Redstate

ES cells and adult stem cells are not equivalent, so it's not exactly correct to say that ES cells are useless when we have adeuqate supplies of adult cells.

ES cells are theoretically capable of differentiating into any type of tissue in the human body-- brains cells, kidney cells, marrow cells, skin cells, etc.  Adult stem cells do not have this kind of flexibility.  There are no adult stem cells that can be prompted into neurological cells using current technology, making them useless in research towards curing Alzheimers, Parkinson's disease, and various forms of paralysis.

Hopefully, at some point we will have the technology to prompt adult stem cells to behave as embryonic stem cells do.  Once we reach that level this whole debate will be moot-- nobody is using discarded embryos for the fun of it, and scientists would love to have a less controversial alternative.  (Although I'm sure you'd have some that would say once the cells start acting like ES cells they are a human life, and then we're back where we started.)

First of all, there are well in excess of 500,000 cryopreserved embryos in the United States today, most of which will never be used for any number of reasons.  These reasons include the fact that the couple has completed their family; they have chosen not to have a family due to medical, financial or personal reasons; or because the embryos are of an inferior quality.

The use of the 2.2% discard and 2.8% research figures are deceptive because most couples have not had to make any decision on their remaining embryos.  Typically, IVF labs will have their patients execute an embryo disposition agreement which provides for the storage of embryos for 5 years.  At the end of the 5 years, couples can elect to extend the storage agreement, donate the embryos or to destroy them.  Most couples simply extend the storage agreement for another 5 years while they decide if they have completed their family.

To be accurate, 100% of all frozen embryos were created for family building reasons as only a handful or less would actually be transferred.  The remaining embryos (which could range from 1 to 50) are frozen for possible later use.  If the couple is successful, unless they want additional children, those remaining embryos have to be disposed of.  Over the next few years, as more and more embryo disposition agreements begin to expire, couples will be forced to make choices and unfortunately the most popular decision at this time is to discard them.  Embryo donation, while a laudable concept, has limited application given among other reasons, the cost factor involved.  So the only two viable choices that exist are to cryopreserve indefinitely or to discard and, from a practical standpoint, there is little difference between the two as in both you are effectively ending any chance of life.  

Obviously you are philosophically opposed to the use of embryos for stem cell research and I wouldn't try to convince you otherwise.  However, the figures you cite are extremely misleading and do a terrible disservice in minimizing the crisis fertility labs and their patients are facing with the hundreds of thousands of unwanted embryos.

and this year they expressed an interest in getting those funds again.

I swear!  They're just like a bunch of meth addicts!  They're just craving another hit!

And you're out of line.

Research and one prac app. Let's not delude ourselves: They're as human as you and I. They are no more or less susceptible to the lure of federal money than lawyers, bankers, janitors, and whatever life form it is one might call Rosie O'Donnell.

I really don't know how else to say this, and I'm afraid its going to come off really harsh, but here goes.  How about fighting to stop these 2.2% (assuming thats correct) from being thrown out (killed), until this is done I am unable to see any moral difference between those advocating stem cells for everyone (c) and those that hold your view.
-bro

meth addicts?

and state unequivocally that any fertility treatment that creates embryos that will not be implanted is tantamount to murder?  Isn't that the logical conclusion that must be drawn from your position?

But of course such an extreme pro-life position will quickly lose the support of most people who consider themselves "pro-life" when they realize what it really means when they say "life begins at conception".  So you talk about killing children but and Mengele type experiments but won't come right out and say that the fertility clinics themselves are contributing to the "genocide".

That kind of path  will only lead to one result -- the end of IVF treatments for infertile couples. Taken to its logical extreme, we ought to prohibit any sexual activity that does not have a procreative purpose because of the demise of potential life.  

One is in a private research company. I presume she's adequately sated. One is an epidemiologist on the public dole; he's going back to grad school. Depending on how that works out, he may or may not get the shakes. One is off to med school. The prac app one passed away, but he was an engineer in a well-funded and usually profitable industry.

The remaining one, sadly, is going to law school. I tried to change her mind.

I rather suggest he was using a metaphor. Lawyers don't actually suck scum, for example.

state unequivocally that any fertility treatment that creates embryos that will not be implanted is tantamount to murder

Heh, that would be consistent in my view, and praiseworthy, but hey, I'm bad.
-bro

As I stated in the comment below, I don't particularly have a problem with IVF if it does not create these tossed out 'extras'.  As for the logical extreme, sounds like you just described being pro-life ie. if a pregnancy occurs, then that "potential life" should be allowed to flourish.
-bro

Life begins at conception.  To destroy the embryro is to take the life of a child.

I've said it before, and will say it again.

is an end to invitro fertilization as a fertility treatment. Or is there some way that can be ethical?  

Would you require the parents to "adopt" out or implant all viable embryos?  Is freezing a "baby" in liquid nitrogen for five, ten, fifteen, years without its consent ethical?  If so, I'm sure that there is some wastage in that process, what is an acceptable loss rate?

However your consistency requires you to oppose all IVF as pragmatically it will not be possible to proceed with an IVF procedure and ensure no excess embryos.

Rep Jo Ann Emerson R Mo

"My pro-life credentials are unquestioned, who can say that prolonging life is not pro-life?"

"I cast a vote in favor of HR 810."

5/24/05

The bill allows Federal funding of research on embryonic stem cell lines that have been privately initiated from unused embryos donated by couples who have undergone "in-vitro" fertilization.

If nobody decides to donate these unused embryos for science, then their won't be any to satisfy the cravings of those meth addicts.

I really don't know very much about IVF, so I'll assume all you say is correct.  If its impossible to do so, I would have no problem with ending it. Admittedly, my sperm know their duty, so that should be taken into account.
-bro

Quick question for all who believe that life begins at conception.

Seven out of ten fertilized eggs, or embryos, never attach to the uterus and are flushed out of the body monthly. Are we meaning to say that those seven out of ten are human lives?

An embryo has to form into a fetus in the uterus. If it never gets to the uterian wall, either because it does not attach, or is frozen from left over IVF, it has NO chance of becoming a human life.

In my opinion, the difference between stem cell research and abortion is that an aborted fetus was in the process of becoming a human life, and a frozen embryo will end up being thrown out.

and a mixed metaphor.  

Conflating scientists clamoring for more embryos with their craving for "government subsidies".  Is anyone here really so ignorant they think our government should not fund scientific research?

It was an inappropriate slur to try to impugn scientists doing research he opposes.  As others have pointed out, his "arguments" are either factually incorrect and/or intentionally misleading.  Not the best thing I've read here, nor a beneficial contribution to the honest opposition on this issue.

about the scum.

Among some scientists, scum is a very interesting subject.

They are voting, the Nays had the voice vote, but they are doing a roll call vote.  Not that it matters.  I believe Bush will veto it.

Admittedly, my sperm know their duty, so that should be taken into account

You do realize that each and every day you flush down the toilet several hundred thousand potential lives?  Because those little soldiers of yours have no greater chance of bringing about a child then the cryopreserved embryos absent some other intervention.

If life only begins at conception, then a cloned human would not be alive.  If a clone is not a life in being given current definitions, what is the opposition to the cloning of embryos for research since the cloned embryos could never result in a life?  

Except for things directly related to national defense and, maybe, collective health.

Not gonna happen, but let's not pretend I'm ignorant of the intent or the consequences, mm-kay?

at humor.  But just to dig the hole deeper, they are still doing their duty, escape, search and impregnate, or be flushed as the case may be.  Michael Phelps ain't got nothing on 'em.
-bro

So I might not explain it well, this comes from my father, who isn't particularly religous, but follows the lead of my mother here.  He actually thinks a cloned human wouldn't have a soul, and would therefore be less than human.  I then joked (or so I thought) that maybe these future cloned humans actually made up the Army of the Magog(sp) from the fairly lame NBC show revelations.  Scarily, he took to this idea.
-bro

I got a good chuckle out of it.  Just wanted to make sure that each time your troops did their duty you were recognizing the ultimate sacrifice they were making and honored them accordingly.  Because at the end of the day, your little warriors are in the exact same position as those cryopreserved embryos.

IVF is murder [not tantamount] to satisfy the vanity of the couple, unless they are able find surrogates for all their embryos and do not perform any selective reductions.

 Is freezing a "baby" in liquid nitrogen for five, ten, fifteen, years without its consent ethical?

Minors are not able to formulate informed consent.

If so, I'm sure that there is some wastage in that process, what is an acceptable loss rate?

That is a technical question not a moral one.  In general it must be likely that the child will survive for the procedure to be ethical.  It is the same for limb amputation.  It isn't ethical to peform the procedure unless a life-saving benefit will accrue, and then only if the amputation is not certain to be lethal.  The probability of death must be weighed by the individual and the doctor.

Why not allow the bodies of organ donors who are already dead, after all, to be donated to cattle farmers as feed?

that could be the next big fad in Asia and the North East-- instead of grass fed cattle (very low fat) human fed beeves (just what a body needs?)

or if they weren't too diseased why not sent to McDonald's to be made into a McSolyent Sandwich(tm) with fries?

Think of all the wasted green space taken up with sealed containers of formaldehyde just waiting to leak into the environment.  

This should go over like a lead balloon in 2006.

"life begins at conception"

There is nothing wrong with that argument or that position.

If you think those are good ideas, propose them to your Congressman, take a poll of the electorate.

Stem Cell Research has actual support and the potential to produce benefits.

Oh and as for the last part, I plan to be cremated.  To heck with global warming.

In general it must be likely that the child will survive for the procedure to be ethical.

No reason to limit this to IVF as under your arbitrary 50+% rule you will need to outlaw procreation entirely.  The best estimates are that 50% of all pregnancies demise in the first trimester.  Using your arbitrary ethical standard all couples seeking to conceive naturally are engaging in an unethical practice because their chance of having a child is less then 50%.

by likely I didn't mean probable.  just that there was a good chance that a good intent would succeed.

An infertile couple utilizing IVF intends to become pregnant as much as the fertile couple who can procreate through traditional means.  The intent is the same and the loss is equivalent.  Why the double standard in applying your ethical litmus test?

Stem Cell Research has actual support and the potential to produce benefits.

If it didn't have support it wouldn't need to be opposed.

All evil offers the illusion of universal benefits or at least benefits for some.  

How many millions of living 65 year olds should we harvest to allow future generations to live forever?

Cost Benefit Analysis is business not ethics.

if you could refrain from the absurd comparisons and just stick to what is actually on the table.

Neither of us is going to change the other's mind however.

The loss of the murdered embryos is the direct result of the action of the IVF process, which is not beneficial in any other way.

A naturally procreating couple does not intend the destruction of any embryos, although the embryo may not in fact survive, even a 'successful' IVF results in many abortions.

 The IVF couple intends (not wants, but knows the result before they voluntarilly act) the destruction of the to-be-aborted embryos.

I am not interested.

No benefits are worth murder of innocents.

Is yes. At least, more accurately, it's "yes," in the way you're intending to provoke.

since it would follow from principles I have enunciated in other contexts.  What of it?

in all instances since it will always result in the murder (or at least the inevitable and unavoidable death) of innocents, eventhough it may serve a "greater good".

Lets be serious here. The use of embryonic stem cells does not amount to murder. This argument, by Tom Delay and others, that embryonic stem cells are human lives is absurd.

The scientific community believes that these cells can produce great advances in health care for living human beings.

PLEASE, if you believe that an embryo, that is going to be thrown out anyway, is more important than the chance to improve a human live, than state that on this website.

Say, I BELIEVE THAT AN EMBRYO, ABOUT TO BE THROWN AWAY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN AN ALZHEIMERS PATIENT.

I can respect someone who really believes that. But others are just saying that because it is the politically correct thing to do, and that makes me sick.

Lets be serious here. The use of embryonic stem cells does not amount to murder. This argument, by Tom Delay and others, that embryonic stem cells are human lives is absurd.

The scientific community believes that these cells can produce great advances in health care for living human beings.

PLEASE, if you believe that an embryo, that is going to be thrown out anyway, is more important than the chance to improve a human live, than state that on this website.

Say, I BELIEVE THAT AN EMBRYO, ABOUT TO BE THROWN AWAY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN AN ALZHEIMERS PATIENT.

I can respect someone who really believes that. But others are just saying that because it is the politically correct thing to do, and that makes me sick.

Your logical analysis of my morality is flawed in the extreme.  You offer yourself as a mighty intellect to see into my thinking, but you reveal yourself by your assumptions that equate the indiviual with the society which by right should serve him.

IVF does not offer the hope of greater good for the embryos who are murdered.  War does offer the hope of greater good for the soldiers who fight for justice and for the civilians who may be unfairly impacted

Because war does not intend the murder of innocents.  If war were conducted correctly by both sides no innocents would be killed.  Because of the imperfect way in which technology is applied and the imperfect way in which the other side fails to withdraw from civilian areas war is allowable to defend the good.  

There is no way to conduct IVF without harming innocents.  Wars can be fought entirely on the battlefield, and despite criminal acts by soldiers on the way to the field, wars have been fought in the past on the battlefields entirely clear of civilians. (eg. ancient Greece or Air to Air battles)

If you wish to politic for your view that is one thing, but if you desire to understand the objections another has to your views you should avail yourself of 2000 years of published works of philosphy which underly the basis of civil morality, regardless of confession.  I am sure I am much less capable than those published authors.

You needn't be a Catholic to understand the reasons in the arguements.  You may have objections to the premises or find flaws in the logic, but to toss them off as 'catholic' without examination is simple prejudice.  

From the Catholic Catechism

Those who renounce violence and bloodshed and, in order to safeguard human rights, make use of those means of defense available to the weakest, bear witness to evangelical charity,  provided they do so without harming the rights and obligations of other men and societies. They bear legitimate witness to the gravity of the physical and moral risks of recourse to violence, with all its destruction and death.

&

However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."

&

The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

 - the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

 - all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

 - there must be serious prospects of success;

 - the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

From DONUM VITAE 1987

On the one hand, it would be illusory to claim that scientific research and its applications are morally neutral; on the other hand one cannot derive criteria for guidance from mere technical efficiency, from research's possible usefulness to some at the expense of others, or, worse still, from prevailing ideologies. Thus science and technology require, for their own intrinsic meaning, an unconditional respect for the fundamental criteria of the moral law: that is to say, they must be at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights and his true and integral good according to the design and will of God.

....

Thus the fruit of human generation, from the first moment of its existence, that is to say from the moment the zygote has formed, demands the unconditional respect that is morally due to the human being in his bodily and spiritual totality. The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life.

....

In no sphere of life can the civil law take the place of conscience or dictate norms concerning things which are outside its competence. It must sometimes tolerate, for the sake of public order, things which it cannot forbid without a greater evil resulting. However, the inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state: they pertain to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his or her origin.

Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard: a) every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death; b) the rights of the family and of marriage as an institution and, in this are a, the child's right to be conceived, brought into the world and brought up by his parents. To each of these two themes it is necessary here to give some further consideration.

In various states certain laws have authorized the direct suppression of innocents: the moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation must accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. The political authority consequently cannot give approval to the calling of human beings into existence through procedures which would expose them to those very grave risks noted previously. The possible recognition by positive law and the political authorities of techniques of artificial transmission of life and the experimentation connected with it would widen the breach already opened by the legalization of abortion.

As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of his conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights. The law cannot tolerate -- indeed it must expressly forbid -- that human beings, even at the embryonic stage, should be treated as objects of experimentation, be mutilated or destroyed with the excuse that they are superfluous or incapable of developing normally.

and only in your opinion.

The "scientific community" has believed a lot of things over the years why we should expect them to be infallible this time is beyond me.

I BELIEVE THAT NOT USING THE DATA DRAWN FROM THE EXPERIMENTS ON HYPOTHERMIA AT DACHAU IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN SAVING PEOPLE DYING OF FROSTBITE BY USING THAT DATA.

And, for you request, properly:

I BELIEVE THAT A HUMAN LIFE AT WHATEVER STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN ANY CURE WE MIGHT EXTRACT BY INVOLUNTARY EXPERIMENTATION ON AND MURDER OF THAT HUMAN LIFE, EVEN IF IT MEANS SOME PEOPLE DIE OF NATURAL CAUSES FOR LACK OF THAT DATA.

Feel better?

By the way, how will embryonic stem cell research lead to an Alzheimer's Cure? Pray, tell.

the "scientific community" is that Alzheimers is the affliction least likely to benefit from stem cell research.

Althought ES cells are capable of differentiating into other types of cells, they are much harder to work with, have immune system rejection problems, cause tumors and are very difficult to convert to specific cell types. In addition, researchers have found found some types of ASC that may be able to turn into any kind of desired cell, and they have already created a process by which adult cow skin cells are converted to heart cells.  

Scientists have studied both ESC and ASC for 50 years, so they probably have reached some conclusions about which type of stem cell is most promising.  Right now, there are around 80 treatments and 300 clinical trials using ASC's, compared with 0 for ESC's.

The reason ESC proponents want more taxpayer money, like they got from California's Proposition 71, is because the Pharms and other private research groups are putting their money where the real promise and proven results are: Adult Stem  Cells.  Just as we throw money at windmills when nuclear power has proven its worth and potential, so we are doing with stem cell research.

you made a rather unequivocal statement:

No benefits are worth murder of innocents.

Based on that statement alone I made my assertion which I think follows logically from that statement.   As for your clarification, I accept your position but I do think it is splitting hairs.

Modern warfare makes the killing of innocents unavoidable.  There was a time in the past--maybe up to World War I when warfare could be limited to the combatants, but unfortunately that is no longer viable except in extremely extraordinary circumstances, making a "Just War" under the doctrine you so helpfully cite problematic at best.  And when compared to the second doctrine you cite, the "Just War" doctrine by comparison does seem to place less value on people who have already been born (since it allows for circumstances, albeit extraordinary, that it would be permissable to kill innocents) than DONUM VITAE does on the unborn (which holds, if I am reading correctly, that it is never right, under any circumstances, to deliberately kill an unborn child).

Because of the imperfect way in which technology is applied and the imperfect way in which the other side fails to withdraw from civilian areas war is allowable to defend the good.

From this statement it appears you would disapprove of the bombing of infrastructure or industrial facilities (even those directly involved in the production of war materiel), but only of the direct targeting of combatants.

I am not being argumentative for the sake of being a smartass.  I am really interested how people who take an hard pro-life position, especially Catholics, reconcile that with the other "life issues", many of which they seem a lot less rigid on.  As a non-Catholic, I see a contradiction in the stance of the Church and many of the commenters on this site, although I think that the leadership of the Church has been less contradictory on these issues than many of the right-wing Catholic lay-people in this country over the past few years.

And when compared to the second doctrine you cite, the "Just War" doctrine by comparison does seem to place less value on people who have already been born (since it allows for circumstances, albeit extraordinary, that it would be permissable to kill innocents) than DONUM VITAE does on the unborn (which holds, if I am reading correctly, that it is never right, under any circumstances, to deliberately kill an unborn child).

Correct but wrong.

It recognizes that the unborn cannot pose a rational threat to law and order or personal saftey, whereas an adult is capable of willful evil and can be a dangerous animal.

The innocent baby is not more valuable, it is that it is not possible to pose a rational arguement for his violent demise.

I was limiting my discussion of just war to the inevitable and unavoidable killing of non-combatants, innocent women and children, if you will.  They are just as innocent as the unborn, but in certain circumstances, killing them is justified under the theory of "Just War".  

Good.  Glad we're clear on that.

No.

They are not.

But that isn't the point.  The point is that Iraqi civilians may be killed in the attempt to kill soldiers because the Iraqi government is the responsible party for seeing that the two groups stay apart, and the US can't force Iraq to be moral.  It is not justified to 'target' civilians, it is justified to kill civilians if the opposition military fails to distinguish itself from their own civilians clearly enough in distance and in costume.

All men are dangerous animals and in fact man is much more dangerous, and there are many more circumstances where an unlawful rational man is more dangerous than where an animal is dangerous at all.

In any case any Iraqi adult civilian is much more likely to provide a legitmate threat to person or property than a baby within the womb.

taking stem cells from babies?

String 'em up I say!

California is funding stem cell research through selling bonds approved by voters a little over a year ago.  What is the implication of states researching stem cells while the federal government moves forward on its funding bills?  Does the federal bill mean a whole lot for states such as California?? If Republicans ever want California back, vetoing stem cell bill is not going to win any votes in California!

Stem cells should be viewed the way that organ donors are viewed, IMO.

When a person dies, their organs are still 'alive' for up to a few days under the right conditions.   If the person and their living family members decide they want to donate the organs, they have that option, and I'm not sure how many people oppose this logic, probably not very many.   The dead person and their family can thus help the quality of life for others by offering useful tissue of the deceased to those of us still here with the living.   The dead person isn't going to help ANYONE by merely having their organs buried or cremated.

Stem cells are no different.  When trying to conceive using modern drugs and in-vitro techniques, many more viable embryos are created than will ever be implanted.  The extra embryos will be destroyed/killed if they are not implanted within a certain span of time.  Effectively, until an embryo is implanted, it is essentially the same as a person on their death bed or a person who has died but their tissue is still briefly living.  It has no chance of 'real' life barring a miracle (in this case implantation into a womb).  

Using the analagy of the family who wants to put their dead loved-one's organs to use, shouldn't it be up to the family to decide what happens to the embryo?  If the family wants to donate the embryo to science, they should be able to.

Federal stem-cell research money should be viewed no differently than federal money spent researching tissue transplantation and regeneration, imo.

The ONLY difference with embryos vs organ donation is that presumably when fertility science advances far enough, there will no longer be a need to produce multiple extra embryos for in-vitro fertilization.  If multiple embryos would then continue to be produced SOLELY for the purpose of harvesting their stem cells, THEN I see an ethical issue.   Essentially it would be like producing more dead people unneccesarily for organ donations.  That would be unethical.  But for a given supply of dead people, we don't condemn people for donating organ tissues.  So why should there by condemnation for donating embryo tissue from embryos produced solely for purposes of fertility?

With that thought in mind, legislation should be passed that outlaws payment for embryonic tissue.  Remove the money and you remove any 'profit' incentive, which is usually what causes ethics to become the most clouded.

My liver couldn't grow into an adult human being. Nor could my eyeballs.

Actually they could with sufficiently advanced cloning technology.

But following your logic, given current technology, neither can an embryo outside of the womb.  Its like a fish out of water.  It can only briefly survive.

The public ignorance on this subject is incredible and for the most part, could be cleared up by a 5 minute trek on PUBMED.

All stem cells are different.  ES cells and adult stem cells are no where close to being the same in potential, application, therapeutic efficacy...the scientific evidence is compelling.

If you beleive that life begins at conception, which I dont, but if you do, and that a fetus is aborted, it is thrown in the garbage, detroyed, and incinerated as biological hazard waste.  There I said it...

Stem cell research does nothing to interfere with this process...it doesnt interupt a fetus funeral, it doesnt strip an-otherwise incinerated fetus of any dignity...the fact is that the people who oppose this research have no reason other than that they dont respect the right to abortion period and would never sign off on any research and therapies that might arise from using aborted material.  Id rather have people just say that then come up with the crap excuses Ive heard.

The ethical standards, the permits, overview, and the availability of material are much more difficult that most are aware of.  

Most have hollow arguments against this research.  And I ceratinly respect everyones belief,  9 times out of 10 regarding this issue, the ones who oppose it talk a big game.  Most of you have luckily not yet endured the chronic, debilitating, suffering of a loved one.  And for those who have, including many a GOP senator, have found themselves supporting something they otherwise wouldn't have. Science will never cure all, it will never prevent all suffereing, but if we can relieve some of that sickness and let the sick retain some dignity, enjoy some more time with their families before they pass, and maybe even cure some, its all very worth it.

Just thought it showed that perhaps we don't have a full grasp of the science that we are "discovering".  Article is published by the post but the link is to the Milwuakee Journal Sentinel

stemcell

Conservatives weaken their case when they claim that adult stem cells are just as good as embryonic ones for any conceivable therapeutic purpose. We don't know that, and we cannot know it without extensive research using both types. The argument is mere specious propaganda; it is like arguing that there should be no research into new analgesics because aspirin is good enough.

The real reasons for objecting to embryonic stem cell research have nothing to do with their possible efficacy. The opposition is of course due to the conviction that human life begins at conception, so that a blastocyst in a petrie dish is a real if immature person, and to the fear that accepting their use in therapy will put us on a slippery slope leading to wider acceptance of abortion. Many seem to think that the moment when life begins is obvious, but of course it is a matter of definition, with no scientific basis.

I have a modest proposal, which preserves the real basis for the conservative position while eliminating the moral objection to using embryonic stem cells in therapies that may ease the suffering or save the lives of countless real people.

A woman who produces an ovum has created a potential person, but that person is wasted if the ovum is not fertilized. He or she is also wasted if the fertilized ovum fails to implant in the womb. Why not define life as beginning at implantation, not fertilization?

In normal conception, this change is only a matter of a few inches and a few minutes, and it would make no difference to any practical concern of conservatives, even religious conservatives. In particular, this definition is just as effective in avoiding the slippery slope to approval of abortion.

This change would however mean that a blastocyst in a petrie dish becomes human only when it is implanted in a womb (possibly including in the future an artificial womb). Using the blastocyst to make stem cells that save lives is then no more objectionable than using somebody's red blood cells (which are also living human cells) in a transfusion.

who die during wars during shelling, you do not think any of them died as "collateral damage".

if you trully believe that "No benefits are worth murder of innocents." then maybe you should go to what ever war you support fighting and defend them.

Chickenhawking is a bannable offense around here. If some of the moderators have already seen this post, you may in fact be banned before reading this post - but if you're not, consider yourself warned.

O tired argument of years past

We lean on you now as we leaned

On cries of "Babykiller!" from

Those who would then kill babies

And claim that doing so made them

Noble and caring and righteous

And now we turn to you, O old friend

For we have nothing else left to say.