scientific progress is the only source of solutions to these problems unless we are prepared to allow the problems to multiply to the point where a dramatic population crash occurs. We are at a crossroads, the choice is in our hands, use our creativity and intelligence to take charge of our own destiny or allow our environment to expell us. 2000 year old books prefer the second solution, by default they select the lemmings fate of allowing the environment to kill us off.
Pick you side, I know which one I find more human.
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
Except your both idiots because stem cells came from nonviable sources that would have been destroyed no matter what to begin with like fertility treatment leftovers and umbilical cords.
Inconvenient how those facts get in the way of righteous anger isn't it?
Sorry sir, but you are wrong. Stem cells that come from umbilical cord blood are not considered embryonic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell
Furthermore, those "nonviable" leftover embryos have, in some cases, been adopted, implanted in a mother, and ultimately birthed as a child.
http://www.embryoadoption.org/testimonials/index.cfm
Nice attempt but aside from the non-embryo sources of embryonic cells you're also arguing for respecting one establishment of religion's views over the rest, arguing that both fertility treatments and deriving benefit from what would otherwise be wasted is evil, AND inconsistently with your OWN logic arguing that it's also evil to try to derive some good from something you consider evil and thus work against the evilness of it.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Not even a dozen posts in we already have shitheads bemoaning that 'babies die' when these cells are harvested.
1. According to the Department of Bioethics, anywhere between sixty to eighty percent of fertilized eggs fail to attach to the uterus naturally.
2. Though a precursor to a fully formed human being, these little balls of cells have neither brains nor senses. They have no qualia, no conscious phenomena. They are at most minuscule fragments of tissue - kind of like the smears most of you leave on the sheets at night.
3. If the cells that precede the formation of a human being that will never grow to become even a fetus, much less a fully formed infant, can be used to save lives that exist today, why not? A human that will never be is effectively dead.
4. All of these things can be taken into consideration without devaluing conscious human life, because conscious human life this is not.
We're not giving permission to Anton LaVey to tear the fetuses of misbegotten children from the rancid wombs of unwed women of color while Marilyn Manson and 50 Cent plays over the back alley abortion clinic's P.A. system, you stupid fucking hicks. If you believe that human life begins 'when the sperm hits the germ' then every mother that has attempted to get pregnant and failed repeatedly could very probably be guilty of negligent homicide because of point number one.
And besides, we can get plenty of cells from elsewhere so the debate is now largely moot save for those few situations where adult cells may not suffice.
Huh, got me and most of the MSM on the umbilical blood but that some people have found a use for ""nonviable"" embyos does not automatically mean that ALL of them will ALWAYS be saved and it's still better to put them by default to some use and then pull them out of that for embryo adoption than by default to throwing them away and pulling them out of THAT for embry adoption.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Currently unproven to save even one life, but proven to destroy human embryos.
Fortunately, they're a renewable resource.
This is great news. The puritanical and backwards thinking of the W years has hurt America while other countries not hindered by superstition have moved ahead to become leaders in this field.
No wonder America has lost it's edge.Maybe we can get back to the godless heathen science that made us so great.
So this "imaginary friend" is the only reason you might want to refrain from killing ?
Nice to hear a few atheists finally admit it.
Why is this on Slashdot - "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters." ?
Move it to The Huffington Post dipshits!
The difference is between taking part in evil (destroyed embryos due to fertility treatments) versus having no part in it. There are some things that the government should have nothing to do with.
This is the government having nothing to do with it. Now decisions on what research is needed and is ethical will be taken by ethics committees and funding bodies and not by politicians who don't understand either the ethics or the science and are trying to grab votes. Its really impossible to argue for or against embryonic stem cell research as a whole - each piece of research should be judged on its own merits by the right people. Blanket bans are wrong.
The fact of the matter is, if stem cells and science were going to be so great for the American taxpayer, then why cannot they just sell the products produced by it?
Bottom line is, there's no hope in stem cells. There's no cures in sight for any disease. If there was, then, there would be a private investor making stuff with stem cells, and Bush never blocked that. But you see, there's no hope in stem cell research, which is why, the government is stepping into to pay for it.
You want to know what made this country great? It's scientists and inventors making USEFUL discoveries, and USEFUL products. Pile stem cell researchers onto the other pool of scientists doing nothing economically useful, sucking at the federal tit. Some crackhead on government cheese is as much economically useful as a scientist taking federal money. It's all just welfare for people that don't want to produce.
But I'll ask you this. If you think I'm wrong, then please tell me how. Tell the date when stem cell research will cure ANY of the diseases it has been claimed to cure. Tell me when stem cell research will cure alzheimers, or paralysis, or parkinsons, or cancer. What's the date that's going to happen by? Just give me a date that you can guarantee success by.
This is my sig.
You and the rest of your kind take blind comfort in the belief that we are monsters, that you could never do what we did. The key ingredient in the anti-agathic cannot be synthesized. It must be taken from living beings. For one to live forever, another one must die. You will fall upon one another like wolves. It will make what we did pale by comparison. The billions who live forever will be a testimony to my work. And the billions who are murdered to buy that immortality will be the continuance of my work. Not like us? You will become us.
- Jha'dur, aka Deathwalker
But it means that scientists who until now have had to rely on private donations to work with these newer stem cell lines can apply for government money for the research,
Because the State of California is giving out private donations?
I was kind of pissed at Bush for blocking federal funding on new lines until I really thought about it for awhile. There's nothing that precludes researchers from doing research on new lines.
If people wanted this so bad, what prevented them from pulling out their checkbooks? Hello, there, Silicon Valley. There's lots of rich people there. How about a donation? You, too, Hollywood, if this is such a big issue.
As to why Obama's doing it, well, two reasons. First, it satisfies a niche constituency, who like to see abortion-related topics pressed to the forefront at every opportunity. Second, his tax plan does probably kill off the possibility of private funding.
(I'm pro-choice, BTW. But to look past Obama's shallow political motives, and to ignore the reality of the situation while Bush was president is very foolish.)
The whole controversy over the "life beings at conception" is completely religious, and affects only the Abrahamic faiths. In Asia and other parts of the world it is a non-issue.
I wish you would apply your moral panic to causes that could actually help people.
Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
This is not a question of morality it is a question of the proper role of government.
If it's okay for the federal government to fund stem cell research then it's also okay for the government to be giving away billions of dollars to various failed banks; giving billions to artists to create works; spending billions on space research; spending billions on casinos; etc..
It's odd to see that people approve of government dollars (viz. our money - because the government really doesn't have any money) when it's something they want but disapprove of the spending when it's not something interesting to them. People never stop to think that the abuse of government to take money from people and use it to fund some special project that's favored by some group is simply a broken idea:
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."
--Alexander Tyler
Let's consider this quote from the summary:
But it means that scientists who until now have had to rely on private donations to work with these newer stem cell lines can apply for government money for the research . . ..
So why were the private donations so bad? That's exactly how it should operate: people that want the research are paying for it. Why do we laud Scaled Composites, Armadillo Aerospace and others? Because they are privately funding and building business plans for productive, private space exploration rather than improper use and wasteful spending of federal dollars as practiced by NASA.
Let those that want things privately fund and develop productive business plans for stem cell research, space exploration, arts, etc. - not the general public voting for cake and circuses out of other peoples pockets. In economic times like these it should be most obvious that the federal government shouldn't be frivolously spending our money.
Sperm cells and egg cells are demonstrably alive and demonstrably human -- they contain human DNA (although they're short half their chromosomes).
A woman kills a potential future baby with every period. A man kills millions of them with every wet dream, to say nothing of, uh, other activities. In fact, a man kills millions of them even when he DOES make a baby with one of them.
These protesters really are pathetic. How much energy do they put into stopping the mass murder of actual, real, not potential, human beings in Darfur or the Congo, I'd like to know?
I piss off bigots.
"Reversing an eight-year-old limit on potentially life-saving science..."
Currently unproven to save even one life, but proven to destroy human embryos
You are correct that is what 'potentially' means.
Just remember any anti aging effects are purely temporary...
The musings of just another geek and his junk.
If life begins at conception, then even the harvesting of zygotic embryos is antithetical for anti-abortionists.
How can a pregnancy be aborted if there is no pregnancy at all?
"Abortion" in this context doesn't necessarily mean that a pregnancy is aborted but that the life of a conceived but unborn child is aborted.
I think it's time for religious people and atheists to start to mutually respect each others views in this country.
So to that end - I promise not to use any stem cells from the families of any religious people who object to this practice. I also promise not to use any of the knowledge gained from this research to cure the families of these same people of any diseases or injuries.
In return, the religious can respect MY views, and stop worrying about families of people who do not subscribe to their particular morality. We can take care of our own families without their intervention.
The whole fact that life begins at conception is biological/scientific. Granting of "personhood" is a legal distinction that has no basis in science. If it were, then African Americans (or anyone else with black skin) would never have been enslaved, and women would have always had a vote. The fact is, science shows that the child is a distinct lifeform from its mother from the moment of conception, and the law has chosen to ignore that until the child is completely removed from the womb.
As long as we get our terminology right ("life" vs "personhood"), there is no dispute.
What's the reason behind the tag thegreatpretender?
Blanket bans are wrong.
Is that a blanket ban on blanket bans?
There are some things that the government should have nothing to do with.
Exactly!
I could not have stated it better. Let's name a few:
The list continues. Keep in mind that the proper role of government (and spending of taxpayer money) doesn't change because some special interest group favors something over another interest group. It shouldn't matter that I'm a geek as opposed to an actor or a medical doctor or anyone else to decide if it's okay for the government to fund a project.
Special projects should be funded privately - just like what happened for stem cell funding during the Bush terms of office. It's hardly a moral question but a question of what the role of government is.
Really?
A closed mouth gathers no feet. I suggest you heed this advice.
Stem cells are used currently for the treatment of leukemia and lymphoma.
But can't you see that entire industries, agendas, and personal freedom from responsibility hinge on the idea that life and non-life are decided by location? It's scientific and everything!
The idea that "life" could possibly exist in direct conflict with the desires of a selfish person is preposterous!
"I know that every word that man just said is true, because it's EXACTLY what I wanted to hear." -- Space Ghost
I may be wrong, but once a line is grown doesn't it self-propogate? It's like cutting a part of a plant and putting it into the ground where it grows into a new plant.
If that's the case, and one of these stem cell lines cures diabetes or helps people with spinal injuries walk again - I think that the one potential life the embryo could have been (if the embryo was even viable) is a relatively cheap price for curing some of the greatest physical ills of our modern society.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Yes! Why research anything, ever, if you can't see an immediate benefit to doing so? Let's stop funding NASA; after all, I don't see an immediate benefit to flying around in space.
Anti-Abortion arguments aside, we are given the knowledge either thru nature (or God if you like), to use stem cells to find solutions to problems. We should use them if they are available. If research discovers another cell from elsewhere, we should use them too.
When I die, if my brain helps solve some problem, go for it.
If cutting my penis off helps, go for it.
I don't need them anymore, after I die.
because it forced researchers to find other viable sources of stem cells. Several studies have noted that embryonic stem cells have a high incidence of becoming cancerous. Stem cells from other sources have a lower incidence.
Obama To Reverse Bush Limits On Maximum Size of Federal Government
Seriously, I thought Bush was awful, but Obama is making Bush look like a small government president! I've never seen anything quite like this.
Amazing how easily mistaken people are when it's convenient to be so. It's easier to argue for "embryonic stem cells" when you can make the claim they don't come from embryos anyway. Why would any enlightened, scientifically minded person ban umbilical cord research? Keep looking for misdirections like this. You've taken your first step into a larger world.
I see that your argument is essentially "waste not want not," which is respectable. The argument is more about the ethics of exploitation. The fear is not that stem cells feel pain, or that they have a soul. It's that, once we start down that road, how far will we go? It's more about the soul of society versus the soul of the cell. At least, that's my objection to it.
Admittedly, there are some people who claim that the first embryonic cell has a soul, and, assuming that souls exist, you can follow the reduction without too much trouble.
It's easy to call people zealots, irrational, morons, or any number of names. It takes more effort to see things from their point of view and understand their assumptions. People opposed to the destruction or exploitation of human embryos are opposed either out of an understanding of human nature, or out of logical trains of thought given a certain assumption. You can argue these assumptions all you want, but don't start from the idea that these people are stupid. They're just coming at it from a different angle than you are.
(I'm not directing all of this at you, Shadow. People don't tend to like what I say, so my karma is in the crapper and I only get a couple posts per day. Seems many folks here are intellectually lazy enough to want to silence discourse instead of debating their points of view.)
"I know that every word that man just said is true, because it's EXACTLY what I wanted to hear." -- Space Ghost
Probably because the people in the private sector with the domain expertise to fund this kind of research are all doing very well from temporary cancer treatments, eyeglasses and wheelchairs... thank you very much!
I don't really care to wade into the abortion-debate muck, particularly as abortion has nothing to do with the stem cells we're talking about. Those are obtained from fertility clinics, and created by people who are SO "pro-life" that they leave plenty of discarded excess life behind in the freezer.
However, what frustrates me to a greater degree is this myth that stem cell research has been "restricted". 90+ percent of people on the street (and probably even a majority of Slashdot posters here) mistakenly believe that the evil Bush administration "banned" or "outlawed" stem cell research. That's simply not true. The last administration refused to SUBSIDIZE it, and that's all. Researchers have been under no restriction whatsoever to do any of this research, as long as they're not sucking off the taxpayer teat for their funds.
This opens up an entirely separate debate on private sources of medical research funds, and why pharmaceutical companies now pay more in marketing than they do in R&D. I'll leave that debate to others. However, are we REALLY so drunk on "stimulus" spending for everything under the sun these days, that refusing to subsidize a particular item means that item is actively "restricted"?
It's difficult to prove something when you're not allowed to do it.
You are full of shit.
First of all, it's really pretty obvious the benefit for stem cells: Nerves don't regenerate. That means that there is a real potential to fix anything caused by damaged nerves (paralysis, etc) with stem cells, by making them into nerve cells.
The private sector is pretty happy to keep working on the next Viagra. To be fair, it's a shitload of work with a low signal-to-noise ratio to get a drug that works at all. Viagra was originally a blood pressure medication.
It's hard enough to get a drug that does what we want when we know what we're doing. With stem cells, the cures are too far away (but not a lifetime!) that there's no reason to invest in it.
Plus, it's worth knowing how we form as humans.
Take a deep breath. The 'market' doesn't fix everything and give everybody a unicorn. Only most of the time ;)
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
The whole controversy over the "life beings at conception" is completely religious, and affects only the Abrahamic faiths. In Asia and other parts of the world it is a non-issue.
It's funny that you would mention Asia. Traditionally in East Asian cultures a child was considered to be one year old at birth because they counted the gestation period as the first year of life. Granted this tradition is slowly changing, but is still the norm in some countries. So no, this does not only affect "Abrahamic faiths".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Asian_age_reckoning
* Health Care.....
I, on the other hand, can't wait to start experimenting on my neighbor to see if the inside of his brain cures anything. If not, there are other neighbors. It's science after all - what's one life when I could be saving trillions.
I know which side Skynet would choose.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
Adult stem cell research is only at a nascent stage though, primarily because you had biomedical researchers acting like children in the US and elsewhere that banned embryonic stem cell research. Some went abroad but many railed against the "substitute" stem cells claiming for purposes of research or therapy they were inferior or even worthless and refused to work on adult stem cell research out of "principle". Adult stem cells can in fact be manipulated to acting like embryonic stem cells and in fact offer a far more likely therapeutic target since they can be derived from the person receiving treatment. There are now some emerging theories that tie the malfunction of adult (somatic) stem cells to things like cancer, type II diabetes and even some muscular degenerative diseases. These are the sort of things that we can realistically solve with stem cell research and it does not matter which kind, so why would they use embryonic stem cells? To us pro-lifers out there on the left this is a further dehumanization of human life and is inexcusable on both scientific and moral grounds. No embryonic stem cell research has ever produced a viable therapy but adult stem cells have.
Shame on Barack Obama for being morally indifferent to human life and scientifically illiterate on this issue.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
Well for starters there have been a lot of breakthroughs in making stem cells via other routes. Guess its already time to remove this method of acquiring stem cells...
I bet that there are NO cures for cancer, NO blind man seeing, and NO crippled people walking due to stem cell research, in our lifetimes. All of this talk about the immediate need to fund stem cell research is just so much hype.
[...]
The reason that stem cell research needs federal funding is because THERE ARE NO CURES IN SIGHT FOR ANYTHING FROM THEM.
Actually there are MANY current studies using stem cells, and in particular embryonic stem cells, in promising treatments for a large range of diseases. Some of them are already approved for human trials and therefore will probably see the light in mainstream medicine in very few years.
One example of such applications: restoring locomotion after spinal chord injury, a study that was cleared by the FDA for human trials a little over a month ago.
Dude, if you have no idea what you are talking about, it's better to moderate your own opinions.
Part of the problem is that your argument, while coated in honey, is still basically just as trollish and insulting as someone calling me a babykiller and leaving it at that. From the first word you work from the assumption that you are undeniably right and that all facts are on your side and everyone who doesnt agree with you is conveniently easily mistaken.
Your entire post is literally one very large and very polite sounding ad hominem.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
How do you even dare to call them "pro-lifers"? They are murderers guilty of effectively killing anyone who could be saved by methods derived from this kind of research. Stopping fertility clinics isn't "pro-life" either, it's about nothing but banning person A from doing things disliked by person B's religion.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
I bet that there are NO cures for cancer, NO blind man seeing, and NO crippled people walking due to stem cell research, in our lifetimes.
Medically, there could be cures in less than a decade. But whether we get them depends on how much influence religious radicals continue to wield in our government.
After all, if stem cells are so great, and the cures so close, then why cannot the private sector have funded this research?
They have, to some degree. But they are dependent on government funding, support, and approval, and they are not going to invest in something if there's a risk they can't actually treat people with it.
Furthermore, since stem cell treatments are expected to be cures, they are actually less financially interesting than, say, drug treatments.
Of course it's scientific and not religious, and intelligent design is too.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
You think that Asia is the paradigm of abortion ethics? And you have a problem with my morality?
All I can say is that I'm glad that you're arguing for the other side.
I bet that there are NO cures for cancer, NO blind
After all, if stem cells are so great, and the cures so close,
Who says there are close?
why cannot the private sector have funded this research
I don't know, but if a cure is found for cancer say in 30 years, I definitely prefer that it's been publicly funded. I can't think of a better use for my taxes.
So what you're saying is that I made a polite argument that you didn't like. And this qualifies for trolling nowadays.
"I know that every word that man just said is true, because it's EXACTLY what I wanted to hear." -- Space Ghost
no you made a politely worded argument that, while politely worded, is nonetheless patronising and demeaning.
Ad hominem doesn't necessarily mean blunt.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
"Reversing an eight-year-old limit on potentially life-saving science..." Currently unproven to save even one life, but proven to destroy human embryos.
To paraphrase Scotty from Wrath of Khan, "They're dead already Jim."
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
So because I don't agree with what you're saying, I'm just supposed to be quiet or risk being called a troll?
The fact is that I do believe what you're talking about is wrongheaded for the reasons given (and more). I'm not going to praise it when I'm arguing against it, and I'm under no obligation to praise people with whom I disagree. I believe that I am under an obligation to be polite about it, which is more than I can say about most libs nowadays.
The fact is that I do believe you and many others are deceived by the MSM. You said it was you and the MSM were deceived, but you were really only half right.
"I know that every word that man just said is true, because it's EXACTLY what I wanted to hear." -- Space Ghost
If Congress wants to pass Steam Cell Legislation this is sure to pass the Senate. There are 5 Mormon senators (4 Republicans, 1 Democrat) who voted for Embryonic Steam Cell research twice during Bush's presidency.
Orrin Hatch who the RIAA's lap dog, personally appealed to Bush to pass the legislation...I suppose that is about the only thing he is good for...
No, the ban was on government funding of the research. It wasn't ever illegal to do the research.
This means that the government is now going to pay for it.
By that reasoning, murder is a completely religious concept. In Asia (particularly the communist parts) and other parts of the world it is a non-issue.
I guess we need to get rid of that silly, archaic "Abrahamic" prescription against the taking of life too. We have to be totally secular and consistent in our reasoning, right?
So it's better to not fund it at all, so there will be no chance whatsoever?
Hell why fund any basic science research anyway?
If it were for people like you Mr. tjstork we would still be living in the middle ages, traveling on horseback.
Actually the true definition of government having nothing to do with this is for it hand out no money at all. But maybe we have different definitions of "nothing."
Oddly, these are the same areas of the world that used to kill their female children. I don't think I'm looking to them for moral guidance any time soon.
"I know that every word that man just said is true, because it's EXACTLY what I wanted to hear." -- Space Ghost
Seriously, all this comes down to is politics. He gains votes from his party folks come election time since he lifted a ban placed by someone who did so to gain votes from HIS party folks at election time. There's no morality here and more significantly there will be zero progress since every fund-raising organization will continue with the perpetual tag line, "we're very close to a cure for and many researchers believe we'll see a cure in our lifetimes... so please give generously".
The whole fact that life begins at conception is biological/scientific...The fact is, science shows that the child is a distinct lifeform from its mother from the moment of conception...
You are almost completely correct in those statements - if you revise your definition of life to that life which reproduces sexually, you are 100% correct.
Let me restrict the scope of this argument to only animal life (which most definitely includes humans), and let me once again concur wholeheartedly that in this case, life most certainly begins at conception.
The right to life is not a purely human right; it is inherent in all living organisms, even cockroaches. To claim otherwise is to claim that human life is somehow more important than that of other animals - more holy, if you will - and this is the epitome of hubris.
We humans simply find this concept inconvenient, and so we tend to restrict our concept of rights to "persons", rather than lifeforms as a whole. This does not mean those other lifeforms do not have rights; it simply means we ignore them.
If a person were truly arguing a right to life at conception from a scientific point of view, then s/he would condemn all killing of all animals regardless of the possible good that may come of it. They'd definitely be vegans.
The problem is that even folks who claim no religious mindset fail to realize that they have been raised in a culture that began with a fundamentalist mentality, and that they have absorbed some of those concepts without realizing it. If you believe that human life is more important than other life, you have absorbed fundamentalist doctrine.
Due to the inconvenience of supporting a lifeform's rights, most people have instead chosen to ignore these and support a person's rights.
Now, for the second issue in your argument:
Granting of "personhood" is a legal distinction that has no basis in science...
...
...the child is a distinct lifeform from its mother from the moment of conception, the law has chosen to ignore that until the child is completely removed from the womb.
Not technically correct, here. Personhood is a social concept, not a legal one. It is a social concept that has been held by humans across the globe and across time, most likely beginning before the first laws were ever devised.
When to grant an individual personhood in a society depends on that society - usually the law follows after, not before.
In the case of the U.S., most people agree that personhood begins at birth (I follow that personhood begins when an individual becomes useful to society, but I'm in a very outspoken minority here). The law here is even stricter: the Supreme Court in Roe v Wade effectively declared personhood to begin at the point a fetus becomes viable (i.e., able to exist outside the mother). This seems fair, and I'm willing to live with it, even if I don't agree.
As long as we get our terminology right ("life" vs "personhood"), there is no dispute.
Couldn't agree more.
Obama 1, Slashdot 0
One of the most frightening and chilling statements ever uttered on Slashdot. This is exactly the sort of moral relativism that this issue promotes. If it's already gone this far, give it 50 years.
"I know that every word that man just said is true, because it's EXACTLY what I wanted to hear." -- Space Ghost
The only truly democratic way to fund these sorts of "extra-governmental" government projects is to allow people to choose which projects to pour their extra tax dollars into. That way "Hope-ronauts" can throw their money away on fetal stem cell research, while people who know science can put their money towards space exploration.
I wish you would apply your moral panic to causes that could actually help people.
This. I don't get the outrage of stem cells for this reason. I can understand how religious people can feel harvesting embryos or whatever is wrong. But if it's wrong, it's a wrong done with at least good intentions, that harms no one (abortions are not going to stop, stem cell research or not). There's so much going on thats wrong in this world, even in this country. Ethnic cleansing, human rights abuses, etc. In our country alone, the government steals from the poor and gives to the rich, imprisons millions for drugs and puts them in a prison system that is completely overrun with racism, violence, drugs, sexual abuse, and sexually transmitted diseases. For a religon based on teachings of tolerance, love for your enemy, forgiveness, and redemption, you would think the state of our for-profit-prisons would have the "religious right" outraged! Somehow I think Christ would be more concerned about helping those on the very bottom of our society, then condemning Doctors bending their ethics to potentially help make the lame walk again (in fact I hear he was a big fan of healing cripples).
It seems to me you could easily spend your entire life fighting whats wrong in this world, and never even get around to stem cells. It's a small, pathetic issue to crusade against. But I suppose because it is small, it is easy to divert your attention to, easy to cope with. After all, the big issues would require you to look with open eyes, and maybe admit you were wrong. That would take humility, and I'm pretty sure Jesus was strongly against that, if the leaders of the religious right are any example.
he's got you by the balls america. he's wasting what little resources you have left. it almost seems to be his plan to get things to fail so bad that whomever can just take what they want. he needs to be thrown out of office for being a simple sack of crap.
Kind of makes you wonder what else "most of the MSM" aren't telling you or have told you incorrectly, doesn't it?
I travel in Republican/conservative circles and would be shocked to see a poll that corroborates what you said. The death penalty is generally supported as is IVF. The only people that are against IVF, abortion, and the death penalty are "seamless garment of life" Catholics who are small in number but very vocal.
Why will these never grow to become a fetus or a fully formed infant? Because their lives are cut off. I don't know where you get the 80% figure for zygotes failing to implant- the research I've seen quotes something in the range of 1/3 or so- but even granting your figure, the fact that some fertilized embryos die naturally doesn't provide any justification for killing them by the boatload for research which, despite all the messianic talk from Democratic politicians looking to make political hay since 2001, hasn't shown that using embryonic cells rather than adult cells will result in major cures.
So the only human life that matters is conscious human life? The next time you fall asleep it's time to harvest your organs.
If that's so, why the profane attacks on those who think we ought to tread carefully in using embryonic cells?
Life continues at conception.
http://sourcemage.org/ - Have fun
Actually, according to biology, no new life is created at conception, all current life has began exactly once about 3.5 billion years ago, and we are all part of an uninterrupted lineage.
Deus est fatalis
One of the most frightening and chilling statements ever uttered on Slashdot. This is exactly the sort of moral relativism that this issue promotes. If it's already gone this far, give it 50 years.
Oh, for crying out loud. The concept of sacrificing one life to save countless others is "chilling" "moral relativism"?
I'm sorry to say it, but if you prefer letting many living, thinking people suffer and die rather than accept the death of a few lives that weren't even concious thinking beings in the first place, you are morally bankrupt beyond all belief.
That still leaves the political objection. Why is government betting on the future winners and losers of industry & research when that money should be going to its previous commitments, commitments it can barely fulfill.
Politics has severely limited the progress of "some societies" on Earth, but I have a feeling nobody will be disparaging politics at the conceptual level any time soon. And no matter how much more "more accurate knowledge" science provides, it provides no clue as to how to use it. This is why the same scientific breakthrough that brought us the nuclear bomb, also brought us nuclear energy.
This is painting the problem with an extemely broad brush. Before science, the "solution" to all these problems was for people to live off the land and to deal with scarcity at the tribal level, often by moving around nomadically.
This is a thread about stem cell research, research that's supposed to help people live longer and better lives in a world that by your own observation is rapidly becoming overpopulated. How does that square with anything you've said? And what does the Bible have to do with any of that?
You need to step down off the soap box and stop making murky pronouncements about the false science/religion dichotomy and start realizing what's really going on. 3rd world nations around the globe are coming out of the 12th century straight into the 20th century and they are growing like crazy because they've learned the miracle of modern markets. The older more modern states have virtually zero population growth, and in some instances even negative growth.
The fact is, science shows that the child is a distinct lifeform from its mother from the moment of conception
Precisely, the embryo happens to be a single celled organism. If mankind found a way to turn any single celled organism into a human child, would you ban antibiotics because they're all potential babies? Sorry, but it's got a little bit of development to go through before it's a human in my eyes. How human a fetus can be is still up for debate, and it should be a woman's responsibility to get a pregnancy test as fast as possible if she doesn't want a baby.
Help fight spam
Yeah, our dirt-poor medical and pharmaceutical industries have neither the money nor the intelligence to fund and do their own research. Good thing we have a government that has saved its nickels and has lots of extra money to give away! </irony>
Literally.
Short answer:
There is nothing in the US Constitution about funding research. Research should be done by private entities that will seek the most likely routes to solve the biggest problems instead of the mostly likely to buy votes.
I bet that there are NO cures for cancer, NO blind man seeing, and NO crippled people walking due to stem cell research, in our lifetimes. All of this talk about the immediate need to fund stem cell research is just so much hype.
Do you, now? Precisely how much are you willing to bet? Put your money where your mouth is.
But I expect you won't, because you know there's far too great a chance you'd lose. Your shouting is about ideology, not science, and you know full well that reality only cares about the latter.
You claim that's "Moral Relativism?" That statement was made from a Utilitarian standpoint, which states that the "action that would result in the greatest good" is the best action to take. The embryos being used for stem-cell research are mostly leftovers from IVF, so when it comes to choosing between simply discarding the embryo or using it for medicine, the better choice is obvious.
Stem Cell Technology is ONLY a stepping stone on the path to Patient Care. I see a time when Moralists will really start screaming when they really do see Pigs, with Wings, Fly. Mutagens have already begun to be created. The day is coming when if you have a body flaw, an injection of a mutagen will Only upgrade the flaw, and quietly allow itself to be dissolved and digested.
Take THAT Jesus!
Just because there aren't any yet doesn't mean there won't be any in the future. While if the research into the subject gets banned we will certainly never see the potentially live saving results.
There's no point in trying to change the small minds here. (And they are truly small when it comes to this subject.)
Despite all the research thus far, no cures for anything have been found using embryonic stem cells. There is the small problem of rejection. All the successes have been with adult stem cells.
Every post in opposition to Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research has been modded down and labeled as flamebait or worse. This one will be, too. That just proves that I'm right about small minds.
If you want the research, pay for it with your own money. Just don't use mine!!
3/10, try harder with the straw man you've almost got the hang of it.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Tin foil is on aisle 3.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
light in mainstream medicine in very few years.
Then, let's have a date. When cured? Give me a deadline that you think it will happen.
Dude, if you have no idea what you are talking about, it's better to moderate your own opinions.
If you know what you are talking about so much, then let's have a date. It's such a simple thing, three numbers, two slashes. Out with it.
This is my sig.
Do you, now? Precisely how much are you willing to bet? Put your money where your mouth is.
I'll put up $5.
Your shouting is about ideology, not science, and you know full well that reality only cares about the latter.
No, the point is that all of your shouting about stem cell research is about ideology and not science. You just hide behind miracle cures to get money. Well then, if you can deliver these cures, that's great. But let's have a date. Give us a date. If we publicly fund stem cells, we will have these results, on some date. What's the date?
This is my sig.
Technically, the stem cells that came from human embryo were going to be tossed out in the first place. If you really have a problem with discarding human embryos you should really take up your fight against In vitro fertilization.
So if your mother was dying of a painful disease that stem cell research had the potential to cure, you'd say "let her die"? That is creepy.
Trust me...I'm completely on your side, but you do know that there's this place called Korea where once your born, you have your first birthday 3 months later right? Just dropping helpful facts so you don't use sources that will be used against you in the future.
Filter error: You can type more than that for your comment.
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
First of all, it's really pretty obvious the benefit for stem cells: Nerves don't regenerate. That means that there is a real potential to fix anything caused by damaged nerves (paralysis, etc) with stem cells, by making them into nerve cells.
Then let's have a date then. But it isn't a date. All you have is -potential-. There's helium 3 on the moon too, and so there's -potential- to have loads of unlimited fuel for nuclear fusion.
It's hard enough to get a drug that does what we want when we know what we're doing. With stem cells, the cures are too far away (but not a lifetime!) that there's no reason to invest in it.
That's essentially my point. The cures ARE far away, and in terms of complexity, are probably a lot farther away than nuclear fusion is. Nuclear fusion is a very simple problem made difficulty by the scale of what needs to be done. Understanding a cell completely and being able to custom grow stuff..
I mean, let's say they do learn how to manipulate embryonic cells into doing what they want. There's still the whole spotty set of problems of how do you solve tissue rejection. I mean, last time I checked, if you go and shove tissue from one organism into another, it's bad news. So, before stem cells can even accomplish anything, you have to solve our entire immune system. In the case of paralysis, what are they hoping, that sticking a bunch of stem cells in a body will cause them to connect? What if stem cells in a spine, after you solve the rejection problem, don't connect to the new ones. What if you have to do something to the existing cells to make them want to connect. What if all you get when you connect is an entirely scrambled set of signals. I mean, if I cut an old copper phone trunk cable in half and just solder the wires back together randomly, all the people are going to be talking to the wrong people. Why would it be any different?
The bottom line is, I've put a few problems, each of which is a monster that could take decades to solve in its own right. What do we have in tissue rejection? I mean, we can't even get BLOOD to be compatible, and you're going to suddenly fire up random material from other humans.
Come on people, this whole stem thing is just a bunch of hype. If stem cells were so ready to apply, we'd have no bacteriological illness, no viral infections, because we'd understand our immune system perfectly. But we're losing THAT war... and you are going to hold up the hope of curing every other disease magically on top of all of that.
It could take a -century- to get there.
This is my sig.
The mere fact that some faiths take a certain position on the issue is not a sensible reason to take the other side. Whatever you think of "Abrahamic Faiths" is irrelevant, as is the fact that it is a so-called "non-issue" in some parts of the world. The Chinese execute political dissidents; In some parts of India, a widow is expected to commit suicide at her husband's funeral; Muslims behead people for printing cartoons they don't like. These behaviors are sick, immoral, and *wrong*, and so are the cultures/religions that support them.
Western Civilization has rightly outlawed those barbaric practices, and we should do the same with the evil of using defenseless children as spare parts for those fortunate enough to have already been born.
I remember reading something about this attitude, it was either Dawkins or maybe Dennet. It was about the "inherent moral sense" that every human possess, independently of religion or upbringing; I suppose it makes sense, from an evolutionary point of view, for a species to have all its members not acting like assholes to each other.
IIRC, It is innately immoral to hurt others, do nothing while others are being hurt, but for some reason also hurt some to save more: the example I remember was "would you accept a doctor to have the authority to kidnap someone, kill him, and harvest his/her organs to save 10 other people?".
Anyway, the point being, if someone believes that an embryo is indeed a person, the reaction against stem cell research, notwithstanding the prospective benefits, is pretty much automatic and expected. I guess that if you want to convince these people, you need to work on their perception of embryos.
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
By the way, the study that you gave was for a company that did it WITHOUT public funding.
All stem cell research is at, best, a corporate subsidy.
This is my sig.
Not sure how this got modded up but I'll bight. Murder rates in developed nations, including those without archaic Abrahamic prescription, are much lower than those in undeveloped nations even with strong Abrahamic religiosity. Of the developed nations, those that have the most religiosity are Abrahamic and also have the highest murder rates. I'm not fallaciously drawing a causal link between Abrahamic religions and murder, but the strong correlations do put you on very weak ground by citing murder as a religious concept. You can start with the Murder entry in Wikipedia for basic statistics and follow the citations to higher quality sources.
Contrary to the AP's deceptive headline and mis-understanding or mis-reporting of the recent history of stem cell research, Obama is actually reversing the Clinton ban on federal funding of stem cell research. George Bush removed the ban on federal funding of stem cell research for a limited number of cell lines. It was Clinton, not Bush, that banned federal funding of all stem cell research. Clinton. I realize that many people believe that if you just repeat a lie often enough it is as good as the truth, but this is supposed to be a skeptical readership. Want to believe Bush is evil? Fine. There are many things you can say to make that point that are true. This is not one fo them. Bill Clinton banned federal funding of stem cell research, not George Bush.
Here is my personal list of reasons against embryonic stem cell research:
Ignoring the moral issues, I strongly oppose a solution that will cost more money. Taking notice of the moral issues, I see no sense in taking the more difficult (moral) and costly ($$$) course to achieve the same results.
Either way, making a treatment more expensive really does not help keep health care costs down and more easily available to people.
Actually, my mother suffered and eventually died of cancer at the ripe old age of 28. I don't think she'd have wanted any others to die so she could live because, unlike you, she had a moral compass.
I have as much a reason, if not more, to see cancer cured, but it shouldn't be done if by winning the war we lose our humanity.
-MoT
See how stupid that sounded? .... any practical results.
Actually, your history is completely wrong and so is your emphasis on his equations as a foundation. This is -one- of the egoisms of science that frankly do not mesh with historical fact.
Everyone says that Maxwell came up with electromagnetism, but the thing is, the electromagnet had been invented decades before Maxwell was -even born-. Indeed, products that relied on electromagnetism were already evident. The telegraph was invented quite long before.
All Maxwell did was put an elegant wrapper around something that everyone had been working on already. Had Maxwell not been born, it is very likely that pieces of his equation would have been deduced empirically as needed to fit the market needs of the time.
Thus, WITHOUT maxwell, we still wind up getting public lighting, electric cars, computers, etc, just that, the needs of improving each of those things come about through empirical research.
This is my sig.
Intellectual incuriosity, aisle 5. Watch out, this is the expensive aisle.
Who are you to decide the value of life, and of those whom you're so willing to sacrifice?
It's noble to sacrifice *your own* life so others can live. It's NOT noble to sacrifice *someone else's* life. If you want to be so noble, march on down to the hospital and give up your heart to someone waiting for a transplant.
The value proposition changes a little when it's your own skin, doesn't it?
Probably because the people in the private sector
So, I'd bet the reason we don't have nuclear fusion is because the people in government don't ever actually want to build a working reactor because they will lose their grant money.
See how easy conspiracies go?
This is my sig.
Any time you find yourself wondering if people are actually serious about their religious beliefs, check to see if we still have the death penalty.
The Democratic constituents are happy to give up their unborn to the good cause of this failed administration.
I behind abortion 100%. Let's start with the Democrats first and their constituent base.
Give me a date when Windows will be stable and usable. Give me a date when Linux will be ready for the desktop. Give me a date when MySQL will have a storage engine that is both fast AND reliable.
Quite easily done. Windows is stable and usable for a lot of people. Linux is ready for the desktop now, for a lot of people, and MySQL has a storage engine that is both fast and reliable for many kinds of applications.
So my answer is NOW.
Now, seriously, though, you are the closest to figuring out what this is really all about. There is a conceit in our scientific establishment that they are entitled to be immune from the normal course of deadlines because they alone must confront the unknown. The fact is, everyone must confront the unknown and everyone must adhere to some sort of a deliverable or a deadline. I could say that I should pay off my truck at the end of the year, but I don't know, because I could lose my job. It's a risk management thing. Yet, we all have bills to pay, jobs to do, and despite the seemingly impossible nature of life, and all the risk that's out there, we humans actually manage it pretty well.
Thus, with that in mind, when a scientist says, "hey, if you fund this I'll have cures for all these diseases", then, its perfectly acceptable to hold them to a date, and its ok to ask the approach they took got you closer or farther to the cure you seek. So, when people get defensive about my asking for a date for success of embryonic stem cells, they know the truth. The supposed cures are hype, meant to sell the public on doing something.
The whole debate is politicized and frankly there's more to it than the mere potential of a cure for any disease. It's not like embryonic stem cells are the -only- technology that could enable the blind to see or the lame to walk.
But the fact of the matter is embryonic stem cells are being sold to the public based on miracles that frankly -cannot- happen in the sense that they are not even on the list of deliverables for this research. I doubt very highly that there is a single embryonic stem cell grant being written that says, "I will cure parkinsons." There isn't. So why are these people selling the public on something that they aren't even trying to do. It's just a big lie.
This is my sig.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The whole controversy over the "life beings at conception" is completely religious, and affects only the Abrahamic faiths. In Asia and other parts of the world it is a non-issue.
In all -seriousness- mean, really, everyone knows that life doesn't begin at conception. Life begins when you vote Republican. Since Democrats are not alive, can we harvest them? How about prison convicts? I'd could argue that criminals aren't human.
My point is, unless you are willing to enfranchise nearly everything as human, then, you open up the door to disenfranchise those some might think of as human. It's just a terrible intellectual road to be on.... first embryonic stem cells and miracle cures.. then we'll have products made from cultured human parts like skin for jackets and bone for clothes, and then, after living in a world where everyone is just a walking bunch of parts, what's really, fundamentally wrong with getting rid of a bunch of them because they are not color coordinated? Why, we do that with babies all the time!
This is my sig.
Sorry, but it's got a little bit of development to go through before it's a human in my eyes
That's an interesting way to count humans... do a rough cell count. I do counts too. I count the number of cells in a human that voted Republican... and buy American cars... if you buy a Japanese car, you actually have no human cells.
This is my sig.
Women are pregnant for 12 months in East Asia? Weird.
Thus far, the most insightful reply has been the one that points out the mods are using their moderation as a weapon.
Seriously, from a purely scientific perspective, that single-celled organism has the full DNA of a human being unique from his/her mother. I've never seen anything in biology (perhaps someone can point me to widely accepted consensus otherwise?) that indicates that the human embryo is anything other than a distinct, individual human being at an earlier stage of life than the 98-year-old on her death bed. There is no point, earlier, or later, with such a drastic change in being than the moment of conception. All phases after this are merely natural and expected growth, as directed by genes and environment. That embryo is both definitively human, and definitively unique, at least according to all definitions that biology can use. (People saying that the embryo can't reproduce are missing the point: 1. neither can a 2-month-old child who is obviously a human being, and 2. they can when they split to form identical twins, though that's obviously asexual reproduction, not the sexual reproduction we normally use.)
As for the anti-biotics strawman, you have a DNA-matching problem.
One of the most frightening and chilling statements ever uttered on Slashdot. This is exactly the sort of moral relativism that this issue promotes. If it's already gone this far, give it 50 years.
Oh for crying out loud, this is exactly the kind of moral bankruptcy that that has had real conservatives rail against both the theistic fundamentalists and the social liberals for millennia. We simply reject the notion that you or some anointed moral superior has the right or privilege to chose who is selected to sacrifice what and for whom.
Personally I think Obama is a hypocritical dirtbag, but his lifting of the ban on federal funding to facilities that also do embryonic stem cell research for research separate from the stem cell research is a needed re-affirmation of the separation of church and state.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
only if you make it so that if, when cut back out, you would no longer survive. In otherwords, if you turn yourself into a parasite, then you're not a "person".
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
HAHAHA quote wiki... Let me go edit it then I can use it for the other side of the argument as well...
No, the point is that all of your shouting about stem cell research is about ideology and not science. You just hide behind miracle cures to get money. Well then, if you can deliver these cures, that's great. But let's have a date. Give us a date. If we publicly fund stem cells, we will have these results, on some date. What's the date?
You seem a little unclear about how scientific research works; there are no fixed time-tables--that's why I'm not the one making the claim that something definitely will or will not happen. I'd put maybe even odds on a previously-untreatable medical condition being rendered tractable via methods dervied from stem cell research within my lifetime, say the next 70 years.
No, that's not a very strong claim, but given that the only arguments against stem cell research are from people with absurdly skewed moral priorities or delusional ideas about economics, it sounds like a pretty clear-cut case of something worth funding for long enough to see how it pans out.
Its disgusting, we eat our own young.
Who are you to decide the value of life, and of those whom you're so willing to sacrifice?
It's noble to sacrifice *your own* life so others can live. It's NOT noble to sacrifice *someone else's* life. If you want to be so noble, march on down to the hospital and give up your heart to someone waiting for a transplant.
The value proposition changes a little when it's your own skin, doesn't it?
I'm not deciding the value of life. I'm pointing out that, all else equal, two lives are worth more than one. Anything else is incoherent at best.
If you choose letting a hundred people die through inaction over killing one person directly, your lack of action is not noble--the blood of those hundred people is no less on your hands than if you'd killed them directly.
None of which is even considering that a blob of embryo cells isn't even remotely of the same value as a living, thinking human.
Nut Bush City Limits!
What's wrong with that? I **LIKE** cheap shots at religion!
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Why is it a problem?
Wow. What a great post! WTH are you doing on slashdot? ;)
That is childish.
A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.
I wish you would apply your moral panic to causes that could actually help people.
Keep wishing. Stem cells are an easy target:
Just callin' it like I see it.
Admittedly if you think it has a soul, wouldn't you desire it to end up dead before it has a chance to suffer so it can go straight into the afterlife? Do you really want it to suffer in this material world when a glorious afterlife awaits or gamble with its eternal soul that it can dodge temptation and not end up in hell?
Talk about arrogant elitism. So your culture is the only "correct" one? Damn.
The traditional greeting among the Inca was, "Ama suya, ama ulla, ama q'ella", or "Don't steal, don't lie, don't be lazy". All three of those were capital offenses, as were drunkenness, child or spouse abuse, and eating dogs. Barbaric, no? And yet in opposition to yours their culture had no poverty, no hunger, no plagues, no thieves, no abandoned children, no drug addicts. The law was applied equally to royalty as to peasants, and the lowliest farmer or fisherman had equal right to plead directly to the Inca as the highest official did.
So which culture was better?
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
What if we go in the direction you want to go in....See how stupid i sound taking the same "bounds" of "logic" that you do?
The thing is, everything that you've proposed as far as that slippery slope goes, has been done before. We have had societies where women were punished for miscarrying. We have had societies where women were encouraged to be continually pregnant. In fact, in some parts of the world, we still do. Sounds to me like, slippery slopes aren't so stupid after all.
This is my sig.
These moral wizards just keep popping up all over the place. Being a moral wizard has no training or other prerequisites but the pay stinks. I have suggested that moral wizards be forced to wear those pointy dunce caps at all times so one can avoid getting anywhere near the creeps.
Are you suggesting that the Lord God has something more important to concern himself with than where I stuff my pecker and when?
The people who take a "humanity is defined by mental personhood" position consistently do tend to argue that certain levels of mental incapacity suffice to make someone no longer a human in the morally relevant sense. Not a very popular position, so no politicians that I know of argue that, but I do tend to respect the philosophers who do (Peter Singer being the canonical example).
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090227/stem_cells_090228/20090302?hub=Health
I hope you're just kidding, but if not: The biggest profit you are going to make is on the product that brings the most relief to the most people because that is the biggest market. Suppose there are three diseases: Disease A that affects 10 million, Disease B that affects 1 million, and Disease C that affects 1000. The free market would promote research spending on Disease A but politics might promote research spending on whatever aliments that swing voters have or sympathize with.
Does a Scientist who lies and steals material speak for the whole of science?
Neither does a hypocrite who claims to be Christian speak for Christ. Matthew 7:21-23
As for laws and such, If neither God nor his son are forcing people to act a certain way, why should his followers? John 18:36.
Revelation 18 compares religion involved in politics to something. Check it out if you care too. That's one prophecy I'm personally looking forward to very much.
This post is to inform, not coerce.
No. One year is 9 months in East Asia. Haven't you seen the lunar calendar?
That's simply different ways of counting age. When this system was invented, they didn't have a better understanding of conception or something.
In East Asia, babies start at age one because they are on their first year as a person, whereas in the West, age refers to the number of years that have already passed. It has nothing to do with conception, esp in the past, since it's very hard to determine the date that the person is conceived, pregnancy is not a full calender year, and date of birth in Asia is still date of birth, not date of conception.
Just because there aren't any yet doesn't mean there won't be any in the future. While if the research into the subject gets banned we will certainly never see the potentially live saving results.
And how much public money (taken from people some of whom strongly disagree with this choice of spending) should be poured into this morally dubious endeavor before we say, "O.K. This is a waste of money. Let's stop creating demand for 'non-viable embryos'"? One year? 2 years? 5 years? 10 years? 100 years?
Bush did a lot of bad things, but his "ban" on embryonic stem cell research wasn't one of those. Just because the federal government wasn't funding the research doesn't mean there were others who were more than willing, like biotech companies, mentioned in the summary (and no, there was never a ban in the usual sense of the word, only the decision not to fund). In fact, in this day and age when scientific research is too polluted with money stolen from people (i.e. "tax"), his decision not to fund activities that a good fraction of people disagree with was a refreshingly good one (... of course, that was also before the Iraq war, but I digress...).
If it's so bad, you don't need to stay.
(Again, all the flowery philosophy falls away when it comes to stickin the gun in your mouth, doesn't it?)
This conversation is awfully full of people who proclaim freedom while declaring the lives of others unworthy and cheap.
"I know that every word that man just said is true, because it's EXACTLY what I wanted to hear." -- Space Ghost
Having worked in the hES cell field in Canada, with much close contact with researchers in the U.S., I can tell you that the source of the funding has had a very large impact. Canadian researchers are extremely collaborative, sharing unpublished data and so on with very few restrictions. This is because we are all government funded, and while commercial interests do come into it, they are "downstream" of the science. In contrast, as so much of the research south of the border is industry funded, out of necessity, the culture of sharing is much less well developed. Not to say the researchers are opposed to it, although I do get the vibe there is maybe less trust around, but that when industry is paying, industry gets to decide who you tell what when. Often they simply can't share stuff because the suits in accounting have forbidden it.
Which is one of the reasons a small country like Canada is able to make a significant mark in the field.
While I'm at it - I often see the meme show up here that says "I don't like ES cell research, so you shouldn't be allowed to use my tax dollars to pay for it!". I agree - let's let everyone who wants to take their tax money out of funding hESC research do so - with the proviso that everyone who wants to take their tax money out of the Iraq war, and put it into hESC research also gets to do so...
Wanna bet I come out ahead?
Ironically, exactly what I would say to people who think the bailouts are a good idea, as well as the whole concept of welfare.
A lot of hypothermia research was conducted on Jews by the Nazis. Needless to say it was without their consent and with little regard for their safety. But as a result of this research, we now know that cold-weather rescues are quite possible as well as open heart surgery. Many lives have been saved.
So, if freezing a few Jews to death just to see if we can bring them back is wrong, at least we got a lot of good data from it. Thus justifying the holocaust, at least in part.
The entire "pro-choice" objection to the "pro-life" argument begs the question. It assumes a priori that the fertilized egg is not sufficiently a person to deserve rights, which if true obviously invalidates the pro-life objection that it is sufficiently a person to deserve rights.
Also, this is just ignorant:
I think if you look at a wide range of such issues, you'll find that the "religious right" is in fact behind some of the most vocal opposition.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
And Offtopic. And Overrated. Oh, they love overrated because they can't be punished in the metamod system. They can't even take that little bit of responsibility for their actions. God forbid some metamod might think they were unjust and ding them for it.
Cowards, the lot of them.
"I know that every word that man just said is true, because it's EXACTLY what I wanted to hear." -- Space Ghost
Agreed.
...but nothing ever "happens" under Obama?
I mean, Obama "tried" to undo executive power grab, but now supports the same in Court.
Obama "tried" to stop further bailouts, but now argues for the same.
Obama "tried" out to stop DEA in states where drugs are legal, but fails...
I mean, Obama is the perfect Manchurian Candidate. Isn't he?
(and NO, am NOT a supporter of Rush. But I prefer Ron Paul over Obama anyday, and i prefer anybody over Bush.)
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
The embryonic heartbeat begins at about 22 days after conception. It is logical to deduce that heart tissue beating at 22 days or so would have to have been formed in the period of a week or more before that. So now we're down to two weeks or so after conception that cells have already been differentiated into organ tissue and begun to operate on some nascent level. At what point does the "law of diminishing returns" kick in in your's, and everyone elses', brains on this issue? You've already lost the argument for 95% of the typical gestation cycle of a human being. Does that last two weeks left actually MEAN anything to anyone?
Human life begins as soon as the egg is fertilized and a unique set of 46 chromosomes - no longer the mother or the father (or their predecessors for that matter) -- directs development of a different life. It is astounding to me that the /. community, which tends to be made up of intellectually capable professionals and scientific folk, could be so stupefyingly obdurate and scientifically ignorant on this point. Embryo is defective? Dies. Doesn't implant? Dies. Mother has hormone or other problem? Dies usually. Stress or environmental problems? Child might die. There are lots of different reasons why an embryonic life might not make it to term and be "born." That doesn't detract from the fundamental issue -- individual human rights.
It's time to get past the argument as to whether life begins at conception. That question is done, and a matter of biological/scientific fact. I don't care about the soul argument either, or for that matter the morality of it. For the sake of argument, the only thing that matters now is, as a society, as a race and species, does an unborn citizen of the human race have a right to life and liberty? Does a woman have the right to control her body when controlling her body means the ending of a life? Should any person have a right to live, even if their mother or father want them to die? Should embryos be forced to exist in perpetual stasis because they aren't wanted anymore? Should the human race even be allowed to turn basic human procreation into a cottage industry without dealing with the very real consequences of frozen embryos? Should embryos even be created outside of the NORMAL method -- inside a human being, and not in a petri dish? Should the human race be compelled to take real responsibility for their ability to create life in EVERY respect, and not just the ones convenient for people? In other words, shouldn't two people have to take responsibility for themselves BEFORE she gets pregnant, not after?
There is no right to privacy or abortion enumerated or even implied in the Unites States constitution. It was largely invented by lawyers and the Supreme Court seeking to make and end run around U.S. law by legislating via the judicial. The Constitution guarantees implicitly and explicitly the right to life and liberty, however. The body politic of the U.S. -- and for that matter of any other country -- need to settle this. I argue that it can be proved factually that life begins at conception, and that under the framework of our society in the U.S., it is not lawful to kill someone without cause. As sick or torturous for the people involved, even in cases of rape or incest (currently well less than 2% of all abortions but horrific nonetheless for the woman and child(ren) involved) there "isn't cause" to kill the child(ren), unless you want to say that emotional distress is cause.
This whole argument is saturated in emotion, and at some point the vitriol has to stop and real HARD questions need to be asked, an answered. And you know who should be leading the charge on this, but does just the opposite? The ACLU and Democrats. Why? More people means more government to support them, more teachers, more potential taxpayers and union members, more of everything government. The ACLU should because they have always argued to defend the least defended in society. In most states the unborn have no rights.
Oh... what happened? Did your parents lose a bet with God?
In case you have not been following the literature the most recent evidence from Stanford studies indicates foreign embryonic stem cells and their offshoots are eliminated from the body by the immune system within 1-2 months. So cells derived from embryonic stem cells are most likely useless from a long term therapeutic standpoint.
And so it could be argued that government money spent on funding embryonic stem cell research is in effect *useless*. And all of the claims held up by embryonic stem cell researchers for the last decade or more should be held up to the light and seriously examined!
In contrast money spent on adult (self) stem cell research and/or pristine stem cell research (where "pristine" is attempting to isolate the least mutated most replicable cells from an adult) might just be money well spent. I would assert that each of us has a pool of pristine stem cells which could be used -- what we do not have yet is the means to isolate those cells and replicate them to sufficient numbers to be useful for therapeutic purposes.
IMO the "embryonic" stem cell bandwagon is an offshoot of the entire abortion rights / right-wing-left-wing political culture and has little to do with what will actually cure diseases and ultimately aging. And that is what it is really all about -- the living? Isn't it? [And before any right-wingers respond to this please note that this message is anti-embryonic stem cell research -- not because I object to the research from a political or religious perspective -- but because I believe scientifically that it will not work.]
Oh, bummer. You called a person an idiot while incorrectly using the word "your".
I'm fairly certain the word you are looking for is "yore".
Which moment of conception? It's not instantaneous. There are lots of steps. Do you mean when the first sperm cell touches the egg cell? When the fertilizing sperm cell touches the egg cell? When the sperm first begins to break thru the wall? When the chemical cascade around the egg begins, blocking the other sperm? When the cascade ends? When the sperm is 50% of the way in? When it is 100% of the way in? When its DNA reaches the nucleus? When the sperm DNA begins to unzip? When the egg DNA begins to unzip? When one of them finishes unzipping? When they begin to combine? When they finish combining? When mitosis begins? When it finishes? When the zygote reaches the uterus? When it begins to implant? When it finishes implanting?
The "whole fact that life begins at conception is biological" is nonsense, because there is no strict biological meaning to "conception". If you are going to try to make a scientific argument, you are going to have to do a lot better. Life beginning "at conception" has social meaning only.
That's not to say you are wrong, just that the argument you tried to make is wrong.
murder is not a non-issue in Asia, you silly wag.
You're not AC if you sign your posts.
-Captain Obvious
DAMN!
In my defense I claim severe sleep deprivation.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
I totally agree... but science research is not one of those things.
You don't even have the balls to use a handle when writing your Neocon list of defunding?
Correct. Existence is a Continuum.
Because the State of California is giving out private donations?
Because 100% of the nation's research is done in California? The same California that is now facing a $40 billion deficit because of tax cutting jihadists and obviously has so much money to throw around?
I was kind of pissed at Bush for blocking federal funding on new lines until I really thought about it for awhile. There's nothing that precludes researchers from doing research on new lines.
Other than lack of funding, having to spend large sums of money on setting separate labs so no federal money would be used on the verboten stem cells, and lack of funding?
If people wanted this so bad, what prevented them from pulling out their checkbooks? Hello, there, Silicon Valley. There's lots of rich people there. How about a donation? You, too, Hollywood, if this is such a big issue.
And in other news, Chewbaca brings his family to Endor...
First, it satisfies a niche constituency, who like to see abortion-related topics pressed to the forefront at every opportunity.
Is that so, Mr. Pot? Embryonic stem cell research has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with abortion. It takes fertilized embryos from fertility clinics for research that would otherwise be thrown in the trash.
Second, his tax plan does probably kill off the possibility of private funding.
Yes, because the rich suffered SO MUCH in the 90's with a marginal tax rate 3% higher than it is now. This whining about Obama and taxes is so stupid it makes one's hair hurt.
No, this is why there is a patent system. I know, much reviled here, but that's what it's for.
But with private sector research, you have to mark off a majority of the profits for lobbying, advertising, and the annual 15% increase in compensation for board members already earning millions per year, with the little left over going back into R&D.
Second, the percentage of deduction for charitable giving for those in the top bracket is going to drop to 28% -- a 7% drop in some circumstances.
Charity is insignificant next to social spending from the government. The Hooverites in the 30's were counting on charity to pull us out of the Great Depression - it didn't happen then, and it wont happen now.
People used to do that a lot more than they do now.
Because we used to believe in the public sector in this country, and used to have a 91% marginal tax rate, even under Republican presidents like Eisenhower and Nixon. But now, after decades of free market propaganda, our media and politicians love that free market cock. They're insatiable:
If the embryos aren't used, they end up in the trash, so the fundies are STILL full of crap.
Before that it is called a fetus.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
They thankfully are not human beings.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
.... but it is more objective and scientifically testable.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Don't agree with the research. Never use any of the advancements coming from such research.
See? Just follow the Jehovah Witnesses and such other religions that put they beliefs in the line of fire.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
And how much public money
As much as is reasonable to get the job done.
taken from people some of whom strongly disagree with this choice of spending
Some people also strongly disagree with organ transplants and blood donations. Too. God. Damned. Bad. For. Them.
should be poured into this morally dubious endeavor before we say
These embryos, if not used for research, will simply end up in the trash. The moral issue is in not using them to save the lives of real humans, with real emotions, real families, and real memories.
I can't speak to the religious issues surrounding the death penalty, but the death penalty, once we accept that some people will not be rehabilitated and will always pose a danger to society, makes a lot of sense.
*sigh* back to work...
Wow!
You guys are really fanatics i think.
I had just questioned Obama's poll promises and his current strategy, and i get flamed...
All right, he's the next best thing since sliced bread. OK? Happy now?
Sheesh..
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
If life begins at conception ...
Since it clearly does not (ie. life must be present both in the sperm and ovum for conception to occur) can we disregard all that follows? :)
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
http://www.bioethics.gov/reports/stemcell/appendix_d.html
Clinton Administration NIH Guidelines for Embryonic Stem Cell Funding
As printed in the Federal Register, August 25, 2000 ("National Institutes of Health Guidelines for Research Using Human Pluripotent Stem Cells," 65 Fed. Reg. 51,975, Aug. 25, 2000)
NIH funds may be used to derive human pluripotent stem cells from fetal tissue. NIH funds may not be used to derive human pluripotent stem cells from human embryos. These Guidelines also designate certain areas of human pluripotent stem cell research as ineligible for NIH funding.
--------
Give it a read - there's definitely more in there than I quoted, and the purpose of my quotation wasn't to condense the entire document (for example, ethical guidelines concerning deriving new lines from fertility clinic frozen samples is covered in detail). In other words, don't rush off repeating this as if it's the entire truth. My only point in quoting this portion is that the Clinton administration put specific limits on federal funding for ESC research. And yet, there wasn't all of the indignant fuss raised about it like there was when the Bush administration put specific limits on federal funding for ESC research. I can't help but suspect that the opposition was a politically created diversion. And, based upon the article that started this thread, I'd say an astoundingly successful diversion.
So, Clinton administration restricts ESC research with federal funding. No story. Bush administration restricts ESC research with federal funding. End of American science. Obama administration removes restrictions on ESC research with federal funding. Science story on slashdot.
I really need to put a blocking rule in my FW for slashdot. It's like watching a train wreck. My mind keeps screaming Run! Run! and I just stay rooted in place.
Well, if a team of scientists can achieve a certain level of results at a certain level of funding, they can probably reach better results with more funding. If you're the government, and you have a certain amount of funding set aside for science, you pick what projects you'd like to see giving better results than they do today. The Bush administration had qualms about this particular line of research, the Obama administration apparently doesn't.
Remember, the line between "alive" and "not alive" is completely arbitrary. Is there any logical reason to decide an alive date? 1 day, 8 days, 3 months, 6 months, birth, 1 year after birth. What's the difference, really?
Actually, I recently bought several babies so I could harvest their tissues to preserve myself. I am starting by fixing the crows feet around my eyes. I will only have to kill one baby for that. Next, I will replace the yellow, aging callouses on my toes with nice baby skin.
I am for stem cell research, but there is something creepy about using unused fetal tissue for this purpose. At what point do we become adults who figuratively eat their children to gain immortality. Baby steps people. Tasty, tasty baby steps...
Why not use more of these? Don't most umbilical cords just get thrown away? No embryos or fetuses involved, all natural process, but still stem cells. Or am I just making too much sense in my own head?
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
Killing yourself sends you right to hell (according to some). Nice try but not even close. I'm not the one making the soul argument.
Secondly, I don't believe in an afterlife. But that was for all the hypocrites that say they believe in the afterlife, but want to delay sin free people getting there. (ie: once they are born, they are born into sin and need it forgiven to get into heaven)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Every_Sperm_Is_Sacred
I started posting AC that day because the all-powerful /. mod system decided I shouldn't post anymore as my regular ID -- not because I wanted to remain anonymous. I'm perfectly happy to post controversial statements as my own ID, which is why my karma is in the crapper.
"I know that every word that man just said is true, because it's EXACTLY what I wanted to hear." -- Space Ghost