Laura Bush vs. Science

LOL, I suggest you actually read your own chicken little argument. It doesn't say that Bush's reasonable plan has hurt stem cell research at all, it uses a lot of "mays" and "coulds" and statements from unammed "researchers". The few cited quotes are contradictory, and has an NBC correspondent cited as to the life of stem cells!

I've got a brilliant idea, let the research continue until these "maybes" play out and become something other than chicken little soundbites from ABB college proffs and reporters.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

no you don't, you are a liar!!!!

you've lost me completely dys.......

0 Replies

Gala wrote:

....if someone close to you came down with a disease that stem cell research could prevent, would you still feel this way?

If you were dying and your family was too poor to afford a medicine that would cure you, if I stole some from a pharmacy for you, would you refuse to take it? What about if a family member were dying?

The fact that someone might allow something he believes is immoral under great duress, does not mean that he does think it's moral. It means that he's under great duress.

0 Replies

Still waiting to find out what's immoral.

0 Replies

ehbeth, immoral not unlike un-natural is what other people do as opposed to moral and natual being what you do. At least that's how I use the terms.

0 Replies

Quote:

The way Reagan described it at the convention (didn't hear it, but read the speech online) it appeared to me that unfertilized eggs would be used, and the nucleus would be replaced with a cell from the person needing the new organ, skin graft, or whatever they need it to be.

What Reagan described -- and whoever wrote and/or edited the speech did a shite job on the science -- is actually cloning (somatic nuclear transfer). This is what was done with Dolly the sheep and some other animals, including the human embryos they've cloned in North Korea. Cloning is thus far an even thornier issue than cultivating stem cell lines from discarded embryos or from the germ cells of aborted fetuses. Nuclear transfer still creates a hypothetically viable embryo (a lot of kinks have yet to be worked out), only in this instance it is genetically identical to the nuclear donor. It's also fantastically expensive: N. Korea was able to get their clones by brute force of numbers -- by pooling national resources and trying over and over again with a supply of eggs larger than anything researchers in other countries could dream of.

I've gotta say, I was pissed off when I saw the speech, just because it was so fuzzily inaccurate.

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

Still waiting to find out what's immoral.

Wait no longer. At: http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=30906&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=40

Brandon9000 wrote:

1. It's not really the stem cells that are the focus of the argument. It's where they come from. Generally embryonic stem cells have been obtained in two different ways: one is from germ cells from aborted fetuses and the other is from cells from embryos not used in IVF. In the former case, one ethical issue is that of cooperation with abortion, which some people regard as inherently evil. Also, it has been proposed to clone embryos to assure a steady supply. Many people believe that deliberately creating human life, only to mine it for spare parts is immoral. Whether you agree with this or not, it's not petty. Also, your assertion that this opinion is always based on religion is false, since, I, myself, am an atheist....

0 Replies

patiodog wrote:

I've gotta say, I was pissed off when I saw the speech, just because it was so fuzzily inaccurate.

I was disappointed too. I guess he chose the cloning scenario to play down the use of embryos in the process. As I recall it from watching Reagan's speech on cspan.org, he repeatedly emphasised phrases like "these cells taken from your body, containing your DNA ..." The implication seemed clear: This is your material, so you ought to be in charge of what happens to it, and it's none of George Bush's business. Never mind that Reagan's underlying scenario was science fiction, with the emphasis on fiction, not on science.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Many people believe that deliberately creating human life, only to mine it for spare parts is immoral. Whether you agree with this or not, it's not petty. Also, your assertion that this opinion is always based on religion is false, since, I, myself, am an atheist....

If you are an atheist, then on what do you base your conclusion that a fertilized embryo is a human life?

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Many people believe that deliberately creating human life, only to mine it for spare parts is immoral. Whether you agree with this or not, it's not petty. Also, your assertion that this opinion is always based on religion is false, since, I, myself, am an atheist....

If you are an atheist, then on what do you base your conclusion that a fertilized embryo is a human life?

The word life is not clearly enough defined to provide much assistance in such a discussion, and, since it is not central to my argument, I will just say this. The creation of a human embryo, which is beginning to function as it develops, and which has the probable capacity to become a human being, only to take it apart for spare components strikes me as immoral. Please don't ask me to prove that it is immoral, since that is a personal subjective thing not subject to proof. People decide which public policies to support or oppose based on their ideas about ethics, and this is how I feel.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Many people believe that deliberately creating human life, only to mine it for spare parts is immoral. Whether you agree with this or not, it's not petty. Also, your assertion that this opinion is always based on religion is false, since, I, myself, am an atheist....

If you are an atheist, then on what do you base your conclusion that a fertilized embryo is a human life?

I can't speak for Brandon, but I've heard atheists argue that there is no obvious line you can draw, but protecting human life is by far the most important ethical rule there is, so you want to err on the safe side. Drawing the line at conception is the only line that will guarantee that no human lives will be terminated, assuming the rule is followed. I don't agree with this, but it's a consistent position that can be defended by reasonable people, and it doesn't depend on religion.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Many people believe that deliberately creating human life, only to mine it for spare parts is immoral. Whether you agree with this or not, it's not petty. Also, your assertion that this opinion is always based on religion is false, since, I, myself, am an atheist....

If you are an atheist, then on what do you base your conclusion that a fertilized embryo is a human life?

What does religion have to do with a zygote?

0 Replies

Thomas,

My understanding is that every time they do in vitro fertilization, they generally throw away a number of fertilized eggs. And that these pre-embryos can be used in stem cell research.

Since these fertilized cells are being discarded regardless, isn't it worse to waste them, than to gain as a species from their existence?

I don't understanding what is being "protected" in this case.

White House Press Release wrote:

My administration must decide whether to allow federal funds, your tax dollars, to be used for scientific research on stem cells derived from human embryos. A large number of these embryos already exist. They are the product of a process called in vitro fertilization, which helps so many couples conceive children. When doctors match sperm and egg to create life outside the womb, they usually produce more embryos than are planted in the mother. Once a couple successfully has children, or if they are unsuccessful, the additional embryos remain frozen in laboratories.

Thomas wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Many people believe that deliberately creating human life, only to mine it for spare parts is immoral. Whether you agree with this or not, it's not petty. Also, your assertion that this opinion is always based on religion is false, since, I, myself, am an atheist....

If you are an atheist, then on what do you base your conclusion that a fertilized embryo is a human life?

I can't speak for Brandon, but I've heard atheists argue that there is no obvious line you can draw, but protecting human life is by far the most important ethical rule there is, so you want to err on the safe side. Drawing the line at conception is the only line that will guarantee that no human lives will be terminated, assuming the rule is followed. I don't agree with this, but it's a consistent position that can be defended by reasonable people, and it doesn't depend on religion.

0 Replies

Jer wrote:

My understanding is that every time they do in vitro fertilization, they generally throw away a number of fertilized eggs. And that these pre-embryos can be used in stem cell research.

I would wager that the people who have a problem with stem cell research also have a problem with this practice.

Jer wrote:

Since these fertilized cells are being discarded regardless, isn't it worse to waste them, than to gain as a species from their existence?

Two points here: First of all, those fertilized cells may be a byproduct of in-vitro fertilization now. But if stem cell research is going to fulfill its promise, we can't assume things to stay that way because this will greatly increase the demand for these cells. Second, opponents of stem cell research may well grant you that its better if they humanity benefits from these fertilized eggs, given that they'll die anyway. But they are not willing to take this as a given, so the point is moot for them.

Again, I'm just describing other people's viewpoint here; my personal opinion agrees with yours.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Again, I'm just describing other people's viewpoint here; my personal opinion agrees with yours.

Which is why I'll withhold comment until Brandon explains his own position -- notwithstanding your excellent insights, Thomas.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Thomas wrote:
Again, I'm just describing other people's viewpoint here; my personal opinion agrees with yours.

Which is why I'll withhold comment until Brandon explains his own position -- notwithstanding your excellent insights, Thomas.

I did. See the last post on the previous page.

0 Replies

My apologies, Brandon, I skipped right past this:

Brandon9000 wrote:

The word life is not clearly enough defined to provide much assistance in such a discussion, and, since it is not central to my argument, I will just say this. The creation of a human embryo, which is beginning to function as it develops, and which has the probable capacity to become a human being, only to take it apart for spare components strikes me as immoral. Please don't ask me to prove that it is immoral, since that is a personal subjective thing not subject to proof. People decide which public policies to support or oppose based on their ideas about ethics, and this is how I feel.

Well, I won't ask you to prove your position, since you clearly don't base your position on anything more than your personal preferences. Furthermore, such a position cannot form the basis for the Bush administration's refusal to fund research on post-August-2001 stem cell lines. So I guess that leaves us back where we started.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

My apologies, Brandon, I skipped right past this:

Brandon9000 wrote:
The word life is not clearly enough defined to provide much assistance in such a discussion, and, since it is not central to my argument, I will just say this. The creation of a human embryo, which is beginning to function as it develops, and which has the probable capacity to become a human being, only to take it apart for spare components strikes me as immoral. Please don't ask me to prove that it is immoral, since that is a personal subjective thing not subject to proof. People decide which public policies to support or oppose based on their ideas about ethics, and this is how I feel.

Well, I won't ask you to prove your position, since you clearly don't base your position on anything more than your personal preferences. Furthermore, such a position cannot form the basis for the Bush administration's refusal to fund research on post-August-2001 stem cell lines. So I guess that leaves us back where we started.

How am I supposed to form my ethics, using differential equations? Although logic may be used in deducing consequences and corollaries of one's fundamental ethical beliefs, the fundamental beliefs themselves are always based either on feelings or religion. For you to attempt to mock something so ordinary is very funny.

As to your second statement, frankly I think this sort of reasoning was probably the exact basis for Bush's decison. Science and scientific research should not be separated from ethics. I think the Nazis have been frequently condemned for something along those lines.

0 Replies

New York Times.

Britain Grants License to Make Human Embryos for Stem Cells
By HEATHER TIMMONS

Published: August 12, 2004

ONDON, Aug. 11 - British regulators on Wednesday issued the country's first license to use cloning techniques to generate a human embryo to produce stem cells that might be used for the treatment of disease.
The one-year license was granted to researchers at the Newcastle Center for Life, in northern England, who hope to develop tissues that will treat diabetes, Alzheimer's and other diseases
The license allows them to insert cell nuclei taken from a patient's skin into human eggs from which the nuclei have been removed, a process known as therapeutic cloning. Stem cells created as the embryo grows can be converted to cells of the tissue type the donor needs repaired.
Stem cell research is controversial because the embryo must be destroyed to harvest the cells. A 2001 Bush administration decision limits researchers using federal money to existing stem cell lines. In July, the French Parliament banned human cloning for any purpose.
Three years ago, Britain became the first country to allow therapeutic cloning; Newcastle has won the country's first license. In February, South Korean scientists became the first to create a human embryo for therapeutic research.
Scientists involved in the Newcastle project say they hope to find some cures rapidly through therapeutic cloning.
"In 5 or 10 years, we'd like to be in a position where a patient with Parkinson's or diabetes could come to us, and we could take a skin cell from them and reprogram it," said Alison Murdoch of Newcastle's fertility center. Reinserting the altered cell could cure the disease

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/12/science/12clone.html

0 Replies

Acquiunk wrote:

In 5 or 10 years, we'd like to be in a position where a patient with Parkinson's or diabetes could come to us, and we could take a skin cell from them and reprogram it," said Alison Murdoch of Newcastle's fertility center. Reinserting the altered cell could cure the disease

Scientists say a lot when they apply for research grants. I'm not buying the time frame. But thanks for the pointer!

0 Replies

Laura Bush vs. Science

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know