Yes, it is true of all land everywhere, and maybe that’s why it is justifiable…because there is nowhere else for me to live.
I have no idea how these two things are connected or relevant to each other.
I am truly amazed that people are so cavalier about this issue. The data is inextricably linked with how it was gathered, and the poor souls who were tortured and died as a result.
You doubt that, really? Why don’t you ask a holocaust survivor sometime what they think about it.
I myself am saddened AND shocked that the cause of “medical advancement” can obviously be used to justify anything in some people’s minds.
I am truly amazed that you can be so cavalier with people’s lives. That data is inextricably linked with the people that it could save, and the poor souls who are tortured by pain and disease and will die as a result.
You have the slight problem that none of the Nazi experiments was scientifically valid. They were just torturing these people and using “medical experiments” as a sham. We’re talking about a hypothetical issue, here.
Then try this; the data will save lives. If you choose not to use it, in my book, that makes you as good as a murderer of each and every life that will now cease, and the cause of extreme pain in the lives of those who don’t.
Please. Spare us the melodrama. Where has anyone suggested in this hypothetical that barbaric acts are justified if the data result in medical advancement.
Oh Bricker, can we please get a ruling/condemnation from you regarding failure to understand an opposing point of view? No? Too bad.
I’m starting to think that those opposed to stem cell research really imagine themselves to be Horton, the only one who knows of the existence of the Whos and the only one who is willing to fight for them. I, on the other hand, am one of the Wickersham Brothers. Perhaps one day the frozen blastocysts will shout in unison “We’re here! We’re here! We’re here!”
Then I’ll be shit out of beezlenut stew.
So? Using the data does not justify or excuse the way in which it was gathered. But it’s there, and if it could help save someone’s life, how could you not use it? How does letting one more person die make anything about the Holocaust better?
Since you believe in life after death and all, let me ask you: if you were tortured to death in bizarre and inhumane medical experiments, and fifty years later, long after those responsible had been brought to justice and/or died, it turned out that some of that research might save someone’s life, would you object to it? Isn’t that a form of pride? The idea that your death was so horrific that it needs to be “respected” above and beyond the well being of other humans? That strikes me as a deeply selfish and inhumane position.
Where’s Bricker to hector you about understanding alternate viewpoints when we need him?
Perhaps I’ve expressed myself poorly. I don’t mean to indicate that researchers are solely motivated by a desire to get rich or famous. I don’t really doubt that most if not all researchers in this field are true believers, convinced that if their research is successful, they will help people.
But I really, truly believe that a lot of the stated potential of stem cells is hype and hope, not fact.
And I really, truly, believe that there is a tremendous, significant difference between using embryos as the starting point for research and using mice or rats or bacteria or plants or even using tissue from adults. I may not be able to explain that difference, but it is there and it is real, to me.
I honestly don’t know what that reason is, beyond the reality that these are difficult, intractable diseases–and I’m not stupid enough to glibly suggest that it’s God’s will. I suppose at some level everything is God’s Will, but that’s not very satisfactory as an answer.
That’s not what I’m saying–what I’m saying is that there is LESS logic than there is hope and hype. I’m not prepared to dismiss your story as an appeal to emotion, you make it sound like embryonic stem cells are much closer to being practical than I would have guessed. Your story is compelling . . . but not quite compelling enough. What would make it compelling enough? I honestly don’t know. I may be in danger of wishing to prevent all embryonic stem cell research in order to prevent frivolous stem cell research–because I don’t trust anyone to figure out how to regulate it so that research can be done only where it is most likely to be effective.
That isn’t true. There are other ways to gather data. The scientific truth will not disappear if you don’t use that specific data.
Right. It’s an example. Much like the magical uterus box you have been drilling me with in the GD thread on the same subject.
To use Hentor’s phrase, spare me the melodrama. Figure out a way to study the same issues, but without using that (hypothetical) data.
Intellectual property types would be cringing - knowing something because of the data is still making use of it. You’re suggesting that, in this hypothetical, you would require the data to be replicated before anything could be done with it, as if this would launder the information in some way. It’s still fruit from a poisoned tree.
You believe that your stand is principled, but it really looks like priniciple is more important to you than existing human lives. That’s fucked up.
I had heard that the Bush twins were the result of IVF (don’t know the proper term). Anyone know the dope?
That’s an incredibly skewed view of the matter. Although I’m no longer a believer, I was raised Presbyterian. I remember being taught that pre-marital sex and abortion were wrong, but there was no mention of contraception being bad. And the enjoyment of married sex was a gift from God. I’m pretty sure that most mainline Protestant denominations (Lutheran, Methodist, Episcopal, etc.) take the same stand. I can’t speak for the more evangelical/fundamentalist churches, but your statement sounds extreme even for them.
No, I think you are misunderstanding me. I am not saying, “let’s test the results the Nazis came up with, to see if they are the same.” I am saying “let’s test the same hypothesis.” Big difference, IMO.
Parents must give consent for any medical procedures performed on their children. Don’t be embarrassed, you would’ve found out eventually. You have to sign all kinds of forms for every doctor your child will ever go to. 
No, it’ll sit there and possibly never be found or utilized and lots of people will die needless deaths while we search for a viable alternative. But at least we’ll be “respecting the dead.” :rolleyes:
Are you under the impression that just because we find a new avenue of research, we give up all others? That’s not the way it works. The other research will continue. The idea is to find as many ways to a cure as possible.
Certainly, except for the part about artificial contraception, this is what Catholics believe and are taught, as well. Never, ever, ever, have I heard that married people are not supposed to enjoy sex. Quite the contrary. We are supposed to enjoy sex with our spouses, and accept all children conceived through this procreative act as a gift from God.
That depends, really, on how the data was collected. If it was collected through (for example) giving lobotomies to people, it may be that we can’t collect the same data, because (and quite rightly so) we can’t perform lobotomies now. It’s possible that there are other techniques that will allow us to collect the same data, but if you change the collection method, you change the experiment.
True. So you see how asking a holocaust survivor wouldn’t be appropriate?
Like I said, it may be that there is no way (or no current way) to study the same issues, since we cannot use the same techniques.
In fact, if no prior wishes are recorded, the next of kin get to decide on donation, even for adults. Some states at one time had implied consent, but I’m not sure if that is still the case.
So the analogy with stem cells is pretty good, the embryo never being able to give consent.
What the fuck, Bricker? Cite, please?
I have never condoned torture, nor do I believe that information gained from such is reliable.
For the most part, I AM against it.
However, in this specific instance, (information from “experiments” during the Holocaust"), one point is that it was in the past-it’s over now. And the people trying to gather information are NOT the ones doing the torture-they’re looking at something that happened, and trying to gain knowledge from it.
Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you for constantly insinuating this shit about others.
I don’t do medical research, but I do other types of research, and I can tell you don’t understand what is involved at all. Maybe you’ll feel better with more information.
Any research starts with hope. There is a very high chance that any advanced type of research will not pan out. That doesn’t mean you don’t do it, it means you make sure you’re on the right track all the time, and are prepared to abandon dead ends. I’m sure that not all the diseases will be tractable to this method, but if even some are that’s a lot of people alive who would be dead, or alive with better lives than before.
No researcher is going to spend years of his or her life in the lab for hype. You get the awards and the grants for success, not hype. Look at the cold fusion guys - they had plenty of hype, but no results, and it did not go well for them. I assure you, people working on stem cells are making the best, and most educated, guesses they can.
My understanding is that lot’s of research has been done already on animal stem cells, which is why we’re ready for human ones. No one does human research first - there is a lot more paperwork, for one thing, and you have to be more careful. The reason researchers want to do the work is that they’ve seen enough positive results so that they think there is a good chance of success. Yes, it will take time, but it’s taking a lot more time because of opposition from the religious. If successful therapies are invented, how would you feel telling the families of those who died just before they are available that the reason it took so long was that you just weren’t sure back in 2006, and so helped delay it. (You don’t , directly, but Bush does.)
As for regulating research so that it will be done only if it will be effective - that shows you don’t get it. Research that has a very high chance of being effective gets funded by industry, because the payoff is reasonably certain. No one knows how to be sure if more farout research is effective, which is why it gets funded by the government (or very rich companies) where failures are expected, and we’re happy with a very small hit rate.
Of course no one knows for sure. When I was at Bell Labs, in the good old days, we distinguished between long term research, > 4 years out, short term research , 2 - 4 years, and development, 1 - 2 years. Stem cell research is long term, but it will never become short term without funding.
Now, I live in Silicon Valley, so my property values will no doubt continue to climb thanks to Bush’s actions, as more and more of the work comes here thanks to California’s initiative. But I would gladly give that up to get these cures in time for me to need them.
I know next to nothing about science and research. But, I am currently reading John Barry’s The Great Influenza, and perhaps reading it would give Eureka a much better understanding of how scientific and medical research is done. It ALL starts with a hope. And most scientists end up disappointed. If anyone went with YOUR philosophy, I doubt we’d have many of the medical breakthroughs we have today.
Oh, and sorry, even if you were a lawmaker, last time I checked, this nation’s laws are NOT founded on any one religion. It is wrong of you to try and force your religious views on others, even through the law.
I’m not sure how, but I believe you’ve completely misinterpreted Bricker’s post.
It means you have unclean hands by your own standards and have no moral standing to make the arguments you are attempting to make. It means that if you even pretend to be honest you will make logical arguments rather than arguing from a twisted and inconsistent moral platform.