That is exactly as stated in my original post. I don’t think the few should decide what’s best for the health of the many.
I wasn’t trying to disparage Mr Moto. I think that the comparison between animal rights people and anti stem-cell people is extremely appropriate. However, the animal right people have not made much headway in banning animal testing. But to give them their due, they have made life much more comfortable for lab animals by using their collective voice. Perhaps that should be the goal of the anti stem-cell people. Make sure it’s ethical, and done carefully and respectfully, but allow the research to go forward.
I already did when I mentioned uranium enrichment. The Manhattan project could conceivably be considered a “scientific breakthrough story” that began with a government check. Hell, they literally raided the United States Mint, converting silver bullion into wire for the electromagnets.
Second example; the human genome project. Sure Ventner gets all the credit, but let’s not forget that the NIH finished a close second.
Third, fourth, and fifth example: Everything that’s come out of the NIH, the CDC and NASA. Sure, anybody could whip up a Saturn-5 in their basement, but getting it up the stairs and onto the launch pad is a real bitch.
So, true research and knowledge doesn’t come rom a check from the government, eh? Quick question: All the groundbreaking research into adult stem cell research that you’ve been praising; who pays for that?
(nodding…) and this has precisely sweet f-all to do with what, precisely? As I pointed out earlier, we don’t have a cure for AIDS. Guess we should call it quits, eh?
Somehow I think you’d have a problem with this formulation if the anti-embryonic cell research position were the majoritarian one.
And I’m not trying to disparage you. But asking me to enforce ethical restrictions on legal embryonic research would be, in the memorable analogy of Albery Jay Nock, like putting a Sunday-school teacher in charge of a whorehouse.
He might clean the place up a bit, and make it respectable in appearance, but at the end of the day he’s still selling flesh.
I’ll compromise on a lot of things, but not this one. Better to convert others to my way of thinking than participate myself in what I consider to be an unconscionable evil.
And I am saying that this, by itself, is an incomplete argument. What, in your mind, makes this instance of living human cells different from a removed kidney or, for that matter, adult stem cells?
That’s not it at all. I don’t think that the presence of life or of human DNA, in and of themselves, are what we should be respecting. They are a short way of referring to what we respect. This is why I keep mentioning the adult humans with no brain function. And you keep consistently acting as if these sections of my posts were never submitted.
At least at this moment, I am trying. How are you showing me respect when you consistently refuse to respond, or even acknowledge, crucial points of the debate? Rude comments are not the only way to be disrespectful.
You did not construct any kind of logical chain between the two. There may be one in your head, but you didn’t make it clear to me. From what I can tell, it was just a rabbit you pulled out of your hat.
And neither will the frozen embryos. They need some sort of host. A preserved embryo is not on its way to fruition, until suitable human intervention is provided. And already, for thousands of embryos every year, it isn’t.
Disagree. All the theoretical work was done by world-famous scientists beforehand. The rest was Dept. of Defense project. Why, just convince Pentagon that embryos are crucial to win the War on Terror, then sit back and watch…
Regarding anything to do with rockets, there was a lot of lugging of heavy parts, rummaging junk yards and getting burned by hot debree done by rocket pioneers, before they demonstrated the potential for controllable rocket flight.
Poor example. Non-controversial, non-intrusive, doesn’t affect people emotionally. Let’s stick to things that touch people’s nerves: embryos, vivisection, nuclear proliferation, oil drilling…
Good question. Perhaps someone can enlighten us?
It was supposed to counteract your assertion that embryonic research is quickly bringing positive results, the implicit corollary to which is that if only we put gov’t money into it, we gonna get more results. Like Edwards said, that if we do all the work that will be done when Kerry is Pres., paraplegics will get out of their wheelchairs and walk again. To be precise, Kerry promised to spend $100,000,000 federal money on embryonic research. Some people apparently believe that will make all the difference.
You’ve eluded my point and decided to focus on the logical term I used to denote the necessary counterpart for the development of an human embryo. Do you even have any sound reason to oppose embryonic stem cell research, other than you don’t like your old notions about the world and man’s place/role in it undergoing quick and significant changes.
All or nothing? That doesn’t seem very reasonable. Stem cell research may be as abhorrent for you, as this war is for me. But I pay my taxes and accept both are supported by the majority.
In addition, I think your response to the word “host” is way out of proportion to its usage. Host in this instance is scientifically correct. Any organism in which another organism lives is indeed, by definition, a “host”. But you didn’t bother answering the question. Since the embryos are not capable of growing themselves, and you can’t force the parents to birth them or give them away, what should be done with them?
In addition, since only roughly 25% of implanted blastocyes become babies, then your proposition that every sperm is sacred (I’m not mocking, it just popped into my head…sing it with me!), is off by about 75%.
New Iskander I would wager that nearly every single scientific breakthrough in the last 100 years was started with seed money fromt he government. Not necessarily the US government, but someone’s government. One of the biggest complaints now in the scientific community is the stripping of public knowledge for profit.
Public universities are the greatest source of new scientific knowledge. The major corporations have been combing scientific articles published by Universities, doing more extensive research and patenting results, including genes. It’s crazy but true.
If you one one specific example of a breakthrough paid for with tax dollars, Islet cell transplants come first to mind (since I’m in the lab right now). Developed by the University Edmonton Alberta Canada, and perfected by the University of Miami Florida.
And no *true * Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
I’m sorry, I was answering the question posed. At least I thought I was. Next time, please state all your qualifiers outright. I didn’t realize that your definition of “Scientific Breakthrough” was so…fluid.
What the…huh??..Whaaa???
Where/when did I make that assertion? What I said (or more to the point, what I meant) was that without doing the research, we won’t know if it embryonic stem cell therapy works better or not; so to say it shouldn’t be funded because it doesn’t work yet is a cyclical argument.
Sounds like your beef is with John Kerry and John Edwards, not me. Why don’t you write them. They probably have lots of free time these days.
I forgot RADAR!!! OK, invented in England, but flown to MIT and developed at Government expense.
The WWII theme brought something to mind that you might be missing: It is in a government’s best interest to invest in science for defense reasons (cool weapons that your enemy doesn’t have is a big plus), for prestige (think “Space Race” and nobel-prize bragging rights) and for purely economic reasons.
Similarly, it is in a governments best interest to have a healthy populace. Not because its a nice thing to do, but because healthy people tend to be more productive than sick ones.
Your idea that the government should not fund science is just plain bad policy. Unless I have misinterpreted your position.
You do misunderstand. Fact is, Gov’t does subsidize many things, regardless of what I think. Earlier, you brought a point that if gov’t subsidizes meat-packing industry, why not embryo experimentation? Simply because cattle slaughter is an established industry, and embryo dissection is not. As soon as embryo research will show real potential, gov’t will get involved with subsidies and regulations.
Regarding adult stem cells we know it is possible to grow human bone using adult fat cells. Regarding embryonic stem cells we know it’s possible to grow heart tissue in mice using mice embryo tissue. Clearly, embryos are way behind in practical importance. So, whence comes the urge to use them? Many people who know even less then I do about stem cells would still insist embryo research is crucial and Bush is standing in the way of the scientific progress. Such ignorance is based on political convictions, not rational analysis.
You know, I have been very careful in this thread to parse my language very precisely, so as to leave no doubt that I fully support stem cell research on adult cells. I have a problem only with embryonic stem cell research.
That’s hardly an all or nothing position, and your assertion that I’m against “stem cell research” is a distortion of my position. I do hope this was accidental.
On the contrary, I think my reaction was appropriate. The language used indicates that some think only in very utilitarian terms about this issue. Our country has a public policy shaped by other considerations than pure utility.
I answered this several times above. The attitude you’re taking, and that others in this thread share, is that it doesn’t matter what we do with the embryos since we’re going to kill them anyway.
Some would support this killing even if adult stem cell research progressed to the point that embryonic cells simply weren’t needed.
I reject this attempt to justify the killing by pointing to the research that could be done. “The ends justify the means” is used to excuse many morally questionable acts, and this is just another one on the list.
You don’t agree. Peachy. But don’t accuse me of not having considered all facets of this just because I have the temerity to hold a different view than yours.
I’ll rejoin this thread if somebody has a question for me I really haven’t answered, but I think my posts until now encapsulate my thinking on this subject. If you all want to talk past someone, pick someone else.
I thought you said that the embryonic stems cells were already an individual human, and this was core to your thinking? You said that you were concerned about their rights as humans. Now, you are saying that you support their “right” to become human. Which is your actual position?
This is the problem with the way you are debating: If you keep changing your premises (and refusing to state them), we can’t refute your arguments, but it’s not an honest debate.
This goes back to what I said before: You are not telling us what your real beliefs are; instead, you are trying different ones on for size, looking for ones that will counter our arguments. Somewhere inside of all this is the what you really believe, but I cannot determine it based on your arguments, because your arguments are fluid in the way that you claim others’ definitions to be.
How can it be a moot point? I asked the question in order to figure out where you’re coming from, and specifically whether you apply this apparent rule about respecting human life in every situation or only those that involve embryonic stem cells. You ignored the question. This time, you sidestepped it. I still have no idea where you are coming from, but I am convinced that you are being disingenuous on purpose.
How is that any less of a ‘breach or rights’? A toddler, if left alone and unsupported, will also die a natural death. Yet that’s a crime in US law. You hold an embryo to be human life, to be on the safe side, since you’re unsure when a group of cells starts constituting a person. So shouldn’t the guardian of the embryo have an obligation to help the embryo survive?
Not necessarily. Take an elderly person about to expire in a nursing home. All that can be done is to provide care until the final moment. The Life is coming to an end in old age, and so it does for an embryo, only extremely quick. In both cases, Life becomes unsustainable and must end in a natural manner.
Now, imagine that elderly person is a voluntary organ donor. Suddenly, while this person is still breathing, some people come in and say, “It’s almost over anyway, turn off the life support, we are taking the body now!”
Every time I see this thread title in the list, dead baby jokes pertaining to cannibalism and Crisco substitutions in recipes start to run through my mind.