"I trust God speaks through me..."

[Irvine511]

^ Let me refresh your memory.

The issue here is the slippery slope of government-sponsored growth and harvesting of living tissue.

Once begun, where will it end?

i don't share your sense of crisis, nor do i think a blastocyst is living tissue in any meaningful sense.

this is what medical ethicists are for, to untangle these moral, social, and ethical challenges. i don't see any floodgates being opened by the very broad consensus that embryonic stem cell research has significant medical potential.

in fact, i'd argue that federal funding would lead to increased federal oversight and accountability that would ensure that medical authorities will create acceptable regulatory frameworks for such research.

 

[BVS]

I diagree that it is "just a political move". I think he truly believes in what he's doing.

I actually agree. I think he truly does believe that this is somehow human life, and this is only one reason that I truly believe him to mentally affected.

 

[VintagePunk]

The slippery slope argument holds no water. That's what regulations are for.

When I think of all the human suffering that could be alleviated, but is dismissed due to his brand of "morality," it makes me ill.

 

[BVS]

^ Let me refresh your memory.

The issue here is the slippery slope of government-sponsored growth and harvesting of living tissue.

Once begun, where will it end?

What exactly is the slippery slope? I see none.

 

[nbcrusader]

I actually agree. I think he truly does believe that this is somehow human life, and this is only one reason that I truly believe him to mentally affected.

Perhaps you can use your mental superiority (apparently over Bush) and tell us exactly when human life begins.

 

[anitram]

There is a difference between federal and private funding, for those who have never actually worked in a lab to know that.

When you accept money from a private source, you are indebted to them to perform research which fits in with their current protocols and plans and is specifically designed to increase their financial gain. Sometimes the research is idiotic and a lot of times it leads nowhere but the sums of money are there.

The government money is also far more regulated, and it is very competitive to get. This means that public grants are scrutinized better and there is more accountability for less money received. Private grants are given out with the goal most often being to outsource some work to a lab and then make a bigger profit off it.

So no, it's a cop out to just say, let a corporation do all the work.

Corporate medical research is aimed at making back their enormous R&D investments, and the buck is always passed down to the consumer. Which is why we have outrageous inequality in that regard.

 

[BVS]

Perhaps you can use your mental superiority (apparently over Bush) and tell us exactly when human life begins.

I never claimed superiority, I said he was affected.

Do these cells divide on their own and grow into a human within this petri dish?

 

[Irvine511]

Perhaps you can use your mental superiority (apparently over Bush) and tell us exactly when human life begins.

what do we mean by "human life"?

is "human life" the same thing as personhood?

 

[deep]

Perhaps you can use your mental superiority (apparently over Bush) and tell us exactly when human life begins.

it is pretty easy to say the stem cells donated from in-vitro donors are not human beings

these people want to have children
they are not conceiving, carrying, for awhile and then aborting and donating

these are stem cells that will be destroyed
they will only be used if the donor chooses to put them to use

there is no law to prevent them from taking them home and feeding them to their cat


people who claim absolutes are often wrong
hard core pro-choicers that say a woman has complete control over her body until the baby is born are wrong

to abort at 8 1/2 months is wrong
to call it a parasite in her body is wrong

some pro-choice
warn of a slippery slope and do not want any one but the woman saying what can happen until a natural birth at nine months

their absolute stand is just as wrong as calling the stem cells human beings

 

[maycocksean]

If Bush had to rush into a burning room, and there was a trayful of 60 embryos and a little kid, which would he rescue if he could only save one or the other?

I think this is actually a good question, and I think we all know the answer.

I really don't understand the standard Right Wing approach to "life" issues. The argument is that it's about saving "lives" but it's really not (otherwise the typical politicized evangelical view would oppose the death penalty not support it). It's really about which lives are more valuable and thus more worth saving. The unborn and the stem cells often appear to have more "value" than say the death row prisoner or the enemy soldier on the battlefield. Which, I suppose you could make the argument. . .but MAKE the argument. Don't hide behind this concept of "pro-life." The so-called "left" already admitts that the this what the discussion is about. . .are embroyos worth more than "already born" humans? The right needs to admitt that this is really what the debate is about as well.

For me personally, I tend to lean towards supporting federal support for stem cell research. Whatever "slippery slope" there is, is already there through private reserach. If anything, allowing for federal funding would provide more oversight and make it less likely that the "Bottom Line" will take the place of ethics. Anitram has already argued this point quite eloquently.

By the way, aussieU2 I'm a Christian, so no, there is not a single "Christian" stance on stem stell research (or on just about any other issue other than the divinity of Jesus). If there's one thing I learned on the atheist thread it's that not all atheists believe the same. You might do well to learn the same of Christians (not to mention those of other faiths).

 

[coemgen]

I'll be honest I don't know a whole lot about this issue, but isn't it true that there are other ways to get stem cells? Do they have to be embryonic?

Just asking, my peeps.

coemgen

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

By the way, aussieU2 I'm a Christian, so no, there is not a single "Christian" stance on stem stell research (or on just about any other issue other than the divinity of Jesus). If there's one thing I learned on the atheist thread it's that not all atheists believe the same. You might do well to learn the same of Christians (not to mention those of other faiths).

Thanks for saying that. But all Christians do believe the same and are all the same kinds of people ~ the gospel according to FYM



http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/19/defending-bushs-veto-rove-grossly-distorts-stem-cell-science/

"Today, Bush is expected to veto a bill that would expand federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. It will be the first veto of his presidency. Last week, Karl Rove –- explaining why Bush planned on vetoing the bill — told the Denver Post that “recent studies” show researchers “have far more promise from adult stem cells than from embryonic stem cells.”

The Chicago Tribune contacted a dozen top stem cell experts about Rove’s claim. They all said it was inaccurate. So who wrote the “studies” that Rove was referring to?

White House spokesman Ken Lisaius on Tuesday could not provide the name of a stem cell researcher who shares Rove’s views on the superior promise of adult stem cells.

In a letter to President Bush last year, a group of 80 Nobel laureates wrote that “current evidence suggests that adult stem cells have markedly restricted differentiation potential.”

Question: Does President Bush believe that adult stem cell research has “far more promise” than embryonic stem cells? Is that a contributing factor in his decision to veto the bill? "

Bush's comments about the veto are on the WH web site, if anyone cares to read them

 

[A_Wanderer]

unless it's an unborn gay.

If sexuality is a matter of choice then that is a contradiction in terms.

 

[deep]

Over the past two decades since the first "test-tube baby" was born, an estimated 400,000 frozen embryos have accumulated in more than 400 fertility clinics in the U.S.

Nightlight Christian Adoptions connects biological parents of those embryos with other families trying to conceive; so far 110 children have been born and an additional 20 are due by February.

So doing the math-
399,000+
will be flushed down the toilet
where is the outcry at this holocaust?

why the need to be a surrogate and carry someone else's baby to term,
and give birth ?

when there are millions of children languishing in orphanages?

I have two adopted nieces, ages 3 and 6, that were abandoned

I am proud and happy that my family members took these little girls out of orphanages
and did not go to the freezer for Mrs. Paul's eggs

link here

 

[BVS]

Thanks for saying that. But all Christians do believe the same and are all the same kinds of people ~ the gospel according to FYM
[

 

[Irvine511]

If sexuality is a matter of choice then that is a contradiction in terms.

what about the notion of "biological error"?

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Actually there are probably a few different interpretations for that "gospel" statement I made, I suppose depending upon who is interpreting it.

 

[maycocksean]

Actually there are probably a few different interpretations for that "gospel" statement I made, I suppose depending upon who is interpreting it.

Yeah, I wasn't sure how to interpret it myself. I just assumed sarcasm and left it alone!

 

[BonosSaint]

Actually there are probably a few different interpretations for that "gospel" statement I made, I suppose depending upon who is interpreting it.

LoL, imagine that. Differing interpretations of the gospel in FYM.

 

[80sU2isBest]

I think this is actually a good question, and I think we all know the answer.

I really don't understand the standard Right Wing approach to "life" issues. The argument is that it's about saving "lives" but it's really not (otherwise the typical politicized evangelical view would oppose the death penalty not support it). It's really about which lives are more valuable and thus more worth saving. The unborn and the stem cells often appear to have more "value" than say the death row prisoner or the enemy soldier on the battlefield. Which, I suppose you could make the argument. . .but MAKE the argument. Don't hide behind this concept of "pro-life." The so-called "left" already admitts that the this what the discussion is about. . .are embroyos worth more than "already born" humans? The right needs to admitt that this is really what the debate is about as well.

The prolife movement isn't about protecting all life, and I don't know of anyone who has ever claimed it is. It's actually about protecting innocent life.

 

[maycocksean]

The prolife movement isn't about protecting all life, and I don't know of anyone who has ever claimed it is. It's actually about protecting innocent life.

What movements are actually about, and the way they are sold or promoted are often two different things.

My point is the debate is still about which lives are more "valuable".

Are already born adults automatically of less value than those yet to be born? Or vice versa?

 

[nathan1977]

My point is the debate is still about which lives are more "valuable".

Are already born adults automatically of less value than those yet to be born? Or vice versa?

Do you really want the government to legislate the value of a life?

 

[BVS]

Do you really want the government to legislate the value of a life?

Isn't that what we have now?

 

[nathan1977]

Okay, let me rephrase --

Given the amount of ineptitude our government displays on a regular basis, do you honestly trust them to make the right decision about the value of a life, especially given the various ethical issues at play?

 

[BVS]

Okay, let me rephrase --

Given the amount of ineptitude our government displays on a regular basis, do you honestly trust them to make the right decision about the value of a life, especially given the various ethical issues at play?

No, which is why this veto is an abomination to life.

 

[maycocksean]

Do you really want the government to legislate the value of a life?

Nothing personal here, nathan1977, but these are the kinds of politically loaded questions that just drive me up the wall.

I think the question you're really asking, though it doesn't sound near as sexy, is "Do you really want the government to legislate a lower value to innocent human life?"

And the fact is that whatever action Congress takes whether it's to allow federal funding for stem cell research or to ban federal funding is legislating SOMETHING about the value of a human life.

 

[maycocksean]

Okay, let me rephrase --

Given the amount of ineptitude our government displays on a regular basis, do you honestly trust them to make the right decision about the value of a life, especially given the various ethical issues at play?

Apologies. I didn't see your rephrase until after I posted. Your argument actually could be used to support both sides of the debate really. After all, "how can we leave it up to the bumbling fools up in Washington to decide federal funding should be prohibited? They clearly don't have ethical foundations do so right?"

 

[INDY500]

I'll be honest I don't know a whole lot about this issue, but isn't it true that there are other ways to get stem cells? Do they have to be embryonic?

No.

Embryonic stem cells (ESCs) receive tremendous media attention, with oft-repeated claims that they have the POTENTIAL to cure virtually every disease known. Yet they have yet to even make it into a human clinical trial. This is even as alternatives — adult stem cells (ASCs) from numerous places in the body as well as umbilical cord blood and placenta — are curing diseases here and now and have been doing so for decades.

Embryonic stem cells are speculative in their human use, and the entire field (“therapeutic cloning”) has been a consistent story of failure and fraud.

Jan 11th 2006
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) -- South Korea's top university on Wednesday apologized for the scandal over Hwang Woo-suk's faked stem cell research, calling it a blemish on the country that embraced the scientist as a national hero.
The government said it would withdraw Hwang's "top scientist" title -- an honor created especially for him in the wake of purported breakthroughs that raised hopes for using stem cells to develop new treatments of diseases from Alzheimer's to diabetes.
Seoul National University's apology came a day after its investigative panel confirmed that Hwang faked ALL of his human stem cell research, including his landmark 2004 claim in the journal Science that he cloned a human embryo and extracted stem cells from it.

 

[anitram]

A very small minority of the scientific community will ever argue that adult stem cells have the same potential as embryonic stem cells. Obviously they have been available for decades longer, any idiot can tell you that as we weren't technically capable of creating embryos in petri dishes in the 50s!

To call it fraud signals commentary by somebody who has little to no knowledge of how stem cells work, what the differences between the lines are.

If you don't support research on moral grounds, say it. But to disguise it by suggesting ESCs are fraudulent and a failed story is wrong.

 

[INDY500]

If you don't support research on moral grounds, say it. But to disguise it by suggesting ESCs are fraudulent and a failed story is wrong.

Moral grounds? Let's just say I'm against using medicine to give people false hope. And right now, embryonic stem-cell research is the scientific equivalent of Benny Hinn. Lot's of big promises, lot's of pleas for more money...but in the end, few results.