Well, you know how it is, if you hold a controversial viewpoint, you’re going to be called on it! Seriously, though, sorry for adding to the “pile-on” here, but i’m honestly interested in understanding how you fell on this issue.
I think (and this is just an opinion) that perhaps your discomfort at the “they’re there, we might as well use them” argument is the lack of (from your perspective) tact, rather than an actual immorality. The equivalent for me might be something like, “Hey, those people are braindead already, let’s just finish them off” as opposed to “There is no way they wil recover, sadly. Unfortunate as it is, if we took the large step of withdrawing life support, we would then have doctors and equipment free for someone with an actual chance of surviving”. If you see what I mean, I think you might have a problem with the very pragmatic nature of the statements, rather than the actual issue of removing stem cells from going-to-be-terminated-anyway fetuses.
As to your suggestion that removing stem cells is in itself an immoral act, could you please explain your reasoning to me? I’m not trying to be snarky; merely looking to understand where you’re coming from with that.
Haven’t read the thread. Just wanted to pop in and say ‘fuck that stupid motherfucker’. My father died of diabetes. My mother died of cancer. I hope he experiences a long and lingering demise when the time comes, the cocksucker.
Hazards of the Pit. Take the heat as long as you can stand it.
Certainly. But as a Christian, you must also recognize that we were given freedom of choice by God. Discourage? Certainly. Discourage away. Choose for them? Not your place.
Alright, but how are you able to tell without further research? If we don’t pursue a promising avenue of research, how are we able to determine how effective it may or may not have been? Science does not rely on hunches.
And as bad as your mother’s experience was with cancer (and I’m sorry she had to suffer), she would have suffered far more had the tumor been allowed to grow and the doctors done nothing.
I understand the worst case scenario thing. But honestly, taking into account everything that is required to even qualify for IVF, it’s very unlikely that we’ll see “Embryos on Demand” even had this bill passed.
You personally did not. It was something being bandied about in the GD thread and elsewhere in the media and the Senate. The rationale being, it’s murder to use T cells for stem cell research from an unused IVF embryo, because it’s a person. My question is, that person is already dead, so how can it possibly be murder? Sorry if that sounds so cold, but I believe saving several hundred lives with a few cells is far better than flushing those few cells that are dead anyway out of respect for the person it will never be.
My father died of cancer; my grandmother died of Alzheimers.
My bona fides thus established…
I don’t agree with the veto. In President Bush’s position, I would not have vetoed this bill.
But I don’t agree that Mr. Bush is an asshole, a stupid motherfucker, or any of the other utterly predictable insults offered above.
He believes that this constitutes taking cells from human bodies, and that we simply shouldn’t do this, no matter what scientific advances might ensue.
As an analogy, someone might come along and say, “We have determined that the data collected by Nazi experiments dowsing men into freezing water repeatedly can be used in an new study about how to keep downed pilots alive in frigid seas.”
As a grant foundation trustee, I might say, “I won’t fund research that uses Nazi-collected data, because of the great evil associated with its collection - even though the data itself would admittedly do good.”
Now, of course there’s another view – that the data itself is neutral, that the harm done in creating is is already done, and we may as well get something good out of it.
I subscribe to that second view.
I don’t agree the first view – or, indeed, Mr. Bush’s decision here. But it’s a defensible view.
Since I’d be quite happy to fund research that used Nazi-collected data as it’s foundation (assuming that data was scientifically collected, which I don’t think any of it was) if I thought it would do some good, I don’t see that position as defensible; especially since I cannot understand how someone would turn down that opportunity because of a taint from it’s collectors. As I don’t find it defensible, I think i’m perfectly within my rights to consider Bush’s decision stupid. As I think he himself believes he’s doing it for the right reasons, I don’t think he’s an asshole.
“Utterly predictable arguments” is just swearing for intelligent people, Bricker.
There’s nothing about the quality of predictability that is necessarily incompatible with being deserved or appropriate.
Nor does the ability to cognitively comprehend the opposing point of view mitigate the anger at the act. Having skipped ahead to Nazi analogies already yourself, I would point out that one may comprehend on a cognitive level Hitler’s motivations, yet nevertheless find them reprehensible and worthy of a profanity laced tirade.
Or, you could end up like my uncle, who had cancer of the saliva glands (I think that was it), had it treated, and just a few weeks ago, was able to welcome his first granddaughter.
Do you honestly think that DYING of cancer without treating it is better? Yes, sometimes aggressive treatment that’s only going to prolong dying in agony a few weeks isn’t a good idea. But NO treatment at all?
Wow. Really? You would use scientific data that was collected by torturing subjects, and without their consent? That is unbelievable to me. Frankly, I’m completely stunned. How on earth could you consider this justifiable?
If it could save a life, and it was proven to be scientifically sound? You betcha! Think of it this way-something GOOD could come out of such a tragedy. How is that a bad thing?
You would live on land forcibly taken from its original occupants without their consent, possibly as the first step in a program of cultural annihilation?* Frankly, I am completely stunned. How on earth could you consider this justifiable?
*(This is true of all land everywhere. Lack of records does not make it any less true.)
In other words, not using data that could save lives is inhumane, regardless of where that data came from.
The “helping people” part makes *using the data * justifiable. The acts themselves are not, and were (though sadly not in all cases) punished. There are considerable safeguards on both medical and psychiatric research nowadays that while in many cases are totally reasonable, in others may actually slow our understanding of the human body (for example, we can’t just go performing lobotomies and so on anymore). These rules are very important, and I would fear a world that removed them.
In this hypothetical case, however, we already have some data. The people who collected it should indeed be punished, but that is no reason not to use the data, if it is scientifically valid.
I would say to you; you have a data source that you believe would lead to considerable advances in the field of medicine. Why should you not use it? Out of respect for the dead? I doubt anyone would respect me for not taking an opportunity to save more lives.
I myself am saddened (though not shocked) that people wouldn’t consider using the data justified.
Funny how nobody minds embryos being tossed out in the trash when they’re leftover from fertility procedures, but the idea of stem cell research is supposed to be repugnant. Could it be because the raising of large Red State families is infinitely more appealing?
Well, as I understand it, Christians are supposed to be raising large families. I am not Christian, and I am not ever going to be Christian, and I can’t claim to have the utmost knowledge of Christianity or any of it’s splinter groups or sects. But the way I had it explained to me was that Christians are supposed to bear a ton of children, not enjoy sex, never use contraceptives, and never under any circumstances have an abortion. So leftovers from attempting to have a large brood, or any brood at all, would be much more holy being thrown away than being used trying to mess around with God’s work.
Then again, it was a die-hard Catholic who explained this to me, so I may have a skewed sense of it.
Eureka, Christian to Christian, Christ commanded us to love God with all our minds as well as all our hearts and souls. To me, to willfully refuse to think about things because you don’t want to think about them is a sin. The lives we’re discussing exist. To you, it’s better to throw them away and the hope that goes with them. As you said, we disagree. Personally, I see human potential as more than trash.