Stem Cell Research Moves Forward In The US 807
maniacdavid writes "President George Bush has finally made a clear and final decision on stem cell research. He will allow the existing 60 cell lines to continue their development in the hopes of curing a disease. He said the choice was difficult because of his stand on against stem cell funding during his campaign. But he allowed the 60 to continue because the choice between life and death was already made. This is good for both sides and many people are pleased. " Granted, there's the issue of these 60 lines viability, but at least it's not a total federal funding ban, as was widely expected. As well, there's increased funding on stem cells obtained from adults, umbilical cords, placentas and animals - 250$US million this year, which is still a pittance when you consider the potentials of stem cells.
Bush Says "Um, Okay" To Stem Cell Research (Score:5, Funny)
"I'm just a boy who can't say no," said George W. Bush as he announced his decision to allow public funding of stem cell research. The President then burst into a medley of other songs from Oklahoma before someone reminded him that he had a speech to finish.
Some worry that in their push to get the funding approved, biologists have over-promised the potential of stem cells. Several scientists who testified on the issue have had to issue clarifications in recent days. For example, stem cell research will not one day lead to free trips to Disney World. And the field of study will likely never lead to the long-awaited vaccine for Cooties.
Time will tell.
Click here for the full story. [ridiculopathy.com]
Quick question (Score:3, Interesting)
Or was that false?
King Solomon? (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I support this decision strongly - regardless of my personal views on the subject (of which I'm sure you're just dying to hear, right? Hello?)
It's in the President's best interest to appeal to as many groups as possible... after all, he does want to get re-elected (we assume).
I think this decision appeals to the largest possible group of Americans... including those who don't necessarily support it. The absolute conservatives will (and have) denounce this as a moral travesty, while the pro-research groups will lament the limited viability of the exisiting stem cell lines (claimed to be anywhere from 10 to 80, depending on who you ask).
What some people are forgetting is that no laws have been passed restricting the research - all that has been done is that FEDERAL funds have been restricted to a subset of the research. Private organizations are welcome to fund any type of research they want.
The pro-research groups need to realize that they're getting funding for a controversial line of research, and are welcome to do whatever research they'd like with private funds.
The pro-life groups need to realize that regardless of their feelings on the method of obtaining the existing stem cell lines, they *do* exist - abandoning them will not repair the moral injustice they feel has been done. The new guidlines on federal funding acts to represent their views by not supporting the destruction of human embryos (or "pre-embryos").
Frankly, I think Mr. Bush has dodged a major bullet here. Important research will continue with the federal government's assistance, and major moral questions will remain at least partially unchallenged.
Stem cells, etc. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Stem cells, etc. (Score:5, Informative)
What?? My girlfriend is a molecular biologist who works with the cDNA libraries of a lot of animals and she says human adult stem cells are nowhere near as easy to work with or productive as fetal tissue is. I'm not pro-abortion (but I am pro-choice), but the fact of the matter is: a stem cell, in its purest form is an undifferentiated cell. These "pure stem cells" are best found in undeveloped, terminated fetii (sp?).
Secondly, my girlfriend says 60 libraries isn't enough despite what Bush and his bio advisors say. She says there are hundreds out there. While I guess Bush acquiescing to a degree is a step in the right direction, there still is a way to go.
Regardless, most of the companies doing stem cell research don't need federal funding anyway. The private sector of Biotech has plenty of VC.
psxndc
Re:And what happens when there is a cure? (Score:3, Interesting)
However, this is a worst-case scenario and somewaht beside the point. If I understand stem cells correctly, they will act like various strains of cancerous cells already used in research. There will be one collection of constantly reproducing stem cells at the supplier. No more original stem cells or fetal tissue will be needed, as long as the main line can be kept undifferentiated and reproducing indefinitely. Laboratories will simply buy cultures off this main supply.
some decorum please... (Score:2)
Now this is really pathetic. Five posts into the discussion (browsing at +1) and you had to sink to level of making cheap shots at someone's religious convictions. Is that the extent of your intelect? If so, you're pathetic.
The argument around stem cell research is fundamentally based on the question of when life begins. To illustrate, consider this: If there were a type of cell only found in 8 year olds, that held amazing promise is curing terrible diseases, but extracting them killed the child, would we extract them? Clearly not because the price of the cure is too high because 8 year olds are considered human by everybody.
However, not everybody agrees on the question of whether or not fetuses are human. Now, they either are, or they are not. Regardless of what you or I think, one position is correct and the other false.
There is no easy resolution on the horizon, so what do we do? We try to come up with a solution that a large majority can agree on. The President's decision is a good one because it allows stem cell research to some degree, but it can be accepted by pro-lifers, because it does not encourage abortion.
People need to give up the idea that you can get everything you want on a polarized subject.
Now for an offtopic discussion around abortion...
The question of when something becomes human is essentially the same as the fallacy of the beard. For those of you who don't know, the fallacy of the beard is like this. One whisker is not a beard, neither is two. So how may whiskers are needed? 10,000? What about 9,995?
To carry this over to abortion: Conception seems counter-intuitive for the beginning of human life, but birth is equally so. (I mean, what changed between 5 seconds after my birth and 5 seconds before).
Re:And what happens when there is a cure? (Score:2, Interesting)
But there is the same amount of evidence for them as there is for your 'god'. Just because lots of people believe something, does not make it true. You might want to check out The Logic FAQ [infidels.org].
Evil Overlord X
Coming to a third world country near you
Re:And what happens when there is a cure? (Score:2, Informative)
> intelligent design. Explain how you can get
> complex life and thought from time + chance. The
> law of entropy states otherwise
"Violating entropy" is an old saw shot down by physicists time and again. "Overall entropy" says nothing about local entropy. To see another violation of entropy in exactly the same manner as life, take a look at your air conditioner. And no, that an AC unit is "intelligently designed" doesn't make the principal invalid.
> Why do we have [sexual reproduction] then? Just for pr0n?
Thank goodness! Moreover, if God were creating the universe, why make a male and a female? Why not an androgynous, peaceful, asexual society where men won't rage around fighting natural temptation to be the alpha male, leaving trails of orphans everywhere. Good one, God.
(Would Trout pr0n consist of masturbating to pictures of laid eggs? Discuss.)
Evolution is so powerful that if God were to create the universe as-is, we know enough that evolution would commence immediately on the then-existing species. God would have to take an active role in stopping evolution (which would then be detectable by science, BTW.)
Anyway, evolution is not at odds with religion except in the more fundamental sects (including TV preachers.) The older religions simply throw up their hands and say evolution is how God guided development. No more house-arrests for Galileo for them. If the Bible contradicts science, all the worse for the Bibie. (If you want to continue to believe in it, you must ascribe ever-larger portions to being allegory rather than actual description.)
Re:And what happens when there is a cure? (Score:3, Insightful)
Again, you show a poor grasp of the concept of evolution. A species doesn't just change. Its traits slowly change, and in the absense of interbreeding between certain groups, branches. A bonobo doesn't just suddenly lose all its hair and start making swords (though, to be fair to them, they do make flint knives on occasion). Over the course of several hundred thousand to several million years, their traits change slightly. For example, donkeys are about 1-2 million years apart from horses and zebras. It took 2 million years to have such little changes as coat color and some facial features. Smaller species evolve more rapidly - fruit flies being one of the most common breeding species for such studies, are an easy example. In our lives, we've seen even smaller species, such as bacteria, change almost beyond recognition.
-= rei =-
Re:And what happens when there is a cure? (Score:2)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob.html
That's roughly the equivalent of looking at an argument on why Phrenology is pseudoscience, and using the claims of phreneology as fact
"Your claim essentially states that all life on the planet is all the same species with radically different traits. I'd be hard-pressed to say I'm the same species as a humming bird, or a tiger."
Species is a word, silly. I'm not claiming we're all the same species. Once we become different enough, we're a different genus. One we're different enough from that, we're a different family. Then an order. Then a class. Then a phylum. Then a kingdom. They're arbitrary lines set by humans. Quit being silly
"Yes, features change. Intra-species evolution. Species do not. I have brown hair, my mom has blond. Different genes. Hardly evolution. Under
evolution, yes, those genes would have to become a part of our DNA, but they aren't evolution! Different features != evolution!"
LAF!!!!!!!!!! That's hilarious. You're referring to picking from existing genes. That has nothing to do with this argument. What you need to be disproving if you want to have any weight at all is *mutation*.
"Evolving a facial feature is quite different from say, evolving legs instead of fins. "
The mudpuppy is a fish without lungs that goes on the land, and the ceoclanth (sp) has almost legs with no lungs. And then there is the African Lungfish, the floridian walking catfish,...
Simple legs used in many of these animals are little more than fins. There is a steady progression of more complicated fin-legs, up to normal legs, *still in existance* in the world (rememebr, a trait only dissapears if there's a disadvantage to having it any more - a fully developed leg is only important if you plan to spent a significant amount of time on land - many semi-legged fish use their legs to walk across dry land to get to new ponds).
Mutations are very rarely beneficial to adding new alleles to the gene pool.
Quite true. In fact, a little over 99% of mutations are harmful. Now, pull up your favorite programming language, create an array of numbers, and have it go, for 100,000 rounds, changing the number lower 99.5% of the time, and higher 0.5% of the time. Then, have the highest numbered ones copy themselves over and replace the lowest numbered ones. You'll be (un)pleasantly surprised.
I was also pleasantly surprised to notice that you didn't even cover the fact that many species have become incapable of breeding with certain groups, in laboratory condictions, simply by being separated from each other (naturally, they can still breed with the group they were separated into). Its a perfectly repeatable experiement, every single time.
-= rei =-
Re:And what happens when there is a cure? (Score:2)
Simple organisms don't survive for the same reasons that they don't in AE simulations (which we use to model bacterial and viral populations, btw, with astoundingly similar results). A simple organism cannot gather energy nearly as efficient. It cannot break down near as many compounds. It can't reproduce as efficiently. It can't adapt very quickly. It would be at the bottom of the "ability to compete" spectrum. The exact same thing happens in AE runs.
"To my knowledge (And please let me know if there are counterexamples), there are no self-replicating, living molecules or strands of RNA. If they could survive to evolve, they should still be around."
The whole point in evolution is that they're *not* still around. The whole population either changes or diverges - stagnation is a killer, because as soon as something finds a good way to kill you, your entire species gets wiped out. The shorter the generation time, the more swift the changes are. Bacterial and viral changes are incredibly rapid. Larger organisms, like people, have slow enough adaptation speeds that they have to have an adaptable immune system to pose a chance.
And, yes, there are replicating, individual molecules. They're called prions; a good example is Mad Cow disease. They come into existance every so often, but don't usually last for too long (a few hundred years at best) before they're adapted against, since they can't handle change, being as simple as they are.
". Does this mean that older organisms have disappeared? If this is so, why is it that there are organisms that are evolutionally inferior to other organisms?"
Give an example. What you may consider "evolutionarily inferior" may have quite a niche. For example, lemmings get killed by the thousands in their stampedes - however, its the smarter and stronger lemmings who survive the stampedes. They have no problem getting food and breeding in their current environment, and stampedes are a good way to get rid of those consuming food that are worse on the gene pool. If predation ever became more strict, they'd either, over the course of a few hundred to a few thousand years, weed out the behaviors that led to stampedes, or die off like the majority of species in history have.
There are species that are "evolutionarily inferior" in their particular environment. They're known as extinctions. Many things are evolutionarily inferior to us
"If a fish could survive in the ocean, there's no reason why it would need to leave the ocean, and therefore, no need to develop such traits."
By that logic, humans would only exist in one small location instead of inventing clothing, water containers, and whatever else is needed to go into different environments
"If a host body of water were to dry up, the fish would die, lacking the capability to move to another pond because before such circumstances,
there was no reason for the mutation - it would have caused drag in the water and been unnecessary - and when the need develops, they don't have the capability to survive it. They die. This mutation relies on the fact that their genes knew that 300 generations down the road their ancestors would have to walk to another pond, even though original didn't need and would never need the legs to survive. I'm not sure that even the foremost evolutionists could argue that successfully."
You are correct in understanding that there needs to be a linear adaptation path (for example, computer simulations have shown that there is a linear adaptation path from having an eyespot to having a eye with a lens, cornea, etc... but there is no path to having two lenses, to allow you to zoom in (that's why no animals have such a feature)). What your mistake in this situation is a failure to see the path
The earliest species to live on land were not legged animals, but lunged animals. In many parts of the world, rivers and streams dry up regularly. Often, its for a short while. Sometimes, its for a long time. The ability to live without water for longer and longer periods of time allows such an animal to survive in more and more seasonal niches (being the only such animal to survive there, as was mentioned before, they'd have no competition). Most such areas don't go from "wet" to "dry" instantly - the river gets muddier and muddier, eventually drying up. Naturally, the ability to move on mud when it gets dry is a huge advantage in those niches; flopping fins will get you a little bit of movement. The more solid the bony parts in the fins and the more muscle attached to themn, the better you can move. Eventually, this allows an animal to move into lakes that were completely inland. By this time, the animal is more amphibian-like than fish-like. (if you'll remember, amphibians start out as small, very fishlike organisms, which, once they reach a certain point, have undeveloped fin/legs start developing into legs, and their undeveloped lungs start to develop, while their gills atrophy).
I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying with your script, your wording is very unclear. "multiply the remaining elements by the number of offspring they have". What??
Yes, my example was a simplified situation, but it was a Proof Of Concept situation, not a general evolution system. You stated that most mutations are harmful. I agreed, wholeheartedly. I then showed that, however, if the few that do better are the ones that survive and end up replacing, in the niche, the poorest surviving elements, the overall species still gets better, thus refuting the validity of a claim that most mutations being bad means the species dies out.
Please provide a clearer explanation of your script and what you were trying to show with it
-= rei =-
Re:And what happens when there is a cure? (Score:2)
Basically, that given a certain population, if each "round" (loop) of mutation is 99.5% harmful and
Or did I completely miss what you were trying to say?
Basically, that line that confused you was my "reproduction" simulation - the survivors have offspring - in this case, 50 offspring per survivor, making the total population 50 times as large. The process is then repeated.
Re:And what happens when there is a cure? (Score:2)
Yes, I read your post on the thermodynamics. I'll have to do a little research into it before I can properly reply to it.
THIS is what I've hoped to accomplish by this - get some information I've not yet heard and learn about it. I readily admit that I've been taught a 1-sided view, which I do believe is very valid, and I'll do my best to defend. But I'm perfectly open to learning and thinking on the subject. Possibly the worst thing one can do is refuse to learn.
Best regards to you, Rei, eviloverlordx, and Bobo. It's quite pleasant, albeit different, to debate with people who can not only give logical answers, but back them up.
I'm going to do some reading on speciation and crossbreeding, and see what I come up with.
I do believe I've not only spent the entire day replying to
Re:Life has value,whether you believe in a soul or (Score:2)
Let me ask you.
1. Do you find killing human cells, or groups of human cells atrocious?
Of course not! Your cells are dying all the time. People don't have a second thought about getting them removed in surgery. Etc.
2. Do you find killing a unique combination of DNA, or a unique organism, atrocious?
Of course not! You do this just by walking, just by breathing. Every time you eat, you're causing the destruction of unique organisms - if you're not a vegetarian, including animals.
So, why would you take these two "I don't cares", and combine them into "I care enough to force my opinions on others!"?
In reality, what makes killing a human a tragedy is destroying a complex, unique consciousness.
A few-week old embryo has *no* consciousness. They don't even have neurons, let alone synapses, let alone complex synapses, let alone human-level synaptic complexity.
-= rei =-
Re:And what happens when there is a cure? (Score:2)
> waiting for adoption. It's the hight of narcissism on the part of these parents."
Even if you were right about the number of children available for adoption (see the other reply by AC), by this line of reasoning, anyone having a child by biological means is a narcissist.
Mostly, I find that the people most opposed to cloning as a method of having children are people who have no difficulties procreating normally, and I find that telling. When you can tell me the difference between wanting to make a child by cloning and wanting to make a child by traditional sex, I'll consider your argument more seriously. Until then, I can only consider it biased based on biological functionality.
Virg
Re:Issue should be sentience, not "life". (Score:2)
This is not even relevant to the discussion."
Actually, it is.
They're human cells. If what you object to is killing human cells, then you should object to killing a tumor. If what you object to is destrying a unique combination of DNA, then you shuold object to yourself existing, as you're doing that simply by breathing, let alone eating animals and plants.
If you don't object to either of those situations individually, then why do you combine them both and then suddenly object to them, strong enough to force your decisions on others?
In reality, the tragedy in killing a human is destroying a complex consciousness.
-= rei =-
Re:Issue should be sentience, not "life". (Score:2)
You did a most definitely excelent job of dodging the issue.
Now, I repose it.
We don't care if human cells or even globs of human cells die. We don't care if unique organisms/dna combinations die. Why do you suddenly combine them together to equal "I care enough to force my beliefs on others?"
And, once again, I'll state, the thing that makes killing a human a tragedy is the destruction of a complex, unique consciousness. Of which there is none in an early fetus, unless you believe the "soul" is the source of consciousness - but then, that would be forcing religion on others.
-= rei =-
Re:Issue should be sentience, not "life". (Score:2)
As we determined that abortion comes down to religion, one group should not have the right to force their views on it apon others.
-= rei =-
P.S. Merriam-Webster defines atheism as a disbelief in the existence of deity, and religion as the service and worship of God or the supernatural.
P.P.S. - if you want to get into a debate on the necessity (or, actually, lack of necessity) of faith in atheism, I'll be glad to oblige
Political powers in non political situations. (Score:5, Insightful)
My question is, why do the non supporters feel this is a win? The government didn't stop these companies from getting NEW STEM CELLS, they just stopped the funding on that spcific process.
The researchj WILL go on and i'm happy to say i support it 100%. With 2 grandparents that have alzheimers (and died..) and my wifes father dying a horribly painfull death from cancer i can only have praise for such research.
And lastly, my beliefs is that 4-5 cells do not constitue life, if that is the beginnings of life then sue me for masturbating away billions of cells that would HAVE or COULD have brought "life".
And for the religious right wingers who's life is in gods hands, i hope you don't ruin it for people who believe in god but believe in humans and science as well.
Classic Bush (Score:2, Interesting)
Bush's "reasoning"
Life is sacred
Life begins at conception
Destroying a life to save lives is wrong
Embryonic Stem Cell research is promising
Embryonic Stem cell harvesting destroys life
Some lives have been destroyed already
Destroying those lives was wrong
Stem Cell Lines were derived from those lives
We can't bring back those lives
So it's ok to use those stem cell lines
If you are against destroying embryos, you should be against using these stem cells. If you support this research, you should support developing new stem cell lines.
I think this will be a successful political move on Bush's part, but it demonstrates that he is just as political as Clinton was(something Bush criticized).
For the record, I support stem cell research, using stem cells from embryos that are a by-product of fertility therapies. I think it is abhorrent to create embryos solely for stem cell research.
Re:Classic Bush (Score:2)
(Not addressed at you -- I'm just taking this line because it's the core assertion of those who oppose such research, and you phrased it perfectly.)
So I'll take it at face value. I'll make an argument based on the assumption (IMHO erroneous) that a single fertilized cell constitutes life.
Why must embryonic stem cell research destroy life?
They're stem cells. Undifferentiated. If you wanted to "clone" one, you'd do it the same way you made an identical twin -- wait for it to divide, and separate the two cells.
If one stem cell is a human life, why not let it divide, grab one for research, and stick the other - identical cell - back into the freezer where you got it.
(And when some fundie says "You still destroyed one life, and suspended another", ask the fundie who created the second life. Without the lab researcher separating the two cells, there would be only one embryo. Will the fundie accept that a mere lab technician can create a new life two? Or will he acknowledge that the remaining cell we put back in the freezer is every bit the "person" it was before it divided.)
Re:Political powers in non political situations. (Score:2)
Ask for federal funding, you get political situations.. that's the way it goes.
The decision will in no way impact private research.
Re:Political powers in non political situations. (Score:3, Flamebait)
Well, as one of those "right wingers" that you so eloquently talk about, I'm pleased that the government isn't going to pay for science to harvest humans for thier cells. I agree that the research HAS THE POSSIBLITLY to lead to cures for many ills, but the chance that it could have saved your 2 grandparents and your wife's father, or my 2 grandparents or my wife's grandparents is conjecture only. Science THINKS that these things are possible, but science also was sure that the Earth was the center of the universe and that the world was flat and if you got to the edge, you would fall off.
Science should look at every option, and follow every research path, but federal money shouldn't be used for the harvesting of humans. Private funds and grants from private groups should be used in this case.
You are welcome to your belief that 4-5 cells do not constitue life, however, I'm sure you will feel different if you find your set to have a child and then it's lost during gestation. Those 4 or 5 cells become as real as any person and the loss felt is terrible. I pray your family never has to deal with that.
Re:Political powers in non political situations. (Score:2)
I don't appose or really even believe in right wing anything, that is a political term to show your drastic beliefs in anything. I don't believe my life is in gods hands, but i believe god has a role in my life.
Put yourself in this situation. Say you should have a childe who at his/her teenage years develops cancer. Your dr says you can do whatever you need to do to produce stems cells and use those cells to save your living child, otherwise he will die. Would you choose to let god take your child and hope that your current attempt at having children works out, or would you feel like a mother producing the very "medicine" that will save your child and your family?
Re:Political powers in non political situations. (Score:3, Insightful)
Kintanon
Re:Political powers in non political situations. (Score:2)
science also was sure that the Earth was the center of the universe
actually, the church saw to it that those proposing that the earth was not the center of the universe were denounced as being 'anti-god' or something. I'm sure other well versed readers here could place names and dates to show examples of this.
In the future , right now that is, we're unlocking the building blocks of life and may come to figure out how to build 'life' from scratch. This also has the power to destroy the view that Life can only be created by god, in a way the same as removing our world from the center of the universe did so long ago.
that being said, there's a lot of fetuses just laying around in trash cans from abortions anyhow, why can we just get stem cells from them?
Re:Political powers in non political situations. (Score:2)
That said, thanks for your concern. I aim never to be in that unenviable position.
-jhp
Re:Political powers in non political situations. (Score:2)
Yes, science believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. HOWEVER, when new evidence was discovered that proved that the Earth was not the center of the universe, science was happy to say "I've been wrong all along, the Earth is not actually the center of the universe. Thanks for the tip, Copernicus.", thus leading to modern astronomy and many horrible things done by the church to scientists. Science is the only force powering the advancement of knowledge in the world, and to cut it off because it "may not work" or may result in negative consequences is pure Luddism. As so many people here say regarding other issues, the toolmaker is not at fault for misuse of his products.
Re:Political powers in non political situations. (Score:2)
"You are welcome to your belief that 4-5 cells do not constitue life, however, I'm sure you will feel different if you find your set to have a child and then it's lost during gestation. Those 4 or 5 cells become as real as any person and the loss felt is terrible. I pray your family never has to deal with that. "
---
You wouldn't KNOW if you lost a 4-5 cells embryo
Not only is a 4-5 day embryo not a real human (it has, if it's lucky, a 25% percent chance of reaching the parturition stage), but every single person who uses artificial fertility techniques wastes 20-odd embryos *each cycle*. Are you also up for baning fertility treatments?
I'm sure everyone remembers that ass who stood up in front of the Senate and asked which one of his two former-adopted-embryos-now-children should be killed. Well, he overlooked the fact that he and his wife originally adopted THREE embryos. One of those embryos is no longer "alive." I'd argue that this is far more immoral than stem cell research (which I wholeheatedly support), because the cells harvested for research at least have the potential to help millions of living, breathing, productive people. The millions of embryos hanging out in fertility centers' liquid nitrogen tanks aren't going to do anyone any good
Re:Political powers in non political situations. (Score:2)
Re:Political powers in non political situations. (Score:5, Insightful)
but science also was sure that the Earth was the center of the universe and that the world was flat and if you got to the edge, you would fall off.
Methinks you're confusing science with religion. Science knew thousands of years ago the world was round, and scholars quickly accepted the copernican solar system. It was religion that tortured people for believing the truth.
Private funds and grants from private groups should be used in this case
This is exactly what both sides don't want. Without federal oversight, you're going to see experiments that simply ignore ethical boundaries- see the various privately funded groups that are currently trying to sell human clones. (It was on NPR last night: $200,000 a shot. The mere fact that they probably can't do it doesn't seem to bother them.)
That doesn't do either side in this debate any good: it tarnishes the real value of the research while at the same time making a mockery of life.
Eric
Re:Political powers in non political situations. (Score:2, Insightful)
I am not against oversite of private research in these cases. That has always existed. New oversite bodies are going to be created to deal with this, as was stated in the speach last night.
Re:Political powers in non political situations. (Score:3, Informative)
I have to take issue with this. Christianity was not the cause of the dark ages. Rome's own decay and corruption brought it about, with the help of your local friendly Germanic barbarians. :)
Keep in mind that Christian monks preserved a lot of the ancient knowledge we still possess.
Re:Political powers in non political situations. (Score:3, Insightful)
This doesn't mean that the religion they claimed to represent had anything to say about the world being flat/round/square.
Yet we see the Religious Right frothing at the mouth when something like evolution or cosmology is taught in schools that contradicts their literal reading of a bunch of stories written 3000 years ago. (And the Bible does claim the world is flat or close to it: otherwise Jesus could not have seen all the kingdoms of the Earth when he went to the mountaintop.)
Religion (and religious leaders) quite often chime in on matters of fact, drawing their beliefs from their readings of religious texts rather than looking at the world around them. St. Aquinas realized a 1000 years ago that this was a losing battle, but churches continue to ignore him.
Methinks you're confusing religious leaders with religion.
There's often no difference.
For example, who should we blame for the persecution of Galileo? The Pope or the Catholic Church? How about the Crusades, the Inquisition, or the Salem witch trials?
How about the current political attempts to ram (Christian) religion down our throats at every step despite the 1st Amendment? Or perhaps the Islamic fundamentalism of Iran or the Taliban? Is that the fault of a few religious leaders, or the "I'm right and you're wrong" beliefs of most religions?
Remember, if WWII taught us anything is was that the "I was just following orders" excuse doesn't wash.
Eric
Re:Political powers in non political situations. (Score:2)
Here here! (Score:2)
A good question for those who believe in such things (I don't), is when is 'soul' imbued into the embryo? It obviously can't be there at any time when the cells can split apart into multiple viable embryos. The next stage the cells reach is where they begin to differentiate between fetal and placental tissue. So maybe then? I believe is possible to split into twins after the embryo goes down that road.
There are a couple of alternatives though. Maybe there is a soul from conception but then when the cell(s) split off on their own, a new soul is immediately created. Or.. every cell has its own little soul and the work collectively to become the big human soul. Yeah, that's the ticket - micro-souls that join together to become a macro-soul. Yeah! That's the ticket! Now I just have form a religion based around that theory and I'll have followers as far as the eye can see! Moohahahah!
Re:Political powers in non political situations. (Score:4, Offtopic)
Re:Political powers in non political situations. (Score:2)
Re:Political powers in non political situations. (Score:2)
There is no "alive" or "dead". "male" or "female". "sentient" or "not sentient". Just linear scales.
All binary constructs are fictional entities emposed apon the world. Certain things may tend to polarize into certain groups, but that does not preclude the existance of intermediary forms or forms on different parts of the spectrum.
There just simply isn't a cutoff phase. The tragedy in killing a person is destroying a unique complex consciousness. When do they have a unique, complex consciousness? Well, obviously not in the first few weeks, they don't even have neurons then. Later
Things would be much easier if they *actually* were binary, ne?
-= rei =-
Re:Political powers in non political situations. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the reason a lot of people oppose human embryo stem cell research. Notice, it's not "no stem-cell research" -- adult, umbilical, and placenta stem cells are fine. It's the idea of creating a life (I do believe it is a human life, no matter the cell count) for the purpose of harvesting stem cells.
I do believe in a slippery slope, and I fear that if this first step is allowed, and stem cells are found to be true saviors for millions of degenerative diseases, there will be people willing to open embryo banks (like current day plasma donation centers) -- donate an egg or sperm, get $50!
Mix in cloning, and it's a short step from there to growing humans for harvesting their organs. It's just like brainwashing -- if you can believe this, you'll soon believe this, then this, and then you'll believe something completely out of character before you know it.
And, unfortunately, the only way we CAN discuss an issue like this is through politics. The government should act to protect the lives of its citizens, it's one of its true functions. If you believe this is a human life, then it deserves protection.
All I know for certain is that this will be a contentious issue for years to come.
Re:Political powers in non political situations. (Score:2)
Damn! The next thing they'll be doing is asking people to donate blood!
Re:Political powers in non political situations. (Score:3, Interesting)
Normally I ignore ACs -- anybody without enough courage in their convictions to at least stand behind a pseudonym is a Craven Anonymous Coward -- but this is too ignorant to pass up:
You've got to be kidding. Oh my god, sperm donation is horrific? Fuck, I've got friends that did that in college. I can't even think of how much money I could've made by now, doing that. And egg donation is wrong? Ooooooooooh, you mean that once a month a potential life is aborted? Get real.
No, an egg alone or a sperm alone is not a human life. When I mention donating a sperm or egg, it's for the embryo bank to combine to then create a life in the form of an embryo. You may find it extreme, but I do believe that once that egg and sperm combine, life begins -- that life has been tuned to receive the Great Radio Signal of the Soul, if you will.
Re:if you will (Score:2)
Not a theory, just an expression. I believe in a soul. Upon conception, the soul comes alive. Whether the body is all there or not, the soul exists. Call it mysticism, or call the soul a natural occurance from the combining of an egg and sperm -- regardless, the life begins there.
"Wasting" eggs and sperms isn't a problem. Why not? They aren't human life. I suppose you could call them "potential life", but only in the same sense that eggs, milk, and cheese are "potential omlette". However, once you put all those ingredients in a pan, you have an omlette.
(Please don't insult my intelligence or call yours into question by claiming that the cooking process makes the omlette complete, and thus a human isn't human until it's "cooked" in the womb. If you're a native English speaker of reasonable intelligence, you can follow my (admittedly) limited analogy.)
Re:Political powers in non political situations. (Score:2)
I do believe in a slippery slope, and I fear that if this first step is allowed, and stem cells are found to be true saviors for millions of degenerative diseases, there will be people willing to open embryo banks
OK. And who will permit the continuous creation of embryos to support the embryo banks. Certainly not the right-to lifers. And I suspect not most pro-choicers either. I certainly feel there is a pretty thin line between a choice and a convenience. I wouldn't feel at all sympathetic towards a woman deliberately getting pregnant in order to abort. And I'm pretty supportive of the right to choose.
donate an egg or sperm, get $50!
Now that's pretty extreme. A potential human life worth only $50.
Mix in cloning,
Cloning human beings hasn't yet been made possible, and there is tremendous opposition to permitting such. We just need to start putting movies like Blade Runner back in the theatre to gauge the public's taste for senselessly killing "replicants."
and it's a short step from there to growing humans for harvesting their organs.
I'm just seeing the picture of that. It kind of looks like the scene in the Matrix where Neo awakens for the first time in his tank. That's one of the most horrifying images that has ever been put on a movie screen, and without exception people react to it with distaste. Ick. So paint that picture for even the staunchest pro-abortion activist and they'll get a little queasy. You were saying?
It's just like brainwashing -- if you can believe this, you'll soon believe this, then this, and then you'll believe something completely out of character before you know it.
But you're talking about brainwashing an entire culture, not just a single person. Brainwashing usually needs to either start at a very early age, or it needs to be accomplished by extreme torture vs. reward. Sure, it's easy enough to brainwash children into believing whatever value system you present them with -- the whole of Christianity is a perfect example of how an entire culture can be made to believe in something that simply isn't there. But we'd also have to brainwash three or four generations of adults at the same time. And you're talking about brainwashing a significant number of the population who currently cannot get past your first premise, let alone to your second and third. These are people who are openly resistant to even the hint of these ideas. The faceless conspiracy to create human clones from an aborted embryo bank would have to capture these people, torture them, and re-align their values to the new world order. All without sparking off some kind of revolt in the process. And don't tell me they'd do it with subliminal messages or hypnosis . . .
So in conclusion, and without once referencing my textbook list of fallacies (of which you have commited several) I don't buy it. Stem-cell research is not the first step on a "slippery slope" to human organ banks grown from deliberately aborted embryos. You're over-reacting, and projecting your image of what you think pro-choice people will tolerate or support into the ludicrous extreme, when in fact you've failed to demonstrate that anyone would accept even the smallest step down your slippery slope (the creation of embryo banks). Researching existing cells is one thing. Creating a demand for dead embryos is something else entirely. The rest of your scenario is equally unlikely.
Re:But it's not for YOU to decide what OTHERS choo (Score:3, Insightful)
At some point we all impose our beliefs on someone. Thats what government is, a collection of ideals and beliefs from a collective group. That group may be large (democracy) or small (aristorcracy, communism, etc..).
JOhn
Re:Political powers in non political situations. (Score:2)
-= rei =-
Re:Political powers in non political situations. (Score:2)
It is interesting contradiction sometimes though. Kinda like many right-wingers who hold life so sacred when it is in the womb but are in favor of putting anyone, including minors and the mentally retarded, do death at the drop of a hat.
Re:Stop bashing the Death Penalty (Score:2)
Oh, in case you haven't heard, there's a living deity that goes by the name of the Dalai Lama. He used to live in Tibet before it got conquered by the Chinese. His opinion on the subject of abortion is that it should be considered. It is not, by itself, bad. Sounds to me like this particular "LORD" (sorry for shouting, everyone).
Perhaps you're confusing vegans with vegetarians. Many, if not most, vegetarians in the US do it for health reasons. Due to the reverence of cows in Hinduism, many Hindus do not eat meat. Also, many Buddhists don't believe in taking the life of any animal. So, vegetarianism does, indeed, please many peoples' lord.
Look, don't judge me based upon your preconceived notions. Your lord is not the only lord for which people have belief.
Send in the clones! (Score:5, Funny)
No ideology (Score:3, Insightful)
If on the other hand, you believe they aren't life, then not experimenting on the other surplus embryos that will be discarded anyway is a poor decision because it holds back the progress of science in curing some terrible diseases and afflictions.
It appears Bush avoided an ideological decision and opted for the political decision that made everyone a bit happy with some reservations. This should have been an all or nothing decision.
Re:No ideology (Score:3, Insightful)
don't we expect our presidents to make _political_ descisions? hopefully the media won't deride bush for making a politically-expedient decision, given the precedent set by his predecessor....politicians are driven by focus group results. it's rare that we see a politician make an _idealogical_ decision (unless of course, you're a representative and your idealogy is supported by your constituency).
This should have been an all or nothing decision.
i disagree. i used to think middle-of-the-road politics was spineless, but i've come to my senses and realized that we really do need _moderate_ leaders. there are positives and negatives to the idealogies on both sides of the aisle. think of this way...had bush followed his conservative instincts and banned all funding, image how much research time would be lost while we waited for the next liberal president. at least research can continue (albeit at a slower rate in some cases). though bush came of as a little spineless for not making an idealogical decision, you've got to give him _some_ credit for standing firm against the uber-conservative base of his party.Moral question already answered (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Wrong (Score:3, Informative)
> "You Nazis have committed unspeakable acts of utter barbarity against the Jews! By the way, can we see your research files?"
If you can find an original Pernkopf Anatomy Atlas [nizkor.org] and compare it with versions currently in print, you'll see that this is exactly what happened.
Here's a more detailed article [ama-assn.org] on the issue. It's a bioethicist's nightmare.
Re:Wrong (Score:2)
"You Nazis have committed unspeakable acts of utter barbarity against the Jews! By the way, can we see your research files?"
Bush revealed himself as a political opportunist with respect to this issue. This was not a decision made on the basis of any firm moral principles he allegedly holds. If he's pro-life, he sold the store; if he's not, then why any restrictions at all?
Ahh, but you can. You have pigeonholed everything into a neat little extremist view. There are different views on morality. I personally believe that a being is alive (and to some degree sentient, despite the idiocy of certain animals and humans that I have observed) if it has a functioning central nervous system (and no, you wakko's, broccoli does not count). There are many who define 'alive' with an even more extreme definition. And looser. And just different.
To state that all people have the same moral code, and that all pro-lifer's have the same moral code, and are pro-life for the same reasons is beyond unreasonable, it is insane. Try not to apply your personal beliefs to entire movements.
-CrackElf
Oh, yes, if you care about life so much, try paying attention to the abandoned and starving children that are out here now, with plenty pain and suffering instead of worrying about those that are not even born yet. How many have you taken in? Put your passion where it belongs. Help the children. Worry about the embryos once all of the ones that have already popped out are taken care of.
Re:Wrong (Score:2, Insightful)
why don't you spend your time and energy on stoping the fertility clinics creating this surpluss of (proto)human tissue.
I am not calling for violence but when was the last time you heard of some cracked out religious zelot bombing a fertility clinic. if you beleave that allowing these fetusis to die is so wrong why aren't you busy making a bigger stink about there petri dish creation that will statisticly end in death.
don't spend your time trying to stop people from using byproducts of a (for the most part) politicly and socialy accepted practice. spend the time on the cause, not the symptom.
I want to make it clear though that I am against Bush's plan. I don't think 60 is diversification enough and I beleave that this is amoral NOT to conduct such research.
Mike Rupert
Re:Jews were sentient, a fetus is not. (Score:2)
What a self-serving, arbitrary, ethically vacuous definition that is. Run away, Dr. Mengele. We know what you thought about your research, and we aren't interested.
Re:Moral question already answered (Score:2)
I have YET to find a religion that takes life with as much esteem as they do in the fear of GOD so don't go preaching to me.
No one is wrong or right, but if religion meant LIFE then WHO IS WRONG OR RIGHT TO CHOOSE IT NO MATTER WHAT AGE.
If god put us on earth to do his deeds, then who is NOT TO SAY GOD PUT FETUSES AND EMBROYS ON THIS GOD FORSAKEN EARTH TO BE USED TO SAVE SOMEONES LIFE.
again. no one is wrong or right, everyone has opinions like everyone has an asshole. But you can't tell me god tells you to fight for your country but a simply embryo isn't put there by god for anything but to be a child. That embryo could be a gift for a child in NEED.
It is my opionion that war sucks, and well since war is something i CAN take forgranted i dont believe it it. I still respect my forefathers who fought and died for there beliefs, but i don't respect the people who put them there. Had life not put them in the that siutation and afforded them a healthy and fullfilled life i would have been much happier and appreciative of there living efforts then there dead efforts.
Life is what you make of it. If i was a woman and raised a family and that person became deathly ill from something stem cell research or any research on cells could fix then i would be more then happy to give "birth" to a "medicine" that will "save a freaking living child that """"GOD"""" put on this earth"
And by golly maybe GOD made it that way and people are to IGNORANT TO THINK THAT.
That is my point, now piss off
He is screwed either way.... (Score:2, Interesting)
The only thing that troubles me is that he is trying to play this off as if it wasn't a political decision, but a personal one. He heard moving stories from both sides, but when it came down to it he went with the best political position he could take. If he had gone with his gut he would have kept his campaign promise!
moving toward the center (Score:2, Insightful)
A fascinating decision . . . (Score:3, Interesting)
But one is left to wonder how, exactly, can one "compromise" on these questions? If the fertilized egg is not a living human being, then the question is a no-brainer: of course, you harvest the tissues for life-saving research. If the fertilized egg is a living human being, then the question is likewise a no-brainer: of course, you may not harvest the tissues, even if it has potential to save a life.
If you recognize a third possibility, that the fertilized egg is merely a potential life, then we have much deeper --and intellectually far more interesting-- questions. When does a potential life require protection from harm?
Of course, these questions defy authoritative answer -- and yet a binary policy decision must be made (for even the failure to make a decision effectively serves as a decision). The President was therefore faced with a Hobson's choice.
To that end, this left-of-Che-liberal salutes the man (or his advisors). It would be a great cop-out to simply announce a result, or worse, to announce a result and give a half-of-the-case justification, or worse yet, to do all of that and undertake to marginalize other reasonable arguments.
He actually gave a fair summary of some of the difficult issues and announced his policy without pretending that a fundamental principal that required the result. This enures much to his credit. (Alas, his spinmeisters continue to try to pretend this is consistent with those campaign promises and pose him as the ultimate pro-life candidate, but what can you do?)
Bush solved the political quandry by reducing the problem of sponsoring fertilized-egg-killing to one of "what do you do with the socially positive profits of an act, if the act is arguably immoral?" Credit where credit is due -- this is a stroke of genius. One needs to violate Godwin's law to point out the ultimate difficulties of the ethical position (something along the lines of whether it would be morally right to use Mengele's research if it yielded a cure for Cancer) taken, and in the end, the secret heart of most Americans wants the potential cure more than they understand the enormity of harvesting a non-implanted fertilized egg.
Amusingly, few people seem to have identified the actual ethical issue-shift that the policy accomplished. Amazingly, Hughes actually side-stepped a question about Catholic dissent by pointing out that a Pope had blessed the use of medicines resulting from research that included acts previously deemed immoral. However many debating points she thinks that may have won on intellectual grounds, suggesting a Pope's absence of infallibility suddenly unfinesses all of Bush's successes for the day.
Time will tell if there will be a price to be paid on this one. Bush turned a Hobson's choice into a chance for success and sound policy -- sound indicia of leadership.
Whether or not it succeeds, this left-liberal salutes a brilliant piece of political strategy.
Hypocracy and Fair Weather Lifers (Score:2)
I wonder how many others in the lifer contingent are similarly only pro-life because it's either convienent or because they have a selfish cause of their own to be pro-life. How many of them, faced with a decision like "back stem cell research or spend the rest of your life in a wheelchair," would say "YEAH BABY! LINE THOSE FETUSSES UP!" Perhaps it's just that while they feel fetusses are human life, all human life is not created equal. Seems to me that if your politicis are pro-life, any choice other than rejecting all stem cell research (And anything that comes from that research) out of hand is complete hypocracy. I wonder just how many hypocrites the future will show the lifer demographic to have...
Re:A pro-lifer's position (Score:2)
The main problem with this viewpoint is that animals are life as well, yet even most pro-lifers don't have a problem with us experimenting on animals.
Of course you may say, "but it is _human_ life," but this is also questionable. Does a human need a heartbeat? Does a human life need a brain?
The embryos involved in this research are, for all practical purposes, brain dead. They are vegetables. They have no heartbeat, no heart, and no internal organs whatsoever.
A fetus with a heartbeat and brain is quite another matter. Moreover, a fetus that can survive outside the womb, even with advanced technology, is also a very different matter.
But an embryo will not turn into a person without implantion into a womb. It is a potential life only if you take great effort. You can't just walk down the street implanting embryos into women.
On the other hand, abortion is a change in the current situation. A pregnant woman left alone will bring a human life into the world. An early embryo left alone will not.
Re:Hypocracy and Fair Weather Lifers (Score:2)
That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that there are hypocrites in that group. There are hypocrites in the choice group too. Moral quandries such as this which highlight the fair weather believers fascinate me. I'm inclined to respect someone who not only says he's willing to die or suffer for his beliefs, he actually does so. I'd be just as critical of a guy who claimed to be pro-choice but then raises holy hell when he finds out that his girlfriend has become pregnant and decided to get an abortion.
The thing that scares me most (Score:2)
Sorry, but clerics have NO place in science. Just as scientists have no place dictating religion.
I find it funny that he talks of "th' sanctutty uh hyumin life" - but executes the mentally retarded HAHAHAHAHAHA what a hypocrite.
No, you can't study the heavens! The Bible already tells us the world is flat! No! You can't dissect people to find out what their organ systems do - that's against the dignity of human life, excuse me... yes, that heretic... draw him and quarter him, flay the other one alive...
Re:The thing that scares me most (Score:2)
Re-read it AGAIN. I said a C-L-E-R-I-C. A cleric is not just a "religious man", he is someone in the employ of a religious organisation to ensure that the belief system of that particular system are put forth. Kinda contradicts the whole "do science with an impartial mind" thing. I don't see "make sure that it doesn't contradict Thessalonians 1:24 or Derek 9:16 or Surah 42:11" in the Scientific Method, anywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The thing that scares me most (Score:2)
Truth: Conformity to fact or actuality. Reality; actuality.
I'd say the scientific method (empirical study) is closer to "truth" than "well, the earth is flat cause the Bible says so."
Re:The thing that scares me most (Score:2)
Re:The thing that scares me most (Score:2)
You miss the point of the crux of ad hominem. This is a fallacy because the truth of an assertion doesn't depend on the virtues of the person asserting it. You said "when a materialist makes [this claim]..." you refer to a person's quality affecting the assertion.
RE: What I'm saying it I'm saying is that pure science - absent the influence of morality - leads to disastrous consequences. Science is not able to determine right from wrong.
Pure science is exactly that. Neither right nor wrong. So how does a theologian get to ascribe morality to knowledge? Or you, for that matter? Pure science in and of itself isn't evil - but theologians and others have said so, because they believe it to threaten their world-view. The world not being flat, therefore the Bible is wrong, that kind of worry.
RE: Because according to the laws of science, we are not able to produce matter from non-matter.
E=mc squared. We can create energy from matter - it should be a matter of time before we do the reverse. Again, you're ducking the question. Whether Charlton Heston bathed in light suddenly caused everything to appear, or it just came into being, it had to come into being, from nothing.
RE: God is non-material, and is not subject to the laws of science.
You assume God exists.
RE: Based on our experience, it does not make sense to assert that the universe came from nothing.
Just because we didn't experience it doesn't mean That is not naturally possible.
RE: Therefore, we need to look to supernatural causes.
Well, you go off and pray for enlightenment, and leave research to the rational people.
RE: Ethics and morality typically have a theological basis.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. OK, we'll leave the discrepancies between ethics and religion out of it, OK?
RE: Not only that, but GWB lives in a political world where the majority of his constituency believes in God.
That's arguing to the masses, another fallacy. Just because a bunch of Texans and Arknasawsians (sp?) think that a guy in a bathrobe wove a wand and made everything doesn't mean it should be the basis for research.
Re:The thing that scares me most (Score:2)
I spent an hour today writing up an essay on the true lack of difference between ethics and morality to attempt to convince you that theologians are just as important, but then the futility of it struck me when I reread the above quoted paragraph. You wouldn't care no matter what I said, so why bother?
I've been through this way too many times. I get tired of dealing with bigots who attempt to paint the philosophy of my family and friends as one of hatred, murder, and everything else that it in truth stands against. It's a waste of energy. Religion is evil in your eyes, and nothing I say can change that. All I am left with is this request:
Quit trolling. You're adding nothing productive to this discussion or any other with this blatant bigotry.
If you actually understood religions and thought hard about human nature, you might actually see the seperation between the philosophy and the deeds to people professing to be its practitioners. The actions you describe are functionally no different from how modern politicians do harmful things to a cause while claiming to act in its name, such as GWB on the environment.
That is all I have to say. You may now have the last word if it makes you feel better.
Re:The thing that scares me most (Score:2)
Have you heard of Martin Luther? (You know, the man who started the whole protestant thing?)
Just because someone is strongly "religious" doesn't mean that they will follow the party line.
many Christians had zero problem with slavery cause it was in the Bible
Many people who claim to be Christians use biblical passages out of context to justify their positions. That is self-serving. They will answer to THE judge for that.
Wasn't right.
According to whom? What standard determines right?
neither is massacring people and raping their children. Which according to the OT is just fine and dandy
Raping children? I'm not familiar with that passage.
God never granted the right to the chosen people to determine who to destroy. He did that, based on His understanding of their "right" to continue to live.
Since you weren't there, isn't it a little presumptuous to assert that God was wrong in determining that those people should not live?
Re:The thing that scares me most (Score:2)
"I have a dream....?" Sure, everyone has. (Just kidding). This would be the guy who claimed that the church at the time wasn't following the party line as stated in Ye Bigge Booke Of Rules, right? many Christians had zero problem with slavery cause it was in the Bible
RE: Many people who claim to be Christians use biblical passages out of context to justify their positions.
The "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Man, you're full of them today!
RE: According to whom? What standard determines right?
Now you're learning!
RE: Raping children? I'm not familiar with that passage.
It was something along the lines (Midianites, I think) where it was "kill all the men and women and boys and all non-virgin girls, and the rest keep for yourselves."
RE: God never granted the right to the chosen people to determine who to destroy. He did that, based on His understanding of their "right" to continue to live.
Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot you had these beliefs. OK, just because God says it's OK to kill people, the whole "killing people is wrong" thing goes out the window, got it.
Why does everyone believe that 60 figure? (Score:2)
Many leading stem cell researchers in the US have only heard of a dozen or so cell lines. Here's an article [sunspot.net]. The only person in it who accepted the 60 figure is a "senior Bush administration official" who wasn't willing to give their name.
This is a ban on stem-cell research (Score:2)
Where does the difference lie? (Score:3, Interesting)
I can't see how supporting research on already-obtained cells differs in practice from funding resarch for stem cell farming. If there is more money available for a given stage in a process, wouldn't some of the money that would be originally employed in that stage be diverted to research in other stages now much more in need?
Am I missing something fundamental or is this really just GWB hedging against criticism?
Wisdom (Score:5, Insightful)
The sad thing about politics is that sometimes exactly half of the people are for one side and exactly half are for the other. There is no way to please both sides completely. I thought this decision did the job of giving both sides what they claimed they wanted (research on the one side vs. not killing babies on the other).
You can say he waffled. You can say he is an idiot. You can say whatever you want, but in the end I'm proud to call this man President. He to the time to carefully consider the argument from both sides are reached a decision that should make everyone happy.
Of course, this is the real world, and for a lot of people (especially the blowhards who dominate the media) it's not about getting what they claim they want. It's about being in control. The previously mentioned commentator would only be happy if Bush had denied all funding for research, and would then claim Bush was a weeny if the President didn't send his own personal bodygaurds out to hunt down rogue scientist who would dare try to cure Parkinson's disease (which my father has, and I dread). A lot of the 'scientist' (ie, liberal blowhards) would only be happy if Bush came out and said that he is putting up a billion federal dollars to start cell farms, then would get upset if he balked over spending more money to harvest near-term babies from underprivileged women for body parts. You won't hear either of these parties expressing thankfullness that everyone got what they needed, even if they didn't get what they wanted.
Re:Wisdom (Score:4, Insightful)
Except that it doesn't, because it doesn't address the fundamental problems that either side had. The religious extreme still see the embryo research they hate. The scientific community knows very well that the existing stem cell lines are NOT immortal (contrary to what Bush has said) and are NOT sufficiently genetically diverse to do many types of meaningful work. So no, Bush's decision was not a paragon of enlightened decision making and compromise. It was a politically-motivated decision designed to protect his voting constituencies as much as possible.
Yeah, Bush delayed a political nightmare last night (sort of). Big deal--he's a politician, he should be able to do that. You'll have to excuse me if I, and a lot of other thoughtful Americans don't gush with praise over poorly-informed decisions made in the name of political expediency.
Re:Wisdom (Score:2)
I have a question:
Why is it The religious extreme and The scientific community?
I could just as easily say the supporters of life and the killers of babies -- but you'd probably call that hate speech.
Those opposed to human embryo stem cell research are not neccessarily extreme, or even religious. And those scientists who will pursue the research are not neccessarily pure, or even scientific. They could be complete charlatans, only wanting the funding because they're greedy. Hell, what if one of the scientists create a cure for alzheimers from this research and manages to patent it? What will you say then?
Re:Wisdom (Score:3, Insightful)
Who is this "religious extreme? that you speak of?
Which religion do these people practice?
I am opposed to federal funding of fetal stem cell research because I'm opposed to legalized abortion. I support your right to be in favor of it, and ultimately we'll settle the issue at the ballot box. But what I'm getting at is this, I'm sure that some strides will be made in this area, and it will make it harder to work for reform of the nation's abortion laws.
Instead of being accused of wanting to deny women their rights, we'll be accused of wanting someone's child to die from a terrible disease.
I understand why bush made this decision, but I am opposed to ANY federal funding of ANY program that uses tissue from human fetuses.
Re:Wisdom (Score:2)
This is not true. Some stem cell research does not use any tissue from human fetuses. There is stem cell research that uses stem cells from blastocysts, there is some that uses stem cells from embryos, there is some research that uses cells from fetuses, and still some that uses placental stem cells.
Bush's decision is in no way acceptable
I agree, but for different reasons. Federal funds should NOT be used for any of this research.
The president wants to please the public, but deep down he knows what's good for the country as a whole, and handicapping American scientists relative to the rest of the world is not it.
You mean, unlike the way that German scientists were not handicapped 60 years ago? I say this to illustrate a point. Many people see this type of research as orwellian, to control the cells of an individual in order to limit his/her position in life. To limit the scope of one individual to that of a test subject who will never have a choice as to whether or not to take part.
As far as "creating life", we are a long way off from that. We won't be able to create life until we can build DNA, RNA, and/or amino acid chains from carbon and water with no help from any natural process.
I was surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
I realize many people will still be pissed with this decision and spew a ton of vitriol towards Mr. Bush, but you have to recognize that this was a huge comprimise on his part.
After Bush spoke with the pope(who Bush recognizes as actually meaning something... I sure don't) and the pope told him not to allow any funding for stem-cell research I thought that was going to be final.
Re:I was surprised (Score:2)
The e. coli is hitting the fan, and he just ducked. The man wants to be re-elected, so he needs to keep his political white robes clean.
So, in that context, it's the best decision he could have made, evading as much of the ethical issues as possible.
bad precedent? (Score:4, Insightful)
Again, I'm not judging the right or left wings here, but his justification could be a bad precedent. During WWII, German and Japanese "doctors" were known to have performed horrible experiments on Jews and POWs (and others). Maybe I'm confusing this with an X-files episode, but wasn't it decided not to use the results of any those experiments, no matter how beneficial, since the experiments themselves were totally unjustifiable?
If Bush is against abortion, embryo destructions, etc. isn't his decision to use these stem cell lines hypocritical? Fruit from a poison tree (or however that saying goes)?
-tim
Re:bad precedent? (Score:3, Informative)
A Step In The Right Direction (Score:3, Funny)
This (or possibly having several extra limbs grafted on so I've got more to spare) looks like the most promising research to facilitate this defence mechanism. Hooray for George W!
Re:I can see you already need your brain replaced. (Score:2)
Mmmmmmm, beeeeer.....
/me looks at his organ donor card (Score:4, Interesting)
When a fully-grown human dies, they have the legal right to allow for their body to be used for medical research/treatment. When a child dies, the parents have the legal right to allow the child's body to be used for medical research/treatment.
If we have a microscopically small cluster of cells, not being used for anything, which is going to be literally flushed, but just so happens to be an embryo, the US government does not want research done on it. Sorry if I seem a bit shady on the details, CNN's recap at 2 am last night never really explained whether this is more of a funding issue or a legal one.
Am I completely missing the point here? Or is my life not considered as valid a form of 'human life' as a 5-day old embryo?
Re:/me looks at his organ donor card (Score:4, Informative)
Even the staunch opponents of embryonic stem cell research would agree that your life is just as valid as any other -- even that cluster of cells they believe is human.
The difference in the cases you cite is that you are already dead before we do research with your corpse. The child is already dead before we do research with its corpse. We have to kill the embryo before we can do research on its corpse.
You noted that the embryo will be flushed anyway; killed in any case. That's another point the opponents dislike. They believe that flushing the embryo is a problem, too.
The US government itself just said that it won't spend people's money on research that involves killing an embryo. It also said that it would continue to fund research where the embryo is already dead, and it would increase research funding for stem cells obtained from sources where human life isn't an issue.
Note that the US government didn't say that it doesn't want research to happen. The House of Representatives may say such a thing later this month, but I'll hold comment on that until it happens.
Judebert
"We're out of explosives. What we need is a plan!"
Not even . . . (Score:2)
The parents were given the opportunity to abort, but opted to bring the child to term, so that the organs could be harvested and some good could come from their tragedy. Religious groups sued to enjoin the harvest, and the matter went straight to the Florida Supreme Court, which held under the brain death statute that a single pulse to or from a brain stem is sufficient to preclude considering the child dead.
As it turned out, for the infant, the organs were worthless unless they could be harvested before the child aesphixiated naturally. The victorious plaintiffs held a garish, insensitive rally, waving the injunction papers as proof of the preempinent importance of "life."
At the hospital, however, the parents could only watch helplessly as their child was brought to term, born "alive," and ultimately suffocated to death, destroying all the organs to no end at all. Their child never felt, never thought, never sensed an external stimulus and never manifest any of the sensibilities we associate with life.
Not that this case didn't represent difficult and deep questions, and I doubt the Supreme Court's question (construction of the brain death statute) readily allowed any other result, but the overarching tragedy of the matter was remarkable.
A pragmatic decision (Score:5, Insightful)
The Senate, in particular Sen. Daschle and the other Democrats, has already made it clear this morning that they will attempt to overturn what is from their point of view a ban. This article [washingtonpost.com] in the Washington Post is a fairly liberal take on the decision, and includes some comments by Daschle.
On the other hand, outright permission from the President would have resulted in an equally vicious attack from the Republican-led House of Representatives and conservatives. This article [washtimes.com] in the Washington Times is a good example of the typical mix of conservative responses.
At least the limited approach the President chose has a chance of standing up against the legislature. Regardless of your personal feelings about the politics or morality of the situation, I believe the President's decision was a fairly balanced approach to an extremely difficult issue.
Ownership of the Lines? (Score:4, Insightful)
It is my understanding that when drug research is partially federally funded, the drug companies doing the research still get patents on their creations. Thus, they can enter a new drug into the market without any short term hope of competition and make tons of mony off of tax payers -- the same tax payers that footed part of the bill for the research! (Again, this is what I've read elsewhere, but may be wrong.)
So, who owns those stem cells? I think its great that there are 60 stem cell ines available, but how available are they? Will you have to buy a license to use some? And after you buy that license, will you be prevented from culturing them yourself to create your own supply or be forced to license more? Will the owners of these lines take a cutt of whatever you find with them?
I think Dubya looked awfully concerned about the whole thing. I just wonder what changes his mind. And while the whole things seems to be a happy medium, what are the missing details?
Re:Ownership of the Lines? (Score:2)
Re:For all of your GW Bush haters (Score:2)
And don't say that it can't happen, because if you can remember that far back, Ross Perot won 19% of the popular vote in 1992.
Re:Similarities to the Holocaust (Score:2)
Re:Similarities to the Holocaust (Score:2)
Re:Where in the Constitution ... (Score:2)
By not voting for the political party in power at the next election! DUH!
Fundamental research will not be funded by private companies! So what you want is no university. This is completely idiotic. When companies are doing research, it's almost entirely based on what was done before at universities.
Re:Who owns the blastocyst lines (Score:2)
Re:Kinda sorta maybe made a decision (Score:2)
I'll turn it around at you and say that most academics spend time chasing rainbows that have no application (obvious or otherwise), and that only occasionally does someone develope something that is useful. (Yes, this statement is also full of shit, but no more so than yours.)
All I said (essentially) is that a company has an obligation to its stockholders, and that obligation is to give them a return on their investment. Government is (supposed to be) a non-profit institution.
I'm a big supporter of government funded research because it has more leeway to take greater risks. I worked as a government researcher for 9 years. One of the products I worked on had potential for an actual product in maybe 20 years, and at the end of those 20 years, it still may not be a very commerically viable product, but still very useful from a humanitarian standpoint. We wanted to get support from companies, but they wouldn't touch it unless they could see a profit in 5 years. And those companies that did join us were constantly threatening to bail at every setback.
A few big companies can support large scale, long term research, but today's market doesn't encourage that- investors are pulling their money out of those types of companies (seen how good Lucent stock has done lately?) and putting them into companies with the potential of large short term growth.