Stem Cell Research

[Samuari]

What do you think now?

 

[Weevil]

Re: too many "ifs" to justify loss of life, if it could ever be justified.

It is easy for us to say that embryos are "just tissue." It was waaaaay back in high school, but I remember in Biology class the scientific definition of life. I think there were 7 conditions to be met. Something about cellular respiration, cellular growth, disposal of cellular waste, and some other things I don't remember clearly. I DO remember being shown that a newly conceived embryo meets all these conditions.

You know what else meets them all? Fire. And yet we still allow senseless life to be lost by letting fire fighters extinguish a burning building. Tragic.

 

[Problem Child]

Root cells, leaf cells. Pollen cells are important too.

Why the fuck do stem cells get all the attention?

 

[Weevil]

Prison Cells, Animation Cels, Sex Sells

I'm with PC

 

[Problem Child]

Communist cells, those little cells that bubble wrap is made of...Peter Sell(ers) was a comic genius.

 

[Doulton]

Damn you EBW, I was gonna bring up fire But I think as I recall maybe there was one of the seven that it didn't match up to? Oh well, I dunno.
I certainly think the argument about it being murder cause these embryos may meet certain conditions is an invalid one. The opposition to this research is certainly based on morals and ethics, so what do text books have to do with it? Would you be for the extermination of Jews if Hitler wrote a textbook saying that they're not real people and it's OK? And as someone else pointed out, these embryos are unfertilised, and therefore not potential lives. That point is irrelevant to me, but it seems like it would mean something to some of you. And to you same people there is another similar point. Any kinda egg or embryo fertilised or not is not a potential life because it needs a mother's womb. Left alone it would die.
Some people have been saying they aren't against research on embryos that were going to be destroyed anyway. That has been going on for years, I think the recent controversy on this subject stems from the fact that researchers are now creating the embryos themselves specifically for this purpose.
These are embryos that would not have been if not for the scientists, would not survive by themselves, and are certainly not people. Do they meet the seven conditions for life? Probably, but so does a potato. What makes us human is our consciousness and our intelligence.
And no, to whoever said they are prochoice but antiabortion, I don't know what you mean by that I always thought prochoice was a direct reference to abortion rights. What do you mean by that?
And Todd, I believe Spock said the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few But that is not justification enough in most circumstances I don't think. Only as a desperate last minute resort if you have no other choice, such as when Kahn has attacked your star ship and the warp core is about to breach unless someone goes in there and does something about it. Wouldn't it be neat if we could all leave our minds inside Bones?

And finally, I want to say that this is a great thread I'm impressed with people's reactions to this issue and it has also been fun to read. Anyone who can spot the two really bad puns in my post will win a prize.

 

[Guest]

Damn you EBW, I was gonna bring up fire But I think as I recall maybe there was one of the seven that it didn't match up to? Oh well, I dunno.

And no, to whoever said they are prochoice but antiabortion, I don't know what you mean by that I always thought prochoice was a direct reference to abortion rights. What do you mean by that?

Yeah, well I'm quick and smart to boot

I am one of the ones who is Pro-Choice/Anti-Abortion and it is very much like my feelings on Bungee Jumping. I wouldn't do it. I don't think people should. If someone asked me I would counsel against it. I don't think that it should be outlawed though.

Except when they're bungee jumping because of incest or rape. Wait.......

 

[Weevil]

Whoops. That was me

 

[Doulton]

Ah, OK. Thanks.

 

[Weevil]

Also, I'm really getting fed up with the religious right saying that these "children" are just like any of us at the beginning of our lives. I was never in a petrie dish. I'm not here because of science. I'm here because of Guinness and bad pub lighting.

 

[Guest]

cornflakeboy-

That's not saying much for the aesthetic value of either one or both of your parents.

 

[Doulton]

I certainly don't think the President of the US should be consulting with the pope. But that's a whole other issue and I'm sure there are plenty of people otu there who disagree strongly with that.

 

[LadyDarkFire]

I certainly don't think the President of the US should be consulting with the pope. But that's a whole other issue and I'm sure there are plenty of people otu there who disagree strongly with that.

The US has, written into its basis for the government, a seperation of church and state. The Pope should not come into play. Personally, I think that they should allow the embryos marked for disposal to be used. And as for the point that they should be considered technically living things, so are lab rats, like the ones used in cosmetics testing. You have to make it the standard for Human life to have it become an issue in the murder issue, since the laws of this country don't consider subjecting an animal to lab expiraments murder.

 

[Problem Child]

It's a question of morality. If it wasn't it would be an easy decision.

Why shouldn't the man that has to make the decision be allowed to consult with whomever he considers to be his spiritual advisor, be it the Pope or Smokey the Bear?

 

[Samuari]

The US has, written into its basis for the government, a seperation of church and state. The Pope should not come into play. Personally, I think that they should allow the embryos marked for disposal to be used. And as for the point that they should be considered technically living things, so are lab rats, like the ones used in cosmetics testing. You have to make it the standard for Human life to have it become an issue in the murder issue, since the laws of this country don't consider subjecting an animal to lab expiraments murder.

Personally, I want the President getting all the advice that he can from all points of view. From his desicion today, it is ovious that niether the Pope, nor the religous right of his own party were able to convince him. But I do like the fact that he sought out a broad spectrum of views and then made up his own mind.

The really interesting thing is that his chioce could turn key groups against him, and possably cost him the next election. Sort of like his father's dessicion to raise taxes, giving Bill Clinton the next election. Got to love those Bushs: They do what they think is right even if it is not the politicaly smart thing to do. No holding a finger in the wind, or seeing what your focus groups and pollesters say. Just do the right thing.

 

[LadyDarkFire]

The man should be able to consult his spiritual adviser, but the President should not. It is a problem of there are more religions in this country than the Pope (or Smokey the Bear) preside over. If the President were to consult just his spiritual advisor on a decision that effects Every person, of the same religion as the president or not, he would not be seperating church and state, he would be basically saying that the government was going to follow the doctorine of one reigion.

 

[Samuari]

Get Real

This President has also consulted with the Arch Bishop of Canterbury, the President of the Southern Babtist Convention, and The Dali Lama, amoung others. I don't think that you can fault him for that.

 

[LadyDarkFire]

Re: Get Real

This President has also consulted with the Arch Bishop of Canterbury, the President of the Southern Babtist Convention, and The Dali Lama, amoung others. I don't think that you can fault him for that.

My personal opinion is that he should not talk to Any people who speak for a religion. For instance, who of those will be speaking for the people who do not actively practice, or even believe in, a religion?

 

[p_p_man]

He's changed his mind now anyway...

...and is going to allow "limited" research.

Well we all knew he was going down that road despite what he says in public...

Eventually he'll be changing his mind on the other idiotic policy changes he made this year...

I suppose it's called growing up...

 

[shadowsource]

The PR ploy -

Going back on my earlier statement that I'd be happy if Bush approved it (partly because I can't yet tell what the effect of his "decision" is)....
Bush and his brain trust set us all up with this 3-month, drama-queen Hamlet pose about the morality of stem cell research. Other presidents have just announced their policy. He seesm to have given this issue more thought than anything since how to get public financing for the Texas Rangers. The upshot is that he and the gang are counting on the pundits to say he made a bold, Solomonesque choice, proving that he's not beholden to the Christians and that he's really a centrist.
But his policy looks to hinder most of the research that was expected to take place. I'm personally ambivalent about creating embroyos for an industrial purpose, though I'm 1000% pro choice. My friend asked me tonight if I were not afraid that this implied that abortion was murder; I replied that I don't actually care. I believe a woman's body is hers, and that society should have no voice in a woman's decision, whether or not I or anyone else think an embroyo is human.

 

[Cheyenne]

Re: Re: Get Real

My personal opinion is that he should not talk to Any people who speak for a religion. For instance, who of those will be speaking for the people who do not actively practice, or even believe in, a religion?

Rev. Jesse Jackson?

 

[Never]

Re: Re: Get Real

LadyDarkFire
"My personal opinion is that he should not talk to Any people who speak for a religion. For instance, who of those will be speaking for the people who do not actively practice, or even believe in, a religion?"

That's like saying he shouldn't get the opinion of whites, blacks and hispanics because he's leaving out people of west Polynesian decent.
Maybe he doesn't care what atheists think because, lacking a single ethical structure, they all have different opinions? The Pope speaks for all Catholics, who speaks for all atheists?

 

[LadyDarkFire]

Re: Re: Re: Get Real

LadyDarkFire
"My personal opinion is that he should not talk to Any people who speak for a religion. For instance, who of those will be speaking for the people who do not actively practice, or even believe in, a religion?"

That's like saying he shouldn't get the opinion of whites, blacks and hispanics because he's leaving out people of west Polynesian decent.
Maybe he doesn't care what atheists think because, lacking a single ethical structure, they all have different opinions? The Pope speaks for all Catholics, who speaks for all atheists?

Nobody. Which is exactly my point. With religion, sticking to a certain amount of diversity for form's sake is,in my opinion not good enough. IF we allow religions into polotics, how do we have seperation of church and state?

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Get Real

Nobody. Which is exactly my point. With religion, sticking to a certain amount of diversity for form's sake is,in my opinion not good enough. IF we allow religions into polotics, how do we have seperation of church and state?

First, my dear, you won't find the doctrine of "seperation of church and state" in the constution, but in the federalist papers, where it is poposed for the protection of relegion so that the government could force actions from the churchs. The same papers though clearly expect the churchs to be the moral guide for the government.

But the closest thing constutionaly that you will find is "Congress shall make no lawrespecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excerise thereof." (the first admenment)

Bless yer heart.

 

[Samuari]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Get Real

First, my dear, you won't find the doctrine of "seperation of church and state" in the constution, but in the federalist papers, where it is poposed for the protection of relegion so that the government could force actions from the churchs. The same papers though clearly expect the churchs to be the moral guide for the government.

But the closest thing constutionaly that you will find is "Congress shall make no lawrespecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excerise thereof." (the first admenment)

Bless yer heart.

that was mine for some unexpained reason I was signed out.