Obama To Reverse Bush Limits On Stem Cell Work 508
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."
Re:Gives moral justification to abortionists (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Embryonic stem cells do not come from aborted fetuses, at least not from the traditional type of abortion. Embryonic stem cells come from left over fertilized eggs at fertility clinics that are to be thrown away. These are thawed, encouraged to begin development, then harvested for stem cells, which destroys them.
(I find it ironic that the last time stem cells came up, someone accused pro-lifers of trying to say that stem comes come from abortions)
Re:Proven to kill... (Score:1, Interesting)
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 [wikipedia.org]
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 [embryoadoption.org]
Re:Gives moral justification to abortionists (Score:5, Interesting)
As for the eggs, the fertility treatment doesn't work by picking out one egg, fertilizing it, putting it into a female and then seeing if it falls out again or gets stuck. It's more like picking a basket of eggs, fertilizing them all, screening them for defects, picking out the best one(s) and putting them back into the mother. This leaves us with a basket of motherless embryos(or zygotes in the early stages, but still motherless)(which in reality looks something like a basket full of seemingly empty petri dishes, not a pile of screaming dying babies as some would prefer us to belive). Calling them aborted is retarded simply because they aren't.
Oh, and they're only called fetuses after 8 weeks. they're embryos until then. And as they'll be put to the torch either way, why not try to derive something useful from them? If a few human cells lacking a nervous system is of so great importance then the prospect of saving several billions of human cells with a nervous system by providing reconstruction of failed organs and systems should be a national top priority.
Life begins BEFORE conception. (Score:3, Interesting)
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 propose a deal... (Score:1, Interesting)
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.
Re:Proven to kill... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Gives moral justification to abortionists (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the life begins at conception idea is just a left over from ancient attempts at science. It uses the same ideas behind "Spontaneous generation", that life comes from inanimate matter.
Under the "Spontaneous generation" theory, life comes from non-living matter under the right conditions. Rain water mixed with mud will generate frogs. Meat left to rot will generate flies. Presence of pre-existing life is not a requirement.
For all the benefit that Aristotle bestowed on mankind, his dabblings in the realm of Science put it back for hundreds of years. He was good at forming logical arguments that were quite reasonable. For science you also have to deeply scrutinize the actual world, something that wasn't as easily available to him at the time. His fame (he is Aristotle) then drove his ideas into the world as "facts"; an error that Aristotle would never have permitted if he were alive at the time.
Louis Pasteur finally proved that Aristotle was completely wrong. The Church pre-exists Pasteur, and most of it's doctrine was written pre-Pasteur. So it's easy to see why strongly religious people believe that life is created at birth. They're completely wrong too, but they're going to be far too busy bickering about when birth occurs to think about Pasteur. The message that they should learn is that life is not created, but preserved through offspring.
In a traditional religious culture, the idea that life is preserved through offspring runs counter to idea of spontaneous generation is a fact. Spontaneous generation is deeply rooted in the Bible, as it would be in any book of it's age. Adam and Eve were never represented as having to develop. Moses's staff turned into a snake. Abraham's son Issac was spared from being sacrificed by a sheep that suddenly appeared entangled in a bush. The entire universe was made, and made quickly. After being raised to accept such examples, it's almost forgivable to think that life is created, but it is still completely wrong; life is a continuum that you pass on to your children.
In related news... (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:Proven to kill... (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [wikipedia.org]
Re:If stem cells are so great? (Score:5, Interesting)
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, [jneurosci.org] a study that was cleared by the FDA for human trials [cnn.com] 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.
Mormon Senators mean any legeslation will pass (Score:4, Interesting)
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...
Re:Proven to kill... (Score:2, Interesting)
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?
Re:Proven to kill... (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:AP failing again (Score:5, Interesting)
Basic scientific research is a "public good". You can't get the proper levels of funding by asking the private sector to do it, simply because the bulk of the benefits will be impossible to monetize. Since anyone can use the products of basic research, those who fund it create something that their freeloading competitors can use just as easily as they can. So basic research will always be starved under a private sector regime.
Invoking Hollywood? It's hard for me to believe that you're really pro-choice, since that's nothing but standard Right-wing culture war claptrap. Hollywood is in the business of making movies, not identifying promising avenues for scientific research. This research is going to benefit even the few hardcore pro-lifers who want to see it outlawed, and even the wealthy corporations who would starve the government of funding to shave a few points off their tax burden will be able to use this research to create new lifesaving products. So why shouldn't the burden of funding that research fall on the population as a whole?
My guess is that you're "pro-choice" the way most wackjob libertarians are: you revile abortion as immoral, just not quite as immoral as a government who would dare to ever tell anyone what to do. As soon as you find a way to get the free market to ban abortion, you'll do it.
Finally, if you think that Obama's tiny increases in the marginal rate are going to prevent every American from ever becoming or staying rich (which is what it would take to "kill off the possibility of private funding," you're off your rocker. The rich did very well after Clinton raised taxes. But the poor and the middle class also did very well for themselves, which probably irks you.
Mod Parent Up! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Gives moral justification to abortionists (Score:4, Interesting)
Hate to break it to you, but GP (LordKazan) did say the following:
(emphasis mine)
His statement only refers to the possibility of survival outside of its host without the aid of (modern) technology. A healthy child carried full term -can- survive once born. Sure, if you then leave them in a trash bin, they're likely to die, but if taken proper care for, it should grow up quite nicely.. whether that be in the care of the biological mother or another person. A child brought into the world after only the first trimester, however, simply stands no chance whatsoever.. not even -with- current technology, I reckon. Ergo, that would not be discrete life.
He also mentions 'until'. So to some of the below replies - no, his statement has no bearing on those who have -already- been quite capable of surviving.
I agree with you that the term 'parasite' can be taken quite broadly (as per another replyer below, one might argue that embryonic stem cell researchers taking government funds are 'parasites' of society), and thus disagree with the use of this term by LordKazan. His main point, however, stands... he believes that life only begins IF and when the child would reasonably be capable of survival and brought into the world, under natural circumstances. It's not what I, personally, believe (I do think that technological advances stretch where the definition of 'life' begins, although I wouldn't go so far as believing that any fertilized egg fits the definition of life if scientists develop an artificial womb at some point; where I would draw the line? No idea.), but I respect what he believes and don't think his opinion deserves being twisted around to fit situations he clearly did not intend for his opinion to be applied to.
Re:Gives moral justification to abortionists (Score:3, Interesting)
So, here is one for everyone saying it is abortion.
Lets consider that killing a fertilized embryo that is laying on a dish is abortion. Since those embryos on the clinics are already fertilized, what should be done with them ? You can't keep them frozen forever. Forever is not only an extremely long time (doh!), but the embryo won't survive forever. You can't also implant them all. Both of those scenarios are impossible.
So, what would you do ? If you keep them frozen forever, and they die, is that abortion ? (You knew beforehand that would eventually die). If you put them on a dish and let them die, is that abortion ? Or maybe the idea is to ban fertilization clinics, so the problem doesn't arise ?
What about the fact (also known beforehand) that not all implanted embryos will survive ?
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly! People can be pro-stem cell research, but anti-Federal government funding the use of these cells for disease research. That is my position on this issue. When you get the government involved, it forces people to fund something they might not believe is moral. And that makes it doubly immoral for them. Private funding gives the freedom for those who believe in the possibility of the research the chance to fund it, those who do not agree with it will not have to waste their money funding such research. Until people in the US understand this about the government meddling where it does not belong, we'll always have nasty, polarized politics.
Just like there's a separation between church and state, I think it's time to separate the government from a lot of additional things. Government should not, ever, be in the business of making moral decisions for anyone.