YOu want to know what bothers me about genetic research, cloning, and fertilization science the most?
We don’t even treat the people who ARE here right. There are so many kids out there, being abused and neglected, and all we try to do is create the Perfect Child TM for some greedy couple. (straw man, I know, but it’s out there).
I think before we start cloning, we ought to find a way to work with what we have.
But, like that’s going to happen.
True but he also met directly with the Pope who was very against this research. That couldn’t have helped. I do see your point though. Obviously, it’s all about votes.
It’s nice to see that this Pit thread has become all warm and fuzzy 
Is there a GD thread about stem cell research? Or IMHO? Maybe one of you should start one.
Yes, many kids are abused and neglected. That is something worth addressing. I am absolutely pro-adoption rather than bringing more kids into this world. That is a different debate though. My point is that there are also kids that suffer from diabetes, kidney disease and a list of other problems that this stem cell research might help with. Surely they aren’t less important.
And cloning is still another topic worthy of debate.
Well there is still the matter of Acco40, who started the thread and then quickly left after only 8 replies.
True, but as I said, I don’t really KNOW much about stem cells, not enough to have a really informed opinion. Science was one of my worst subjects.
However, from what I have heard so far, I don’t have too many objections.
[Lurch]
You rang?
[/Lurch]
I confess I may have missed it, but I haven’t noticed a whole lot of atheists being against stem cell research because they consider the cells to be human beings.
Christians and other religious folks are entitled to their beliefs. But I don’t believe they are entitled to impose them on the rest of us. The decisions of the government in regards to science should not be affected in any way by some people’s religious beliefs.
The only things that should be considered are science and law, neither of which are determined or made by religious belief - at least, not in the US.
I think decisions like these are easily made. All the government has to do is be consistent. Under our laws, clusters of human cells, zygotes and blastocysts are not people. They are not beings with rights. They are tissue. Every law on the books treats them as such. When it’s a matter of infertile couples having babies, it’s discardable tissue. But suddenly when it’s sceintific experimentation we are going to act like we’re killing babies? It’s ridiculous, inconsistent and wrong. And I hate inconsistency…especially when it could cost lives and prolong suffering.
But I do wish to point something out that I might even make a thread about someday, since it drives me nuts: the cells * ** are alive ** *. Depending on your point of view, it can even be argued that sperm and eggs are alive. But being “alive” is not the same thing as being a * human being *. Note that the term * human being * includes “being”. A bunch of cells are not a being, not a person, not a human.
A human is a person, and a person is:
Clumps of cells are not any of the above things. They are alive, but they are not people. Killing the cells is not killing a person. It is stopping potential from being fulfilled. To be concerned about it is virtually no different than being concerned about the millions of sperm that are spilled in masturbation, which in fact the Bible is. One could just as easily mourn one’s menstruation, for the potential that has been lost.
But no * human beings * are dying in the process - not in masturbation, not in menstruation, not in destruction of blastocysts and zygotes. So to be bent out of shape about * the possibility * (not even a certainty!) that ** some people might ** deliberately create blastocysts just to destroy them to try and find a cure for horrible diseases seems to grossly misplace one’s compassion and concern for one’s fellow human beings.
stoid
Stoid,
Maybe I should just shut up and let you speak. You said everything I was trying to, just much better 
Then again, perhaps I am a better person from the experience.
I had asked the question “If they are going to be discarded anyway, how is it better if we don’t use them for research” I never really got a specific answer to that. The answer IMHO is that it is not better to waste something that can be used for the good of all of us.
Perhaps you should start that thread.
Experience is the name that we give to our mistakes - Oscar Wilde
And somewhere a Christian opposed to stem cell research is saying the same thing. They don’t see how you are entitled to impose your beliefs on them. It’s the other side of the same coin. One group is still imposing their beliefs on another. This is why I think no side is ever going to be satisfied here.
That said:
This sentiment I agree with. I think much of the problem is people not understanding exactly what stem cell research is and it’s possible benefits. I get the feeling that much of the outcry is a knee-jerk reaction without fulling understanding what is being experimented on. Bush should go on TV, bring along a scientist to explain exactly what’s going on in layman’s terms and then go ahead with funding. Of course, first, they’ll have to clone him a backbone.
But you seem to have disregarded the rest of what I said. It is virtually certain that somebody is gonna be unhappy. I contend, with the constitution on my side, that it oughta be the religious. As we all are perfectly aware, church and state are supposed to be separate and distinct. This is a government matter, the opinions of religious people should not bear on the decision, and it is primarily, if not exclusively the religious who have a problem with this.
stoid
Right, which is why I agreed with the last paragraph.
**
It’d be nice and clear cut argument for your views if that only meant keeping religion out of government, but it’s also to keep government out of religion. The line unfortunately is not very distinct. If the line dividing church and state were that clear, then the Rev. Jesse Jackson should never have been allowed to run for President since it would then be unconstitutional.
**
So then are you saying religious citizens do not have the right to be represented by their government? Because that’s all they’re doing, trying to get their government to represent them, same as you or I.
You know, I agree with the position that stem cell research should be funded, but your ideas that religious people have no right to voice their views in government is bullshit. Everyone in this country has a right to speak his/her mind regarding anything this government does. That’s why we’re a democracy - the government is to represent everyone, not just the people who agree with you. We fought a war about 225 years ago so we could do that. You might have heard of it, it was in all the papers.
The problem is that the people didn’t choose this. One person chose it, and he chose it primarily on how it would affect the amount of votes he gets/loses. Pure politics. How did any of us have a say in that? You could, I suppose, say that we voted for him but he did not win the popular vote either.
I know, but my whole beef was with Stoid saying that religious people should not even have had a say in this. My view is they should have a say in it regardless of their religious views, because that’s what a democracy is. Unfortunately, in a pure democracy, the people would have actually gotten to vote on this instead of leaving the decision to a man who is only concerned with his political future and how well he’ll do in 2004.
Again, I want to reiterate my stance that I agree that funding should be allowed and it’s unfortunate that the politics game figures so strongly in this decision. However, blaming the religious people of the country and claiming that they should have no say in what their government does is bullshit. Lets lay the blame where it belongs – at the feet of the man who made the decision. It was, ultimately, his to make.
There a choice to be made here. Whine about the religious people making their voices heard, or make your own voice heard.
Did I say that people with religious views should not be able to speak their minds? No, I did not. I said that governmental and scientific decisions should not be affected by the views of the religious. They can say everything they want, but in situations such as this, their opinions, when based on their religious beliefs, should not have any bearing on the decisions that are made.
Such decisions, as I said before, should be made based on science and law. And the law is and should be based on science where applicable.
And we do not have a pure democracy, we have never had a pure democracy,and glad I am of it. The (admittedly elitist) opinions of the forefathers was that the masses were not equipped to be making the big decisions, which is why they elect people to do it for them. And certainly the religious should be represented by their government, but it is not the job of government to represent their religions.
Of course, this leads us right into the mess of whether the man who made this decision was elected or not sub[/sub], but that’s for a different thread.
stoid
Look, Bush can write all the executive orders he wants. Ultimately, the decision is up to congress, which can override this decision. But they will only do that if they think the decision is horribly wrong.
And I want to quash the idea that religious people are not entitled to take part in our political system. Balderdash. Religious people have exactly the same rights that you or I do. No, religious people cannot impose their beliefs on the rest of us simply because they are in the majority, since we have constitutional protection. A simple majority cannot override the constitution. But deciding not to fund stem cell research because one has religious objections to it is not a violation of the 1st amendment.
And I find the argument that clumps of cells are not human beings unconvincing. Human beings are clumps of cells. You are a clump of cells, I am a clump of cells, a fetus is a clump of cells. The fact is, there is no bright line between a single human cell and a human being, not even the moment of conception. And we should not be surprised by that. Biology is full of messy lines. Organisms don’t always line up in neat little rows for us to categorize them.
I know that your opinion is that a fetus is not a human being. But there is no biological justification for that view, any more than there is a biological justification for the view that a fertillized egg cell IS a human being. Both are simple matters of opinion. Pretending that the fundamentalists are being arbitrary while the pro-choicers are being scientific is silly. Both are presenting their gut feelings as facts of nature.
Well, if that idea were being asserted, it would need quashing.
I disagree. What other governmental procedures, monies, laws, services are based on religious beliefs? Any time and every time it’s been tried it’s been stopped. (I’m really wondering about this whole faith-based charity bullshit coming from Bush…what is the status of that crap, anyway?) We do not consult the bible, the Koran or Buddha to decide how to run the government.
I sw that one coming.
You, me and fetuses are not clumps of * undifferentiated *cells. BIG difference. Until they differentiate into the multitude (I think it’s 220 separate types) of cells that make up the human body, it ain’t a person. Because before that, they are just potential - any one of those cells could become any part of the body. That’s the whole point. Undifferentiated cells are no more a person than an egg is.
stoid
No, you didn’t say religious people can’t speak their minds. But speaking your mind and having a voice in government are two separate things. I’m speaking my mind here, but it has no affect on governmental policies. As far as you seem to care, they can say all they want, as long as that view isn’t represented in government.
But it’s true, you said nothing about speaking one’s mind, you said:
Let’s read that again:
This is a government matter, the opinions of religious people should not bear on the decision…
You are saying that the views of religious citizens should not matter in the implementation of a government policy, strictly on the basis of religious belief. That’s called persecution, Stoid. You restated that opinion in the quote at the top of the post, hilighted by my bolding. You come across as saying religious people can speak their minds, so long as it doesn’t effect government policy, thus denying them their constitutional right to be represented by their government. When it comes to government - and this is a governmental decision not a scientific one - everybody gets a say as is their constitutional right.
And guess what Stoid, as long as religious people have the right to vote, they have a say in governmental decisions. Anyone who is a citizen of the USA has a right to affect their government and attempt to change policy. That’s what this democracy is. Your point of view on this matter seems to be if they don’t play your way, they shouldn’t be allowed to play at all. To want to ban people from governmental decisions just because their ideas don’t agree with yours is a childish attitude in a grown-up world.
How about instead of whining and bitching about the religious people who don’t play fair, you make your own voice heard. Write your Congressman and Senator. Get petitions signed. How about you work with the democratic system instead of denying people their right to use it?
Crunchy, you are obviously very offended by my point of view. It’s unfortunate you feel that way. But I have denied you nothing, and I think I’ve made my point clear.
This is a ** governmental ** decision about ** scientific ** matters. * ** Religion and religous beliefs should not play a part. ** *
You are choosing to make this a persecution issue with very little input from me.
Have at it.
stoid
Something else just occurred to me. I’m betting that a lot of the people who are mortified at the idea of creating embryos to destroy them in an effort to save humanity itself from suffering, disease, and early death, don’t even blink at the idea of sending teenagers into war to die and save our “way of life”…or even save us from $5 a gallon for gas.
Just a thought.
stoid