The criminalization on murder is necessary because it is wrong. Embryonic stem cell reseach, on the other hand, could help to save people's lives. The embryos which produce the stem cell lines are not morally significant.
Why does that make it better? The lack of federal funds limits research almost as effectively as a ban on the research. There is simply no reason not to develop new clean lines of embryonic stem cells. Fertility clinics produce many embryos and only implant at most a few into any woman. The rest are just going to be tossed in the trash. Wouldn't it be save peoples' lives with those cells and not waste them.
My impression of the Mainstream Media is that they are more than happy to give Bush a reach-around whenever he wants one.
The sad thing is that you need to watch a fake news program to see anyone who doesn't drink the administration kool-aid.
I'm still trying to understand what the moral implications are of using stem cell lines from blastulae sitting in in vitro fertilization clinics, when those blastulae will either be thrown out or used to help people.
No. It's conservative people that don't get it. No one disputes that the embryos are living organisms. The question is whether embryos are morally-significant persons. I made this point up thread, but if you really think that blastulae with 10 cells are morally-significant, then you need to face up to our nation's biggest medical emergency, the millions of blastulae which are naturally miscarried every year.
Harvard government professor Michael Sandel, also a member of the President's Council on Bioethics once noted that:
"If the embryo loss that accompanies natural procreation were the moral equivalent of infant death, then pregnancy would have to be regarded as a public health crisis of epidemic proportions: Alleviating natural embryo loss would be a more urgent moral cause than abortion, in vitro fertilization, and stem-cell research combined."
Harvard government professor Michael Sandel, a member of the President's Council on Bioethics council, once noted that:
If the embryo loss that accompanies natural procreation were the moral equivalent of infant death, then pregnancy would have to be regarded as a public health crisis of epidemic proportions: Alleviating natural embryo loss would be a more urgent moral cause than abortion, in vitro fertilization, and stem-cell research combined.
It's a limitation of States' Rights whether it happens in the courts or by amendment. Even if almost all of the state governments agreed to ratify the amendment, it would still place limitations on those states which did not ratify the amendment. Such an amendment would hence be a limitation of those States' Rights.
With obesity as it is in the US, our children have probably seen man boobs in Gym class by the time they are 10. What's the difference if they see a woman's breast?
Your last comment though does remind me that they played U2's "Sunday Bloody Sunday" during some feature during the Super Bowl. I guess no one at Fox gave a thought to what the song is about.
So, when the Federal Government wants to assume more powers that somehow shows that they have respect for States' Rights? I guess States' Rights don't mean anything when the state whose authority is being taken is Massachusetts.
You want to compare an unelected FCC commissioner to a US Senator? Find a Democratic Senator that wants to extend censorship to cable TV and I'll take you seriously.
With the Republicans in bed with the Religious Right, you have to expect that they will want to regulate our personal behavior and regulate the free market. They should adjust their rhetoric accordingly and stop pretending like they are the party of personal liberty.
So, when the 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act are passed by the Republican 66th Congress over the veto of Woodrow Wilson and the 22nd Amendment repealing the 18th Amendment is passed by the Democratic 73rd Congress and signed by FDR, that somehow proves your point? You'll have to do better to explain the logic of that one.
"And all their works they do for to be seen of men. For they make their phylacteries broad, and enlarge their fringes. And they love the first places at feasts, and the first chairs in the synagogues. And salutations in the market place, and to be called by men, Rabbi" (Matt., xxiii, 1-8).
I just want to hold Republicans to their rhetoric. Nothing annoys me like hypocrisy. The reason why Repubicans get caught in binds like this is that they are beholden to two interest groups: the Christian Right, which wants total moral regulation, and the Plutocrats, who want less regulation. There's no way to square that circle.
What party wants to amend the US Constitution to tell the states that they can't legalize same-sex marriage? The Right hates States' Rights. The digusting thing about the Right though is that they use the rhetoric of States' Rights while systematically eroding it.
Does that negate my point? My point is that the Republican Party rhetoric doesn't match up with what Senators like Ted Stevens want to do. The fact that there are other idiots--Democratic, Republican, and independent--doesn't affect my point.
Slashdot Mirror
The criminalization on murder is necessary because it is wrong. Embryonic stem cell reseach, on the other hand, could help to save people's lives. The embryos which produce the stem cell lines are not morally significant.
Why does that make it better? The lack of federal funds limits research almost as effectively as a ban on the research. There is simply no reason not to develop new clean lines of embryonic stem cells. Fertility clinics produce many embryos and only implant at most a few into any woman. The rest are just going to be tossed in the trash. Wouldn't it be save peoples' lives with those cells and not waste them.
My impression of the Mainstream Media is that they are more than happy to give Bush a reach-around whenever he wants one. The sad thing is that you need to watch a fake news program to see anyone who doesn't drink the administration kool-aid.
What about -1 offtopic? The things that are allowed are off-topic when the necessity of the restriction is what is under consideration.
I'm still trying to understand what the moral implications are of using stem cell lines from blastulae sitting in in vitro fertilization clinics, when those blastulae will either be thrown out or used to help people.
Should it be the most urgent public health emergency?
Oh. I guess the totally unnecessary restrictions that he put in place are OK then.
Harvard government professor Michael Sandel, also a member of the President's Council on Bioethics once noted that:
It's a limitation of States' Rights whether it happens in the courts or by amendment. Even if almost all of the state governments agreed to ratify the amendment, it would still place limitations on those states which did not ratify the amendment. Such an amendment would hence be a limitation of those States' Rights.
Thank god for fast-forward on Tivo. TV would be unbearable otherwise.
Your last comment though does remind me that they played U2's "Sunday Bloody Sunday" during some feature during the Super Bowl. I guess no one at Fox gave a thought to what the song is about.
So, when the Federal Government wants to assume more powers that somehow shows that they have respect for States' Rights? I guess States' Rights don't mean anything when the state whose authority is being taken is Massachusetts.
You want to compare an unelected FCC commissioner to a US Senator? Find a Democratic Senator that wants to extend censorship to cable TV and I'll take you seriously.
With the Republicans in bed with the Religious Right, you have to expect that they will want to regulate our personal behavior and regulate the free market. They should adjust their rhetoric accordingly and stop pretending like they are the party of personal liberty.
What's your point?
This is in reply to mc6803e.
So, when the 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act are passed by the Republican 66th Congress over the veto of Woodrow Wilson and the 22nd Amendment repealing the 18th Amendment is passed by the Democratic 73rd Congress and signed by FDR, that somehow proves your point? You'll have to do better to explain the logic of that one.
"And all their works they do for to be seen of men. For they make their phylacteries broad, and enlarge their fringes. And they love the first places at feasts, and the first chairs in the synagogues. And salutations in the market place, and to be called by men, Rabbi" (Matt., xxiii, 1-8).
They gave up on their roots when they decided they needed the Christian Right.
I just want to hold Republicans to their rhetoric. Nothing annoys me like hypocrisy. The reason why Repubicans get caught in binds like this is that they are beholden to two interest groups: the Christian Right, which wants total moral regulation, and the Plutocrats, who want less regulation. There's no way to square that circle.
What party wants to amend the US Constitution to tell the states that they can't legalize same-sex marriage? The Right hates States' Rights. The digusting thing about the Right though is that they use the rhetoric of States' Rights while systematically eroding it.
It's interesting that Republicans talk about strengthening States' Rights and Federalism, except when it doesn't suit them.
Does that negate my point? My point is that the Republican Party rhetoric doesn't match up with what Senators like Ted Stevens want to do. The fact that there are other idiots--Democratic, Republican, and independent--doesn't affect my point.
If they believe in the power of the free market, then let the cable companies respond to the demand for "decent" cable TV.