Slashdot Mirror
Court Rules Against Stem Cell Policy
An anonymous reader sends this quote from Reuters:
"A US district court issued a preliminary injunction Monday stopping federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research, in a slap to the Obama administration's new guidelines on the sensitive issue. The court ruled in favor of a suit filed in June by researchers who said human embryonic stem cell research involves the destruction of human embryos. Judge Royce Lamberth granted the injunction after finding that the lawsuit would likely succeed because the guidelines violated law banning the use of federal funds to destroy human embryos. '(Embryonic stem cell) research is clearly research in which an embryo is destroyed,' Lamberth wrote in a 15-page ruling."
Funny, I'd have thought it was not one of the first post^W things Obama's administration had promised.
Ya, so many great medical advancements coming out of other countries these days...
eekjactly!!!
... because science without morality helps us how? This slippery slope merges very quickly with Hitler's research projects. Seriously, this is no less about creating a super race than Hitler wanted. We'll use stem cells to cure all sorts of genetic flaws, like Alzheimers, etc. Where do you think it will stop?
I think it's time we start recording public policy votes and prohibit use of technology by individuals who opposed it! I'm tired of these hypocrites.
"For example, I am against abortion as birth control (note the difference; sometimes they are medically necessary and then there are cases of rape, etc.) but that has zero to do with any mythical dude in a beard sitting up in the clouds."
Your objection may not be religious but you can rationalize with the best of them. If you support abortion in the cases of rape then you support the use of abortion as birth control. If you support abortions that are medically necessary then you place a higher value on the mother than the fetus. Therefore, you should have no issue with abortion in all cases. Unless of course you are not being rational.
"It's because I think life is precious and if someone without any special circumstances winds up pregnant then that fetus should be allowed the chance to grow to term."
So you think that a woman should be forced to serve as an incubator? Very interesting view considering your next statements. And very contradictory. Not to mention repugnant.
"I'm not necessarily against embryonic stem cell research, but to dismiss the moral arguments as only those of people who cite their religion as the reason is misguided. My main concern with it is that we avoid any slippery slopes that lead to the production of embryos specifically for research. Then we are talking about the farming and harvesting of humans for our own gain."
This is full of fail. There are no good moral arguments against the embryonic stem cell research. There are certainly religious arguments. But appealing to the manufactured wishes of an imaginary deity are by definition poor. There are no slippery slopes except for the surfaces of the strawmen that you create. We already create embryos and discard them for our own gain, we already grow them (IVF, etc). That's the whole point of their creation. But I don't hear anyone complaining about that. But yet you don't have any problem with forcing women who don't want to be pregnant to remain so. You have a very interesting definition of slippery slope.
The more embryos destroyed the better. We have far too many people wandering about. Some of them grow up to be idiotic judges.
And good and right and just shall prevail, all you lelading heart liberal baby killers !!
We shall win, by GOD !! as it should be, and will be in the end !!
The US federal government spending 700 billion this year to destroy really, really old embryos. Why discriminate?
The ______ Agenda
This is Christians. They don't understand that something may be human and alive, yet does not constitute human life.
Like, for example, blood in a bag.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
I'm glad this happened. Now the embryos can be thrown away, like they're supposed to be.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
So your morals inform you that to injure a fetus or embryo is repulsive, but "oddly enough," to 'terminate' it is just fine?
Funny how that is, huh?
Spoken like a true sexist.
What is the basis for making murder ilegal? Isn't that based on a religious belief? Please explain why killing a person and killing a cow are different without using metaphysical(religious) reasoning.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Funny you don't mention the 4,000,000 barrels of carcinogen-causing oil or millions of gallons of corexit that were recently dumped into the Gulf of Mexico. Where is the moral outrage about that and all the "as yet unborn" who will be affected for decades to come? Far more than have been generated in "rogue" stem cell labs?
How can you profess morality, when you are so willing to distort reality to make your "moral" point?
if some are correct and developmental channeling that leads all cells from being "stem cells" to becoming differentiated can be reversed to some degree given the proper manipulations, then all cells have this "potential". Consequently, anything that leads to any kind of cell death is "taking a potential life". Just brushing your teeth would makes you guilty of murder by your version of morality. Granting cells "rights" because of their potential leads to all sorts of absurdities. If not, then it is my right to sue the government for not having you arrested for brushing your teeth. After all, you are killing diploid cells when you do so.
But what makes it so silly is that the same people who oppose this very often approve of the destruction of human life on the grand scale in the form of war, executions or by standing idly by when when those less fortunate than themselves die in misery.
Well yeah. "Life is sacred" only applies until birth. After that, fuck you, you're on your own. ;)