Redstate

Refreshing contaminated lines already used by researchers ( with federal funding ) with new lines that have already been created in a lab to human experimentation by the governemnt seem like streching the truth some?

Especially when a majority 57% of republicans support ESC research.  http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=24197

Is almost as delightful as your inability to catch a point.

Do you have an argument, or did you read someone else's writing and decide to comment here?

Read this and then decide for yourself whether this conversation is worth pursuing.

bug your congresscritters into designing and supporting a bill that would require that feterlized embryo's be put up for adoption rather than destroyed or given to science.  Legally it's fully compatible with Doe since there is no health or welfare issues with the mother.  This turns moralaly questionable IVF into a morally exciting new begining for hundreds of thousands of new children every year.

Of course, you're 100 per cent right in the substance of this post, but I do have a question for you - why is it, do you think, that we are able to talk about the end of Roe as being something within our grasp? Have we ever before as a society plunged into such self-gratifying madness, and then returned from it to sanity? I can't recall it happening, although hope springs eternal.

I wonder if it's too much to hope for that we'd see it occur twice in our lifetimes.

no one here has an open mind to alternal views?

Does the stem-cell research involve using cloned embryos or is it just embryos that are the byproduct of in-vitro?

If we're talking about the latter case, then is in-vitro fertilization itself a process that should be reformed?

Should we be fertilizing more eggs than are necessary to create a child?

Should we be injecting women with 3-9 zygotes in the hopes that only one or two will develop into a fetus?

Should there be a law that no more than 2 can be injected at a time?

Or should the law allow fertilization clinics unlimited discretion when it comes to deciding how many zygotes to inject into a woman, thus giving clinics the legal power to coerce women into signing a consent form that allows a doctor to inject her with "as many zygotes as are necessary" (even 20-30) with the express pre-authorization given by the woman to the doctor to "remove" (abort) all remaining zygotes after one begins to develop past a certain threshold?

This is an area of law where the lines become blurry to me.  I can understand Frist's hedging on this issue (as Orrin Hatch did back in 1999).  

I don't know where I stand on the issue yet.  I don't like abortion, but I believe that there are cases where the woman's right to control her own body trumps other concerns (such as when a doctor believes that continuing the pregnancy will kill her, or when she became pregnant after being raped).

But if we're going to take the position that every fertilized egg is a full human being with the same rights that I have, then we have to eventually call for a reform of in-vitro practices.

I'm going to monitor this thread to see where everyone else stands on this issue.  I'm very interested in knowing where our members stand on this.

That question, which we have seen asked here literally hundreds of times, is so utterly devoid of any worth or relevance to the discussion at hand that it tends to make us skeptical towards the reasoning powers of those who ask it.

You may as well ask me, if my wife and four children were in a burning building in different rooms, and I could save either my wife or my four children, but not both, what would I do?

I would hope that even a simpleton would understand that whichever choice I made had nothing to do with either my wife being more human than my children or vice versa.

And besides which, decisions of that nature aren't made aforehand while we're all comfortably chatting via RedState in our PeeJays. There's not one of us who knows what they'd do in any given situation like that until they are there, and anyone who tells you different is lying. But that's not the point.

The point is that dragging out that senseless question establishes nothing one way or the other about the essential humanity of embryos, and is besides a useless and emotionally laden hypothetical, which makes it a great "argument" for liberals. But not conservatives.

Thomas, I recognize honest passion when I see it, filtered as it is through the dehumanizing lens of the cold internet and my LCD screen. You're a credit to your countrymen. Regardless of where the stem cell debate, or any other, goes - the debate will have been enriched for your partcipation.

where am I on stem cells? Utterly clueless, since I got the wrong PhD. If the claims are true, then I am for it. If the claims are false, I am against. I am just clever enough to know that assessment of those claiims is beyond my expertise; with respect to personal conviction, suffice to say, were anyone to ever come knocking on my door for my family's embryos, I'd escort them off the property with my Louisville slugger. Nor do I have any desire to live longer than is my allotted time; my theological perspective makes such a desire genuinely absurd.

whither society goes at large however is simply not within the realm of my desire to try and account for in my political deccisions. Ultimately its a sience and medical issue, not a political one, and so I retreat to the easier safety of ambivalence.  

But man, I admire your passion and your conviction. I can muster similar conviction on other issues, but I admire you for yours on this one.

political advice? how about breaking free of the political system entirely? this is a matter of hearts and minds, and as long as you slave yourself to the political system you're lost.

I really hate it when people switch their position on something for personal gain. Nancy Reagan was an ardent pro-lifer until her husband got sick. Now she wants to end life on the mistaken belief it might have saved her husband. I hate that. These people are WORSE than Liberals. At least Liberals maintain their convictions no matter how wrong it is. You don't see Liberals caving in on their Issues.

We must convince Republicans to stop supporting Stem Cells just because they have friends or Family who are sick. Some things are more important!!!

. . .I am not a believer in the position that any use of embryonic stem cells should be verboten, I am inclined to be concerned about any tendency among my countrymen to be overly obsessed with their mortality.  Larry Niven is probably my favorite hard SF writer, and he--better than probably anyone else--has spun a tale that vividly describes the dystopia that a world that is willing to extend lifespan at all costs is likely to face.  For that reason, I implore you to continue your cause--if nothing else, you will do more to keep the rest of us honest than anything I can conceive of at the moment.

not so much a strech when what was the percent, 66%, of Americans don't consider unborn children human enough to live outside of their mother's womb. So is it really that hard to contemplate a situation where the fertilized eggs are slowly matured to fetuses, but are no longer used to collect stem cells, but the side effects of harsh medications, the significance of increased levels of certain chemicals to the body...ect.

americans have lost their sense of morality, and i absolutly love how those screaming liberals who claim the "nazi soldiers" are torturing those poor "insurgents" (aka terrorists) use the exact same arguement they have been fighting against to rationalize stem cell research

lunacy

for some of my really bad grammer...i was in the moment =D

americans have lost their sense of morality, and i absolutly love how those screaming liberals who claim the "nazi soldiers" are torturing those poor "insurgents" (aka terrorists) ARE using that exact same arguement they have been fighting against to rationalize stem cell research [sic]

The fight in Washington isn't about doing research with stem cells.  It's about federal funding for research with embryonic stem cells.  Other stem cell research is already allowed federal funding, and privately funded research with embryonic stem cell is allowed.

As long as this is a fight about research with stem cells, we'll lose.  If this can be restored to a fight about federal funding for one particular kind of that research, we can win.  But we can't do that if our side even gets sloppy.

Otherwise, you're right, I think.

it will be for a much simpler reason: most people in America today simply do not believe that when a sperm meets an egg, God flicks an on-off switch that marks the beginning of a human life. They don't believe it. I don't believe it.

Appeals to Catholic Church authority won't convince us of it, and science, despite your claims to the contrary, strongly suggests that it is not true. Tell yourself that people are scum all you like, but that's the source of the dispute, and if you want to win this debate you'd be better off trying to convince people--which isn't the same thing as shouting at them, nor playing word games, nor making appeals to religious authorities they do not recognize them--that embryos are children, instead of taking it as given that we realize embryos are children and we will happily kill them to prolong our lives because we are scum.

1. I don't there's a single moment. It takes nine months. A sunrise, not a light switch. If creation of the world can take billions of years instead of a week, I don't see why it can't take nine months for the creation of a human being.
   
2. Just because you can't specify the exact moment a fundamental change occurs, does not mean you can't say that certain moments are before it and certain moments are after it.

Lots of us had our math teachers try to totally blow our minds with something similar once: is one a large number? is two? is three? is four? But there is no number so large you can't get to by adding one to it, so where is the line?

There are any number of other examples I could give.

with modern American thinking.  We gladly catch ourselves up in debate about ridiculous and unknowable details such as when God sends down a soul to a fetus, or which magical brain function constitutes human life.  I offer this up as 100%, undisputable fact: a fetus, no matter at what stage of development, is human.  Even by the most reductionist biological standard, that of DNA analysis, it is human, 23 chromosomes and all.

So the question is not when a fetus get its soul or some such nonsense, but what Thomas so clearly articulates in his story: just what are we willing to do a human to benefit ourselves?  Are we willing to create a human to harvest his or her cells and then destroy them?  If you support stem cell research, then your answer is yes.  It is a criticism of our utilitarian thinking; no appeal to the Catholic Church is necessary to make the case against stem cell research on the basis of the violation of simple human dignity.

But supporters will retort that allowing people to suffer with diseases like Alzheimer's is also a violation of human dignity.  Hogwash.  We have put our heads so far up the rear ends of secularism we can't see the light of day.  Disease is natural, as is death, and no human can ultimately escape suffering.  A person with a more...spiritual outlook on life comes to understand this.  Our modern drive to escape every form of suffering that might possibly afflict us is driving the worst moral atrocities of our day, atrocities like abortion, "mercy killing," and now stem cell research.  Bravo to Thomas for putting it more articulately than I ever could have.

I wouldn't give up hope based on the actions of Bill Frist. This move is that special combination of transparently politically calculated and politically disastrous that Democrats know all too well from their leaders. This move is NOT going to make people like me forget the appalling lack of sense and ethics he showed in the Terri Schiavo case and the little "is AIDS spread through sweat and tears?" episode; it will alienate everyone who was not appalled by his behavior in the Schiavo case. I'll still think of him as Dr. Nick Riviera, and the most dedicated anti-abortion activists will think of him as Dr. Mengele.

This makes John Kerry's positioning on the Iraq war look skillful and courageous. Frist is never going to be President. Brownback has a better shot.

"When we seriously contemplate making people to use them as experimental tissue"

That's not what the House Bill is about, as you can see for yourself:

`(1) The stem cells were derived from human embryos that have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics, were created for the purposes of fertility treatment, and were in excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking such treatment.

http://radamisto.blogspot.com/2005/05/stem-cell-research-bill.html

is that he hasn't flipped, and he believes his father wouldn't have flipped either on this.

Weird thing is when the issue comes up everyone runs to get Nancy or Ronald, but nobody asks Michael his opinion.

So we know this:

The House passed its bill 238-194 on 5/24/05

The Senate bill will pass in September.

Presuming that Senator Brownback is not capable of amending the legislation (and he probably won't be, unfortunately) the bill will go to the President for his expected veto.  (And we've got a whole host of new issues if he doesn't veto it, but I'm pretty sure he'll relish using his first veto opportunity for this legislation.)

While we can expect the senate to probably gin up enough votes to override a veto, the House is in quite a bit better shape.  It takes 2/3 of the House (whether it's the full 435 or less depends on whether anyone dies or resigns between now and then) so that is 290 votes to override the veto.

I find it very hard to believe that they'll be able to get 52 Members to switch their votes.  Maybe a dozen or two, but not the whole 52.

So a good idea is to look at the 180 Republicans and 14 Democrats who voted against the House bill and encourage them to stand firm and vote to sustain the veto.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll204.xml

much what Thomas wrote.  We have convinced ourself it isn't true, so we can justify experiments and abortions, and before long we will have theraputic cloning, and the slipper slope will be more than engaged, and as long as you can justify expirements with "it will save lives" there is going to be somebody sitting their nodding their heads saying "yes."

You mean the media would stoop to such a dastardly scheme as to only quote or interview people that are friendly to their agenda?

As immortalized in the great movie: "I'm shocked, shocked to find gambling in Casablanca."

there is already a push for theraputic cloning in the works, it isn't going to be long before that one wins as well, and we are going to be well on our way to scientific depravity, where the god's of science get to decide what is or isn't a worthy life.

Just part for the course when it comes to the MSM.

The point of this piece isn't about the specific bill, but about the general trend and the outcomes. "Therapeutic" cloning, and the resulting slicing and dicing, are next.

But briefly:

(1) Does it matter?

(1a) Potentially both.

(2) Yes.

(3) No.

(4) No.

(5) Yes.

(6) Absolutely not.

I have no intention of editorializing here.  I just thought the RedState folks, especially Augustine, Thomas, Krempasky, and Trevino would be interested to read the response from Bill Ardolino at INDCJournal (first item):

http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/001948.php

Of course, if you have already seen it, I apologize for underestimating your blogosphere-roving (hee hee, I said "rove") prowess.  Obviously, we are far from a Republican consensus on the issue of ESC research.

For the record, I'd say my position lies somewhere between the RedState position and the INDCJournal position--not absolutist "pro-life" (though yes, life does begin at conception) but not persuaded by the specious "falling behind the rest of the world" argument either.  I stand with President Bush's restraint against throwing federal dollars at an ethically questionable and scientifically unproven practice.  I'm not prepared to relegate Sen. Frist to damnation for "selling out," but I'm also not prepared to grant him that his change of heart was entirely for noble reasons, either.

As far as I'm concerned, RedState should stand strong, recognizing that this debate is far from over.  (Hmm, I guess I did editorialize a little).

If I ever need another kidney, I hope that they will be able to clone the one I have left.

Is if they learned how to clone nerve cells. You clearly need some new tissue.

As you clearly have read someone else's story then attributed it to me, but having read your follow-up comment, I'm convinced you're just that slow. So my question: Where do you get any idea that this topic is about the morality of the underlying act per se, instead of the proper response to the political changes that surround it? Where are my citations to Catholic teaching? (Incidentally, if you knew as much as you think you do, you'd know that the phrases "people are scum" and "humans are depraved" are actually contrary to Catholic teaching. But thanks for playing.) Oh, and do tell me what science shows that the union of a human sperm and a human ovum is not, in fact, human.

We are probably going to take it on the chin for this one simply because it is going to be seen or at least played as a fringe position - allowing funding for research on already existing stem cell lines but not on those from embryos that are already going to be destroyed while people suffer from whatever debilitating disease we're supposed to believe this would cure regardless of whether that hopes is real or not) - particularly with so many Republicans voting for it.

If the President does veto this particular bill, then it makes his refusal to exercise any sort of fiscal discipline by threatening or using his veto authority even more inexcusable.  If the pork-ladened energy or transportation bills get signed into law while the President only exercises his veto for this, it could fracture the basis as those of us who held our noses over the $849 Billion Medicare Prescription drug benefit and $149 Farm Bill realize that there is nothing to be gained from supporting Republicans that dropped the ball on Social Security reform.  Moreover if the veto on the stem cell bill isn't overridden while the other two get signed into law, expect to be treated to a whisper campaign about "payoffs" to certain Republican Congressmen in the form of pork for their vote to sustain the veto.

Humans will always suffer from disease.  Sometimes it strikes in infancy, sometimes childhood, sometimes adulthood, and inevitably in old age.  Disease can result from genetics, from a lifetime of exposure, or simply the natural breakdown of metabolism and immunity over time.  The question for us as humans is how far are we willing to go to artificially alleviate all forms of human suffering?  And I would argue that, even if there are thousands of embryos out there with no hope of a future, there's no reason to exacerbate the problem (and waste money on it) when, as of yet, there is little proof those embryos will save other humans.  We can treat and even cure cancer without harming others, and I have faith we can do the same for Parkinson's and Alzheimer's patients if we put our collective scientific minds to it, rather than mindlessly swallow the agenda-driven fact lists our media and politicians feed us.

One could assume I'm a hopeless rube or a religious zealot, but you would be wrong on both accounts.

I'm clueless also on the stem cell debate.  But can you imagine what we would hear from a Democratic Majority Leader if Kerry had won?  Frist seems to be returning to his prefered position, after supporting Bush. Why isn't the Republican/conservative 'tent' big enough to allow this?  Why do we have to savage someone who disagrees with us in one or even many areas when politics is 'the art of the possible'?  Why do criticisms of Republicans always have to provide material for leftish 'talking points', resulting in us playing defense in front of the general public?

I'm not that irritated about non-vetos over the pork.  The line-item veto got tossed, and if we had that, it would be a nice way to handle pork.

And the presence or the absence of a President Kerry should have precisely no effect on this behavior.

We savage them to get them to do the right thing. If sending chocolates did the trick, I'd have an open account at Godiva right now.

although it isn't that I don't want him to veto the stem cell bill, but that I am frustrated with the fact that he seems reluctant to use it, when there is rediculous amounts of pork or other things in a bill that make it veto worthy.

I think Bush takes a hit on this, not sure about the party, but then Bush doesn't have to worry about reelection.

Where it may hit is the '06 midterms elections, but I suspect that the people this matters the most to as the main issue aren't in great enough numbers for it to make that big a difference.

but believe the SCOTUS has declared that one a no go.

I think they're right. I wish it were Constitutionally permissible, but I really don't think it is.

but in the end I don't think congress is willing to kill the method that makes bringing home the bacon a breeze.

I completely agree with you that Bush should have vetoed other bills.  The Farm bill is an abomination that should never have seen the light of day.  The Medicare boondoggle is just plain embarrassing.  Pretty much every appropriations bill should have been streamlined and cut by 5-10%.  And I could go on and on.

But, having said that, this bill is a good choice for his first veto.  He'll be derided in the MSM regardless (isn't that what they're their for?).  But vetoing this gives him another opportunity to explain what he's done.

Bush is the FIRST president to allow federal funds to be used on a limited, controlled set of pre-existing embryonic stem cells.  The Bush policy allows researchers to use those existing cells for basic research to see if, in fact, there really is the potential for practical applications of that research.

Bush's policy allows us to continue to have the very important ethical discussion about the costs of this research.

It is apparently all well and good for those who support unfettered embryonic stem cell research to dismiss the moral and ethical qualms that many others have about the implications of this research.   But for those of us that have legitimate qualms, worries, hesitations, or objections we get tarred as religious zealots out to smash science labs and revert to faith healing.

Scientific research in this area is morally complex.  And it seems, to me, that those that promote this type of research don't want to answer these moral questions and instead want to say "But we're gonna cure Grandma's alzheimer's and those troglodytes want to stop us."

If people won't even engage us to respond to those qualms, why should we trust them that they won't keep pushing the envelope and start cloning god knows what, mutating humans and animals, or creating other monstrosities in the sake of 'research'.  It doesn't take a science fiction author to come up with all sorts of nightmare scenarios.

But I might have digressed a bit.

the "people don't vote for my preferred position because they are scum" view sounds like an interesting variation on the lovely and always politically effective "people don't vote for my preferred positions because they are stupid" argument advanced countless times by Democrats.  It's emotionally if not rationally comforting, but it's just not very effective in winning people over.

And a Republican second. The fundamental belief that people are scum is not peculiar to this argument, but is a staple of conservative thought. It's why we trust selfish acts, like the market, and why the Constitution isn't set up to encourage so much kumbayaing, but rather to have mercilessly self-interested groups constantly at each others' throats.

When my mom was young, their house caught fire.  My grandma had just finished milking and was straining the milk.  All she could think to grab was the pail of milk, and that is all that they got out.  (All the people got out.)

No one remembers whether or not she threw the milk on the fire.  According to marchmoon, the milk was the only thing they owned of any value.  HEHE.

And I'm not sure that the genie can be put back into the bottle, but we can kill Roe and its progeny, and at least send this back to the States.

it's whether a fetus (embryo, actually, is the technical term at this stage) is a person, not whether it's alive and human, that is the question. Sperm and eggs are alive and human, as are skin cells, as are blood cells, etc. etc.

This is what I was criticizing. You guys will not win unless you engage this issue. (Frankly I don't think you'll win even if you do, because I simply don't think most people will find it convincing. But this lack of willingness to try is guaranteeing defeat.)

By those who believe that some humans aren't people. We've had a wonderful track record with that as a guiding principle.

Of course, suspected terrorists are demonstrably not people. That makes rendition a lot easier to stomach.

One problem I have with this article is the implication that there is something morally condemnable with the desire to heal sickness and relieve suffering. Sorry, but I have be blunt: that's just weird-- no: WEIRD. The desire to do these things is a very deep human instinct, part of our nature, perhaps even our biology. Can anyone imagine a world where we did not have such an urge? Would our species even be capable of existing? And even from a religious perspective, most of the miracles of Christ described in the New Testament were miracles of healing. To be sure, I can agree with Thomas that we ought not be using Frankensteinian means to achieve these goals, but the use of immoral means do not ever lead the conclusion that end itself is morally tainted.

Insofar as you took me to mean that the practice of medicine is bad, or that science for the sake of saving human lives and health is bad, you read more than was there.

My point, in that portion of the piece, was to say that we've developed a manifestly unhealthy approach to death and suffering, and that some of the actions we undertake to prevent those things are deranged and unbalanced.

but, here I go, repeating myself.

We have not changed, not in all of the thousands of years of recorded human history.  A common feature of the mythologies and social structures of many ancient societies was the belief that unless certain innocents were sacrificed to capricious deities or forces, crops would not grow, the sun would not rise, and death would overtake us all, or some other such obvious rot.  So some societies waged incessant warfare for the purpose of obtaining captives for the slaughter; others sacrificed their infants; still others their two-year-olds.  Whatever the identity of the victims, the logic, the principle was the same: for the sake of the preservation of of "civilization" and the "civilized order" and the lives it sustains, there must be death, sacrifice, slaughter; absent the slaughter of innocents as an originary element of social order, chaos and disorder would return society to the primal state of being - ontological violence.  Human sacrifice, in sum, was foundational to the metaphysics (it is still foundational to our own thought, if you read philosophy after Nietzsche closely enough; if chaos is the truth of being, then sacrifice is what you get on the concrete level of human social existence) and social systems of most ancient societies.

And we are no different.  Worse, probably, because we believe that our scientific knowledge, with its abstract, almost dematerialized understanding of the minutest particles of physical existence, and the occult power it bestows or promises, to create with them what we will, deceives us such that we believe, fools that we are, that what we are doing is essentially, ontologically different from what a Moloch worshipper was doing when he burned an infant alive in the brass arms of an idol.  We believe that a mode of knowledge itself changes the nature of an act; this is primitive thought in its essence; it is the fundamental notion of magic, alchemy, sorcery.  Indeed, we imagine that because we call what we do "science" that it ceases to be a regime of human sacrifice, that because we are not burning post-natal infants alive that were engaged in something essentially different.  Primitives!  In both systems, it is the sacrifice of innocent human beings that is said or thought to preserve the realm of the living, and that is all that matters.  

Anyone interested in a study of the epistemology of self-deception?

My skin cells are alive, and last time I checked they contained all 23 chromosomes, but when I scrape my knee I don't commit murder.  I don't think anyone would argue that ESC are living cells, and neither would people argue that they are not human cells.  I think the problem is that people just can not see a fertilized embryo as a person.  I have many examples, but won't post them here because I know it would just start a flame war.

While suffering, desease, and decay are part of the human condition there is no moral standing to extend or exacerbate those most human failings.  Science has advanced our human condition by leaps and bounds, children no longer die of simple illness and many times pain no longer holds back the elderly from a more active and full life.  

We should embrace these advances just as we embrace flight or nuclear energy.  Just because scientic exploration often leads to change does not mean we must fear it.

Skin cells unlike a fertilized embryo don't grow into a child.

if I would go so far as to say our attitude is "unhealthy". It's just the inevitable consequence of our success in this area. For the first time in history most people are well along in their lives before they encounter the dreath of someone to whom they are close. In the past that was something that altogether quite often hapeopned in childhood: a parent, a sibling or a friend died. Today children may lose at most a pet or some elderly relative they do not know very well. (I'm a bit of an anomly here as I lost both parents and a brother before I was 25). Although dealing with death in childhood is not pleasant or easy, when a person is 30 or 40 before they have to do so, it does seem to pack much more of an emotional wallop. For example, a friend of mine lost her father and mother-in law three years ago, the first such experience she had had, and it sent her life into a tail spin. She got divorced and is going through a rather classic "mid-life crisis" with a vengence.

On the other hand I do wonder if in the bad old days when people went through in this childhood it didn't make us more callous and perhaps even crueller. Maybe it's a trade off: neurotic behavior in adulthood vs. cold-heartedness earlier on.

that we are able to talk about the end of Roe as being something within our grasp?

The end of Roe is certainly a possibility.  But, in the end, it will likely wind up being a mostly empty victory because of RU-486.

The Battle over Abortion is one fought on moral and intellectual grounds, not legal grounds.  

when this first came out. Does anybody have a good explanation why Frist did this? It completely cuts him off from the religious right and the pro-life crowd, and I dare say the moderates/independents won't vote for him anyway...I guess it fits with his history of terrible politics.

Absolutely right.  The obfuscation and masquerade are working and will continue to work.  By appealing to the baser instincts, the experimenters will get their pork.

Am I really continuing the long tradition of animal sacrifices to the earth goddess, in order to get a bountiful harvest, when I apply a high nitrogen fertilizer to my lawn?

They can if manipulated sufficiently. You can extract the nucleus from a skin cell and implant it in a denucleated egg cell. If you then bathe it in some calcium, give it an electric shock to fuse the two together, and implant it in a womb, THEN the skin cell will grow into a human being mostly genetically identical to the person whose skin cell it was (although it would have mitochondrial DNA from the donor of the egg cell).

So, with sufficient manipulation, a skin cell can become a human being. The manipulation required to turn an IVF egg into a human being is a less, but not insubstantial. At the least, the frozen fertilized egg must be carefully thawed and then implanted with the use of specialized equipment.

I don't purport to know all the answers. But I will say that every time I hear the phrase "slice and dice human beings" used to describe the desires of the supporters of this research, I turn a little more against the ideologues and open my mind a littel more to the other side. When the question under debate is what constitutes a person, a human being, then assuming that opponents with differing views on that question are little better than Josef Mengele is not debating the issue; it assumes the conclusion under debate.

But tell me this: Assume that a large portion of the American public believes, in good faith, that non-whites, while human, are non-people. Do you treat their opinions respectfully?

Because, you see, the problem here is the elementary question of whether some humans are not people. Were my own views on this not already set, I'd still be leery of going there, for the possible consequences.

By the way: Note that the skin cells have to have something happen to them -- like, say, a series of operations and treatments -- to reach that point. Cruddy reasoning, bud.

I asked about animal sacrifices.

So I don't know why you guys are getting on Frist.  Can't you see he is just practicing his religious beliefs?

And Howard Dean said all Republicans were white Christians!  Clearly Bill Frist, like all heart surgeons, is a devotee of QUETZALCOATL.

I'm too inclined to make too many inappropriate jokes.

(with a more hopeful tone)

Oh please!

Why don't they do this to create the stem cell line?  Seems like that would bypass the issue since they are using discarded adult cells to create stem cells... unless once you put it into an egg it make it unethical again ( does it count as conception? ) even if it reduced the need to use IVF leftovers ( that would have been distroyed anyways ).

Regardless of the means of her formation.

But I'm not getting into again since this crowd seems completly unable to grasp the roots of the question.  The question was as much for my personal understanding of the other ( your ) side of the debate as it was to engage in a question of ethics and morality.  I might be able to convert if some of the naggin questions could be answered to my satifaction, but I guess that can't happen here.

After listening to Rush this morning, I can better understand your indignation regarding this startling new tactic by the left: creating a definition of "human" that excludes people that are too small to look like humans with 10 fingers and toes, etc.

It could be very effective if it entices people like Frist and Hatch.  I'm with Bush on this one: if scientists want to experiment then let them experiment.  But--do not ask me to pay for it.  I don't like it and if it were possible, I would ban the whole procedure.

Given your choice of threads in which to launch this voyage of discovery, many took you for bad faith. If you actually want to start this conversation in a related thread, write a diary. You'll get responses. Review the rules and guides, though.

We've had this debate before, and I didn't intend to reopen it, as we're obviously not going to see eye-to-eye. But I would point out that the IVF fertilized egg/blatoscyst/embryo must be thawed and implanted though medical technology before it can grow into a human being. Is the difference between the skin cell and the IVF collection of cells found in the level of manipulation required? In IVF, the egg could not have become fertilized to begin with without manipulation, because of the fertility problems of the parents.

You seem to keep thinking I am trying to score rhetorical points. I am not. These are real issues, and you are not going to convince any doubters (and there are many) with your extreme language (in my opinion).

of discussion between the two sides of the aisle, and I respect Thomas and the others here, and the fact that you apparently deleted your earlier diary at Kos..., let me request that you maintain a respectful tone with this one.

" My long-held suspicion that we would have government-sponsored involuntary human experimentation is about to become a certainty. "

I have a solution.  

Let's teach non-viable (as most of them are) blastocysts to sign consent forms.

Better yet, let's teach the cells I can scrape from the inside of my cheek to sign as well.  They're human, aren't they?

We can ask the one-year-olds, the same question. Heck, we can ask my four-year-old if he would sign a consent form, too.

Of course, the foolishness of your post is that if you don't have a consent form signed, you don't have consent. You don't have to sign a non-consent form to keep people from experimenting on you.

Unless, since I assume you don't have a non-consent form on file somewhere, I can cut off your arm to experiment with.

It seems you ENTIRELY missed the point. (And didn't even get the joke.)

The fundamental argument here is whether a blastocyst is equivalent to a "human life."  Y'all take that as a given, when most of us in biology and medicine see it as a religious point of view... no matter which side you come down on.

If it is, then your god must have a cruel sense of humor, since most blastocysts are naturally ejected from a woman's body and never become fetuses, let alone 1 year olds or adults.

God set up the process, don't blame me.

Chalk it up to being tired and cranky.  I realized it was a mistake and deleted it after it got craped on by a number of people.  We all have our moments.

If and adult gives permission to use their cells to grow more cells how is that an ethical violation.  The egg would die unless intervention was taken using complex and specilized equipment to attempt an implantation.  We harvest blood, marrow, kidneys, livers, and other items from live individuals to help others.  Why is thta idea any different?

with the idea of doing evil (sacrificing some lives) in order to achieve some good (preserving or extending, or merely making a little more pleasant certain other lives), then I see no reason to refrain from applying the label.  It follows that there is life unworthy, or less worthy, of life, and that certain aspects (contingent aspects, surely) of our presumed way of life require a little sacrifice.  It is no different, logically, from the sacrifices performed in the name of whatever devil-god certain meso-american tribes worshipped; the only real differences are the contingent one of time, place and method; and those, as any philosopher can tell you, are not the ones that really matter.

But hey, abuse your illusions, if it helps you get by.

that you are furthering the debate by accusing those who have different views on this matter of being evil?

There is MOST CERTAINLY IS life that is less worthy.  

I'd rather scientists decide, with their rational and systematic analysis of the facts, than religious people with their irrational and arbitrary mythologies.

that's just me, though.

is the truth that we have nothing to gain by pretending that we should even be entertaining this discussion in the first place; the notion that certain members of the human species are less worthy of life and should be exploited for the benefit of the worthier is repugnant, the sort of thing that, if I might borrow from an esteemed editor here, constitutes moral short bus stuff.

You are comparing using ESCs to sacrificing children to Moloch, etc.

I asked if using high nitrogen fertilizer (often produced from fish offal)is a continuation of the pagan traditions of sacrificing an animial to ensure good crops.  It is the nitrogen that makes the plants grow well not the sacrificing.  We understand that now, they didn't then.  There is a difference between using scientific knowledge because we know how something works and doing something because it is a religious rite.  They are in no way points along the same line of history or tradition.

Sorry to beat one, but you are making the assumption that a blastocyst is a fully "human life" worthy of all rights and privileges that you or I possess.

If you can prove that to me with arguments that are NOT based upon your particular religion, it would be a first and you'll probably be worthy of a Nobel Prize.

See my post below re: how your god treats the average blastocyst.  Not kindly.

But please explain how you are able to determine that these embryos are part of the human species in any way that any other human cell would be considered part of the human species.

You would certainly be correct if all people agreed that these embryos were indeed human life.  Not all people agree on this point.  And it is certainly possible that you are correct that they are indeed human life.  But by saying "You are evil and killing innocent humans" the only thing you achieve is widening the divide.  

I am not comfortable with sacrificing lives to save lives.  But I am comfortable that a blastocyst (with 100 cells) is not a human being entitled to the same respect and consideration that I would afford to you (with 70,000,000,000,000 cells).

There is a lot more to it (becoming a human being) than just getting bigger or a 70,000,000,000 fold increase in the number of cells.  Blastocysts have a long way to go before they are the moral equivalent of a person.  

inasmuch as they have a complete genetic code distinct from that of either parent, direct their own development, and clearly develop into that which we recognize as a "baby" given time and the proper conditions.  These three things cannot be predicated of skin cells, liver cells, or, for that matter, gametes.  

People may not agree that these embryos are human life; they are wrong; wrong on the science, moreover, which goes to the point.  As to the why of their being wrong, it is called passionate attachment - to some good which is magnified beyond a just measure and sought to the detriment of other goods.

trust me.  And I agree with you that you should be.

Here is a little to get you started.

If you poke around the NIH site a little you can find Congressional testimony from a number of ethichists from varying religious traditions discussing this issue.

seems to be the problem.  Those proper conditions require quite a bit of "science" to get involved.

To some people the point is that this "life" would never grow to a viable human being WITHOUT extensive medical assistance.  

Some people have difficulty believing that a crogenically frozen embryo is human life.  

for one thing the manipulation is more a replication of what happens naturally with some helping along, but the whole remove the nucleus, add the nucleaus, bath in calcium etc, etc, etc doesn't even attempt to replicate artificially something that happens naturally.

So I think the "everytime I scrape my knee I kill a human" meme is just a strawman, and one that just isn't going to fly.

the scientists to act ethically, and apparantly any request by the religious for such ethics is met with outrage that the dimwitted religious folks shouldn't be meddling in "science."

Well frankly should scientists be able to do whatever they want with whatever they want, because they can do it?  Why is it wrong to expect some ethical lines-especially when it comes to what we do with humans not be crossed?

It appears we have shed all morality to worship the gods of science who are expected to have no morals except those they self define (I am sure mengele thought he was acting morally and for the good of science as well).

what is the difference really between offering your infant up to the fire to preserve your civilization, and offering human embryos up to science to preserve/save others?

When you come up with that answer let me know.

what you get 9 months later?

Put a skin cell in the womb and what do you get 9 months later?

That is your answer, even if you are unwilling to see it.

cloning?

1. He did it as a political move to try to run away from the Terri Schiavo thing, and to look centrist (in the end I don't know that it helps him any-the pro life base isn't going to appreciate this move, and a good bit of the base isn't happy with his lack of leadership in the senate).
   
2.  He was never totally on board with the WH position on the issue, but followed along, and now has decided he can't do that anymore and is therefore moving towards where he feels more comfortable.

I think either is plausible, I actually think it is more #2 because I don't see how #1 gains him anything-he has to win the primary, and I think he long ago killed himself with the base, stem cell research aside.

Even assuming that this is true for most of these embryos this isn't going to happen.  So should they stay in a freezer for eternity?

I think it is the only way that stem cell based therapies will be truly effective for large numbers of people.

Using cells derived from donated IVF embryos is going to suffer from the same immune system rejection problems as a typical organ transplant does.

Ethically, I find it less troubling because you are using an unfertilized egg and a cell from your (the patient's) own body.

science experiment.

I would much rather see more ethics applied to the IVF proccess so we don't end up with so many embryos in freezers, but I don't think the solution is to turn them into science projects.  I just see a bright line there that shouldn't be crossed into the ethics no mans land.  Once we start to okay destruction of human life in these cases, then we may eventually decide other lives are worthy of destruction.

We are choosing based on our own selfish desires what lives are worthy of life and what lives aren't-frankly I don't think we need to get into that realm-makes me think entirely too much of eugenics, and frankly with eugenics you can eventually justify almost anything in the name of science and "helping others."

What about embryos that CANNOT be brought to viability?  What should be done with them?  

I don't like the eugenics reference because that is an entirely different issue.

That assumes politicians act on principle, and I only know one politician who ever did that.

there is an element of truth to it, that you don't want to admit is there.

Especially given the fact that so many people seem to argue for unconstrained science-and that scientists should be the definer of ethics not those who may have moral objections to the direction science takes (if you doubt, then read this or some of the other stem cell threads).

As for what to do with the embryos that aren't healthy enough to implant, I honestly would rather them be destroyed than turned into a science project.  There is just a bright line that I see here, and I draw the line when it comes to destroying humans for some desired good-I just don't think the ends justify the means here.

that you are angling for a one-way voyage out of here... along with "piratemonkey."

because it is wrong.  Stem cell research has nothing to do with eugenics.

Your "Typical Eugenicist" would be in favor of banning IVF because:  

"Anyone who can not reproduce without artificial assistance is clearly unfit and should not be allowed to procreate and further contaminate the gene pool."

So you're on the side of the eugenicists, albeit for different reasons.

This is where you are wrong:

"have a complete genetic code distinct from that of either parent"

Gametes have a "different genetic code" from the individual that carries them.

"direct their own development"

This is incorrect on two levels.

First, I have yet to see an infant born with out the help of a mother's womb.  It may happen someday, but hasn't yet.  A whole lot of that development is directed by the mother's physiology... diet, drug use, hormone levels, etc.  Two identical twins gestated in the wombs of two different women will have distinct and obvious differences.  

Second, a blastocyst in a freezer isn't directing anything.

"...given time and proper conditions..."

A frozen blastocyst sitting in a lab is never going to develop into anything, without a whole bunch of serious scientific process to help it along.  

Even then, many of these frozen blastocysts are not viable.  This one of a few reasons why more than one has to be implanted in an assisted fertilization scenario.

If I take a living cheek cell of my cat and deliver it to a lab in Marin County, they can make a new cat out of it, after a long, very technical process.  In a few years, we'll be able to do that with humans as well.  (I'm not advocating cloning, just pointing out that a whole lot of technical know-how is needed to turn either a frozen blastocyst or a cheek cell into a human.)

Also, the female human body expels many, many viable blastocysts naturally.  They simply never implant into the uterine wall.  In light of this, it's hard to argue that these blastocysts are sacred to the god that designed this process.

What you are arguing is that this frozen ball of cells has the "potential" to be a human infant.  I say that a cheek cell does too, with an equally arcane scientific process... and most blastocysts under natural condition actually don't become human infants.

First, yes, thank God for scientists, those constant bastions of moral sanity.

Second, there are rules in these here parts, neighbor. One is not to insult, say, everyone with religious beliefs. This is your one bite.

Third, yet another rule forbids creating multiple accounts. You'd have seen it when you registered. We reserve the right to deactivate both accounts.

Fourth, ex utero humans fall off of cliffs, slip on ladders, drown in swimming pools, and somehow kill themselves with ball point pens all the time. This does not make them less than human. Nor does the fact that many children die before implantation.

Fifth, I'm intrigued by the idea that science has definitively ruled that a blastocyst is not human. Surely this solves the entire debate! Point me to the relevant periodical, please. I have a PubMed subscription and everything. I'll forward it on to the ranks of microbiologists in my family, as it will be news to them as well.

Sixth, if you can't hang with the big dogs, don't bother barking.

because:

blastocyst/=infant

But that doesn't follow: A Typical Eugenicist might now say that the genes are too valuable to be wasted on some accident of biology, and would, assuming that the condition was either recessive or the result of non-genetic factors, work around it.

And I really only value the lives of cute children. Sucks to be you if I'm near you with a gun.

I love arbitrary distinctions between humans. So much social goodwill and human warmth is bound up in them.

of scientists.

That is one huge beef I have with this issue-beyond the deliberate killing of humans for science is that apparantly nobody but the scientists should have any right to define ethical lines that shouldn't be crossed, especially if those lines are even remotely connected to religious belief.

Frankly I would rather depend on the religious people, who believe in something greater than themselves than to scientists who often do not.

You're as much a lawyer as I. I know you see the difference between moving something from one location to another, and fundamentally altering it before moving it from one place to another.

A thing as it exists has distinct qualities. Once it exists that way, it is illogical to treat it as matter identical to most other matter.

You know this. If you're not trying to score rhetorical points, then you're a horrid debater.

a eugenics type might actually believe in selectively implanting eggs with certain sperm to help create a more perfect human and to eliminate any genetic defects.

They probably would go for the whole IVF thing, but may see a different motive in the proccess, and with what we learn all the time about various genetic disorders, this type of selection could very well be the future of IVF.

to have scientific intervention so it isn't human" meme.

never blastocysts?  

And just how many cats, dogs, cows were human blastocysts?

Fair enough.  But then I think this conversation is at an impass.

Be well.

it has nothing to do with stem cell research.  

And for the record, I have extreme difficulty believing that any eugenicist would want infertile couples being permitted to procreate.  It really flies in the face of the Darwinian idea of fitness.

I should have pointed out that I was talking about IVF for infertile couples as is practiced today and serves as the ledge from which this discussion leaps.

If a eugenicist found a woman who had had a hysterectomy but her ovaries remained functional and she had the "perfect" genes he might use IVF, and implant the egg into another woman to give birth, as a tool.  You got me on that eventuality.

Sorry, I honestly and sincerely didn't mean to offend.  

But I must turn the mirror toward you:  In the same breath, you strongly imply that scientists are nazis.  That's not exactly the most productive viewpoint either, eh?  I could make a rational philosophical argument about religion being metaphysical, and therefore not based upon objective facts.  I think you'd have a hard time justifying the scientist=nazi paradigm.  I could just as easily (and just as wrongly) list more than a couple of examples of some pretty nasty things done in the name of religion.

The multiple account thing was an error. I apologise.  I put in the wrong email account into the first and couldn't retreive my password.  You'll notice nothing has been posted under that account, nor will it.

God didn't make those ex utero humans walk off the cliff.  He did create the process by which billions of blastocysts "die" on a regular basis.

I never said that science has determined that a blastocyst wasn't a human deserving of all the rights that you or I have.  That's my viewpoint.  I did say that those in biology and medicine consider this matter to be religious (or metaphysical, if you will), no matter what side of the fence you are on.  

Basically anything that can't be proven objectively is in the realm of metaphysics.  

I bet there's more than a few religious people in the world you wouldn't trust.  Then we have to pick an choose which religions are worthy of trust and which arent.

Slippery slope.

cheek cells... I'm tellin ya! ;)

I could invent a religion that declares gametes are human.  That's another arbitrary line.  Who's right?  Who knows, because we are talking metaphysics.

Interesting side note:  Did you see the study that came out a couple of months ago that showed parents treat "cute" children better than "ugly" ones, completely unknowingly?

and I think you miss his point, and that is that being a scientist does not automatically equal ethical, and that scientists are often willing to shed some ethical concerns in the pursuit of science.

We learned a lot about syphillus and how it progresses from the Tuskegee experiment-did that end justify the means?

whole "religious people can't have a say in what ethics scientists are held to" meme.

I think in fact the religious should have a say in what lines they want the scientists to have to stay within, especially when said religious folks pay taxes and it is their taxes funding the research.

"scientists are often willing to shed some ethical concerns in the pursuit of science."

How often?

What percentage of scientists are willing to do this?

But more importantly, who's ethics are we talking about?  As a scientist who is not a fundamentalist christian, I'm not going to follow fundimentalist christian ethics in my experiments.  That's not saying anything bad about a scientist who would, those just aren't my beliefs.

This is the core of this debate.  My beliefs aren't yours and until you can prove with real-life facts that a blastocyst is a human worthy of the full rights, this is a debate about beliefs, not facts.

Two problems with that line of reasoning.

The first is if we took all public funding out of scientific research, I doubt you'd be "ok" with this research going on.  Am I right?

Secondly, and I said this below, then who's ethics do we go by?  Some Native Americans think that mining and forestry is a blasphemy to their gods.  Should we only do activities that everyone can agree are ethical?  The majority?  A plurality?

that religous people have as much of a right to oppose/support what our government does or does not do.

The problem for me is when religous people start breaking out the fire and brimstone and condemning anyone who opposes their views.  

The Bible is oddly mute regarding ESCs.  Any opinions regarding ESCS, therefore, are based on interpretation of the Bible, or whatever religous book a person may adhere to.

but the Bible is not silent of people playing God.

clear on the issue of child sacrifice.

I consider you a pretty horid debater, too, so I guess that's a wash. But thanks for going out of your way to say so.

Interesting commment...

People 100 years ago thought we were playing "god" when we started flying.

People still say we were playing "god" when we invend the nuclear bomb.

We are still talking about your particular religion, which isn't mine.  I simply don't think I should be held to the rules of your religion.  I think that's why America came about in the first place.

Again, sorry to keep saying this buy your comments keep begging the question...

How, other than your religious views, do you know a blastocyst is the moral equivalent to a "child?"

(1) I didn't say they were Nazis. I said they are no more or less moral or capable of making important decisions than the rest of us. My phrasing was to challenge the idea that they were uniquely positioned to make the decisions.

(2) God made the cliffs (or, from my point of view, set in motion the process that caused the cliffs). He made people imperfect, so they'd walk off of cliffs. He made free will and accident possible.

(3) In the absence of scientific proof that some humans aren't people, I'll just presume we're all people, thanks. Saves a lot of self-castigation down the line.

(4) "Die" implies that those cells are not alive. Is that your position?

(5) Re: Multiple accounts and language: Ok. Play nice and no worries.

Thomas' or anyone elses should be excluded from this debate?  

Also, flying didn't involve the slicing and dicing of humans to develop.  Also, the federal government wasn't handing the Wright brothers billions of dollars in money to figure the whole thing out.

As for the nuclear bomb, I actually do think that is one area of science I wish we hadn't gone down, in hindsight it wasn't a good move.  AT this point I think we can look back and maybe wish we hadn't gone down that road, makes one wonder about this road.

into a human when placed in the womb, and if science were to ever get to the point where the womb wouldn't be needed are you going to argue the blastocyst would turn into a cat, a cow or a horse?

That I was just saying you're really trying to score rhetorical points, not that you're a bad debater, but while we're having this love-in, let's just say my opinion of you has been sub-zero for some time now and leave it at that.

You and Thomas  should be very (PDF)happy(PDF).

Scientists have come a long way since Tuskegee.

all determined that killing human embryos is ethical.

Kind of interesting given that that is what they desire, of course they aren't going to declare what they desire most-access to human embryos unethical.

who weren't sperms and eggs. are those people?

develop into a person when they are implanted into the womb.

among the links.  I don't have them on this computer.  Maybe tonight or tomorrow.  They are considering the opinions of various religious traditions.

on the bomb thing.  But just because we made nuclear weapons doesn't make all subatomic physics bad.  It gave us MRI for example.

There is absolutely a role for people like you and Thomas, who are wary or outright opposed to this type of research, to play.  I just don't think that role is veto against the will of the majority of Americans.

This is a touchy area in which things could go too far in one direction and I think that is where religious and other ethical oversight is important in helping to ensure that this research produces a net good and is conducted in a humane and respectful manner.

does it develop into a human?  Does it have the potential to?  Put an embryo into the womb does it develop into a human?  Does it have the potential to?  You have your answer.

a sperm all by itself in the womb is just gonna die.  An egg all by itself in the womb is just gonna die.

A fertilized egg however can and does grow into a human.

it was fine to use embryos, the third one did say that they should only use the IVF leftover ones, but frankly that isn't all that appealing either-that is sort of like saying-hey we should do experiments on death row inmates, after all they are all gonna die anyway-or maybe severely retarded people (after all they are gonna die, we can't keep them around forever, and it isn't like they are sentient beings-they probably won't even notice).  And yes those last are a bit of hyperbole, but not unapplicable hyperbole.

to but out, and to let the scientists decide.

Also, where exactly do we get to take a role in this?  And once we get open and free stem cell research and government dollars for every researcher out there and they scientists want to move on to the next step, do we get poo pooed again at that point?

See that is my issue, those with religoius objections are being told to but out, because we aren't basing our beliefs in science and we are being told to trust the scientists, but right now our viewpoints don't seem to matter too much, and frankly if they don't matter now, I doubt they are going to matter, when scientists start demanding federal funds for their next project involving human experiments.

It's very easy to pull the "unpersons" card, but actually whether it's an immoral argument depends on whether it is true. It is manifestly false that Jews, the mentally handicapped, Muslims, suspected terrorists, etc. etc. are not people. So to deny their humanity is immoral. But that argument is immoral because it is FALSE. If I were to argue that a sperm and egg were not people, that would be correct and not at all immoral. If I were to argue that chimpanzees were not people, that would be correct and not at all immoral. Now those situations are not comparable to a blastocyst, because sperms and eggs and chimpanzees are much more self-evidently not people. But it is not self-evident that a blastocyst is a person. It bears far more resemblance to a sperm and an egg than a newborn. It does have a heart, nor lungs, nor blood, nor hands, nor feet, nor a brain, nor a spinal cord....not only that: it does not even contain the differentiated cells that will go on to form those body parts.

As a matter of metaphysics, I cannot rule out the possibility that God breathes a soul into a person in one instant, the moment a sperm meets an egg. I can't say it's impossible. But it's not self-evidently true. I do not believe it's true. It's not been scientifically proven by any stretch; insofar as science gives us evidence about this question it tends to point in the opposite direction. It is a matter of faith, which many people of good will simply do not share. To refuse to recognize that, on the grounds that debate whether "certain humans are persons" is wrong, is to assume the conclusion and beg the question in a way that your adversaries are not going to find at all convincing. (Humans and persons are synonyms, are they not? Not "human" as an adjective as in human tissue, but "human" as a noun as in human being.)

(I'm not an atheist by the way. I believe in God and I believe in a soul--or at least in something that we rather clumsily call a soul. But I believe that it resides in the body, and specifically the cerebral cortex, while we are living, and I simply don't know where it exists or if it exists before birth or after death.

In more mundane denominational terms, I am in the process of converting to Judaism; I will be doing a Reform conversion).

An egg all by itself in the womb is just gonna die.

Is it even alive to start with? If it is, what kept it from dying in the ovaries? This is stuff I know nothing about.

be a human, knowing that the very reason science desires to use it, is because it actually is human.

If just any blastocyst would do, they could use a chimpanzees.

It is the humanity of the embryo that science desires, without that humanity it isn't useful to them.

is that it has an adequate food source in the ovaries, that it doesn't receive once it leaves the ovarie and doesn't meet up with a sperm.

Also, it is probably more likely that the egg is gonna leave the womb entirely before it actually dies-it is possible it has a nutrition source up until it gets the boot.

Sperms however do die-whith about 24-48 hours after ejaculation.

My point is that there very, very soon will be humans that did not come from the union of a sperm and an egg.  This particular truistic line of reasoning will be void in a few short years.

into a human, then it is in fact a human.

If you developt an artificial womb, and it grows into a human, it is human.

If it is human it shouldn't become a science project.

1.  Fair enough, but you have to admit the implication was there.  If I had posted links to sites about the Crusades or Jonestown in reference to the religious, you would have considered that out of bounds, methinks.  All I want is a fair playing field.  Again, I really don't want or mean to offend.
   
2.  Going back your the original statement, though, this implies that billions (conservatively) of blastocysts have free will, aren't perfect and are destined to die because of it.  I'm having a difficult time with that concept.
   
3.  You begged the question in the way you set this up.  I'm not saying humans aren't people.  I'm saying a blastocyst from a human isn't a person worthy of the same rights you or I have.  In fact, it's not a person at all.  Some of them might be eventually, given the right conditions... but that's potential personhood, a state very different from being a person.  

In fact, most of them won't become a person, regardless of the conditions.

4.  This is exactly why the word "die" was in quotes.  People can die, but so can plants, or bacteria or individual cells within a person or plant.  The ability to die doesn't imply personhood.
   
5.  I'll be good, I promise!  Y'all seem like a good crowd here, even though I may disagree with you on this particular issue.

Then you will have to mourn the death of cheek cells very soon. ;)

You haven't addressed the idea that the way human beings are set up, more blastocysts are naturally ejected from the human body than develop into babies.

Isn't that a cruel way for a creator to design us?  If you consider those balls of cells people, there are literally millions of "natural" abortions every day on this earth.

If I had posted links to sites about the Crusades or Jonestown in reference to the religious, you would have considered that out of bounds, methinks.

We could easily point to ethicals standards layed out in the Bible and indicate how these two events went wrong.  What exactly do unethical scientists appeal to?  After all somebody (usually the government) gave them tacit permission to do what they did, and they defined their own ethics, religious folks who do things like Jonestown went deliberately outside the ethics of the faith to accomplish their feats.

I'm saying a blastocyst from a human isn't a person worthy of the same rights you or I have.

This is only because you say it is so, and want it to be so, because you want to experiment on them.  This takes us down the path of picking and choosing who is human enough to have rights.  And do you really want to go down that road?  Where does that put the severely disabled?  

Warning it is a 66 page PDF.

Ethical Issues in Human Stem Cell Research, Volume III; Religious Perspectives.

from the human body do so naturally without any help from humans.

And if that is how God designed it, then fine that is how He designed it and far be it from me to step in and take over His job.

The problem here is that many Democrats and Republicans--a little more than half of the US, if surveys are to be believed (take or leave that as you wish)--simply do not accept your fundamental assumption that embryos are people. We acknowledge them as human tissue, but don't ascribe humanity to them any more than we would to our fingernail clippings or sperm. There's a certain point past which embryos become human, but we disagree on where that point is, or often even if it can be clearly defined short of birth.

Please understand: I realize that it is the stated position of Redstate that these embryos are people. I understand that nothing I say is likely to dissuade any of you from believing this, and I'm not trying to. What I'm trying to do is get you to see that those of us who do not think stem cell research is monstrous do not see ourselves as monsters, and part of the reason that you are losing this battle in the realm of public opinion is because you are unwilling to engage the opposition with any premise other than that they are guilty of murder and you are trying to stop it. This, for example:

When we seriously contemplate making people to use them as experimental tissue; when we justify the dismemberment of already-made people with "they were going to die anyway"; when we offer human lives on the altar of Better Medicine for the Rest of Us, well, let it simply be said that Harry Blackmun is smiling from his little outpost in the Ninth Circle right now.

Do you truly think most people who support stem cell research think of it that way? Do you truly think we're sitting here and rationalizing it as a "necessary evil"? I'm sure some probably do. I don't, and I've never met or discussed this with anyone who does. I'd be interested to see the results of a neutrally-worded poll on this, though.

Your entire argument is predicated on an assumption which those who disagree with you simply do not share. That you are apparently unwilling or unable to recognize this weakens your ability to advance your case to the public.

Again, y'all dodge the fact that many, many more blastocysts regularly die because of the way a creator made us, than by any human means...  This to me implies that I'm hitting a nerve.

Excellent question about scientists!  As someone very, very interested in both moral philosophy and science, I've pondered this for many years.

First off, science is a method of doing things, not a philosophy, morality or ethical code.  This is why there are good scientists of almost every religious flavor.  But this is also why there isn't a "Moral Code of Science."  There can't be any more than there can be a moral code that every librarian or shopkeeper would follow.

This begs the question, then who gets to decide what scientists do?  Unlike what "Just Me" implies, it shouldn't be scientists alone... society has a role in this.  I'm not arguing against that point.  I'm arguing against a minority religious point of view dictating what scientists do.  Scientists should work ethically just like librarians and shopkeepers.

As to your other point, I'm saying a blastocyst isn't a human because I've seen them.  I've worked with them (not since college and not human blastocysts).  The concept of granting rights to an organism that is orders of magnitude less complex than a flatworm is at its face ridiculous to me. This ball has no thought, personality, reflex, free will.  The only way I can see someone adopting that point of view is if they hold the religious viewpoint that these cells posess some sort of soul.  Again... a perspective I respect, but disagree with.

Now I'll address the offense strawman you put up.  Granting such rights to a severely disabled person with billions of cells, unique thought patterns, personality, free will and emotions seems a very rational position.

You see, I'm using the same standard in each case.  My ethics are consistent, but they differ from yours.

Your whole argument is based upon the idea that these blastocysts are sacred, complete human beings.

It's ok for your god to design a system that discards billions of them, but if we want to use a few to attempt to cure disease, we're morally wrong?

I am reading it now-so far I am reading the testimony (thus far I find it amusing that we have one guy representing all of protestantism-boy was he asked to do a lot, while we have several Roman Catholics and several Rabbi's-were the Protestants out to lunch on this or something?).

I really liked this quote though (any errors are likely mine since I can't c and p)-

Those who favor embryonic stem cell research, like the human embryo research panel, grant, as have legal opinions that the embryo should be treated with "respect."  When we inquire as to what that means, it seems to be merely an assurance that these embryos will be destroyed only in ". . .research that incorporates substantive values such as reduction of human suffering."  This is a fragile form of respect, since it makes the embryo's value on something other than its intrinsic value.

This was by Edmund Pallegrino-he also goes on to ask some pretty good questions like-how do you know the embryos being used weren't intentionally created as "spares."  Or what about pushing the stage of development factor (maybe a human embryo a little further along in development will make for better results)?  Then there is the issue of what happens if frozen cells aren't the be all end all answer they want, will there be a push for fresher cells?  He asks about the issue of ethics boards and their relationship to the company's that stand to make money off the patents and treatments?

There are a lot of other good questions he raises, and frankly I think he is right-these are all issues that regulation most likely won't be able to control, and once we open the door, how/when/where do we shut it?  The god's of science (my line not his) will of course tell the religious folks to but out once again, and tell us we have no voice.

Apparantly the answers at the end were just a bunch of more questions rather than any conclusions being made, and from the demands to permit funding now, apparantly any an all concerns of the religiously opposed are poo pooed anyway.

It's ok for your god to design a system that discards billions of them, but if we want to use a few to attempt to cure disease, we're morally wrong?

Whoa, whoa. When did this thread start being about world history?

if they agree with you, otherwise we should sit down and shut up and let the "scientists" and secularists decide what the ethics should be.

and then assume his right over creation?

That leaves me speechless.

...is showing.

but biology lectures from people who don't know whether ova are alive are a bit hard to stomach.

Yes, the egg is a living human cell. How on earth else?...nevermind. If it is not fertilized, it dies after about 24 hours of release (usually more like 12, sometimes as much as 3 days but that's pretty rare).

Sperm live longer than eggs do in a woman's body; 3-4 days is pretty common and it can be 5-6.

Nothing more, nothing less.

In order, then:

1. Already answered. Someone who spouts off about the rationality of scientists should also understand the value of counter-examples.
   
2. No, it doesn't. It merely answers your argument in parallel. Simply because God allows millions of deaths through the structure of the system he has in place does not lessen the value of the lives that end through no external event.

In other words, your entire bit about billions of lost blastocysts is a logical error of the first order. Merely because they die through no fault or act of any other in the natural course of events does not make them without value; it merely means that they die in those numbers.

3. You're entitled to your religious beliefs, though as I said, the idea that some humans are more worthy of protection than others is distressing, to say the least.
   
4. Never said it did.

A few elementary points.

I wasn't trying to make an argument about the rightness or wrongness of stem cell research. I was discussing the politics of opposing it. Read more carefully next time.

Very few monsters don't think God is on their side.

I suspect most folks in favor of embryonic stem cell research either don't care about the consequences; don't understand the consequences; or have picked some illogical and arbitrary point at which to decide that a human becomes a person, either because of poor reasoning skills, convenience, weird religious superstitions involving "ensoulment," ignorance, or malice. Frankly, I don't care about why they hold that monstrous opinion, I only care that (1) it leads to untold deaths and (2) that I be able to stop them. My evangelizing days are nearly done. I'd rather get down in the mess and go to war, and leave the better angels of my side to win hearts and minds.

Your entire argument is predicated on an assumption which those who disagree with you simply do not share. That you are apparently unwilling or unable to recognize this weakens your ability to advance your case to the public.

My entire argument has very little to do with that about which you are speaking; however, as you apparently came to the table with some pre-existing notions, I'll simply say that if you think I'm unaware of my opponents' motivations, you're projecting, at best.

It's very easy to pull the "unpersons" card, but actually whether it's an immoral argument depends on whether it is true. It is manifestly false that Jews, the mentally handicapped, Muslims, suspected terrorists, etc. etc. are not people. So to deny their humanity is immoral.

Prove it. No, seriously. Prove that they're people.

See, at a certain level, you take it for granted that humans who walk and talk (or whatever your criteria might be) are people. But this absent some undergirding principle, this is merely a convenient leap of faith. And this rather gets to the heart of this hobbyhorse: You and your fellows have decided that some humans are not people. Fine. It's not without historical precedent. But it's a crappy historical precedent, and your designation is entirely arbitrary.

But it is not self-evident that a blastocyst is a person. It bears far more resemblance to a sperm and an egg than a newborn. It does have a heart, nor lungs, nor blood, nor hands, nor feet, nor a brain, nor a spinal cord....not only that: it does not even contain the differentiated cells that will go on to form those body parts.

It bears no such resemblance, except that it has a number of cells closer to a gamete than to an adult human. Every other aspect of that discussion is merely descriptive, not differentiating. Which again gets back to the heart of this: You have your own, arbitrary definition of a person that is based on physical characteristics. So be it, although it's completely unclear to me why I shouldn't be able to say that people with certain genes or a lack thereof are non-persons by that reasoning. But if you're erring, kindly be aware that millions will die for your arbitrary distinctions.

As a matter of metaphysics, I cannot rule out the possibility that God breathes a soul into a person in one instant, the moment a sperm meets an egg. I can't say it's impossible. But it's not self-evidently true. I do not believe it's true. It's not been scientifically proven by any stretch; insofar as science gives us evidence about this question it tends to point in the opposite direction. It is a matter of faith, which many people of good will simply do not share. To refuse to recognize that, on the grounds that debate whether "certain humans are persons" is wrong, is to assume the conclusion and beg the question in a way that your adversaries are not going to find at all convincing. (Humans and persons are synonyms, are they not? Not "human" as an adjective as in human tissue, but "human" as a noun as in human being.)

Your argument proceeds from two false initial premises. First, that I'm making any argument about the morality of stem cell research in the piece above. Second, that I give two rat's shakes about "ensoulment," or when a soul is joined with the body, or whatever it is you non-Catholics/liberals/whatevers think it is that you're trying to communicate with me about. I neither know nor care when the soul enters the body, because, first, I have no way to measure it, and second, because "ensouled" is not a synonym for "person."

However, you seem to be saying that science tends to prove that the soul does not enter the body at conception. Could you point me to that research? As I mentioned elsewhere, I have access to a PubMed subscription. I'll be happy to look into it.

On the last subpoint here, I think you radically misunderstand something: I don't think anyone debates, any more, that a zygote, embryo, blastocyst, or fetus is a human. The question shifted, some time ago, to whether it is a person. That's where the argument has been for about a decade.

(I'm not an atheist by the way. I believe in God and I believe in a soul--or at least in something that we rather clumsily call a soul. But I believe that it resides in the body, and specifically the cerebral cortex, while we are living, and I simply don't know where it exists or if it exists before birth or after death.

In more mundane denominational terms, I am in the process of converting to Judaism; I will be doing a Reform conversion).

That doesn't sound like the Jewish theology with which I'm familiar, but then again, the only exponents I know are Orthodox, and I'm hardly an expert. At any rate, like I've said before, you're entitled to your odd religious beliefs, I'd just rather that no one be murdered for them.

they required quite a bit of abnormal science to get to that state in the first place.

Some people have difficulty accepting the conclusions of science, and feel a profound need to invent all manner of mystifications and superstitions in order to justify passionate attachments.  It's rather pleasurable to see someone else trying to wear that shoe.

I wasn't trying to make an argument about the rightness or wrongness of stem cell research. I was discussing the politics of opposing it. Read more carefully next time.

I read the post carefully and in full. What you wrote did in fact contain a long litany of points about the wrongness of stem cell research. You might not recognize them as such because they were advanced as assumptions on which your main points relied.

In any event, I'm not sure what you're responding to. My reply was very germane to the points you raised regarding why conservatives are losing the battle for public opinion this issue; you are in fact illustrating one of my points. Your post spent a great deal of time talking about how public opinion has shifted against the social conservative position on stem cell research, and I pointed out that one of the reasons was that most people who support said research (or are on the fence about it) do not see themselves the way you seem to see them, and in fact do not share your fundamental assumption that the tissue in question has personhood.

Very few monsters don't think God is on their side.

I am not a monster, and in my experience God has very little to say about ESC resarch.

Frankly, I don't care about why they hold that monstrous opinion, I only care that (1) it leads to untold deaths and (2) that I be able to stop them. My evangelizing days are nearly done. I'd rather get down in the mess and go to war, and leave the better angels of my side to win hearts and minds.

All well and good--but how you you propose to, as you put it, "get down in the mess and go to war"? Because short of taking up arms and committing acts of domestic terrorism against scientists and doctors, your only option is to win hearts and minds. You believe that these embryos, blastocysts, et al are people, and that experimenting on them is monstrous. That's fine. I respect your right to hold that opinion. But more than half the country, along with a nontrivial percentage of your own party, disagrees with you. If you believe that ESC research is an atrocity, and you are unwilling to resort to violence, then what you need to do is convince people who do not hold that opinion to change their minds. You are not going to do that by telling them that they are monsters, and you cannot engage them rationally if you cannot step back from your fundamental assumptions.

My entire argument has very little to do with that about which you are speaking; however, as you apparently came to the table with some pre-existing notions, I'll simply say that if you think I'm unaware of my opponents' motivations, you're projecting, at best.

We all have pre-existing notions. I recognize and acknowledge what mine are; I offered them to you in my first comment. I say that you are unaware of your opponents' motivations not because I came here assuming that; I don't know you from Adam. I say that because that is what the words you wrote tell me. Someone who can write the things you wrote about those who support ESC research is either exaggerating for rhetorical effect, or does not understand their opponents. And someone who does not understand their opponents is going to have little chance of changing their minds.

Which is a shame, because I'd prefer to not be your opponent at all.

Gametes do not have a complete genetic code, so you haven't even come within 12000 miles of my first point.

The embryo directs its own development, meaning that those necessary things provided by the mother are merely assimiliated by an organism which, of its own internal organization and genetic information, matures through all of the stages of development proper to human beings in the early phases of life.  The frozen embryo isn't directing anything, and will not develop absent certain scientific interventions precisely because the natural course of things has been disrupted by - science!  If you cannot grasp the differences between nature and the artifices of science, that's not my problem.

Sure, female bodies expel many embryos; this is a red herring, as there is a vast difference between nature and the intentional aritifices of science, unless you are really willing to take the argument to the next logical step and argue that because some infants die, we ought not have any qualms about helping some of them to die, for the sake of science, of course.  This, too, is the reason your appeals to a supposed analogy to cloning are also nonsensical: there is a world of difference between the natural processes and the artifices of science, unless one wants to press on still further into the wastes of unreason and collapse the distinction between involutary and voluntary occurrences.

And, yes, I am arguing that the embryo has the potential to become an infant, just as you and I have the potential to become old men, given time; from that fact that a particular being has not reached the final stages of the natural development proper to that being it does not follow that it is not a member of that species of being.  Science and philosophy could tell you this, if you would listen.

in a biology textbook.  But besides that:

Is an acorn an oak tree?

Re: It is manifestly false that Jews, the mentally handicapped, Muslims, suspected terrorists, etc. etc. are not people. So to deny their humanity is immoral.

You say that this is "manifest", but if that's the case then how is it possible that the Nazis could deny the humanity of the Jews and the slaveholders could deny the humanity of their slaves? Go back in history (or examine isolated primitives today) and an interesting if unpleasant pattern emerges. The term "people" is reserved for those who are part of the tribe (or at least speak the same language) while everyone else is termed something derogatory like "monsters". The recognition of our universal humanity is not something that is "manifest". It is something we have had to learn, slowly and painfully and with much grief, over the long millennia of our existence.

Complete in what sense?  There are many, many people alive today that don't have the same number of chromosomes as you do.  Are they less than human?

Your second paragraph is patently and demonstrably incorrect.  Large parts of how an embryo develops are regulated by the mother.  Hormone levels can have profound effects upon the behavioral tendencies of the eventual person, even after they reach adulthood.

Take female fetal mice.  Raise the androgen levels in the mother to high (but naturally occurring) levels during a specific three day window during development.  Watch those female mice grow up.  Without fail, they attempt to mount other female mice and refuse to be mounted by male mice.  You've created a "gay" mouse.  This has nothing whatsoever to do with the genetic structure of the fetus.  This difference between "congenital" and "genetic" is one that is commonly misunderstood, but incredibly important to this discussion.

Then, you essentially proved a large point of mine.

Who invented the "natural" system, in your world-view?

If it's your god, why didn't this being value these blastocysts enough not to cause millions to die on a regular basis.  They have no free will.  They have done nothing wrong.  If they are truly sacred and innocent in the eyes of your god and your religion, the system wouldn't have been set up this way.  (No disrespect to your religion intended.  I'm not even sure what your religion is.  I'm attempting to be religion-neutral in my language.)

Again.  Literally Billions are die by this system god set up, but to use a couple hundred to cure diseases is unethical?  And you don't see any inconsistency in this viewpoint?

With respect to potential.  I'm saying that the majority of these blastocytes won't develop into anything given any amount of time and any conditions.  This is a grossly inefficient system we're talking about.  Most have no potential to become a person at all.

BTW - Science and philosophy don't "tell" us anything.  That's what dogmatic paradigms do.  Science and philosophy are tools by which we discover truths.

And the answer to your question is that it is an oak. Is a baby human an adult human?

if you want me to take you seriously as an interlocutor, refrain from referring to "your god", "this being" and "your religion"; I don't know whether you intend any polemical disrespect, but you certainly convey an inordinate amount of supercilious bile, and if you would like me to refrain from simply denoucing you as a heathen practitioner of human sacrifice, I would advise you to do one thing: refer to me and to my beliefs with respect, as this is what you ask of me for yourself.

Now.  I'm sorry to have to inform you of this fact, but so far from proving some point of yours, my argument demonstrated that all of your raving about the unjustice that my "god" engineered into the natural world is just a putrefying red herring: we are concerned, not with the origins of things, or with the causes of the inefficiencies or "natural evils" present in the natural realm; we are discussing human conduct, and in that light, there is a difference between those things which occur naturally, beyond our volition and control, and those things which are under our control, such as experimentation upon some human beings.  Now, if you would like to argue that because nature or "my god" sacrifices so many human lives, we may consciously, willfully do the same, I will tell you that, so far from being at the summit of the slippery slope, you are already down in the foothills, where, because mmany human beings die naturally, we may sacrifice a few more of them so that, by means of "science", we may better understand and manipulate the process.  Sorry, but that's logic.  And yes, science and logic and philosophy do tell us things, because they are more than mere tools or rule-systems for the relation of concepts and/or semantical entities; they presuppose certain substantive things about reality, and when by them something is discovered, they do tell it to us (If science discovers truth, but tells us nothing, I imagine that it would be consistent to claim that science has demonstrated that evolution, in some sense, has occurred, but is still, somehow, hiding that fact from us.  To discover a truth is to have it told to one by reality.)

As to the matter of embryonic development, I am well aware of all of the studies on hormonal influences and etc.  Except that an influence is not the same thing as the outworking of the developmental plan of the organism; that which influences the unfolding of the pattern is not identical with the pattern, so sorry, no dice.

With respect to chromosome count, you are missing the point, which is that the embryo is a distinct organism, regardless of whether it has a chromosomal abnormality or not; it is a human organism.  And yes, on the matter of potentiality: if most of the now-frozen embryos will never develop, this is all the more reason to refrain from willfully creating the circumstances which create such a situation.

the scientists want to define the ethics based on their own ethics, and want anyone who is Christian to but out.

So tell me exactly why scientists shouldn't take into account the fact that there are people who are strongly morally opposed to their newest notion of playing god?  

Do you think there should be ethical constraints?  What do you propose?

And in response you still haven't proven that a blastocyst isn't human and deserving of no rights, other than your contention that it must be thus.

that literally no one would answer the question someone posed on the other thread: if you were in a situation where you were forced to choose between saving 40 frozen embryos and one infant, which would you choose?

To be clear, I don't think that embryos are indistinguishable from cheek cells. I don't think they're people but they have the potential to become people (in the case of frozen embryos) or are actively in the process of becoming people (in the case of implantation in the uterus.) But I also don't think they're indistinguishable from babies.

You utterly refuse to engage this issue. Most of you won't even explain why you're convinced that a person with a soul and free will and all the other characteristics that make us human beings is formed at the exact moment of fertilization. You certainly won't admit that your beliefs on this matter are questions of faith, not science, about which reasonable people of good will can disagree.

So many times as to lose count, we simply relegated the question to trolling and stopped responding. Your belief that we shrink from or evade the question is certainly yet another factually deficient opinion to which you're entitled, but it doesn't have much correlation to reality.

Right here.

Before I'll do it again, you must answer if choosing my wife would lead you to conclude that my children were less human. Or vice versa.

being that we're all slobbering Neanderthal's and don't really understand what we're saying, we're all afraid to address this fatuous question and nervously atwitter over the intellectual leviathan who came up with it.

I know I addressed it somewhere in one of these threads pretty much along the same lines as Leon did.

Maybe you just skimmed over the answers, because they weren't exactly the answer you were looking for.

... and one that's been much on my mind of late.  What if I had to choose between 40 human embryos and one fully develped baby which has been permitted to be born?  What would I choose?

It happens all the time.

Permit me to add another condition, if I might.  Instead of being humans, we would be big, purple bugs.  What would I choose then?

There are three possibilities here.

First, you want to debate the morality of embryonic stem cell research. That's fine, but this is the wrong thread for that.

Second, that you believe that the best way to debate the actual argument I'm making is to discuss the underlying goal. Possible, but really, this is more about political strategy and tactics, so I'm not entirely sure that's germane.

Third, you wish to argue with my premise, to-wit, that the pro-life movement will lose in the short run but, by adopting the methods of the abortion wars, may be able to win in the long run, and feel that the best way to do so is to tell me that I'm right that we'll lose, wrong in my emphasis of why we'll lose, and that the underlying argument is wrong. What it has to do with the rest of the argument is not entirely clear, but I suspect you mean that we won't win unless we adopt your view of the situation.

I'm honestly not sure at which you're aiming, and honestly, I'm too tired to care.

Your post spent a great deal of time talking about how public opinion has shifted against the social conservative position on stem cell research, and I pointed out that one of the reasons was that most people who support said research (or are on the fence about it) do not see themselves the way you seem to see them, and in fact do not share your fundamental assumption that the tissue in question has personhood.

And this has already been addressed, in the story itself. Prima causa, if you will.

I am not a monster, and in my experience God has very little to say about ESC resarch.

I didn't say you were. I was making a point about monsters and those with monstrous opinions in general.

As to the second, then you haven't been listening.

All well and good--but how you you propose to, as you put it, "get down in the mess and go to war"? Because short of taking up arms and committing acts of domestic terrorism against scientists and doctors, your only option is to win hearts and minds. You believe that these embryos, blastocysts, et al are people, and that experimenting on them is monstrous. That's fine. I respect your right to hold that opinion. But more than half the country, along with a nontrivial percentage of your own party, disagrees with you. If you believe that ESC research is an atrocity, and you are unwilling to resort to violence, then what you need to do is convince people who do not hold that opinion to change their minds. You are not going to do that by telling them that they are monsters, and you cannot engage them rationally if you cannot step back from your fundamental assumptions.

This puts the lie to your statement that you actually read what I wrote.

We all have pre-existing notions. I recognize and acknowledge what mine are; I offered them to you in my first comment. I say that you are unaware of your opponents' motivations not because I came here assuming that; I don't know you from Adam. I say that because that is what the words you wrote tell me. Someone who can write the things you wrote about those who support ESC research is either exaggerating for rhetorical effect, or does not understand their opponents. And someone who does not understand their opponents is going to have little chance of changing their minds.

I understand them perfectly. Their inclinations and motivations are the same as mine and as every other human's since time began. I believe I even said something nice about better angels.

Which is a shame, because I'd prefer to not be your opponent at all.

Stop advocating the murder of children, and you won't be.

about the expulsion of blastocysts and its philosophical consequences, but I think you're falling into the same trap as your opponent when they raise the question of "If ESC is so good, why can't it be privately funded?" Someone could publish a paper tomorrow that would attract millions of dollars in funding to ESC research; or someone could discover that most blastocyst expulsions result from, say, an errant immune reaction, and a mild immunosuppressant regime could eradicate that effect. Would that suddenly reverse your philosophical position?

Other than that, your argument about the innocence, etc. of blastocysts seem to me a straightforward extension of the Problem of Job;  I don't see that there's anything really novel about the situation. And it's worth remembering that modest proposals of this sort have not necessarily found wide favor, even in ages of high child mortality.

First, you want to debate the morality of embryonic stem cell research. That's fine, but this is the wrong thread for that.

I believe I stated explicitly that I was specifically not trying to do that.

Second, that you believe that the best way to debate the actual argument I'm making is to discuss the underlying goal. Possible, but really, this is more about political strategy and tactics, so I'm not entirely sure that's germane.

Close, but not quite. The point I raised was that your tactics are part of the reason why your view is and is likely to remain a minority view. How is that not disussing the issue at hand?

What it has to do with the rest of the argument is not entirely clear, but I suspect you mean that we won't win unless we adopt your view of the situation.

I said nothing of the sort. What I said is that your view is currently a minority view in this country, and neither the votes nor the opinion trendlines are in your favor. Given that, your goal should be convincing those who do not share your opinion to change their minds. I submit that calling them monsters and baby-murderers is likely to be more counterproductive than not.

Do you disagree with this?

I understand them perfectly. Their inclinations and motivations are the same as mine and as every other human's since time began. I believe I even said something nice about better angels.

I'm sorry, but all evidence suggests to me that you understand them at all. To wit:

Stop advocating the murder of children, and you won't be.

I see no way to respond to this within the posting rules, other than to thank you for concisely illustrating my point and bid you good day.

And note that the pro-life movement has made serious headway by elaborating consistently on the concept of "baby murder."

Insofar as I misunderstood your intent, my apologies. I believe we're speaking slightly past each other here.

With that said, I understand them as I understand every other human on earth. Certain rather nasty traits consistently manifest themselves in humans; those traits lead to where we are now. Dealing with those traits by appealing to better angels has been a winning strategy before; I see no reason to abandon that now, or to deny the existence of those nasty traits.

If you'd prefer to call killing children something different, be my guest.

Thomas, what exactly do you consider to be your opponents motivations that you claim to know so well?

but it is a refusal to answer, not an answer

but it is a refusal to answer, not an answer

They are selfish, small, mean, grubby, self- and clan-centered animals whose first concern is almost never for those who are mere abstractions, except insofar as it makes them feel better to care in a not-overly-painful way. They do not want to die or get sick, and will step over their own mothers to avoid the former with depressing regularity.

They are also capable of enormous acts of bravery, charity, warmth, and self-sacrifice; they can be heroes either in or out of character; and they can do something for those abstract others that astounds everyone around them.

But the second paragraph is the exception to the rule. They do those things in spite of, not because of, their basic natures.

You know, reading back, the astute reader might even be able to glean this from what I wrote. Let me know when you get an astute reader to review the piece for you.

sure don't let the implausibility of the hypothetical stop you from using the "ticking time bomb" scenario to justify torture.

The point is: if you believe that it is clear and irrefutable that embryos are people, it should be--not an easy question, obviously, but a question that it is possible to give a straight answer to, instead of an explanation for why you don't have to answer.

If you had the choice between saving one infant and forty infants after all, the course of action seems clear enough.

If the claims that this research will save lives that will not be otherwise saved is true--and I have seen no reason to believe otherwise except for ideology--the hypothetical is rather directly on point. There are differences: the imminence of death and of preventing death, the difference between an act and an omission. But then, in the stem cell research debate, it is possible to restrict it to embryos that will be destroyed or remain frozen in any case, so as far as total number of lives saved it's not even close.

Again, if the question has been asked before and answered rather than dodged, someone please post the link.

That any couple who donates their frozen embryos to scientists trying to cure diseases like paralysis, Parkinson's, Diabetes, Osteoarthritis,... is committing one of these acts:

"They are also capable of enormous acts of bravery, charity, warmth, and self-sacrifice; they can be heroes either in or out of character; and they can do something for those abstract others that astounds everyone around them."

To make sure there are no survivors.

If you want more, I know I personally have addressed the answer in comments here. You can do that research yourself. If you want someone else's answer, answer Leon's first.

Much as if I gave my children as slaves to an elderly couple with severe Parkinson's, for manual labor and service, I, too, would be committing an act of charity.

If, while discussing the merits of Affirmative Action, you say to me, "Before continuing this discussion, I demand that you tell me whether you like Jelly Bellies of Mike and Ikes better," and I respond, "That question has nothing to do with the matter we're discussing," I've given an adequate response, and further all the response a reasonable person would expect to get.

Besides which, what fool would pick Mike and Ikes over Jelly Bellies?

That unless you can prove why the question is, in fact, relevant to the discussion at hand, don't be surprised to find yourself disengaged from the discussion if you persist in asking it anyway.

Jellybabies. Cue the TARDIS.

between these? and these?

they would actually restrict the research to those that would be destroyed anyway?  How do we know that IVF clinics won't make certain to have excess embryos to slate for destruction, so the scientists can have an endless supplies of embryos.

And honestly the noble goal doesn't make destruction of life here okay.  

Largely because they have more hair.

I would wager that you look different from me. (If not, my sympathies to you and your wife.) I fail to see how that's relevant here.

These and these?

The first are cuter in that set.

How about the difference between these and these?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.471:

And then maybe write your congressman and Senators and ask them to be sure that is added to the final guidelines for this research.

By the way, the scientists don't need an endless supply.  And a more than adequate supply currently exists to conduct the research at this point.

And again, the embryos have to be donated by the people who own them.

(Just skip the slavery references for saying own.  I'm already on record saying blastocysts are not people.)

I'm with you on that. The blastocysts were much cuter.

than appearance I assure you.  (and it isn't just size either, though I don't expect you to admit it.)

Just one similarity I will point out between us Thomas, that I find incredibly relevant to this discussion, is that we both clearly have a CNS.  It's a big part of what makes us human.

(My wife get's my sympathies for my appearance quite often.  And my daughter!  My poor poor daughter, sob... she looks just like me.  Poor kid!)

to make sure the rules or followed, the bill doesn't say what happens to those who break the rules-is there any accountabiity or are we on scout's honor here?

Also who exactly says there are enough embryos out there?  What happens when the embryos that are out there are determined to not be usable enough-who says that frozen embryos that were unsuitable for implantation are going to be suitable for research?

Exactly what ethical standards are we proposing here beyond honestly IVF clinics making lots and lots of embryos and talking their patients into donating them to science?

There don't appear to be any, and there doesn't appear to be any concern for the fact that a lot of people out there think those embryos are humans.  But hey its all in the name of science and we all know scientists are never ever unethical.

Which gives them quite a number of rights and protections in my book.

My first set were clearly not people.

here and just point out the ridiculous dichotomy that exists in the mind of embryo-destruction proponents.

We get asked all the time the stupid question about the infant and the embryos, and the mythical fire, and the you-can-only-save-one scenario - when you pose that same ridiculous scenario to most anyone, and ask them you-can-only-save-one-who-would-you-save between a 90 year old man and a four year old boy, they'd pick the four year old, ostensibly because the 90-year-old is probably closer to kicking the bucket of natural causes anyway.

You pose the same question to them between a just-fertilized embryo and one that is five years older, and they somehow think they've disproved the humanity of embryos.

The utter disconnection from reality sometimes leads me to question whether all humans are, in fact, human.

But I'm concerned about a different class of people than they are.

With that to the side, I understand the concept of differentiated cells, thanks. Still doesn't say whether we have people on our hands or not. All it says is that some parts of the cell are switched on, and some not. (Yes, I know that's a simplification, but it's been ten years since embryonic microbiology on audit, and I'm not the one in my family with the specialty in that.)

I'm an ugly bag, as someone once said, of mostly water. At a certain level of remove, there are all sorts of questions about why I should be considered a person.

You're stuck, man. I know what you're getting at, but you're defending an entirely arbitrary, if somewhat logical, position. You know where this necessarily leads.

I feel for you, though. One of my kids looks just like me. Fortunately, I'm beginning to see some of Mom's traits in him, too.

If implanted in the womb, do they turn into cats? dogs? monkeys?  what?

I gave you a link yesterday with the National Academy of Sciences guidelines for human ESC research.  NIH should have a set too.  The bill calls for final guidelines from the Secretary of HHS within 60 days after passage of the bill.  That is the place to put in rules like you are asking about.

I told you yesterday I think people like you should be involved with overseeing this type of research.  The Secretary of HHS is a Bush appointee, if the bill somehow passes get him to put in ethical guidelines you are comfortable with.

Being younger makes the embryos non-people. Clearly. How could I have missed that?

How about I say, the kids are clearly not people to me? I mean, they're hardly developed whatsoever compared to the adults. I'll bet most of them can't even sign their own name, or procure basic food and shelter for themselves. Clearly, they are not people, or at least not people in the same sense that the adults are.

Clearly.

has already been declared irrelevant and poo pooed by all the ethical scientists out there who want to slice and dice babies.

I am having trouble wrapping my head around just what ethical standards I find appropriate given the fact that we are destroying children.

My first ethical standard flat out is I don't want tax dollars footing the bill, go beg money from investers, if the science is so wonderful-then somebody is going to pay for it, but don't ask me to foot the bill for this.

My ethical standard is lets not do it, and my next ethical standard is there shouldn't be open access to any and all embryos-slated for destruction or not.  But then the scientists would throw a hissy fit, if we limited the destruction to only a few new cell lines, because they want them all, and they want them now.

You believe they should be afforded the same protections.  I can respect but disagree with that opinion.

Using dishonest and deceptive language like referring to them as children, babies, kids, etc. Is that the best you can do to argue against this research?

And no I don't think the Hitler references are going to work either.

Are you the final arbiter on the usage of the English language? Have you become the ethical goalpost we must all measure ourselves against?

No matter how forcefully you assert that something is so, it does not become so, dissension in the ranks. You've ceased to establish anything to prove your contention other than the fact that the embryos are not as well-developed. Which, as I've already pointed out, is not such a great argument.

Thomas IS being honest according to his view of the world, and you calling him a liar because you don't agree with it isn't helpful.

The good thing about a democracy is we mostly get to decide these issues.  At the moment it looks like most Americans agree with me and most Senators and Congressmen.  But the President agrees with you.  

See you at the polls!

(I am just assuming it is pointless to catalog all the important very obvious differences between a blastocyst and a person, child or adult, since I think most people are clear on this already.)

more to insist that they can't be children or babies?

Sort of reminds me of how the pro choice crowd insists that baby in the womb is a fetus, as if that somehow makes it not really a baby.

Sure those cells don't look like a baby, but you find me the human that wasn't at some point a blastocyst, and we can talk about whether or not they aren't actually humans.

or respond to anything ever again that contains the phrase "slice and dice babies", etc.  You know and Thomas and everyone else, including the majority of Americans, knows that they are not babies.  

If you don't want to have an honest discussion that's fine.  

I don't want to have a dishonest one.  

So we're done.

In calling a pre-adolescent human a child.

You don't think they're kids, or indeed, even people. Fine. As near as I can figure, your definition of person is based on a certain number of cells, or at a certain but not final level of cellular development. So be it. But let's not quibble about what doors are opened when that's an acceptable basis for deciding when a person exists and when one does not.

If the truth won't stop this -- and remember, that's my thesis above -- then I have nothing left.

That Thomas doesn't actually believe what he says, and that he is deliberately lying in order to make a political point?

Is it not possible that someone has a fundamentally different view of the world than yours, or are we all just liars involved in some bizarre power grab?

And I'm a little irked that you'd call my basic honesty into question that way.

....and the concurrent indignation and assumption of dishonesty when the first assumption is shown false?

Well.

There is help.

because your stated beliefs about the personhood of embryos strongly suggest an answer, and yet you seem unable to bring yourself to give that answer. It suggests that you are less confident than you claim to be that embryos are people and that using them in scientific research that will destroy them, is no different from using an infant in that matter. It suggests a damn near universal intuition that people share, that a blastocyst is not an infant. And you people utterly refuse to deal with that possibility, because you prefer the moral satisfaction of deeming your political opponents to be child murderers to a serious discussion of the issue or attempt to persuade them of your position--let alone considering the possibility that you may be wrong.

It is not a perfect analogy, of course, but the stem cell debate is a situation where we have the choice of doing medical research on embryos or allowing people whose humanity is not in question to die. It's just not imminent. On the other hand, the embryos aren't even being killed specifically to save them; it is entirely possible to restrict it to embryos that will be otherwise destroyed or frozen indefinitely.

I flatly don't believe that any of you have ever answered this question (as opposed to explaining why you won't answer it); if you had it would be simple enough to repeat the answer or refer me to it.

You lack the courage of your convictions. You lack the honesty to deal with the fundamental question in this debate. The pro-choice movement does it sometimes too by the way--they simply assume without proving that the fetus is not a child and no one could possibly believe in good faith that a fetus is a child. And Roe assumes without proving that a fetus is not a child until the end of the second trimester.

Extremists like them, and you, have utterly poisoned the debate on this issue and it's having terrible effects on this country. And I am really freaking sick of it.

They honestly believe that they are, on some level. They just completely refuse to accept the fact that others honestly believe that they're not babies.

And one presumes you're off to offer pro bono legal counsel for every suspected terrorist who faces rendition. Forever.

We're not here as your in-house research assistants. We're not here to repeat multi-paragraph answers we've given time and time again. And we're assuredly not here to answer stupid questions that don't even touch and concern, if you will, the very subject that our latest interlocutor believes she's asking about.

But that doesn't mean we have to think they're right.

that a majority of the country believes in good faith and with a fair bit of evidence that they're not babies, and they will not acknowledge that there's a real argument there even for the sake of arguing against it.

Is that I've heretofore been fairly solidly against torture, and leery of extraordinary rendition. However, so utterly specious are your arguments that I'm not going to have to revisit those positions. Congratulations.

You don't just refuse to concede we're right. You refuse to concede any possibility of good faith, considered belief on our part, or we couldn't be murderers--at worst we could be guilty of negligent homicide. You refuse to seriously discuss the question of whether we're right or you're right; you refuse to discuss the evidence. You compare the belief that a blastocyst isn't a person to the belief that a Jew or a racial minority isn't a person, as if they're indistinguishable beliefs, as if it's as obvious that a blastocyst is a person as that my relatives are--and you say that such beliefs shouldn't be dignified with a response. It's quite a bit more than disagreeing.

Whether torture and rendition are morally justifiable or not has approximately nothing to do with my position on stem cells. You know that very well. And to the extent that you were basing your previous beliefs on the subject based on reading stuff I wrote--which I would think was very little--there are more than enough citations to independent sources that you could use to verify the factual questions. I also kind of doubt that you ever had or ever will actually ever DO anything as a result of whatever qualms you had about these policies. But either you will or you won't; it has very little to do with either of us thinks of the other.

You don't just refuse to concede we're right.

When you are, I'll concede. Until then, I won't.

You refuse to concede any possibility of good faith, considered belief on our part, or we couldn't be murderers--at worst we could be guilty of negligent homicide.

I would humbly suggest you re-read the initial story.

You refuse to seriously discuss the question of whether we're right or you're right; you refuse to discuss the evidence.

No, I refuse to revisit the same freaking arguments a billion times over. In other words, despite what you clearly believe: You're not special.

You compare the belief that a blastocyst isn't a person to the belief that a Jew or a racial minority isn't a person, as if they're indistinguishable beliefs, as if it's as obvious that a blastocyst is a person as that my relatives are

I simply point out that historically fair minded people of good will have classified groups of humans as non-persons, and that the results have been horrible. I also pointed out, in a comment for which you apparently have no answer, that your "manifest" and "self-evident" assertions of personhood in any group of humans are anything but. You may infer from that what you wish.

you say that such beliefs shouldn't be dignified with a response

No, I say that I'm not your research and writing assistant. There's a key difference.

It's quite a bit more than disagreeing.

Yes, there is. One of us isn't advocating the deliberate extinction of millions.

Again and again.

And actually, I just worry that if someone with your obvious reasoning impairments is so adamantly against rendition and torture, then there may be some merit to those practices after all.

I prefer to focus on those who are most helpless. I find it utterly typical of a liberal to toss them aside while spending inordinate energy on the not so defenseless, then castigating us for not sharing her profound commitment to her keyboard.

you're arguing that blastocysts manifestly are people, rather than that Jews aren't manifestly people. But the idea that one can be debated as reasonably as the other is offensive and insane, and the reason you're losing this debate.

I assume you find it safe to concede that sperm and egg are not people, so what exactly makes you utterly certain beyond any doubt that a person is formed the moment that a sperm meets and egg? What makes you certain that there is no person a moment before, and there is a person at the moment of fertilization?

we are right.

Your insistence that it is "just a blastocyst" and "blastocysts aren't human" pretty much means you know we are right.

They want human embryos because they are human, their value to scientists is that they are human, but in order to justify destroying them they must deny they are what they are.

Nope I would say in the end it is you who refuses to concede.

and if you accept the premise that embryos are people, there's a 10-1, 40-1, or 100-1 difference in the number of people.

From what I know of him Thomas is an exceptionally honest and decent man.

The word human blastocyst quite precisely describes the thing that has been proposed as a source for ES cells.  The word baby to me describes a human infant.  Why use one word when the other is more precise and more correct?

If I told you "I keep my kids in the freezer to keep them from thawing out."  What would you think?  Similarly, if I said "Babies don't have heads, or arms, or legs, or hearts, or brains,..." wouldn't it be better to call the thing to which I refer by its actual name?  A blastocyst?

You yourself, Leon, have diaried on the importance of how an issue or position is referred to.  Also, I have seen people here bristle at being called "anti-abortion" instead of "Pro-life".  Do you find it any small wonder that I would bristle at essentially being called "baby killer!" for wanting to use the most promising resource available for helping certain sick people?  

A resource that, even if it should be treated with equal respect and rights as a person, is in fact not treated that way?  Imagine I am suffering from heart failure and need a transplant, some fool gets drunk and wraps his car around a tree leaving him brain dead with a perfectly good heart that will suit me just fine.  Should I refuse to accept the generous offer, by his family, of that resource to save my own or another's life simply because that guy did not respect his own life?

Why should I refuse to make use of a blastocyst that some couple has acquired through a too successful effort to produce children and they are going to have thrown in the trash, flushed down a toilet, or burned in an incinerator otherwise?

and the baby was little more than a blastocyst, I didn't tell my husband I had a blastocyst in my womb, or an embryo, or a fetus, we pretty much called it a baby from the very minute we knew I was pregnant.

So yeah, I don't think it is a misnomer to call it a baby.

"Tacitus".

You want me to answer an actually relevant question? It's disappointing that I'll have to ask it as well, but here we go:

Self: Do you think that an embryo every bit as much of a person as an infant?

Self: Yes, self, it is.

There you have it. We've stayed true to the discussion, and I've answered something at least tangential to what you were asking, except it applies to what we are talking about.

The stupid "embryos in a fire" question brings in a bunch of other scenarios such as, "Could I reasonably expect these embryos to survive outside of cryogenic stasis for long enough for them to live anyway?" or, "Can I lift a flippin' freezer by myself?" or, "Is it easier to see the suffering of the infant who is being burned alive?"

All of those are germane questions to the "Will I save the embryos or the infant" question, but essentially worthless to the question of whether an embryo is a person or not. Thus, while I will answer a relevant question with an emphatic yes, I will not muddle the waters of this discussion by engaging in useless hypotheticals.

The question is not whether or not you and I disagree about the personhood of an embryo. Clearly, we do.

The question is not further whether terminology is important. Clearly, it is.

The question is whether it is possible for Thomas to honestly believe that the embryos are kids, and to thusly call them that - or whether he is automatically "lying" if he does so.

If I told you "I keep my kids in the freezer to keep them from thawing out."  What would you think?

Personally, I'd wonder what you were messing with that you had multiple kids that would fit in a freezer, but here we're getting into the ethics of IVF, which is OT to this discussion.

it's sort of the nature of arguing.

Stop playing the semantic game of deliberately confusing human as an adjective, as in "human cells" or "human tissue", with human as a noun synonymous with "person" or "human being". I agree that a blastocyst is human in the sense that the human egg and a human sperm are human; I disagree that it is a human being or a person.

It is human tissue that has barely begun a nine month process of becoming a person (assuming it is is in the womb and will successfully implant) or that has potential to become a person if unfrozen and successfully implanted in the uterine lining, and is so close to one end of that continuum that we can reasonably conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that this is not a person with the same moral claim on us as an infant or a 6 month old fetus or a 3 month old fetus or a 90 year old.

But the idea that one can be debated as reasonably as the other is offensive and insane

And while we're at it, how about this diagnosis, too:

you're losing this debate

(Viola! Reality ex nihilo!)

and is so close to one end of that continuum that we can reasonably conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that this is not a person with the same moral claim on us as an infant or a 6 month old fetus or a 3 month old fetus or a 90 year old.

I think claiming the conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the baby is in fact not a human/person/whatever you want it to be since you get to put the line wherever you please in order to accomplish whatever desires you want is presuming much.

I can reasonable conclude that knowing exactly when a baby is a baby and deserving of rights isn't knowable, and ethically I think it is best to avoid playing God.

though you are really only saying it's unknowable between fertilization and birth, presumably.

I think it's unknowable when the moment occurs, if there is a moment which I strongly doubt, and yet we also know that it progresses towards personhood every day. Every minute really.

Here's the thing though: you're also playing God if you say "let's err on the side of life." You are playing God if you won't let a rape victim take plan B. You are playing God if you tell couples that they must have all frozen embryos implanted in the woman's uterus, or give them up for adoption; if you tell couples they may not use IVF in an attempt to conceive; if you want to forbid stem cell research by law or give or deny it funding.

If your position leads you to support limiting access to the morning after pill or to oral contraception, it is entirely possible that a pregnancy that could have been prevented by preventing ovulation (the main way these pills work) will instead be ended in abortion. If your position leads you to oppose abortion even when the woman's life or health is threatened, you are playing God with her life.

There is no decision one can make without a moral cost and without a potential to cause or hasten a person's death, or increase a person's suffering. Not if you're talking about passing laws, which decide for others as well as ourselves.

So one has to decide, and that is why I say "reasonable doubt" and "moral certainty" rather than "no doubt."

playing God is assuming the role of God.

All the things you list-abortion for a rape victim (and that is in reality another diary, feel free to go start one), the issue of IVF and why we have so many embryos slated to die is all because somebody decided to play God.

I don't think that babies of any developmental stage deserve to be sacrificed on the altar of science.

Feel free to practice your modern day child sacrifice, but I would prefer that you keep your hand out of my pocket while you are at it.

"You would certainly be correct if all people agreed that these embryos were indeed human life.  Not all people agree on this point.  And it is certainly possible that you are correct that they are indeed human life.  But by saying "You are evil and killing innocent humans" the only thing you achieve is widening the divide. "

We kill innocent human life everyday and we know it before we do it.  We call it collateral damage.  We kill people that never did anything to us.

imho,

Stanford  

for two posts. I see you've abruptly gone from saying you don't know and believe it unknowable when an embryo/fetus becomes a person, to accusing me of child murder. Tra la la.

"Someone else played God first" is a cop out; the point is the effect of YOUR actions--and I think there is moral responsibility for unintended but entirely foreseeable consequences as well as intended consequences. Many people who are pro-choice don't want women to choose to have abortions out of convenience, but since they obviously will occur if early term abortion on demand is legal, the people who support abortion rights bear some of the responsibility for it.

We live in a world where there are rapes, where there are ectopic pregnancies, where there are already many frozen embryos that have already been created and will remain frozen indefinitely or be destroyed regardless of our position on stem cell research. I have never said that I support creating embryos for the purpose of stem cell research.

How are you all so certain that a blastula is a person, but that a sperm, an egg, a teratoma, or a brain-dead person are not?

Really, really well done.  (You should get someone to pay you for this stuff.)

We learned the importance of a consistent, reasonable message. We learned the importance of working within the political system. We learned the importance of grass-roots organization, and message crafting, and listening to our fellow Americans for the best way to present our arguments to them.

Couldn't agree more.  In light of the above, what are the differences between the abortion message and the embryonic stem cell research message?  Or are they just the same?

We must advertise the science of human life. We must remind people that the difference between an embryo on the cutting line and one on the way to becoming a baby is merely coincidental location. Men may be depraved, but they have better angels to whom we can appeal over time.

I think this is going to be a tougher sell than abortion, certainly due in part to one of the things you mention here--the increasing fear of death and the potential benefit people are hoping for.  This desperation/rationalization cycle doesn't operate to nearly the same degree for most people when they think about abortion where it's easier to say, "This is a person."

Just from a presentation standpoint, do you think it's likely to be more quickly effective to focus on personhood in the abortion arena primarily, first?  If the Baby Boomers, and their money, and their sense of impending doom, and to a lesser extent, the general public--feel like this is permissible and in fact to be encouraged--might there be the risk of setbacks in the pro-life movement that come from associations to opposition to embryonic stem cell research?  If you're right about the way abortion is going here currently (and I believe and hope that you are), people are coming around to the idea that embryos are people--but maybe not at the very earliest stages.

Or would working on shaping the debate first and foremost in the abortion arena allow things to go too far down the slippery slope of accepting stem cell research?

That got kind of muddled.  To put it (I hope) more succinctly: Does it make sense to try to shift opinions toward the personhood of the unborn primarily in the area of abortion now, where it seems like things are going in the right direction, with the hopes that a public who thinks the unborn are people will be more easy to convince that this sort of human experimentation is immoral?  Or is it incumbent to fight stem cell research and abortion simultaneously, resigned to losing on the research in the short run--because to do otherwise would be dishonest, dangerous, and immoral?

(Apologies for jumping so late into this thread--we're moving, so at home I don't have the internet yet, and at work I haven't had the time to get on RS.)

No, I'm saying that there is no one who is "manifestly" a person, under your and indeed, most reasonings. Pay attention.

I am certain that the instant of conception produces a person because it produces a human. All humans are persons. I say this both out of religious belief, and because I'm very frightened of classifying any group of humans as non-persons. Our track record when dealing with humans-who-are-not-persons is not exactly a cause for relaxation.