No Blood For Cures

[FTA84]

Can you please delete all of that, and add something relating to the topic?   

My mistake for not writing a better post.  I tried to explain why science can be religion.

I meant for it to imply that the left has a religion called science, which they believe holds all the answers.  No one knows if every single problem (or much more reasonably, a majority of them) can be solved with science.

That is why they want to fund this.  They believe that science can solve anything and that the only obstruction is time.  The only way to speed up the process is to get more people working on it.  The only way to get more people working on a black hole is to throw tons of money at it.

[Perd Hapley]

Well, you yourself framed the topic as "No blood for cures"  - thus implying a right-to-life/abortion significance to this issue.

Of course I did, because that is the most important issue here, and that is how it should be framed.  What does anyone gain by down-playing that side of it?  Whether you frame it as a small-govt, fiscal discipline position, or a pro-life position, you would still be protrayed as anti-science and uncaring.  I'm not sure how "Let's not heal the paralyzed, 'cause I don't wanna pay higher taxes," is more persuasive than "Let's not heal the paralyzed, because it requires the murder of thousands upon thousands of babies." 

I'm thinking, if this were just a question of govt. spending, Bush would have spent as much of our money on embryonic cells, as he did on African AIDS.  Nyet? 

[Perd Hapley]

FTA,

OK, now I understand.  This can be a pretty heated topic by itself, so I wasn't too happy for the evolution debate to be brought up, or global warming, not to mention that you seemed to be saying some pretty negative things about religion and religious people.  Of which I is one. 

I still think you should edit your post, just so no one feels the need to argue about all that other stuff.  Pwease? 

[MicroBalrog]

I'm not sure how "Let's not heal the paralyzed, 'cause I don't wanna pay higher taxes," is more persuasive than "Let's not heal the paralyzed, because it requires the murder of thousands upon thousands of babies."  Huh?

The problem is, we don't know if this process will heal the paralyzed (I think there is a process to harvest said stem cells without killing the embryo), and in the meanwhile, millions of people think the process is murder. Is it worth it to take money (which is not authorized by the Constitution) from people who think the process is murder to fund it, given the fact it may or may not work?

[Manedwolf]

The problem is, we don't know if this process will heal the paralyzed (I think there is a process to harvest said stem cells without killing the embryo), and in the meanwhile, millions of people think the process is murder. Is it worth it to take money (which is not authorized by the Constitution) from people who think the process is murder to fund it, given the fact it may or may not work?

It's been pretty well shown that stem cells can regenerate damaged tissue in things like the spinal column, as they can "become" anything. They're the tabula rasa of cells.

However, embryonic ones are NOT needed. Adult stem cells will work just fine when tweaked in the lab!

And you do not want to go there, "harvesting without killing the embryo". That'd add a whole new class of welfare mothers for money, and that'd be...very post-civilization.

[MicroBalrog]

However, embryonic ones are NOT needed. Adult stem cells will work just fine when tweaked in the lab!

I don't really know aanything about this subject. Firethorn here said that even if we plan to use adult stem cells, we need to study embryonic ones to learn more about their development process. Is this true?

And you do not want to go there, "harvesting without killing the embryo". That'd add a whole new class of welfare mothers for money, and that'd be...very post-civilization.

If we can get samples of these cells without causing harm to the future child, I'd say we should do it.

[Perd Hapley]

The problem is, we don't know if this process will heal the paralyzed (I think there is a process to harvest said stem cells without killing the embryo), and in the meanwhile, millions of people think the process is murder. Is it worth it to take money (which is not authorized by the Constitution) from people who think the process is murder to fund it, given the fact it may or may not work?

All good thoughts.  However, I was addressing the level of rhetoric.  The rhetorical position is "Embryonic stem cells will make the lame walk and the blind see."  Good luck countering that kind of appeal with "I don't wanna pay for it."

On the level of reality, to answer your questions Micro, I think the state of the art is to use a person's own stem cells (adult stem cells or umbilical cord blood) to treat them.  I have never heard of any adult stem cell treatments needing contributions from embryonic research.  Not that I follow things that closely, but I've never heard of that.

[Manedwolf]

If we can get samples of these cells without causing harm to the future child, I'd say we should do it.

Okay. Stop and think there.

People getting pregnant JUST for repeated cell harvesting payouts, then welfare payouts.

This isn't Bioshock, and I don't want it to be.

[Perd Hapley]

Ya know how sometimes it takes a while to figure out how to say something?  Anyway, here's another obnoxiousism about this. 

Bush is portrayed as the mean, reactionary wingnut, when in fact his policy was a very generous compromise.  Not only did he refuse to interfere with the research, he went so far as to actually allow subsidies for particular "lines" of embryos.  As I understand it, he was the first President to authorize funding for such.  It's not that I have much love for Bush.  The problem is, his actions are perceived as conservatism by millions of people.  And that hurts all of us. 

Obama, Mr. Cool, the Nice Young Man, is not content with any such compromise.  He prefers to force citizens to pay for research which they consider to be mass murder. 

Obama, that Savior of Science, that Healer of the Sick and Raiser of the Dead, has de-funded the research that is making progress (on non-embryonic stem cells), preferring to put that money into research which the science has already passed by, research which has only succeeded in growing tumors in rats. 

This is being framed as "freeing science from political ideologies," to which the de-funding of the adult stem cell research gives the lie.  But even if it were true, it suggests that science must not be limited by principle.  And that is Very Scary.  It may be time to repeal Godwin's Law. 

[Perd Hapley]

FTA,

Thank you sir.  Classy of you.   

[MicroBalrog]

Okay. Stop and think there.

People getting pregnant JUST for repeated cell harvesting payouts, then welfare payouts.

This isn't Bioshock, and I don't want it to be.

How did you get from what I said to Bioshock?

[Iain]

Three things.

1. Can we have a clarification on whether Obama has allowed funding on embryonic stem cells or fetal stem cells. There is a difference which isn't a moral one over the beginning of life, but rather informs on the bizarre 'post civilisation' 'human cow' stuff that is appearing.

2. A proper cite on defunding of adult stem cells

3. A proper article on adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells and the advantages of each. All we've had is assertions, and I'm not calling you guys 'anti-science', but I've not always been impressed with the ability to sort scientific information from talk show information.

[makattak]

Three things.

1. Can we have a clarification on whether Obama has allowed funding on embryonic stem cells or fetal stem cells. There is a difference which isn't a moral one over the beginning of life, but rather informs on the bizarre 'post civilisation' 'human cow' stuff that is appearing.

2. A proper cite on defunding of adult stem cells

3. A proper article on adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells and the advantages of each. All we've had is assertions, and I'm not calling you guys 'anti-science', but I've not always been impressed with the ability to sort scientific information from talk show information.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Removing-Barriers-to-Responsible-Scientific-Research-Involving-Human-Stem-Cells/

Executive Order 13435 of June 20, 2007, which supplements the August 9, 2001, statement on human embryonic stem cell research, is revoked.

You will find it at the bottom of the page.

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/pdf/07-3112.pdf

That's executive order 13435.

Expanding Approved Stem Cell Lines in EthicallyResponsible Ways

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the
laws of the United States of America, and to provide leadership with respect
to research on pluripotent stem cells derived by ethically responsible techniques
so that the potential of pluripotent stem cells can be explored without
violating human dignity or demeaning human life, it is hereby ordered
as follows:

Follow link for the rest.

For science!

[Seenterman]

What he did today, was to decide that your tax dollars could be used to fund such research, even if you think that killing embryos is murder. 

Ok Im going to play the Devil's Advocate here for a bit, but please try and keep it civil.

I understand that some people have religions objections to embronic stem cell reseach, but can you tell me how this is any different to the liberals saying they dont want their tax dollars to fund the war in Iraq because of the high civilian casualties? We really dont have any say where our tax dollars go once they leave our bank account. . .

[Perd Hapley]

The pro-life point of view is not "merely" a religious objection.  Though I am a religious person, I have never felt the need to use religious arguments to support my pro-life position.*

I see the parallel you're trying to draw, but there are some differences.  One significant difference is that almost all of us will agree that national defense is a responsibility of the federal government.  There may be disagreement on whether the Iraq war contributed to national defense, or whether it was properly executed, but I have yet to hear anyone ask that Iraq war funding be limited to the private sector. 

But such a comparison gives far too much credit to embryonic stem cell research.  The facts are far more clear than the intelligence reports on Iraq.  Destroying human embryos, unless they happen to be threatening your life, is murder.  Mr. Obama, et al, have no excuse. 


*I'm not a big fan of the terms "pro-life," or "pro-choice," but I'm not sure how else to term my position on this.  Anti-embryocide?   

[Iain]

That link didn't really answer my questions, but no matter.

MTP - I hear what you're saying, and as long as we step aside from (presently unsupported) claims that embryonic stem cell research is the ugly step sister, I take your point with regard to the morality of it. I'm far closer to saying that life begins at conception than I am to saying it starts anywhere else.

Strikes me though that the argument actually really begins with IVF. These genetically unique balls of cells with the potential to be human beings (more weaselly than I thought possible) are a byproduct of IVF are they not? Or is that some misunderstanding on my part? If they are not used for stem cell research they are destroyed anyway, or am I wrong? So, whilst that is not an argument for embryonic stem cell research, perhaps it is a strike against IVF?

[makattak]

That link didn't really answer my questions, but no matter.

MTP - I hear what you're saying, and as long as we step aside from (presently unsupported) claims that embryonic stem cell research is the ugly step sister, I take your point with regard to the morality of it. I'm far closer to saying that life begins at conception than I am to saying it starts anywhere else.

Strikes me though that the argument actually really begins with IVF. These genetically unique balls of cells with the potential to be human beings (more weaselly than I thought possible) are a byproduct of IVF are they not? Or is that some misunderstanding on my part? If they are not used for stem cell research they are destroyed anyway, or am I wrong? So, whilst that is not an argument for embryonic stem cell research, perhaps it is a strike against IVF?

The link wasn't supposed to answer all your questions. However, it should show you what order Obama rescinded and what that order said.

How does that not answer your question of what Obama did?

[Perd Hapley]

Strikes me though that the argument actually really begins with IVF. These genetically unique balls of cells with the potential to be human beings (more weaselly than I thought possible) are a byproduct of IVF are they not? Or is that some misunderstanding on my part? If they are not used for stem cell research they are destroyed anyway, or am I wrong? So, whilst that is not an argument for embryonic stem cell research, perhaps it is a strike against IVF?

Indeed, IVF methods are highly egregious, in that they produce large lots of "extra" humans that must be indefinitely frozen.  That most certainly needs to be addressed.  And yes, pro-lifers are already adopting these "snowflake" kids.

I'm a little buried by classwork right now, or I would try to find the info you're looking for.  I need to better inform myself, anyway.  You might start by looking up "induced pluripotent stem cells."

[MicroBalrog]

Destroying human embryos, unless they happen to be threatening your life, is murder.  Mr. Obama, et al, have no excuse. 

Do you believe that there can be no legitimate argument about that point at all? Do you believe that the evidence that human life and humanity begins and conception is so incontrovetible? Even if does begin at conception, does it necessarily flow from here that we must not kill embryos, ever?

[Perd Hapley]

Do you believe that there can be no legitimate argument about that point at all? Do you believe that the evidence that human life and humanity begins and conception is so incontrovetible? Even if does begin at conception, does it necessarily flow from here that we must not kill embryos, ever?

I'm not sure what you mean by "legitimate," but what argument could possibly be made? 

More importantly, what argument would be so "legitimate," so cogent that it would justify the destruction of a human embryo?  Except, as previously noted, in the case of an actual risk to the very life of the mother, a very strong justification would required for terminating the pregnancy, rather than allowing nature to run its short, nine-month course.

[MicroBalrog]

Well. What I mean is, "Do you think that there can be a difference of opinion on this issue without people who hold a different opinion being dismissed out of hand like wackos, like we do with Holocaust deniers."

Clearly you don't. My curiosity has been satisfied. 

[Perd Hapley]

Do you think that there can be a difference of opinion on this issue without people who hold a different opinion being dismissed out of hand like wackos, like we do with Holocaust deniers.

That pretty much sums it up.  When/if the database is fully restored, look for some threads where I've discussed this with people.  It's not so much that they won't agree with me in toto.  It's that they argue against the plain facts (i.e., that an embryo is a human being).  Or they make up wild scenarios where women miscarry their children at will, or other silliness. 

Abortion is a holocaust, of course, but I usually compare it to the issue of American slavery. 

[Matthew Carberry]

Micro,

It's a human embryo, all it can ever do is become a fully developed human (the gestation process) and then be a human until it dies from whatever cause at whatever time.

If it fails to implant, or miscarries, that is in the hands of fate/G-d/what-have-you, the hand of man has not intervened to take that life.  That is an important distinction.

However, if another human takes active steps to deliberately end its life, that is one human life killing another (even if it is merely a potential human life, it's the human that counts).

Under almost every legal and ethical code worldwide there are rules governing when the taking of one human life by another is justified.  However, in this case it is the laws and ethics of the US that matter.

A human life, that does not threaten another (which is the definition of "innocent" as far as US homicide statutes go), cannot be killed for reasons of convenience or the general welfare even of society as a whole.  It can only be killed when it actively and directly threatens other particular, distinct individual human lives. 

That's a valid legal position and argument as buttressed by statutes protecting only slightly more developed human life in the womb, which does not threaten the mother's actual physical well-being, from criminal or negligent homicide.  Even abortion's legality is based strictly on the right of the mother, not on any benefit to society as a whole.  The mother's right to abort, being based on privacy, cannot be rationally extended to any right for her or anyone else to benefit from that legally permissable killing.

Ethically the idea that human embryos, human life, might be deliberately, purposively created simply for the purpose of killing them in search of cures for other humans ills treads painfully close in spirit both to slavery (owning and treating other humans as tools to be used and discarded, not as people) and the euthanizing of other stages of human life deemed less worthy (due to their cost and lack of benefit to society and/or lesser "humanness" due to mental issues). 

Ironically much like the very lives of some of the folks (physically and mentally disabled) and their families who desire gov't funding for this research to end their own uselessness to society and themselves. 

We've seen that sort of assigning of value to human life in this country before and it is being proposed again in enlightened Europe, "for the good of society". 

Without consistency on the worth of innocent human life, no matter how unlike ours, the urge to move the lines on what is permissible to do to that life becomes entertainable.  The results are uniformly horrible.

[Matthew Carberry]

Iain,

In answer to your question about why this is controversial, aside from a multitude of legitimate ethical concerns, there haven't been any significant advances in the use of embryonic stem cell lines, at all. 

Bear in mind that there was gov't funded research on 15 embryonic lines in the US, with many other lines available for private or state funded research in the US AND that most other technological nations had no such limitations from the beginning.

With all that money and access no one has managed to make any useful progress on embryonic cells while the adult and umbilical research has actual real-world impact right now with more discoveries seemingly every day.

One of the most recent findings from the embryonic side is in fact disheartening as it appears that that embryonic cells may be too unstable for use in humans as they can create cancers.

So the tally on Federally-funded embryonic research is:

Negative

UnConstitutional use of Federal funds

Legitimate legal and ethical (setting aside religious for the moment) arguments and concerns about killing

Legitimate legal and ethical (setting aside religious for the moment) arguments and concerns about human cloning

No medical or other significant results after decades anywhere in the world

Documentable negative effects in testing

Positive

*crickets*


Given that, why are we bothering with Gov't. funding?  Why even discuss it?

[Monkeyleg]

Do you believe that there can be no legitimate argument about that point at all? Do you believe that the evidence that human life and humanity begins and conception is so incontrovetible? Even if does begin at conception, does it necessarily flow from here that we must not kill embryos, ever?

I try to never get into discussions about abortion because they almost always devolve into shouting matches.

Having said that, your questions remind me of a caller to Rush Limbaugh's show. A self-avowed atheist, the caller said it was his opinion that life must be considered to start at inception, as any other determined point in time would be purely arbitrary. I thought it was a great point.