The last stem, err, I mean straw

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Eagler
if this ever passes, abortion clinics will be like sperm banks where one will be paid for their deposit ...
/B]

God how I love capitolism!

[Toad]

Originally posted by Neubob
In my previous post I said that I was against partial birth abortions. I could be wrong, but I think that covers everything in the 3rd trimester. If the partial birth abortion is carried out, however, why not use it? Furthermore, if a 2nd trimester abortion is carried out, why not use that?

A split reply; the first part was to Aqua, the second to you. I should have been more clear, sorry.

Anyway, you didn't answer my question.

Why would your view on this be any more or less valid than Bush's?

As for why not use it, I'd hazard a guess. Because of human nature, if there's money in something, you'll get more of it. There's money in stem cells... BIG money.

There was money in digging up cadavers and selling parts. Still is. In favor of that? Not like those parts are being used or anything.

[xrtoronto]

Originally posted by Yeager
I think parents should be able to lawfully kill their own children up to the age of 18.

hmm...that's legal here:)

[KgB]

If abortion   is a murder then miscariage is a friking suicide

[Neubob]

Originally posted by Toad
A split reply; the first part was to Aqua, the second to you. I should have been more clear, sorry.

Anyway, you didn't answer my question.

Why would your view on this be any more or less valid than Bush's?

Bush's view is that as a moral society, we should not be dissecting embryos for scientific research. To him, these are people--very very young people. Perhaps I am completely off base, but I do not consider an embryo a few days old to be a young human. It is an amalgamation of pre-differentiated cells that have all the potential of becoming a human.

On that same note, a young horny couple and the several hundred pounds of food it will take the female to reach 9 months is also a potential human. So--by that rationale, is every male who uses a condom guilty of pre-emptive murder by preventing conception? Of course not.

Now, Bush vetoes Embryonic Stem cell research, which covers embryos a few days old and older. When speaking of embyros 2 months old and older, I start to agree with the president. However, I simply cannot understand a sweeping veto that covers all like-minded research.

The reason is this: An embryo in its first stages of growth cannot feel pain, cannot breathe or think(no nervous system as of yet). It has not yet developed any of the various systems the define a living organism--much less a human. It is, for all intents and purposes, a drop of matter in a test-tube. A potential human, yes, but not a human by a long shot. As far as potential for learning about the physiology, it is extremely valuable. Again, we weight the benefits versus the drawbacks. In my mind, which I like to think of as more scientific than religion, the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. The promise of medical breakthroughs for actual humans, not potential ones, is too great to toss away to a sweeping decision based on loosely-defined morality.

[john9001]

Originally posted by Yeager
I think parents should be able to lawfully kill their own children up to the age of 18.

i think you need to raise that age limit.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Neubob

The reason is this: An embryo in its first stages of growth cannot feel pain, cannot breathe or think(no nervous system as of yet). It has not yet developed any of the various systems the define a living organism--much less a human. It is, for all intents and purposes, a drop of matter in a test-tube. A potential human, yes, but not a human by a long shot. As far as potential for learning about the physiology, it is extremely valuable. Again, we weight the benefits versus the drawbacks. In my mind, which I like to think of as more scientific than religion, the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. The promise of medical breakthroughs for actual humans, not potential ones, is too great to toss away to a sweeping decision based on loosely-defined morality.

This is simply a judgement call on your part. You make an assumption because no one... no one... knows for sure when human life begins.

We all pretty much agree on the extreme bookends; it can't begin before fertilization (sperm meets egg) and mostly all agree that it certainly begins after live birth (fetus exits the birth canal).

But in between? There are just assumptions, no irrefutable proof. That you choose your view over Bush's is fine. Just as he seems to choose his view over yours.

The big difference? He's in a position to veto such a bill and you are not.

That's all.

[Holden McGroin]

Bush's is the first administration to fund stem cell research.

In 2001, when he made his speech about his decision to fund research on a limited basis, he made his position clear.

The veto does nothing to prohibit privately funded SCR, and continues present federal funding.

[Eagler]

but I do not consider an embryo a few days old to be a young human

well many of us do but given that argument, we aren't talking about embryos "a few days  old" ... I didn't think anyone put a time stamp on the process but I guess the majority of the donors would not even have a clue that they are carrying around a 2 day old baby or is that a 2 day old pile of cash? Like Toad stated, you are talking BIG money. I hate to think of the revenue stream it would create for some "moms"..

Let the rest of the world have at it, I hope our country stays the course

[Neubob]

Originally posted by Toad
The big difference? He's in a position to veto such a bill and you are not.

That's all.

Ain't that the truth....

And yes, Eagler, we are talking about embyos a couple days old, among others, of course. A key part of stem cell research involves researching pre-differentiated embyros--the stuff that comes before things like muscle and nervous tissue form from the initial fertilized ooze. Whatever. It's niether here nor there because I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who'd call me a murderer simply for masturbating into a tissue and tossing it into the toilet.

As for letting the rest of the world have it, I think it's more of a case of the rest of the world not having us. The US, as always, is in a position to be a leader. Without us, the world, out nation included, will pay for our moralistic stance with time, and everything that goes with it.

[recon7]

Originally posted by Toad
This is simply a judgement call on your part. You make an assumption because no one... no one... knows for sure when human life begins.

We all pretty much agree on the extreme bookends; it can't begin before fertilization (sperm meets egg) and mostly all agree that it certainly begins after live birth (fetus exits the birth canal).

But in between? There are just assumptions, no irrefutable proof. That you choose your view over Bush's is fine. Just as he seems to choose his view over yours.

The big difference? He's in a position to veto such a bill and you are not.

That's all.

Nice response, Toad:aok

While we can all be reasonably certain regarding POTUS' view on abortion, this issue is actually even more sticky.  What we have to consider are the Laws of Unintended Consequences (2nd and 3rd Order Effects).  With the potential for big payoffs, not only would the abortion clinics begin to reap financial profits based on the sale of stem cell specimen, but conceivably one could imagine a condition where pregnant women could be afraid to appear in public, lest someone violently ends their life for their stem cell specimen."  Before you say "That would never happen..." it already does.  How many people have died for their i-pod?! (or whatever the latest hot commodity happens to be)

[Toad]

As Holden pointed out, it isn't illegal here to perform such research. If it's such a huge potential benefit, one would think the private sector would be leaping on this one.

As Holden pointed out again, the Bush Admin was the first to Federally fund such research. That Bush wants limits on how the money is used doesn't change that fact.

The research is being done both here and in other countries. If anything comes of it, you can be sure it'll be marketed everywhere just like any other medical application. Coronary stents were developed here by Dotter; now they're everywhere.

[Neubob]

My position remains firm on this one.

The president may not have illegalized the practice, but its limitation, in my mind remains unreasonable. Yes, Toad, I will acknowledge that, given a lack of any conclusive evidence, one opinion is as good as another. Bush is playing it safe, while I think it's worth the risk. Our opinions diverge. I care little for the potential profits from this research, I care only about the resources that will not be used to speed along the inevitable developments.

Nevertheless, I will say that something amazing has come of all this:

Up until this point, we've managed to discuss this matter with little to no insults and personal attacks. It may be a first in this little o'club, and I'm glad to be a part of it.

[Toad]

Well, in 2003 there were ~ 131,000,000 individual tax returns filed.

The Federal funding for SCR is ~$180 million.

So if just 50% of the taxpayers hold your view, you guys could all get together and chip in say $3 each and you could fund private SCR on any embryo you liked to the tune of nearly $200 million, more than the Federal amount.

And if you chipped in $10 each, well, you're looking at ~$650 million in any kind of research you feel is necessary.

And if you chipped in $100 each...oh, my! We're talking REAL MONEY now!

I'm happy with the present Federal guidlines.

You're not. But, as has been pointed out, private funding without limitations is not restricted whatsoever.

[Toad]

BTW, I try real hard to avoid the insults/personal attack style.

I'm human, I'm know I've slipped up a few times but I do try.

And I see you do as well.