Wouldn't it also lower the tax burden of all Americans if cures were found and we didn't have to treat terminal illnesses for years upon years?
I know Pabby is all about saving the extra $.25 on his taxes, so this argument should suit his needs.
Wouldn't it also lower the tax burden of all Americans if cures were found and we didn't have to treat terminal illnesses for years upon years?
I know Pabby is all about saving the extra $.25 on his taxes, so this argument should suit his needs.
And since Adult Stem Cell research is already proven successful (70+ treatments developed already from ASC research.. 0 treatments from ESC research), we should logically focus on the former.
Isn't your argument against government supported medical research in general then instead of embryonic stem cell research? Basically I don't see why you support specifically discriminating against embryonic stem cell research if this is your objection. If anything I would think you should have the opposite position since highly artificial restrictions on embryonic stem cell research funding create a situation even further away from a free market type situation.
dullard
Elite Member
- May 21, 2001
- 26,042
- 4,688
- 126
The keys that you are missing are:
(1) Private people and companies WILL fund it once stem cell work has been proven to be profitable. They simply need a few successful trials, and private funding will come in floods. Just because a researcher at XYZ university has discovered a cure, doesn't mean that researcher has the ability to mass produce and market that cure. No, instead, private venture capital money will flow towards it, companies will form, and private buisnesses and individuals will take over what the government funded up to that point.
(2) There are some things that the government is the only way to fund it. The national highway system wouldn't/couldn't be funded by private funds. Sure they can build a toll road here or there, but privately the whole network that we have wouldn't/couldn't have been built. Same goes for military protection, fundamental research, and dozens of other areas.
(3) Much of the innovation DOES come from private people, individual researchers, and private companies. Remember, it is these individuals who come up with the ideas, who write the grants explaining why the idea is good, and who do the work. All the government does is to dole out money to (a) good ideas and (b) ideas of friends whether they are good or not.
Sure, I'd love to end 3(b), but for the most part things are good.
Clearly this is an exercise in badly flawed logic given adult stem cell research has been a viable field with research going on for decades while embryonic stem cell research has only been going on since 1998 when scientific breakthroughs made it a viable field. Given the amount of time it takes to perform research and engage in animal trials before reaching humans, you wouldn't have expected many treatments to reach human trials by now. Draconian restrictions on government funding have further harmed the advancement of this research.
Basically we have religious fundimentalists trying to advance bogus but scientific sounding arguments and logic to trick the American public in believing that embryonic stem cell research is not a promising and important area of medical research.
My premise tries to account for the vitality and fitness of absolute thinking while leaving a door open for rational exceptions, a hopeless task, probably. You are trying to suggest a rational alternative to another easily accepted absolute, the powerful and persuasive concept that life begins at conception. It is merely a compelling idea that does not grant sanctity to the two living cells before they meet, but says something special happens when they do. It is at once silly but sound and makes tremendous logical sense. It has all the characteristics needed for an absolute, in my opinion, but one that again creates rational conflicts, such as a woman should be prisoner to the accident of her biology.
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
At the end of the day you, the OP, have the answer to your question
Some people have strong ethical/moral opposition to it. It's that simple.
Many can't understand that. Just like many can't understand the position that it's eithical/moral to extend marriage to gays.
Neither side can, or is unwilling, to respect the others' beliefs. Both sides are so certain of their own "correctness" they dismiss disagreement from the other with childish epitaths.
The first thing people in this country need to do is learn how to "agree to disagree civily".
Fern
Clearly you can make no reasonable argument that embroyonic stem cells are deserving of the same rights as human beings that is not religious in nature. In fact you're basically justifying a exclusively Christian theology for such a view because even most Jews believe that either a embryo has no soul until its born and takes it first breath, or at the minimum some time significantly after implanting itself within a uterus. (A stage well after the one in which embronic stem cells are utilized.) You obviously want to turn the US into effectively a Christian theocracy, because otherwise there is effectively no difference between embryonic stem cells and an amoeba for instance.
The unproven assertion is extremely stupid. All research is unproven to a degree otherwise there is no need to perform it in the first place if you have already completely established what the results of the research will definately be. You can just as easily talk about unproven adult cell research now being performed. At best you can argue adult stem cell research is a more mature field, but this is no way makes a reasonable argument that we shouldn't be engaging in embryonic stem cell research as well. This sort of argument would basically thwart inovation almost entirely.
Human life begins at fertilization, where a single totipotent cell is created. Totipotent (stem) cells have the capacity to form an entire human body. Genetic science has proven this. Determining rights based on birth, trimester/week time periods, brain development, heart functions, uteran wall attachment, etc. are arbitrary designations not based on the science of the fertilization event, where the human life began.
See above. So far as I know, genetic scientists do not research souls. (Perhaps they should?)
Genetic experimentation without moral bounds is no different than Nazi's using Jews as lab rats. Liberals want the right to saw apart unborn 9 month old babies, but they do not want it discussed because of its obvious horrific and terrible nature. That a fertilized egg is much less developed and much smaller makes it no less human.. again, this is genetic science.
- Feb 6, 2002
- 39,349
- 32,857
- 136
I have yet seen an answer why throwing a frozen embryo in the garbage is better then experimenting on the same embryo where there may be a cure for disease?
Who those who are insisting life begins at conception...do you realize a heatbeat does not begin until an average of 5 weeks after conception. However take the reverse, I don't believe there has ever been a case of life if the heart has stopped for let's say 24 hours.
I'm not insisting that I have the absolute answer life begins when the heart starts beating but an argument can be made absent the lack of scientific evidence.
Who those who are insisting life begins at conception...do you realize a heatbeat does not begin until an average of 5 weeks after conception. However take the reverse, I don't believe there has ever been a case of life if the heart has stopped for let's say 24 hours.
I'm not insisting that I have the absolute answer life begins when the heart starts beating but an argument can be made absent the lack of scientific evidence.
A stem cell has the ability to differentiate into any cell in the human body and yes it can create a human. That doesn't mean that a plasma membrane with human DNA inside a nucleus (yes there is other stuff too, I know) is the equivalent of a human being with a conscious. EVERY SINGE CELL in your body contains the genetic instruction to construct you (however, they only express genetic instructions that are specific to their function) which means in theory they all have the potential of forming a human body if scientists come up with methods to utilize those instructions, AFAIK that?s how cloning works. Stem cells can be acquired from two places ? bone marrow (very expensive) and by joining a sperm and egg.
How is it any less moral to conduct this research on stem cells from bone marrow than it is to conduct research on the stems cell that formed when a sperm and an egg combined? The only difference between the two is that one contains the same genetic instructions as the person it was derived from while the other contains the genetic instruction from the two contributing partners. In affect, it goes down to a difference of a sequence of nucleotides.
The problem is that not enough republicans even understand what stem cell research is. The religious right assumes that when a sperm and egg join something ?magical? happens and divine light shines out of the uterus, through the virginal, and onto the floor under the woman who just conceived and went to the kitchen to get a glass of water after sex.
Humans are just complex chemical machines. That?s all we really are. What makes us unique is our conscious.
We can potentially grow entire organs from stem cells and save an enormous number of REAL human beings (the walking and talking ones). It?s a shame that once again (yes, this is not the first time) the republicans are trying to hinder the scientific research they don?t even understand.
How is it any less moral to conduct this research on stem cells from bone marrow than it is to conduct research on the stems cell that formed when a sperm and an egg combined? The only difference between the two is that one contains the same genetic instructions as the person it was derived from while the other contains the genetic instruction from the two contributing partners. In affect, it goes down to a difference of a sequence of nucleotides.
The problem is that not enough republicans even understand what stem cell research is. The religious right assumes that when a sperm and egg join something ?magical? happens and divine light shines out of the uterus, through the virginal, and onto the floor under the woman who just conceived and went to the kitchen to get a glass of water after sex.
Humans are just complex chemical machines. That?s all we really are. What makes us unique is our conscious.
We can potentially grow entire organs from stem cells and save an enormous number of REAL human beings (the walking and talking ones). It?s a shame that once again (yes, this is not the first time) the republicans are trying to hinder the scientific research they don?t even understand.
...evolution too. They seem to be the only ones that think it is ?just a theory? ?of course they got what exactly a theory means wrong too, lol.
Those frozen embryos are damaged and no longer useful. I have heard idiots like Rush Limbaugh say that we don?t need embryonic stem cells because we can get stem cells from bone marrow, leaving out the fact that this is more expensive.
It is not a matter of the technicalities of life. It is a matter of irrational feeling. Everybody knows instinctively that life begins at conception because it's then that you have the first potential of a uniques one-of-a-kind human being. The question, it seems to me, is whether we should make an exception to the sanctity of life by intentionally ending a life that will not be lived earlier that it would die naturally in the garbage or freezer for the potential benefit of research that might save others who are actually living. I see no way around the fact that the embryo is human and we are ending it's potential as a living human being. Anybody who does not face this fact, in my opinion, puts us for sure on a slippery slope where the taking of human life for new and other 'good reasons' becomes normal. Humanity is ill and when that illness flowers humanity itself is at risk.
theeedude
Lifer
- Feb 5, 2006
- 35,787
- 6,197
- 126
Not to forget that they thought AIDS was "gay cancer," and ignored it until it was too late. I mean these guys got every significant scientific or medical decision wrong as far as history goes. And we should trust them to get it right on stem cells when they tell us adult stem cells are enough?
Pluripotent and Multipotent stems cells can differentiate but do not have the capacity to form a human body. Your statements are missing facts and are unsubstantiated by genetic science.
So by the errors you made above, we should assume you are a Republican.
Human life begins at fertilization. Genetic science has proven this. There is nothing wrong with describing it as good, happy, or even magical.
Humans do not become self aware until years after their birth. If self awareness is required for having rights, then any child which cannot communicate his/her self awareness has no rights and can be killed at will by their parents or the government or eager liberal scientists.
But not the very young or very old, because they really don't matter that much and don't add to the well being of the walking and talking ones.
Care to elaborate on the "potential" of embryonic stem cell research? Because as I said before, adult stem cell research has already produced 70+ working treatments.
theeedude
Lifer
- Feb 5, 2006
- 35,787
- 6,197
- 126
Not all embryos are destined to become babies. Some are destined for that, others are destined for the biological waste incinerator at the clinic.
Now even if you believe that they are life, wouldn't you rather this life serve the purpose of helping others instead of being simply burned and disposed without serving any good?
Now even if you believe that they are life, wouldn't you rather this life serve the purpose of helping others instead of being simply burned and disposed without serving any good?
Stop misconstruing definitions. Totipotency represents the ability of the conceptus to form embryonic and extraembryonic tissues. Pluripotency represents the ability of the conceptus to only form embryonic tissues. Thus, your definition is not even close to the scientifically accepted version. Pluripotent cells have the ability to form the entire human body, but cannot form the organs for support, the extraembryonic tissues. That is why the inner cell mass is where the child is derived from, not the entire blastocyst.
So? Totipotency remains far into the blastocyst stage of the conceptus. Can we logically place a framework on them to justify their protection? What makes them so special? Ultimately, it breaks down due to the ability of the conceptus to twin. If one were to define the conceptus as an individual, this inherent ability of the conceptus to twin and form two separate conceptuses runs against the logical framework. How can something that is defined as an individual suddenly decide to become two, genetically identical "individuals?" The logic simply blows up. In addition, the conceptus has no guarantee that it will actually be something in the future, remember, the probability that a conceptus will survive until parturition is 30%. So not only do you have an "individual" that can decide to twin (or tripicate), but it can suddenly halt in development. Can you really confer rights to something that can spontaneously decide to be 0, 1, 2 or 3 individuals?
Totipotency is a logically unpersuasive marking of where the conceptus must be protected. Well, the argument may become the idea of potentiality, the conceptus may become something in the future that has rights that enable protection (or that we find future evidence that it is something). But the argument needs clarification. We would have to protect it because it might be something, not that already is something with protection rights. How could one argue that the potential development of the conceptus trumps the potential health benefits an adult could gain from utilizing this "potential" thing?
Name them. I guarantee you can't even name 20% of the number you claim. Or should I tell you to read July 28th's copy of Science, where your BS number is debunked.
"Pluripotent and Multipotent stems cells can differentiate but do not have the capacity to form a human body. Your statements are missing facts and are unsubstantiated by genetic science"
I never said they can. I said they contain the genetic instructions to construct a human, which can potentially be manipulated in the lab to create an actual human. That is how cloning works. No, by themselves they will not form humans. Two haploid cells joining to make a diploid cell with genetic instruction from two people is the creation of a cell that can, by itself, form a human. It is crazy to consider it the equivalent of a human being simply (well, its not simple actually) because it contains DNA from two contributors and expresses the particular DNA that instructs the cell?s chemical machinery to create a human. A potential human is NOT a human.
"Human life begins at fertilization. Genetic science has proven this. There is nothing wrong with describing it as good, happy, or even magical."
What is your definition of human life? Is it a cell with diploid DNA derived from two haploid cells (sperm and egg), that expresses specific DNA for a specific type of differentiation? Is it just any cell that contains a humans genome (because cells are life you know). Is it a cell who's genome is formed with the DNA from two contributors? Which one?
In affect what you are saying is that one cell should be considered a human and not another only because a specific type of DNA is being transcribed?
?that would mean that being human on a technical level goes down to proteins called RNA Polymerase moving along specific strands of DNA and transcribing them. I don?t think being human is about DNA transcription.
"Humans do not become self aware until years after their birth. If self awareness is required for having rights, then any child which cannot communicate his/her self awareness has no rights and can be killed at will by their parents or the government or eager liberal scientists."
I said conscious, but it doesn?t really matter. You know what the ruling in Roe v. Wade was? The court came to the conclusion that because no side can provide a clear definition of what life is the court cannot endorse one view over another. Actually, a lot of scientists don?t identify with a particular side; they are not pro left or pro right, just pro facts and common sense. It is unfair to call them liberals.
"Care to elaborate on the "potential" of embryonic stem cell research? Because as I said before, adult stem cell research has already produced 70+ working treatments"
Potential means it can advance further with public funding and the use of embryonic stem cells. Too bad it is being held back.
?I?m a semester away from my BS in biology, so I?m definitely no Republican.
I never said they can. I said they contain the genetic instructions to construct a human, which can potentially be manipulated in the lab to create an actual human. That is how cloning works. No, by themselves they will not form humans. Two haploid cells joining to make a diploid cell with genetic instruction from two people is the creation of a cell that can, by itself, form a human. It is crazy to consider it the equivalent of a human being simply (well, its not simple actually) because it contains DNA from two contributors and expresses the particular DNA that instructs the cell?s chemical machinery to create a human. A potential human is NOT a human.
"Human life begins at fertilization. Genetic science has proven this. There is nothing wrong with describing it as good, happy, or even magical."
What is your definition of human life? Is it a cell with diploid DNA derived from two haploid cells (sperm and egg), that expresses specific DNA for a specific type of differentiation? Is it just any cell that contains a humans genome (because cells are life you know). Is it a cell who's genome is formed with the DNA from two contributors? Which one?
In affect what you are saying is that one cell should be considered a human and not another only because a specific type of DNA is being transcribed?
?that would mean that being human on a technical level goes down to proteins called RNA Polymerase moving along specific strands of DNA and transcribing them. I don?t think being human is about DNA transcription.
"Humans do not become self aware until years after their birth. If self awareness is required for having rights, then any child which cannot communicate his/her self awareness has no rights and can be killed at will by their parents or the government or eager liberal scientists."
I said conscious, but it doesn?t really matter. You know what the ruling in Roe v. Wade was? The court came to the conclusion that because no side can provide a clear definition of what life is the court cannot endorse one view over another. Actually, a lot of scientists don?t identify with a particular side; they are not pro left or pro right, just pro facts and common sense. It is unfair to call them liberals.
"Care to elaborate on the "potential" of embryonic stem cell research? Because as I said before, adult stem cell research has already produced 70+ working treatments"
Potential means it can advance further with public funding and the use of embryonic stem cells. Too bad it is being held back.
?I?m a semester away from my BS in biology, so I?m definitely no Republican.
So in other words you can't come up with a good reason for giving such an early stage embryo human rights other than noting it has the potential to eventually become a human. Genetic science isn't even relevant to the subject, especially since by that argument both sperm and an egg could be argued as being human. There is obviously no good reason to consider it in any way worthy of human rights before any sort of brain has even developed. You're arguing for a clearly silly line of distinction unless you're basing it on a religious and not scientific basis.
Later on you're talking about genetic experimentation which makes it clear YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHATSOEVER HOW EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH WORKS given it doesn't involve genetic experimentation.
The fact you would compare embryonic stem cell research to the actions of the Nazis shows you sick and warped your sense of morals actually are. Of course the real question is why embryonic stem cell opponents mostly care less about embryos simply being thrown away from invitro fertilization clinics.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 400
Facebook
Twitter