OT: Stem Cell Research - fer it or agin it?

Republicans are hypocrits. They claim to be for small government, personal freedom and individual rights yet are the first to curtail those rights when it suits their purposes. In this case its religon getting in the way of common sense or who has control of ones own body or cells. Furthermore, they are anti-science much like the luddites of the 19th century. They would like to stop abortion and stem cell research altogether but so far can only curtail funding in those and other areas they don't agree with. But, maybe it's time for the US to lose its primier position in the sciences and pass the baton to Korea and China where the research can coninue without intervention of the scientifically challenged religious nut cases.

Already happened.

Rich, I think you've confused their rationale with the proposal. No one opposes stem cell research per se. The controversy is over federal funding of such research when it uses stem cells from embryos, just like the "no federal funds for abortion" philosophy.

The fear, AIUI, is that people will start having babies, grinding them up, and using them for spare parts.

GWB's deal (exec. order?) prohibited federal funding for stem cell research using embryonic cells, EXCEPT for embryonic cells taken from certain already existing supplies. All such research is still allowed--even using dead-baby cells--as long as it's privately funded.

Universities object, of course, since their work is typically taxpayer supported.

James Arthur

Saw the whole thing (Tim Russert "interviewing" candidates for Maryland Senatorial race) this morning on TV in Tombstone while waiting for the wife to get dressed.

Though I don't agree, the Republican (Steele) was only against Federal funding, but WAS for stem cell research.

The Democrat (incumbent), as usual, hemmed and hawed all over the place... maybe he'll lose ;-)

Bob Eld, Did you actually see the "interview", or you just spouting the usual Democrat platitudes?

You do know that word "platitude" don't you: "Bald-faced lies wrapped up in the flowery language of political correctness" ?:-)

...Jim Thompson

embryo,

personal

when

they

like

maybe

pass

No I didn't see the interview. These are my "platitudes." Sorry you think they are bold face lies, but they hardly are. Big science requires big funding including federal funding. Funding restrictions are a trap where the repug government will deny funding for all of a labs activities even if the stem cell stuff is private. In order to keep them separate everthing in a lab including scopes, lab equipment, benches, etc. has to separate, a great duplication and waste. As a tax payer, I want my money to go to such funding even if you don't. I want a progressive government that is behind, believes in and funds science. In contrast, I do not want a government that funds useless destructive WAR with my tax money. Especially an ill-concieved, go nowwhere, for nothing war that that has nothing to do with any threat, real or imagined against the US. Can you imagine what great good could from even a tiny fraction of the $Billion per week the US spends in Iraq if that money were directed towards science, engineering and development instead of fighting hapless Arabs. The US is on the wrong track, a track that leads to the continued distruction of America's position in the world, sad to say. Bob

Jim's style of platitude leaves off the flowery language of political correctness - "If we rounded up all leftist weenies into concentration camps, it'd be a better world ;-)" - but does include the bald-face lie, since the best evidence shows that what you have to do to improve your bit of the world is to round up your leftist weenies and put them in charge.

What you need is an acid test such as me coming along and saying.....

'All that pea stuff might have been hot stuff back in the old days but he didn't write any good operas'.

DNA

Own cells? Whose cells are a fertilized egg?

When does it become a person with rights of its own? Is it OK for your mother to kill you when you're, say, 4? 40?

John

When you let people do whatever they want, you get Woodstock.

When you let governments do whatever they want, you get Auschwitz.

-- Doug Newman

The mother's.

When it makes its first sound.

Generally no. What does your mother tell you?

So the father has no rights?

So we can tape its little mouth and nose in utero, let it be born, and let it die.

John

Only to pay for it.

Pretty sick puppy aren't you?

Stand back! I'm going to let loose fertilization of all them cells ;-)

...Jim Thompson

I was giving an example that seems conformant with your (snipped) "when it makes its first sound." There are lots of other ways to prevent that first sound. Like, for example, you could inject poison into an 8-month fetus, again still in utero. Is that OK, in the formal sense of "should that be legal?"

John

It still is.

Then I suppose it should be legal to poison a fetus 20 minutes before it would be naturally born. Or to give the pregnant woman drugs to supress birth a few weeks beyond when it would have naturally occurred, and poison the thing in that interval.

John

Not really - his investment in the embryo is minimal.

You can't, but it makes sense to accept that its mother can - the alternative is not no abortion, but illegal abortion, with the same sorts of consequences as any other kind of prohibition.

Fine. It isn't a pleasant consequnece of a sensible and enforceable set of rules about abortion, but the alternatives are more unpleasant (when looked at from the appropriate points of view).

One of the unpleasant side effects of your line of arguement is that a matter of life and death for the mother and the unwanted fetus becomes a matter for discussiion between lawyers and judges who have no direct or personal interest in the situation, not to mention the occasional theologian, who is even more out of it.

I've expressed no viewpoint of my own. I'm just trying to clarify the bounds, if any, of Homer's position. And for the sake of simplicity, let's assume that the mother's life is not endangered by the pregnancy, so the state's interest is limited to protecting the lives of young people, which of course involves defining when they become people.

(Is "when does life begin" not a theological issue?)

John