Scientists: "Fine, we won't kill the fetuses. Now please fund us."

[budullewraagh]

Refer to: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/24/science/24stem.html?hp&ex=1156478400&en=297c7c19068ae597&ei=5094&partner=homepage

 

Biologists have developed a technique for establishing colonies of human embryonic stem cells from an early human embryo without destroying it. This method, if confirmed in other laboratories, would seem to remove the principal objection to the research.

 

It could also redirect and intensify the emotional political debate over current limits on federal financing for research on human embryonic stem cells, which give rise to the cells and tissues of the body and which scientists and patient advocate groups see as a potential source for treatments for diseases like Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and diabetes.

 

But the new method, reported yesterday by researchers at Advanced Cell Technology on the Web site of the journal Nature, had little immediate effect on longstanding objections of the White House and some Congressional leaders yesterday. It also brought objections from critics who warned of possible risk to the embryo and the in vitro fertilization procedure itself, in which embryos are generated from a couple’s egg and sperm.

 

The new technique would be performed on a two-day-old embryo, after the fertilized egg has divided into eight cells, known as blastomeres. In fertility clinics, where the embryo is available outside the woman in the normal course of in vitro fertilization, one of these blastomeres can be removed for diagnostic tests, like for Down syndrome.

 

The embryo, now with seven cells, can be implanted in the woman if no defect is found. Many such embryos have grown into apparently healthy babies over the 10 years or so the diagnostic tests have been used.

Up to now, human embryonic stem cells have been derived at a later stage of development, when the embryo consists of about 150 cells. Both this stage, called the blastocyst, and the earlier eight-cell stage, occur before the embryo implants in the wall of the womb. Harvesting the blastocyst-stage cells kills the embryo, a principal objection of those who oppose the research.

 

Now I can't wait to see the backlash from hypocritical conservatives who will further broaden their views of the "sanctity of life" while they continue to support the death penalty.

 

What do you all think of this new breakthrough? I think it's pretty hilarious myself and ironic in the sense that it (to me) is more disturbing than harvesting fetuses.

[Jim]

Refer to: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/24/science/24stem.html?hp&ex=1156478400&en=297c7c19068ae597&ei=5094&partner=homepage

 

 

 

Now I can't wait to see the backlash from hypocritical conservatives who will further broaden their views of the "sanctity of life" while they continue to support the death penalty.

 

What do you all think of this new breakthrough? I think it's pretty hilarious myself and ironic in the sense that it (to me) is more disturbing than harvesting fetuses.

 

If it is hypocritical to be pro-life while favoring the death penalty is it likewise hypocritical to be pro choice while disfavoring the death penalty?

[darkangel199]

Its a shame scientists had to wait so long for this political garbage. And to answer your question Jim, i do not think its hypocritical to be pro choice but anti death penalty. It's simple, until you can show me unequivical proof that at 3 or 4 weeks that's a baby then i don't believe it is. Whereas we know that people on death roll are people, and the fact that their seems to be more and more of them found innocent before they are put to death or worse, after they are put to death we should not have it. Wen dealing with the life of a human being on this earth you better be absolutely sure they committed the crime before you kill them.

[swansont]

Being pro-choice doesn't compel you to abort pregnancies. You can even be pro-choice and think abortion is wrong.

[Jim]

Being pro-choice doesn't compel you to abort pregnancies. You can even be pro-choice and think abortion is wrong.

 

I'll go out on a limb and say you can also be prolife and pro-death penality.

[Jim]

Its a shame scientists had to wait so long for this political garbage. And to answer your question Jim, i do not think its hypocritical to be pro choice but anti death penalty. It's simple, until you can show me unequivical proof that at 3 or 4 weeks that's a baby then i don't believe it is. Whereas we know that people on death roll are people, and the fact that their seems to be more and more of them found innocent before they are put to death or worse, after they are put to death we should not have it. Wen dealing with the life of a human being on this earth you better be absolutely sure they committed the crime before you kill them.

 

 

The question was meant to be a bit rhetorical. I can never understand those who say it is somehow hypocritical to want to protect innocent human life and, at the same time, want to punish those adjudicated of committing heinous crimes to death. This is apples and orangutans.

 

I do not agree with the prolife position but it seems perfectly consistent to be prolife and pro-death penalty.

[Sisyphus]

I'll go out on a limb and say you can also be prolife and pro-death penality.

 

I suppose it would depend on the justifications for each position. I don't think you can be prolife because of inflexible appeal to "sanctity of life" and unhypocritically favor the death penalty. However, this is quite a common viewpoint.

[Phi for All]

"The embryo, now with seven cells, can be implanted in the woman if no defect is found."

There must be objections to NOT replacing the defective embryo. If you had this test done would you want a defective embryo replaced?

[john5746]

I suppose it would depend on the justifications for each position. I don't think you can be prolife because of inflexible appeal to "sanctity of life" and unhypocritically favor the death penalty. However, this is quite a common viewpoint.

 

 

I think "sanctity of innocent human life" is what some of them mean.

 

 

There must be objections to NOT replacing the defective embryo. If you had this test done would you want a defective embryo replaced?

 

Yes, I see no logical arguments against the new procedure. The arguments would be against existing fertility clinic procedures. We can wait until the idiot is out of the Oval office.

[AzurePhoenix]

I think "sanctity of innocent human life" is what some of them mean.

Definately. I think it's somewhat irrational to compare an unborn, "innocent" to an adult that's been convicted for atrocities.

[Jim]

I suppose it would depend on the justifications for each position. I don't think you can be prolife because of inflexible appeal to "sanctity of life" and unhypocritically favor the death penalty. However, this is quite a common viewpoint.

 

By definition, someone who is both pro-life and pro-death penalty does not believe in the absolute sanctity of human life.

[Mokele]

That's assuming they have a logically consistent basis for their positions, which, frankly, isn't the case for most people. As others have said, I think it depends on the reason for the positions, rather than the positions themselves. If their basis is that it's always wrong to end life, then it's hypocritical, but if it's something else (like, say, biblical law, which encourages the death penality), then it may not be.

 

It's not what the answer is, it's how you get there.

 

Mokele

[padren]

By definition, someone who is both pro-life and pro-death penalty does not believe in the absolute sanctity of human life.

 

Then being pro-life and pro-death penalty isn't hypocritical, but someone claiming to believe in an absolute sanctity of human life and the death penalty would be.

 

I am pro-choice and anti-death penalty, but I don't think people who are opposite on both are hypocritical for it. They may be incidently hypocritical in many other ways, but not that one.

[-Demosthenes-]

Wen dealing with the life of a human being on this earth you better be absolutely sure they committed the crime before you kill them.

 

I generally dislike this whole debate (in general), but wouldn't that mean if there was any chance that a fetus (at some stage) was in anyway "human" (in the sense that it was important to protect because of some level of conscienceless) then we should avoid action that would destroy it? Would we not have to be "absolutely sure" in both cases?

 

In any case, there is only one think I know for sure, I use way too many parenthesis.

[Jim]

Then being pro-life and pro-death penalty isn't hypocritical' date=' but someone claiming to believe in an [i']absolute [/i]sanctity of human life and the death penalty would be.

 

I don't think such people really believe in the absolute sanctity of life. I wouldn't call them hypocritical just imprecise in their language. It would be helpful if we had an example of a credible pro-life advocate who spoke in such terms.

[swansont]

Definately. I think it's somewhat irrational to compare an unborn, "innocent" to an adult that's been convicted for atrocities.

 

What about an innocent person who has been convicted anyway?

[Sisyphus]

I don't think such people really believe in the absolute sanctity of life. I wouldn't call them hypocritical just imprecise in their language. It would be helpful if we had an example of a credible pro-life advocate who spoke in such terms.

 

Well, during both his Presidential campaigns, W. borrowed from Catholics (who are officially both prolife and anti-death penalty) and drove the phrase "culture of life" as deep into the national consciousness as he could. Granted this is implicit rather than explicit, but such is the form that hypocrisy usually takes. I've also heard the usual lowbrow demagogues like Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, O'Reilly, etc. speak more explicitly in those terms. Granted, I wouldn't consider any of those people "credible pro-life advocates," but my point was not that it is the reasoned position of an intellectual movement, but rather just that it is a common position that is present in the public debate.

[timo]

What do you all think of this new breakthrough? I think it's pretty hilarious myself and ironic in the sense that it (to me) is more disturbing than harvesting fetuses.

I tend to agree. From my understanding of the original method, stem cells were harvested from material that would have been thrown away otherwise. I feel more uncomfortable by removing parts of an embryo that will later grow up to a human being than to remove parts from something that would end up in the trash can, anyways. However, due to my limited knowledge of what it´s all about, I do not really have a fixed stance here. For example, I cannot judge wether removing one of the cells is better compared to donating blood or to cutting off a leg. There seem to be claims that there´s no impact on the later baby, but the tone sounds slightly reserved. Not sure if that´s due to doubts or due to professionality.

[Phi for All]

Well, during both his Presidential campaigns, W. borrowed from Catholics (who are officially both prolife and anti-death penalty) and drove the phrase "culture of life" as deep into the national consciousness as he could. Granted this is implicit rather than explicit, but such is the form that hypocrisy usually takes.

W's seemed to have an overall strategy of making all those who weren't of like mind into "anti-life" advocates, instead of "pro-choice" or even "pro-diversity". The GOP wants a lock on things like family values and patriotism. I think W wanted to lump as many as possible into his new category called "evildoers". I've seen a marked propensity in this administration for riling certain groups up with carefully constructed phrases and then pointing at them as being against the "culture of life" when they object. Anyone remember his use of war-on-terror phrases like "Crusade" and "Operation Infinite Justice"? Surely that shouldn't bother Muslims at all, especially coming from a Commander-in-Chief who urges the enemy to attack his troops with phrases like, "Bring 'em on!"

 

I'll calm down....

 

Aside from the death penalty vs abortion arguments, I do wonder if the current objections to this new stem cell research are based on giving people knowledge of the defects mentioned in the OP article. What would a pro-life couple do if they knew for certain that the embryo they'd created had Down's Syndrome? Can Down's be cured at that point or is the decision simply put it back in the womb or destroy it?

 

I'm pro-choice and I wouldn't choose abortion except in extreme circumstances and if my wife had given birth to a Down's baby I would love it and do my best. But if I knew when the embryo was eight cells big that it would have Down's Syndrome I don't think I would be able to say, "Just put it back."

[ParanoiA]

I generally dislike this whole debate (in general)' date=' but wouldn't that mean if there was any chance that a fetus (at some stage) was in anyway "human" (in the sense that it was important to protect because of some level of conscienceless) then we should avoid action that would destroy it? Would we not have to be "absolutely sure" in both cases?

 

In any case, there is only one think I know for sure, I use way too many parenthesis.[/quote']

 

Great point.

 

But, I don't really understand what all the debate is really about anyway. Human life begins at conception, we know that. It will become a baby unless you interfere. Analyzing the cell structure to determine a chronological point to call it a human just seems silly to me. Could we not do the same thing with folks on life support and vegetables?

 

It seems like the arguments that toy around with when a fetus becomes a human go through some trouble to be sure they don't include vegetables and other bedridden people. Rather than admitting that it's all just rationalization to feel ok about killing a potential human.

 

To me, fertility clinics are full of little babies that only part of which will grow up. The embryos they throw away are living humans. Farming little humans to do research is ok to me. They don't feel and don't understand so I don't see any morality issue. But I'm also not going to kid myself and dream up philosophies to make it ok.

 

Now that they don't need to kill them anymore is even better. But, does it take longer to get a workable supply of stem cells?

[Sisyphus]

To me' date=' fertility clinics are full of little babies that only part of which will grow up. The embryos they throw away are living humans. Farming little humans to do research is ok to me. They don't feel and don't understand so I don't see any morality issue. But I'm also not going to kid myself and dream up philosophies to make it ok.

[/quote']

 

How is the statement "they don't feel and don't understand so I don't see any morality issue" different than "dreaming up a philosophy to make it ok?" Further, what's wrong with that?

[john5746]

I'm pro-choice and I wouldn't choose abortion except in extreme circumstances and if my wife had given birth to a Down's baby I would love it and do my best. But if I knew when the embryo was eight cells big that it would have Down's Syndrome I don't think I would be able to say, "Just put it back."

 

Especially in this case, where they would have several other candidate eggs waiting to be used. Once they select three or four of the "best" eggs, the rest are discarded. These are women who wouldn't have had ANY of their eggs become babies. It is really a pro-life choice to have this done.

[Phi for All]

But, I don't really understand what all the debate is really about anyway. Human life begins at conception, we know that. It will become a baby unless you interfere. Analyzing the cell structure to determine a chronological point to call it a human just seems silly to me.

This is obvious to me. It's not a moral distinction as much as a legal one. If you claim that a just-conceived cell is human and has all the rights of one, legislation will then evolve to the point where every miscarriage must be investigated to make certain the mother did nothing criminal. Who will judge whether something a woman did or did not do caused the miscarriage? This may be a slippery slope argument but some people view this as murder so a radical legal response is almost inevitable.

[Sisyphus]

This is obvious to me. It's not a moral distinction as much as a legal one. If you claim that a just-conceived cell is human and has all the rights of one, legislation will then evolve to the point where every miscarriage must be investigated to make certain the mother did nothing criminal. Who will judge whether something a woman did or did not do caused the miscarriage? This may be a slippery slope argument but some people view this as murder so a radical legal response is almost inevitable.

 

"Defining the beginning of life, the end of life, and the difference between life and nonlife are questions for lawyers, not scientists." - Freeman Dyson

[Jim]

Well, during both his Presidential campaigns, W. borrowed from Catholics (who are officially both prolife and anti-death penalty) and drove the phrase "culture of life" as deep into the national consciousness as he could. Granted this is implicit rather than explicit, but such is the form that hypocrisy usually takes. I've also heard the usual lowbrow demagogues like Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, O'Reilly, etc. speak more explicitly in those terms. Granted, I wouldn't consider any of those people "credible pro-life advocates," but my point was not that it is the reasoned position of an intellectual movement, but rather just that it is a common position that is present in the public debate.

 

If someone says, "I believe in the absolute sanctity of human life without any qualification whatsoever," then obviously they really can't have a reasoned position in support of war or the death penalty.

 

OTOH, if someone merely says human life is precious, we should err on the side of protecting human life, even that human life is sacred to their God, it is a strawman to morph those statements into "human life can never be taken under any circumstances." If someone says that human life is precious but that they also support a war, then obviously they do not believe in an absolute value.

 

I think there is a liberal strawman going on here which seeks to dismiss conservative thought as hypocrisy. Not that this doesn't happen from the other side, but there is an all too easy tempation shared by Hanity and his ilk to villify first and listen later.

 

Incidentally, do you think that Colmes and Chris Mathews are lowbrow demagogues?