http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/21/science/21stem.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&hp&oref=slogin[/url]

Two teams of scientists are reporting today that they turned human skin cells into what appear to be embryonic [url="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/stemcells/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier"]stem cells (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110ap_stem_cells.html) without having to make or destroy an embryo — a feat that could quell the ethical debate troubling the field.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/20/AR2007112000546.html

Until now, only human egg cells and embryos, both difficult to obtain and laden with legal and ethical issues, had the mysterious power to turn ordinary cells into stem cells. And until this summer, the challenge of mimicking that process in the lab seemed almost insurmountable, leading many to wonder if stem cell research would ever wrest free of its political baggage.

If true, pretty much makes the embryonic stem cell debate obsolete.

While I have no moral issues whatsoever with embryonic stem cell research, and think the administration's stand on it is ludicrous considering all the embryos that are discarded every year as the result of IVF procedures, if this technology pans out it would be a Good Thing(tm) because it would make it possible for people to have stem cells cultured from their own native cells in case of injury or cancer and HLA compatibility, etc, would no longer be an issue. They will have to find a way to get the viral transduction out of the equation though, as the authors aren't kidding when they mention the risks of putting cells created via such an approach into a person (extremely high cancer risk, among other things)...

Regards,
Nydia

Pretty much what Nydia said. It'll be interesting to see how reasonably Bush and the religious right respond to this.

It'll be interesting to see how reasonably Bush and the religious right respond to this. Probably vindication, and rightly so.

The only vindication is for the scientists who strive to work around the irrational roadblocks thrown in their way by the uneducated and superstitious. Bush and the Dobsonites have fully demonstrated a lack of interest in progress in this area through their opposition to research.

First president to federally fund embryonic stem cell research really shows a lack of interest, even without any actual scientific breakthroughs to warrant such an investment.

All the breakthroughs have been from adult stem cells... so really, it's almost as if someone hyperventilated for no reason.

The same president that vetoed the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act? The same president that restricts research to those cell lines already derived in 2001, many of which are contaminated? Incidentally, the same President that has been funding abstinence only education, so "warrant of investment" isn't exactly a priority.

And it's been what, 9 years since Thomson's team developed the technique to grow embryonic cells? Lack of developments aren't that surprising in so short a time, especially given the restrictions.

"irrational roadblocks thrown in their way by the uneducated and superstitious"

Just because you disagree with their beliefs doesn't make it irrational. It also doesn't mean they're uneducated or superstitious.

"their opposition to research"

As Akipt pointed out, Bush hasn't been opposed to research; he authorized research on existing lines. He's only been opposed to research that required the killing of another to perform it.

"The same president that vetoed the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act? "

Yes, since it authorized destroying/killing other humans to pursue it, he vetoed it.

Anyone who rejects stem cell research because of what a god may think is superstitious. This is a primary reason given to reject that research.

Furtivus, what penalty would you advocate for women who receive abortions, were it rendered illegal?

the irrational part is mainly because the embryos they would be using were going to be thrown away anyway, so "destroying/killing other humans" is utter horseshit.

the irrational part is mainly because the embryos they would be using were going to be thrown away anyway, so "destroying/killing other humans" is utter horseshit.

Hey...what's the deal with using facts? I guess you didn't notice but if the rest of the world would join the Bush administration and stop using facts we could win not only the war on terror but also the war on embryos.

Damn foriegners with their facts!

Funny how level of education and religious participation are negatively correlated.

"Furtivus, what penalty would you advocate for women who receive abortions, were it rendered illegal?"

Same penalty as if the woman killed a one day or one year old baby. To me it's the same.

Then it's to our good fortune that your lunatic view is in the minority.

I happen to be pro-choice, but why is it a 'lunatic view' for Furtivis to feel as he does about the sanctity of life?

I think not wanting to use what will be discarded embryonic stem cells is short sighted. I would never call anyone that's pro-life a lunatic based solely on that opinion. There are definitely lunatic pro-lifers and pro-choicers. Having one opinion or the other in itself doesn't not make one a lunatic.

It's rather sad you have to resort to personal attacks though Thormir without any more substance to your post than the attack. I very rarely agree with Furtivis on anything he posts, but that doesn't make him or I a lunatic.

The name calling, makes the person throwing the names, feel better about their own position.
It's a tactic generally used by a person who's position is too weak to defend themselves with logic or facts.

Incidentally Thor, if he is in the minority, wouldn't that qualify for ACLU consideration?

I'm just saying.....

I'd hardly describe Thor as not being in command of the facts, or not having thought his position through. While I'm not fond of name-calling myself, I think his use of the word 'lunatic' in this sense was an admonition to Furtivus that *he* isn't thinking clearly about the situation - assuming that one *buys* the argument that an early-stage embryo was the equivalent of a person (and with rights *superseding* the mother's), and it were even *possible* to prosecute women effectively for abortion, would we really want to live in a world where that was done? Would it cause *less* suffering? Would it result in fewer abortions?

The overwhelming preponderance of evidence from other countries suggests that it would do neither of those things, only result in more morbidity and mortality as these procedures are carried out in secret and under unsafe conditions.

This is independent, of course, of the irrefutible fact that tens of thousands of embryos are destroyed or thrown out every year as a result of being 'unwanted' or expired excess byproducts of in vitro fertilization procedures and no-one seems to mind *that* (hey, as long as it's *promoting* fertility, what's a few broken eggs, so to speak, eh?), and that roughly one third of *all* human conceptions self-terminate before the woman even knows she is pregnant, usually due to defects in the embryo or an insufficiently immunologically permissive environment in the mother. Should we hold women accountable for those, too?

Regards,
Nydia

The question I like to ask "Pro-lifers" is....

Just how many abused discarded crack babies are you willing to adopt if abortion is made illegal?

I understand the arguments for and against the stem cell issue.
No one wants babies/embryos/zygotes to be farmed for the sole purpose of stem cell research.
If they are going to be destroyed anyways, then why not use them?

The other side of the argument is that if you start a process in which, this is done, the value of life is diminished. Who cares about some dumb old cells in a petri dish, anyways?

The method related in the article diffuses the situation, and makes the argument "THEY ARE GROWING BABIES FOR BODY PARTS!!!!1!" obsolete.

"Should we hold women accountable for those, too?"

Would you hold a mother accountable for SIDS? That's a particularly cruel thought. Natural deaths/abortions happen. I don't know anyone arguing a position to hold someone accountable for the natural loss of a child.

You're argument that no one cares about the deaths of embyos every year being discarded is contradicted by what's out there. There's at least one organization I know of that puts together adoptions of the frozen embryos to keep them from being "destroyed". So clearly more than "no one" cares about these deaths.

I'm not trying to argue to change anyone's position, and I don't think a baby's rights supersedes the mother's. A baby has rights just as a mother, father, or any other human being has rights. I happen to believe those rights attach at conception. Others believe they attach at some "sliding scale" during the pregnancy (a scale that science has been sliding increasingly toward conception). Some believe it attaches at birth. Others believe it attaches at some point after birth and that abortion should be legal even after birth. I think a majority of Americans believe these rights attach prior to the actual birth so my position is far less "lunatic" than Thormir's.

With respect to laws, I believe it us up to the individual states to determine the "sliding scale" and punishment befitting the crime.

There's at least one organization I know of that puts together adoptions of the frozen embryos to keep them from being "destroyed".

/boggle) Doesn't that seem rather ludicrous, or at least pointless, to you? Even if these folks are 'adopting' a small fraction of these embryos, what are they actually *doing* with them? Degeneracy *will* set in (hence why IVF clinics discard embryos after five years), are they just going to keep them frozen in liquid nitrogen forever? Or do they go hunting down willing happy wombs for all of those little bits of creation? What about the normal practice in IVF of giving multiple embryos per procedure so that one might 'take'; again, no-one seems terribly concerned about this sacrifice, or the 'waste' in 'human' lives of repeating this procedure multiple times, or for as long as the couple in question has hope and money. If full personhood begins at conception, isn't this an abomination, too?

I happen to believe those rights attach at conception.

If 'personhood' rights, in your mind, should attach at conception, then you *are* acceding rights to a 7 day embryo that supersede the rights of the mother; one of them *must* have precedence in the case of pregnancy. I'd submit that even among those who are strongly in favor of those rights being attached prior to birth (most favor somewhere in the second trimester as the cutoff), the idea of *prosecuting* women for abortion is morally repugnant, so yes, I'd say that your position as initially stated is rather extreme.

Something I meant to include in my previous post, but which is certainly germane: What about cases where abortion is medically necessary in order to preserve the life or health of the mother, or where the child has no chance of survival after birth (such as anencephaly)? Should we force women to risk their lives in order to give birth (beyond the incipient risks, women *do* still die as a result of 'normal' pregnancy in the US) or face prosecution?

If you are stating that full personhood rights should begin at conception, then you *are* implicitly holding those positions.

Regards,
Nydia

P.S. This will likely be my last post for several days as I'm on the road to Phoenix for Thanksgiving. Have a safe and happy holiday weekend, all...

I happen to be pro-choice, but why is it a 'lunatic view' for Furtivis to feel as he does about the sanctity of life? I think it lunacy to punish women with prison (or, presumably, execution) for ending a pregnancy. I also find too often that the "sanctity of life" ceases to become important once the child is born -- after that, they're on their own.
I happen to believe those rights attach at conception.Yet before the zygote even attaches to the endometrial lining of the uterus? Pretty tenuous definition.Others believe they attach at some "sliding scale" during the pregnancy (a scale that science has been sliding increasingly toward conception).How does this sliding scale interface with the life of the mother? If a viable fetus risks the mother's life, how do you decide which gets to live?
I think a majority of Americans believe these rights attach prior to the actual birth so my position is far less "lunatic" than Thormir's.
While not addressing this question specifically, here (http://www.electionstudies.org/nesguide/toptable/tab4c_2a.htm) are (http://www.electionstudies.org/nesguide/toptable/tab4c_2b.htm)various (http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=91) polls (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/22/opinion/polls/main537570.shtml) indicating (http://www.gallup.com/poll/27628/Public-Divided-ProChoice-vs-ProLife-Abortion-Labels.aspx) support for abortion rights. More Americans support permitting pregancy termination under any circumstances than forcing pregnancy in all circumstances. The polls combine "related concerns" such as rape (presumably Furtivus would force the pregancy of rape victims), incest (likewise), and danger to the health of the mother.

There's no indication that a "majority of Americans" believe the rights enjoyed by mom, dad, and other post-birth humans are enjoyed by zygotes, blastocysts, and fetuses.

Here's a thought experiment for Furt: During your visit to the fertility clinic, a fire breaks out. At risk are a petri dish full of viable blastocysts, and a single 1 year old child. Capable of rescuing only one, which do you choose and why?

/boggle) Doesn't that seem rather ludicrous, or at least pointless, to you? Furtivus is referring to "Snowflake" children. I imagine there's info on the web.
Something I meant to include in my previous post, but which is certainly germane: What about cases where abortion is medically necessary in order to preserve the life or health of the mother, or where the child has no chance of survival after birth (such as anencephaly)? Presumably, the child without a forebrain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly) was a person prior to the neural tube's failure to close (several weeks into pregnancy), and is a person up to and following birth, until death several hours later. The mother enjoys the right of dealing with that trauma and paying the bill.

"What about cases where abortion is medically necessary in order to preserve the life or health of the mother"

There's a lot of law already in place with respect to self-defense.

"risk are a petri dish full of viable blastocysts, and a single 1 year old child. Capable of rescuing only one, which do you choose and why?"

I'd save whichever one has the best chance of survival. If you're faced with the same decision and it's a 1 day old baby and and a 1 year old baby, which do you choose and why?

"I think it lunacy to punish women with prison (or, presumably, execution) for ending a pregnancy. "

What about abortion after birth? Should those women be punished? You sound like several people I have talked to that believe abortion should be allowed post-birth.

Wouldn't the mother's right to survive, supercede the rights of the fetus, by virtue of establishment?

And Furt, you are giving the whole "I brought you into this world, I can take you out." Statement onto a whole new level....
:p

I'd save whichever one has the best chance of survival. If you're faced with the same decision and it's a 1 day old baby and and a 1 year old baby, which do you choose and why?I save whichever is available -- both have equal personhood. I'm sure the mother of the child I can't save will be far more understanding than the mother who watches you rush out of the building heroically waving a petri dish.
What about abortion after birth? Should those women be punished? You sound like several people I have talked to that believe abortion should be allowed post-birth.Once the cat's out of the bag, the woman's responsibility changes from managing her body to managing the child. Waiting til after birth to "have an abortion" makes little sense, though it would be a natural consequence of outlawing the procedure.

So, a "person" who then becomes anencephalic -- do they somehow "lose" personhood? How does that happen?

Isn't the world already overpopulated? Aren't there people who die every a lack of resources, be it food, water, shelter, etc?

This pro-life/pro-choice shit gets much more attention than any of that (And it's only because of our political parties. I'm sorry, you wouldn't give a shit if they didn't decide it was an issue to be debated). Stupid as all hell, imo.

"Once the cat's out of the bag,"

How far out does "the cat" need to be? Can you reach in and abort a baby during labor? Can you abort it before its first breath? What about if just the head is out but not the body, can you abort it then?

Since you deny personhood, I assume to you someone beating a pregnant woman to death during labor and also killing the "non-person" is only guilty of one murder and not two.

If the mother feels the need to terminate the pregnancy, it's her call. Fortunately, this scenario seems rare, if it ever happens at all. Once the head is out, the rest follows pretty easily. But hey, maybe they'll develop a between-the-legs guillotine for just such a situation.

Because the mother intends for the fetus to be brought to fruition, I'm fine with charging the culprit with two murders. The mother that terminates her pregnancy has no such intention.

Still waiting on that person then not-a-person hypothetical. While you're working on it, here's a fairly recent Gallup poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/27898/Six-Americans-Favor-Easing-Restrictions-Stem-Cell-Research.aspx) on American support for easing stem cell research restrictions. Lastly, Dr. Thompson himself (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/20/AR2007112001909.html?hpid=topnews):
One of the researchers involved in yesterday's reports said the Bush restrictions may have slowed discovery of the new method, since scientists first had to study embryonic cells to find out how to accomplish the same thing without embryos.

"My feeling is that the political controversy set the field back four or five years," said James Thomson, who led a team at the University of Wisconsin and who discovered human embryonic stem cells in 1998. Vindicated indeed.

May have slowed? Not getting federally funded put the kebash on those Swede scientist huh? He must be putting those secret prisons to good use.

Because 50 people do the same amount of work as 100 people!

Eh. Most scientific breakthroughs are very rarely due to sheer effort (or any breakthrough, for that matter). Do you think fifty mediocre scientists would've replaced one Einstein, Galileo, or Newton?

We don't know who the mediocre scientists are, or where the breakthrough may come. Do you think cutting off funding for Einstein, Galileo, or Newton (if they required it) would make up for having 50 mediocre scientists abroad?

It's a classic fallacy to believe that throwing money and/or bodies at an intellectual effort will speed it up or even make it more likely to produce a favorable result.

The people with these great ideas rise to the surface regardless of funding. Just look at Garrett Lisi, who has a very real potential of becoming the next Einstein. Hunger is usually the best catalyst.

"Still waiting on that person then not-a-person hypothetical."

No idea what hypothetical you're talking about there -- I assume directed at another.

As to the other, if a person kills a woman who is on the way to an abortion clinic, it's only one murder?

I fear when one of you will reach the "Do you masturbate?" argument against or for abortion...

Oh yes.. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8)

"Once the cat's out of the bag,"

How far out does "the cat" need to be? Can you reach in and abort a baby during labor? Can you abort it before its first breath? What about if just the head is out but not the body, can you abort it then?

Since you deny personhood, I assume to you someone beating a pregnant woman to death during labor and also killing the "non-person" is only guilty of one murder and not two.

I agree with Furtivus.

I could go into detail but noone's mind is going to be change on this forum today tomorrow or next week...

But back to what this topic is about,,,,, if you can grow those cells I don't have a problem with that.

"risk are a petri dish full of viable blastocysts, and a single 1 year old child. Capable of rescuing only one, which do you choose and why?"

I'd save whichever one has the best chance of survival. If you're faced with the same decision and it's a 1 day old baby and and a 1 year old baby, which do you choose and why?

This is terrifying.

You have a living, breathing child, and you have something a couple steps away from a cumstain.

Don't give this sanctity of life bullshit either. How many people do you think have died unnaturally since I began writing this post? How much thought have you ever given them? What have you ever done to help them or protect them?

People invest their time on what is important to them. It's really pathetic to me that more Americans are worried about petri dishes than the abysmal position that so much of our world finds itself in.

How can we even begin to address the rights of pre-humans when we've failed so horribly at providing for those who already exist?

This is terrifying.

You have a living, breathing child, and you have something a couple steps away from a cumstain.

Don't give this sanctity of life bullshit either. How many people do you think have died unnaturally since I began writing this post? How much thought have you ever given them? What have you ever done to help them or protect them?

People invest their time on what is important to them. It's really pathetic to me that more Americans are worried about petri dishes than the abysmal position that so much of our world finds itself in.

How can we even begin to address the rights of pre-humans when we've failed so horribly at providing for those who already exist?


Save an embryo so it can have a proper burial in a red biohazard bag and jesus will love you...

Jesus will love you even more if you send troops to kill muslims.

Do both and get into heaven free.

For all you sad individuals who think there never was an issue here...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/science/22stem.html?_r=2&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1195743376-3hoQnRCCg3B1p04eJM2rKg&oref=slogin

If the stem cell wars are indeed nearly over, no one will savor the peace more than James A. Thomson.

Dr. Thomson’s laboratory at the University of Wisconsin was one of two that in 1998 plucked stem cells from human embryos for the first time, destroying the embryos in the process and touching off a divisive national debate.

And on Tuesday, his laboratory was one of two that reported a new way to turn ordinary human skin cells into what appear to be embryonic stem cells without ever using a human embryo.

The fact is, Dr. Thomson said in an interview, he had ethical concerns about embryonic research from the outset, even though he knew that such research offered insights into human development and the potential for powerful new treatments for disease.

“If human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough,” he said. “I thought long and hard about whether I would do it.”

Omg, it's like Roe v. Wade! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norma_McCorvey)

No one said there is no issue here. What I am saying, and I believe that many people feel this way, is that there are much bigger issues to be dealing with right now.

Unfortunately, in our age of partisan politics, the issues that are focused on are ones that will bring in the votes. The pro-life movement is a huge vote-grabber in regards to right-wing conservatives, ESPECIALLY religious ones. Coming from a fundamentalist Christian family from Missouri, I can tell you that I've been told of the horrors of abortion dozens and dozens of times. Apartheid? Genocide? Worldwide hunger and starvation? Never. Not one fucking time. This is the problem with our country.

No one said there is no issue here.Maybe your "sanctity of life bullshit" was a typo?

Sanchek wrote:It's a classic fallacy to believe that throwing money and/or bodies at an intellectual effort will speed it up or even make it more likely to produce a favorable result.Science is hardly built upon the great breakthroughs of one or two or three individuals. It's a process where discovery builds upon discovery, and funding and effort do mean quite a lot. Your "classic fallacy" is, at best, a rule of thumb -- picking a few names from history doesn't change that.

Furtivus wrote:"Still waiting on that person then not-a-person hypothetical."

No idea what hypothetical you're talking about there -- I assume directed at another.Uh, no, it's the point on anencephaly I've mentioned twice now, such as:So, a "person" who then becomes anencephalic -- do they somehow "lose" personhood? How does that happen?
As to the other, if a person kills a woman who is on the way to an abortion clinic, it's only one murder?
Up to the prosecutor, but I'd say no. Until she's in the chair and having the procedure, she can still change her mind.

akipt wrote:Maybe your "sanctity of life bullshit" was a typo?Or maybe it had nothing to do with stem cell research and everything to do with Furtivus' idea that saving a blastocyst is saving a baby?

thormir wrote::)

Or maybe it had nothing to do with stem cell research and everything to do with Furtivus' idea that saving a blastocyst is saving a baby? Embryos, zygotes, blastocysts, and whatever, there's still a sanctity of life question... its certainly not "bullshit" and we're not lunatics for having that concern.

So far who has changed their mind (anacephalic or not) on this subject? :)

I'm going to have to agree with Akipt on this.

Rather bullshit to call into question our sanity because we might feel differently on when "life" or a soul begins.

Unless I missed the changing of the diety guard ya'll are not Gods yourselves ;P

Fandros

The rational, scientific mind looks at what makes up a human life and the point where more people agree is conciousness. This is what determines what death is and it is what determines what life is.

We know enough about the functions of the brain to look at a fetus development and see when the parts that control the most primal and rudimentary thoughts have manifested themselves. Once we have reasonable belief that this has occured, imo, no abortion, unless the mothers life is in jeopardy, should be performed.

The problem with the RR is that their belief and definition of life begins with the infusing of a soul onto the fetus at the moment of conception.

This is all well and good. But it has no place in a medical/scientific discussion, nor can you legislate a soul into existence. Laws and science are based on fact and evidence. Faith is based on belief. You cannot make laws based on Faith and you cannot have Faith based on reason.

The rational, scientific mind looks at what makes up a human life and the point where more people agree is conciousness. This is what determines what death is and it is what determines what life is.

We know enough about the functions of the brain to look at a fetus development and see when the parts that control the most primal and rudimentary thoughts have manifested themselves. Once we have reasonable belief that this has occured, imo, no abortion, unless the mothers life is in jeopardy, should be performed.

The problem with the RR is that their belief and definition of life begins with the infusing of a soul onto the fetus at the moment of conception.

This is all well and good. But it has no place in a medical/scientific discussion, nor can you legislate a soul into existence. Laws and science are based on fact and evidence. Faith is based on belief. You cannot make laws based on Faith and you cannot have Faith based on reason.

Well said.

This debate raises again the spectre of the FSM; there is as much "proof" of the existence of a soul as there is of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I am not interested in challenging anyone's faith, or in discussing my own. What I am interested in is as stated above; letting laws be based on that which is observable and provable, and not on faith that assumes all governed by the law have the same beliefs.

We have seen Christian fundamentalists bomb clinics and shoot doctors; and, we have seen Islamic fundamentalists kill women for the crime of teaching girls. Not all that much different, in that both use a religious belief to justify their actions.

I would rather stick with medicine and science determining the laws than any of your religious "beliefs".

Ahhhh so automatically because I myself have a faith that ascribes to everyone having a soul I support using violence to back my faith?

I happen to strongly believe that abortion as a form of birth control is a HEINOUS moral decision.

That being said, if a child is going to be born with no chance to live a normal life *via severe medical issues* I find myself moral quandry and can understand the decision to possibly abort.

My own faith would never allow me to even so much as get in the face of someone who decides to abort let alone "bomb" a clinic. My StepMother however was one to picket such places.

I normally agree 100% with your post, but in one post you made me feel as tho you think my faith puts me in the same leaky boat as that terrorist who targets women and children.

This is terrifying.

You have a living, breathing child, and you have something a couple steps away from a cumstain.

Don't give this sanctity of life bullshit either. How many people do you think have died unnaturally since I began writing this post? How much thought have you ever given them? What have you ever done to help them or protect them?

People invest their time on what is important to them. It's really pathetic to me that more Americans are worried about petri dishes than the abysmal position that so much of our world finds itself in.

How can we even begin to address the rights of pre-humans when we've failed so horribly at providing for those who already exist?

People seemed to have overlooked Ainwein's post. And don't get me wrong, I'm very much pro-life in all forms and could never ask my girlfriend to have an abortion. But my God says murder in all forms is wrong. I can't help but see the hypocracy with the same people being all high and mighty about not using a already dead pre-brain activity fetus have no problem with THOUSANDS of innocent civilians dying every month in Iraq. Where did your faith go then?

People seemed to have overlooked Ainwein's post. And don't get me wrong, I'm very much pro-life in all forms and could never ask my girlfriend to have an abortion. But my God says murder in all forms is wrong. I can't help but see the hypocracy with the same people being all high and mighty about not using a already dead pre-brain activity fetus have no problem with THOUSANDS of innocent civilians dying every month in Iraq. Where did your faith go then?

Unfortunately faith is often used as a tool of convenience by many, justifying the killing of people based on their respective religious beliefs. There has been more people killed in the name of ones God than for any other reason.

We see killing in the name of Allah, in the name of God (the christian version) in the name of God (the jewish version) and in so many other versions. The ridiculious part is that no one knows if God in these forms actually exists or if God does who is right about what God wants, needs or requires. But they will kill and maim to prove their love of their God.

I wonder sometimes if people truly believe that there is an all powerful God that can create whole worlds and destroy whole worlds why would he need people to blow up markets, abortion clinics, airplanes and do the Godly bidding when it could be done with a snap of Godly fingers.

I can't help but see the hypocracy with the same people being all high and mighty about not using a already dead pre-brain activity fetus have no problem with THOUSANDS of innocent civilians dying every month in Iraq.

You think we have "no problem" when any number of innocent civilians die in Iraq?

Ahhhh so automatically because I myself have a faith that ascribes to everyone having a soul I support using violence to back my faith?

I happen to strongly believe that abortion as a form of birth control is a HEINOUS moral decision.

That being said, if a child is going to be born with no chance to live a normal life *via severe medical issues* I find myself moral quandry and can understand the decision to possibly abort.

My own faith would never allow me to even so much as get in the face of someone who decides to abort let alone "bomb" a clinic. My StepMother however was one to picket such places.

I normally agree 100% with your post, but in one post you made me feel as tho you think my faith puts me in the same leaky boat as that terrorist who targets women and children.

Why are you ascribing generalities to me that I did not use in my post.

Unless you identify with the fundamentalists I mention in my post, I see no reason for you to feel insulted.

And, going with some of the other posts since my last, has anyone ever noted that many of the most reverant, bible-thumping, pro-life protesting folks are also pro-capital punishment.....I give you the former Governor George Bush as a prime example.

There is way too much hypocrisy involved in the entire debate.

I wonder sometimes if people truly believe that there is an all powerful God that can create whole worlds and destroy whole worlds why would he need people to blow up markets, abortion clinics, airplanes and do the Godly bidding when it could be done with a snap of Godly fingers.

If we are successful in eventually blowing ourselves and this planet apart, any ideas on which of the varied forms of God would be able to survive without followers to believe in Him or Her?

Or would He/She simply start fresh, after seeing the failure of the last experiment?

Ahhh Byl I apologize, I thought the post was directed at me and was wondering how I was equated thusly.

I apologize for the misread generality..errr that's not even a word!

Fandros

Here is a story that I find quite ironic.

I truly believe in freedom of religion, in fact I let my children make their own choices. My oldest daughter has become involved in a christian youth group at a local church and she attends weekly meetings, goes on trips and has become quite involved with the youth group.

So turn back the clock to hurricane katrina and she comes home one night and is telling me how the pastor has told tem that the victims of the hurricane are the ones at fault. They created their own problems because of the lifestyle they chose to live in New Orleans and that they basically deserved what they got.

I was a bit pissed off that a christian minister who so obviously influences these children was so compassionless and cold when it came to those less fortunate. So I phone the pastor and ask him why he would say something like that to children who value his opinion, he did say that although no one knew what God was thinking that he was certain this was a punishment directed at the victims of Katrina.

I asked him if he would consider that perhaps God did this to the people in New Orleans as a way to test the compassion of those much like himself. He disagreed even after I pointed out that he himself stated that "no one knows what God is thinking".

That is what scares me most about religious people, their lack of an ability to look at things from more than one side.

Derail off!

I asked him if he would consider that perhaps God did this to the people in New Orleans as a way to test the compassion of those much like himself. He disagreed even after I pointed out that he himself stated that "no one knows what God is thinking". Sounds like you have a better grasp of Christianity than he does.

Science is hardly built upon the great breakthroughs of one or two or three individuals. It's a process where discovery builds upon discovery, and funding and effort do mean quite a lot. Your "classic fallacy" is, at best, a rule of thumb -- picking a few names from history doesn't change that.
You're thinking of science as if it were an MMO. Keep grinding long enough and you'll eventually reach level 55 stem cell superpowers.

In reality, science very rarely works this way. Attempts to turn intellectual endeavors into assembly lines almost always fail. Linear efforts do not produce linear results in these fields.

Unless you're advocating the funding of an infinite number of monkey-scientists, brute force isn't the way to go about these things.

What an odd thing to say.

Ideas and scientific discovery have definite genealogies. Each generation stands on the shoulders of the generation that came before it.

The "grinding" you dismiss is called the scientific process. We reject all data we cannot prove, and only know that which is scientifically provable. From this ever increasing library man is able to postulate and theorize, and eventually either prove or disprove those theories.

Einstein never dreams that Time and Space are relative if not for Galileo, the laws of mechanics and the work of a thousand (more) scientists that came between them.

Ideas and scientific discovery have definite genealogies. Each generation stands on the shoulders of the generation that came before it.

Einstein never dreams that Time and Space are relative if not for Galileo, the laws of mechanics and the work of a thousand (more) scientists that came between them.
Sure, I would agree with that. I never said otherwise.

However, the progressive nature of human discovery on a macro level doesn't change the futility of using brute force to achieve each intermediary result on a micro level.

You're thinking of science as if it were an MMO. Keep grinding long enough and you'll eventually reach level 55 stem cell superpowers.

Actually, that's *exactly* how it works, but not in the direct fashion you are talking about.

Scientists, like other individuals, have their dogmas they adhere to about how things work (called 'theories'), and are extremely resistant to changes in said dogmas (to the point of violence, excommunication, and character/career assassination, more frequently than you might think :) ). It is only when sufficient evidence is amassed that make it clear that things *can't* be happening the way we've always thought they did that we are willing to entertain possible alternatives (see: Newtonian physics vs relativity). This happens on a smaller scale with hypotheses as well, and much more frequently.

Brute force, and the funding supplying it, are therefore highly useful tools for adding to the pool of available evidence and thus eventually pointing us in the right direction even if a given bit of work *itself* is futile.

In short: How do you know something *won't* work until you've tried it?

An excellent book for the educated layperson on how paradigm shifts actually *do* happen in science is "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn; I highly recommend it.

Late for work, but glad to see this has finally steered away from the inane 'Roe v Wade' shouting match. It wasn't my intent to take it there, but rather to suggest to Furtivus that there are some rather silly inconsistencies in public opinion in some quarters with regard to how 'sacred' we consider early-stage life, depending on what it is going to be *used* for.

Regards,
Nydia

Like L2, you're lumping it all together, when that's not the process. Of course there is a lot of menial work required to test the hypothesis, but you aren't going to come to that hypothesis through brute force.

It's like comparing a video game tester with the game's producer.

Throwing millions at the testers isn't going to give you a hit. However, investing it in a few producers with new ideas is likely to.

Of course there is a lot of menial work required to test the hypothesis, but you aren't going to come to that hypothesis through brute force.

Actually, most often, you do. The video game analogy is a poor one, in that I think you are confusing what a technician does with what a principal investigator does (they are entirely different roles). Science is, however, at its heart, an *iterative* process, and it is exactly the refinement of that grunt work (done by technicians, interpreted and guided by PIs) which illuminates where one should go and overwhelmingly where new hypotheses come from despite those few glamorous paradigm-shifting moments in history (which weren't so instant after all, upon closer examination). Science is, first and foremost, driven by observation of things that seem tiny and meaingless at a cursory glance but whose significance often only becomes clear in the context of *lots* of work with the intricacies of a problem. Only *very* rarely in science do new ideas come out of 'thin air', and even there that inspiration is informed by that body of grunt work that you seem to disdain.

Also, those 'folks with new ideas' you keep talking about don't spring full grown like Athena from the head of Zeus, but are developed via spending countless hours grinding through their graduate work and post docs, being exposed to the prevailing theories and hypotheses in their field, and making the requisite contacts so that they can get funded. Science is a *highly* social human endeavor, like all other human endeavors, and while you do occasionally have 'brilliant outsiders' (in that they're outside the major laboratories, not outside the field) come up with landmark hypotheses, the cream tends to rise to the top in multiple senses (the best scientists usually make it to the better labs), and it's precisely *because* of all that iterative grunt work and its discussion that brilliant new hypotheses, regardless of how far-fetched they sound at the outset (see: Barry Miller and H. pylori infection, Barbara Mc Clintock and transposable elements) that have merit eventually get noticed.

But back to how the ban on funding for the creation of new embryonic stem cell lines slowed the field of research - by not having access to native, uncontaminated, non-abnormal embryonic stem cell lines, scientists were hamstrung with regards to studying what is unique about these cells in terms of gene expression and thus having a basis of comparison, and model to work from, with regard to trying to make pluripotent non-embryonic cells. Ultimately, the ban slowed *both* embryonic and non-embryonic stem cell research itself, hindering the very thing the pro-life camp sought, which was less destruction of embryonic 'life' over the long term in the search for disease cures using stem cells.

Regards,
Nydia

Iterative? Sure.

Thomas Edison tried about a thousand iterations of his incandescent light bulb before succeeding. Do you really think that a thousand people trying once could have achieved the same result? Five hundred people trying twice? Spreading resources too thin is detrimental, not beneficial.

Someone driving toward their vision iteratively is not even remotely comparable to throwing more bodies (minds?) at a problem.

One more little addendum on the 'how science is done', and the 'why grunt work is important' thing:

When James Watson and Francis Crick, young lions that they were, strode into that Cambridge pub and declared "We have discovered the secret of life!" in 1953, what they didn't bother to mention was that they, of course, had traded on over two decades of work by their predecessors, eliminating all the possibilities that DNA *wasn't*, structurally and chemically, and most proximally, on the work of Rosalind Franklin, who spent years toiling in obscurity purifying, crystallizing, producing X-ray diffraction patterns of, and measuring, DNA molecules.

When Stanley Prusinier announced his theory about prions, no-one heard anything about Tikvah Alper, who had been working on scrapie and had held such a theory for years, but never could find the 'smoking gun', and whose funding eventually ran out, but whose work Pruisiner took up. The point is, their ideas didn't come out of thin air; they were predicated on everything that had come before.

Sometimes, it is a specific technological advance which allows confirmation of that which has been suspected; in such cases, the meticulous and indirect descriptive work (eg Mendel) becomes especially important.

I can, finally, relate an example that fits into this framework from my own experience. When I was a graduate student, working on metabolism in Taenia crassiceps, I *noticed*, due to spending years washing out the abdominal contents of infected mice, something that had not been described to speak of in the literature, or biochemically or immunologically characterized: a tiny, distinctive, pre-bladder form of the parasite that had a 'potato pancake' flat, fibrous appearance. I hypothesized that its secretory products might be very different than those produced in later infection when the bladders are developed and an immulogical and hormonal shift (via 17-B estradiol, towards Th2) has occurred.

I was unable to complete this work due to my lab being closed down (my PI's retirement) but I did communicate my observations to my colleagues at the Universidad Autonomico de Mexico in Monterrey, who have since done additional characterization work and confirmed that this is a distinct and unique stage in the life cycle that in particular secretes a mammalian growth hormone analog - and all because of something seemingly inconsequential that I noticed as a grunt level grad student. How cool is that? Gogo grunt work!

Often, throwing more (at least nominally qualified) bodies at a problem *is* a valid approach, because technicians and grad students and just different individuals *do* bring their unique eyes, and backgrounds, to a problem - the more people you have working on something, the greater your chances of *someone* making that key observation (as often as not, a technician) that results in a new line of inquiry.

Regards,
Nydia

Except that, as noted by L2 and Nydia, that is exactly how the scientific process works. Bodies, time and -- yes -- money gradually work toward this or that goal until someone eventually achieves it (or doesn't, and the process rolls on).

And in this specific case, the scientist who made the breakthrough in embryonic cell research was himself stymied by the regulations put in place. It's reasonable to take Dr. Thompson at his word that the rules slowed progress in his field.

And in this specific case, the scientist who made the breakthrough in embryonic cell research was himself stymied by the regulations put in place. It's reasonable to take Dr. Thompson at his word that the rules slowed progress in his field.
In that case, you shouldn't be so quick to dismiss this quote, huh?

If human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough
The funny thing here is that I'm firmly pro-choice. It's one of my few liberalisms.

However, the kind of horrible, fallacy-ridden arguments you guys have been making in this thread make it easy for me to understand why the pro-life crowd is so galvanized against you. You sound like someone arguing for Intelligent Design.

Except that, as noted by L2 and Nydia, that is exactly how the scientific process works. Bodies, time and -- yes -- money gradually work toward this or that goal until someone eventually achieves it (or doesn't, and the process rolls on).
I believe you've been fooled by randomness.

However, the kind of horrible, fallacy-ridden arguments you guys have been making in this thread make it easy for me to understand why the pro-life crowd is so galvanized against you.

Such as? And what fallacies, please? Please feel free to be specific :). I don't recall myself, or Thormir, discussing specifically at all evidence as to why, or why not, an early stage embryo should be granted 'personhood' - I was merely pointing out contradictions that many ostensibly 'pro-life' individuals embrace with regard to the issue and some obvious cases where the *implied* assertions have evidently not been thought through - witness Furtivus jumping around from his own position to the wildly hypothetical and abstract like a drop of water on a griddle once the heat was applied, for example.

While I personally feel that an early-stage embryo has *some* of the characteristics of a person, I feel that the 'karmic' (for lack of a better word) risks vs benefits, especially considering how many embryos that are created routinely fail to attach to the uterine wall (due to IUD usage, medication usage, or otherwise), are created and destroyed due to IVF, etc, and how of my own cells go down the toilet or into my mattress every day, justify the creation and use of embryos for stem cell research - at least it's clearly towards a positive end.

Regards,
Nydia

You can't argue logically, with someone who has faith.
Many fundamentalists think IVF, ect is "Messing with God's Plan".
No matter how well you frame your argument, they will use the big 3 (Bible, Faith and God) to refute your agrument.
And the more you try to convince them, the stronger their faith becomes.

I had an Aunt who is a Jehova's Witness. They expressly forbid blood transfusions, as it is considered as a way sins may be transmitted (this belief predates known HIV infections).
She got hurt 1 time, came very close to dying, and the doctor told her that she should have a blood transfusion.
She refused, but survived anyways. I told her that she should have had the transfusion, but her argument was, God had seen her through for a reason.

Was she stupid?
Was her faith what kept her alive?

All questions I have no answer for.

"Uh, no, it's the point on anencephaly I've mentioned twice now, such as:
Quote:
So, a "person" who then becomes anencephalic -- do they somehow "lose" personhood? How does that happen? "

Maybe I don't understand your question. What do you mean by personhood? Life? Is your question how do you lose life?

"witness Furtivus jumping around from his own position to the wildly hypothetical and abstract like a drop of water on a griddle once the heat was applied, for example."

What in the world are you talking about? I haven't jumped around from my own position at all.

In that case, you shouldn't be so quick to dismiss this quote, huh?I haven't dismissed it (or, at least, the idea behind it). My discomfort with it just happens to be at minimum level.
The funny thing here is that I'm firmly pro-choice. It's one of my few liberalisms.

However, the kind of horrible, fallacy-ridden arguments you guys have been making in this thread make it easy for me to understand why the pro-life crowd is so galvanized against you. You sound like someone arguing for Intelligent Design.Yeah, you're gonna have to be more specific, especially given the arguments presented by the pro-forced pregnancy crowd (when actual arguments have been presented, anyway).I believe you've been fooled by randomness.Unlikely. I've presented the way the scientific process works, more often than not, as well as the words of the actual pioneer in this area. You've presented the names of several scientists a la argumentum ad cherry-pick'em..

Maybe I don't understand your question. What do you mean by personhood? Life? Is your question how do you lose life?
By personhood, I mean your presumption that a human is a person at the moment sperm touches egg.

In the case of anencephaly, several weeks into pregnancy the neural tube fails to close, preventing the development of the forebrain (which hosts our "higher" functions). If carried to term, the fetus dies within several hours of birth. Many women will seek abortion before then, simply to avoid the trauma of giving birth to a brainless child due to die.

Did this fetus lose personhood, in your view? If so, how does that happen? Would you compel the mother to carry it to term?

I tend to view science as inevitability. At its core, Science is truth, and if God exists then the two will converge at some point. All things that are possible/useful will be achieved at some point. Assuming we don't exterminate ourselves or get by a comet or whatever first. Pouring massive amounts of resources and energy speeds up the rate at which this occurs (e.g. 1960s Space Race).

Reinforcing Lleauric's point, someone asked "Do you think fifty mediocre scientists would've replaced one Einstein, Galileo, or Newton?" and the answer has to be yes. If those 3 people never existed, we still would have have discovered that force is equal to mass times its acceleration, that the earth traveled around the sun, and that objects have an attraction to each other called gravity. It may not have happened as fast, but it would have happened.

And thats what is being looked at here, speed. People are suffering daily with ailments that many scientists believe can be cured. Its not like we're trying to learn how to travel back in time, we are talking about scientific inevitability. Scientists know these problems can be solved, they have a good idea how to do it, and they need funding to progress their theories and figure it out. And the funding was withheld.

Thormir, you're asking a question (at least to me) completely unrelated to the issue of abortion. A person could have a traumatic accident that destroys their forebrain even after birth and your same question would apply.

The question then, as I see it, is whether society could allow someone to take affirmative steps to kill a person without a forebrain.

Although I haven't given serious consideration to this specific issue I would answer in the affirmative (whether it's someone that is 30 years old or 4 months after conception old).

The question was less about abortion directly, but personhood as you define it. I presume that you have a reason for defining personhood as starting at sperm/egg. Whether it's because that's when God velcros a soul to the zygote, some manner of intuition, or whatever I don't know. I'm curious how your assessment of personhood at this earliest stage of development dovetails with the example of anencephaly. Your answer is interesting, but you might reconsider in this context.

Kelraz wrote:Scientists know these problems can be solved, they have a good idea how to do it, and they need funding to progress their theories and figure it out. And the funding was withheld.This really isn't about funding at all. There's no way of knowing how much money would be involved without Bush's limitations, but I don't see this issue in terms of "throwing money at the problem." Scientific inevitability is an interesting philosophical question, but nothing I'd hang my hat on, either.

I'd use an example of a forest that needs clearing. We're not sure how big the forest is, but we do want it cleared. Only, instead of receiving chainsaws and heavy equipment, we're given hatchets. They might be very expensive hatchets, and we'll probably clear that forest eventually, but chainsaws would move the process along much more quickly.

I read somewhere on this thread that our Govt's position on embryonic stem cell research slowed down the transition to the current wonder of getting the same results out of your own skin cells.

I'm sorry, and mayhaps I'm being a cynic, but I would wager nearly anything that should Old Bush and co had allowed the embryonic we would not have the progress we have had here.

Why would they, omg the embryo's were the 100% perfect material that they wanted to use in the first place. And hell it's just throw away material, no worries there.

Necessity is the Mother of invention, to say differently is sheer bias based largely on your own personal dislike of the current Administrations position.

I read somewhere on this thread that our Govt's position on embryonic stem cell research slowed down the transition to the current wonder of getting the same results out of your own skin cells.That was from the scientist who discovered the process of culturing embryonic stem cells for use in this research. He's probably in a good position to know.

To say differently than "necessity is the mother of invention" is to illustrate Bush-hatred? Weird.

I'm sorry, and mayhaps I'm being a cynic, but I would wager nearly anything that should Old Bush and co had allowed the embryonic we would not have the progress we have had here.

Why would they, omg the embryo's were the 100% perfect material that they wanted to use in the first place. And hell it's just throw away material, no worries there.


I don't know if I would say you are being cynical as much as I would maybe think naive, Fanny. To think that scientists are really that susceptible to tunnel vision is what would be cynical, but I am confident there were many scientists of varying faiths who wanted an alternative to embryonic stem cells as much as you, and who have been working on that longer than Bush has been in office.

I've presented the way the scientific process works, more often than not, as well as the words of the actual pioneer in this area. You've presented the names of several scientists a la argumentum ad cherry-pick'em..
No, you (and others) have presented the testing phase of the scientific method and extended that to encompass the entire process, which is not correct. What you're talking about is an important and time consuming portion of the process, but intellectually trivial.

An army of assistants performing experiments will never replace those who formulate the hypotheses being tested. You simply don't approach an infinite array of potential hypotheses with brute force. To do so would be foolish.

I tend to view science as inevitability. At its core, Science is truth, and if God exists then the two will converge at some point. All things that are possible/useful will be achieved at some point. Assuming we don't exterminate ourselves or get by a comet or whatever first. Pouring massive amounts of resources and energy speeds up the rate at which this occurs (e.g. 1960s Space Race).
Reinforcing Lleauric's point, someone asked "Do you think fifty mediocre scientists would've replaced one Einstein, Galileo, or Newton?" and the answer has to be yes. If those 3 people never existed, we still would have have discovered that force is equal to mass times its acceleration, that the earth traveled around the sun, and that objects have an attraction to each other called gravity. It may not have happened as fast, but it would have happened.
I think this is an attractive notion, but not necessarily true.

Just look at how Tesla's revolutionary ideas were quashed by Edison. We're lucky that alternating current was able to gain popularity before DC had an unbeatable market advantage/lead. We're unlucky that some of his other ideas were lost forever. In the realm of infinite possibility, there is no rational reason to believe that we'll necessarily ever stumble upon the same idea twice in our civilization's viable lifespan.

What if reasonable hydrogen power cells had come about before oil/gas controlled the market? How differently would our civilization have developed if ancient Rome hadn't developed aqueducts thousands of years ago? What would our planet's population look like today if WWII hadn't cast a stigma on eugenics?

You could say that applications of science aren't the same as pure science, but I think you have to acknowledge the tightly symbiotic relationship between science and application. Scientific discovery feeds applied development, and the engineering limitations of application create demand for new science.

The order of these things is crucially important in determining the end result.

The metaphor I kind of see it as is painting a really really big floor with a small brush. The floor, like knowledge, isnt getting any bigger or smaller, it is what it is.

Now, sure if you paint over to the left hand side, eventually you will still come over to the right at some point. Sometime you get an Einstein who goes over a part with a roller, and sometimes you get a guy who just makes a dot.

Each bit of data we gleam or come to understand makes what is left just a little bit smaller. It may be one brush stroke out of a floor the size of a football field, but it is one less out of a finite quantity.

I would be naive in respect to a working knowledge of the vision of scientists. I'm equating my 30 years of working with one type of engineer or another.

Tunnel vision, omg often can't see past the scope of the project they've been funded for.

Ahhhh there's the parallel I was alluding to. Aren't scientists very often limited by funding, funding given by orginizations such as big $$ medical co's that merely want the first best result?

To think that scientists are really that susceptible to tunnel vision is what would be cynical... Nydia stated herself in this thread that they are quite susceptible to tunnel vision.

Scientists, like other individuals, have their dogmas they adhere to about how things work (called 'theories'), and are extremely resistant to changes in said dogmas (to the point of violence, excommunication, and character/career assassination, more frequently than you might think http://www.ayonae.ro/images/smilies/smile.gif ). It is only when sufficient evidence is amassed that make it clear that things *can't* be happening the way we've always thought they did that we are willing to entertain possible alternatives

No, you (and others) have presented the testing phase of the scientific method and extended that to encompass the entire process, which is not correct. What you're talking about is an important and time consuming portion of the process, but intellectually trivial.This mischaracterizes the argument completely. In no way do I limit my points to the testing phase of research. It would be valuable to have clean embryonic stem cell lines as needed for observation by researchers, valuable for those observations to be channeled into new hypotheses, valuable for experimentation and all the other footwork, valuable for results to be shared, and valuable for replication of successful experiments to move forward. That's how we reached our current level of understanding in the first place, and is how we're likely to proceed forward.
An army of assistants performing experiments will never replace those who formulate the hypotheses being tested. You simply don't approach an infinite array of potential hypotheses with brute force. To do so would be foolish.Who is talking about "infinite hypotheses?" This is straw mannish. But it does make sense to approach all reasonable hypotheses with whatever manpower is available. Researchers with the funding, equipment and team will pursue their preferred theory(-ies); other researchers will pursue similar or entirely different theories. But since 2001, those persons (in the US at least) have had to deal with restrictions in their ability to pursue their scientific agendas. It's more than reasonable to conclude, along with Dr. Thompson, that this has slowed progress in the field.

So, the real question is, is scientific discovery is more important than ethics?
If so, then why is first trial experimentation upon humans so frowned upon?

So, the real question is, is scientific discovery is more important than fundie ethics?


went ahead and fixed that for you.

went ahead and fixed that for you.

Is it your viewpoint that liberals have no ethics?

And you didn't answer the question.

Let me put it another way:
Do the ends justify the means?

Do the ends justify the means?

For certain ends and certain means, yes, but not in all cases. In a case like stem cell research, if both people on both sides of the issue are unhappy, we're probably on the right path.

liberals? what the fuck are you on about, you retard?

what the fuck are you on about, you retard?

You might ask yourself the same question, Wiggo.

do you even know what fundie means? are you guessing wildly? are you really this stupid?

Chill dudes...share some Gravlax and mellow out.

fundie = Fundementalist, typically associated with Conservative viewpoints although not all Conservatives are Fundementalist.

Ok, Let me spell out my line of thinking:

Since you decided to alter my original question, and try to align it with a viewpoint in which it was not intended (Fundementalist). I took your argument to another incorrect assumption (Fundemetalist/Conservatives have ethics, Liberals have none).

I did it to show you, that you were incorrect in your "fixing".

All you have done is show that you are incapable of seeing anything outside of your agenda.
Makes me wonder of "Troll" best describes your actions, and not the race you play.

Incidentally Fundies are also these:

http://www.bachelorette.com/fununfortwo.html

Back on thread: For certain ends and certain means, yes, but not in all cases. In a case like stem cell research, if both people on both sides of the issue are unhappy, we're probably on the right path.

That's probably the best litmus test.

Sixee, I think he was simply making a (somewhat invited/justified, imho) snarky retort to your statement - the fact is, the fraction of folks who are vehemently opposed to embryonic stem cell research *is* quite small and overwhelmingly aligned with Fundamentalist groups, so it wasn't entirely inaccurate.

I presume you were trying to make a more *global* statement about science and medical ethics, but stem cell research isn't remotely comparable (in the view of the non-extremist majority, anyway) to things like the Tuskeegee experiment, or trying HIV vaccines on humans, and your statement, with inadequate context, sounds... odd, and implies that folks who support embryonic stem cell research are inherently 'immoral'. Also, IIRC, Wiggo's first language isn't English, and he probably read that narrowly, as I initially did.

Regards,
Nydia

i didnt say only fundamentalists have ethics, i implied only fundamentalists have fundamentalist ethics, if you feel that wildly retarded fundie ethics are the only ethics, then so be it.

i find it hilarious that you would equal fundamentalist and conservative though.

I find it hilarious that even if your first language isn't English, you sure know how to throw the "F" bomb around, Wiggo. That and "retarded".

Regardless, ethics seems to be the issue at the heart of the matter, Nydia.

Personally, I think they should be used, espically if they are going to go to waste, anyways.
If the material was gathered after the IVU process, then use it.

Where I draw the line is in creating life, with the sole purpose of harvesting the stem cells.
That's where I equate it with the experimenting with humans issue.

Sixee:

I wasn't implying that this *wasn't* a medical ethics-related case, but rather, suggesting that your wording implied a very black/white view when there's clearly a matter of scale involved.

And, to Wiggo, sadly, there are a lot of people who confuse the two, which has been the bane of the Republican party in the US in recent years - the assumption that "what's good for the fundamentalists is good for the GOP" has been internalized and given birth to a monster that the old line fiscal responsibility and liberty folks look upon and are sickened at what they have courted and now find themselves married to.

Regards,
Nydia

Well that's somewhat of an odd line to draw isn't it Sixee?

I can certainly understand Thormir's position, for example, that an embryo isn't a person prior to passing the birth canal and experimentation/destruction is fair game. I don't agree with his "point" on the sliding scale but fair enough.

Your point on the scale, however, is entirely indepedent of the person/embryo. Your determination of whether it's a person seems to be solely on the reason for creation in the first place. If the embryo was created in the fertilization process, it's open to experimentation, but if the embryo was created solely for experimentation, it's a no no. Shouldn't it be the other way around if you follow your line of thinking? I mean if an embryo is created solely for experimentation isn't it far more likely to be useful than an embryo that was created to be born?

i know theres a lot of people that confuse them nydia, but how can sixee, a self-proclaimed conservative, equate himself to a fundamental for no apparent reason, then label this as my agenda?

Wiggo, you added the "Fundie" word to my earlier question. I was just asking about ethics in general, totally unrelated to religion.
The correlation between Fundemental and Conservative was used as a fallicy, and at an attempt to make a point, albiet a poor one.

Furt, my line of thinking is along the "waste not want not" line.
If the by-products of IVU are viable stem cells that can be used in the healing process, why waste them?.
However, making embryos for the sole purpose of grabbing the stem cells, without ever giving them a chance at life, seems wasteful, to me.
I guess I'm trying to appeal to both sides of the issue: Allow embryos a chance at life, and using of the stem cells created to help sick people.

the old line fiscal responsibility and liberty folks look upon and are sickened at what they have courted and now find themselves married to

Libertarians... You get the good, without the nonsensical!

P.S. I wish someone would be given the authority to 'determine' when exactly life begins so we can get beyond this crap.

It leaves you to wonder what Republicans would run on, though. :rolleyes:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,313882,00.html

Continuing on with the "wild hypotheticals", those "lunatics" in Wisconsin are charging this guy with attempted murder.

Hopefully she doesn't assassinate any physicians in revenge.

That guy's pic is kinda creepy....:eek:

While what that guy did is reprehensible and he should be charged with aggrevated assault on *her*, I don't think a charge of attempted murder against *the embryo* is appropriate in this case, and in general don't support fetal protection laws. Under all other circumstances, people aren't 'persons' in this country until they are born (even if prematurely), and I think equating a first-trimester embryo with a person sets a dangerous precedent (see: rights of the unborn superseding rights of the mother).

While tragic and awful, there are very *few* of these cases in the US every year, but many more cases (3 - 4,000) where the rights of the mother are pitted directly against those of the fetus by medical circumstances beyond the very rare ones - namely where the mother is diagnosed with certain cancers, most often cervical cancer, during pregnancy and informed that she has two choices: 1) start chemotherapy and/or radiation and almost certainly lose the fetus or 2) accept palliative care until the fetus is viable with the knowledge that this option may jeopardize her own life.

Ethics and counseling guidelines on stage II cervical cancer in pregnancy from the AMA Journal of Ethics (very recent) here:
http://virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/2007/09/ccas1-0709.html

You'd think the mother's choice, whatever it is, would be respected in such a tragic situation, right? Unfortunately, hospitals in several states, most notably Florida, have coerced women in this situation into accepting palliative care or denied them aggressive cancer treatment outright out of concern for the 'rights' of the fetus. In one case (Florida, 1987), the woman in question was literally saying "No, I want to fight it" as they put the tracheal tube down her throat to pump her full of painkillers, after which she could no longer speak and was unconscious most of the time. The child was successfully delivered by C-section at 28 weeks when it was apparent that the mother was about to die; she (the mother) died a few hours after the surgery. The link for this case is quite old and I will have to look for it but has been cited in multiple journals; ironically, an inverse spin on it (where the mother was a good and saintly person who bravely and gladly gave up her life to bring said child into the world) was made into a TV movie in the late 1990s.

I bring up the above derail not to be unnecessarily sensational but simply to point out that when the rubber meets the road, the rights of one of the parties *must* take precedence and that 'feel-good' legislation like 'fetal protection' laws not only don't actually protect fetuses (these laws don't actually deter crime), but potentially jeopardize the self-determination rights of those that are carrying the fetuses in question.

Regards,
Nydia

While I may be wrong, I think the fetal protection laws were an attempt to stem the trend of men who didn't want to have a child and would forcibly cause women to have miscarriages through violence (knocking them down, and stomping on thier bellies, for instance).
The thinking behind this, would be "Aggrevated Assault" doesn't quite fit the description of the violence that occured.

Punching a woman in the stomach, might land a man in jail for a couple of months. Punching a pregnant woman in the stomach will get the same man much more jail time with this sort of legislation in place.

Where the disconnect occured is when people (Fundies) decided that an abortion fell under these laws, with the people who performed them as the ones to be prosecuted.

The major difference is that a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy is a voluntary decision, whereas getting punched in the pregnant tummy, generally isn't.

This brings up another question: What about those fathers that do want a child to be born, but the mother doesn't? Should a woman be forced to have a child, if the father wants the baby? Have there been any cases of this nature?

This brings up another question: What about those fathers that do want a child to be born, but the mother doesn't? Should a woman be forced to have a child, if the father wants the baby? Have there been any cases of this nature?No cases that I'm aware of, but it's a debated topic. I think absolutely. It takes two to tango, and if we're really working towards both equal rights and increased responsibility from men/fathers, then it's a necessary step.

Sort of makes the whole "Keep your laws off of my body" argument, moot, eh?

Good op-ed (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/02/AR2007120201636.html) from James Thompson and Alan Leshner.Far from vindicating the current U.S. policy of withholding federal funds from many of those working to develop potentially lifesaving embryonic stem cells, recent papers in the journals Science and Cell described a breakthrough achieved despite political restrictions. In fact, work by both the U.S. and Japanese teams that reprogrammed skin cells depended entirely on previous embryonic stem cell research.
...
Reprogrammed skin cells, incorporating four specific genes known to play a role in making cells versatile, or pluripotent, did seem to behave like embryonic stem cells in mice. But mouse studies frequently fail to pan out in humans, so we don't yet know whether this approach is viable for treating human diseases. We simply cannot invest all our hopes in a single approach. Federal funding is essential for both adult and embryonic stem cell research, even as promising alternatives are beginning to emerge.

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/family/14766455/detail.html

Discussion of forcing a sperm donar to pay child support. Why they'd have him pay after the child is 18 is my question.

The article is further proof that we as a culture have absolutely no idea how to handle our reproductive methods.

Back support maybe? That's just bizarre.

Here's the line of thinking: The state gets a portion of the owed "child support". Hence, they have a financial stake in this case.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/06/AR2007120602444.html

Using a recently developed technique for turning skin cells into stem cells, scientists have cured mice of sickle cell anemia -- the first direct proof that the easily obtained cells can reverse an inherited, potentially fatal disease.

That was fast.

That's really fast.