Idiotic quote of the day

[Yeahman]

John Edwards!
"If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve will get up out of that wheelchair and walk again."

And Kerry also will heal the lepers, raise the dead, walk on water, and forgive the sins of all!

[so_fee_ahh]

Did he say this after the death of Christopher Reeve or before?

[ism]

Is it really that bad of a quote when Bush uses religion to guide his science decisions, limiting stem cell lines, and Kerry has promised to open more stem cell lines, effectively deferring to science ethics boards? It just boggles my mind that Bush lets personal opinion block humanity's progress. Of course, I'm biased, working in a government research environment But the IRB at least takes some input from several perspectives. Bush only has one. And in the end, it's not even religion. It's Karl Rove's PR spin.

so-fee-ah -- it doesn't matter if Reeve was dead or not. He was referring to people like Reeve, e.g., paraplegics. Unless you meant he was trying to use the recent emotional impact of Reeve's death to bolster his statement. To that end, I suppose it was a little cheap.

[Faithless]

A Readers Digest interview with Christopher Reeve (http://www.rd.com/content/openContent.do?contentId=13712)
...
RD: Are you still optimistic you will walk again?
Reeve: I am optimistic. But I also know that, with time, I'm beginning to fight issues of aging as well as long-term paralysis. So it seems more difficult to project than it was five years ago. But I haven't given up.

RD: Has there been a change in your optimism?
Reeve: Hope, to me, must be based -- now knowing as much as I do -- on a projection derived from solid data. But, yes, there's been a change in my state of mind, because in May of next year it will be ten years [since the accident], and I doubt if by that time there's going to be a procedure suitable for me. At 52, knowing that a safe trial for me may still be years away has changed my perspective. I didn't think it would take this long.

RD: What's been the hardest part?
Reeve: Watching the slow progress of research in this country. I don't know if it would have made me walk sooner, but I would have had the satisfaction of knowing we're all on the same page. Groups of people who have differences about all kinds of issues are united to fight against AIDS. Wouldn't it be great if we were as united about biomedical research for diseases that affect 128 million Americans?

RD: Tell me about the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Act.
Reeve: It's broken into three parts. One is for biomedical research. The other is rehabilitation research. The third is for quality-of-life programs. It would create five centers across the country, to make sure that there is support for people living with paralysis. Patients do better the sooner you get them up and moving. Put them in pools, on treadmills, on exercise bikes -- anything to keep the systems of the body from breaking down. No magic pill will cure spinal cord injury. It'll be a combination of a drug therapy, or procedure, plus rehabilitation.

RD: Does the Act have broad support?
Reeve: I'm quite optimistic that it will pass, because there's nothing controversial about it. It doesn't even mention embryonic stem cells.

RD: What's your position on embryonic stem cell research?
Reeve: I advocate it because I think scientists should be free to pursue every possible avenue. It appears though, at the moment, that embryonic stem cells are effective in treating acute injuries and are not able to do much about chronic injuries.

RD: How have political decisions slowed stem cell research?
Reeve: The religious right has had quite an influence on the debate. I don't think that's appropriate. When we're setting public policy, no one segment of society deserves the only seat at the table. That's the way it's set in the Constitution. So debate all we want, hear from everybody. And then allow our representatives to weigh the factors and make laws that are going to be ethically sound, moral, responsible, but not the result of undue pressure from any particular entity.
...
I think, based on the tone of this inteview with Mr. Reeve, he would still have more problem with Krauthammer (whose been clucking like a cock ever since glomming onto the Edwards' comment) and Frist (whose been making noise more so for the Republicans on this issue rather than support for the stem cell research cause), then with Edwards.

Reeve thinks the religious fuckcakes are hurting stem cell research. He probably would have turned a funny face toward the Edwards comment, but still been fully in the Kerry camp.

[onnihs]

John Edwards!
"If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve will get up out of that wheelchair and walk again."

And Kerry also will heal the lepers, raise the dead, walk on water, and forgive the sins of all!

talk about taking shit out of context.

[Yeahman]

talk about taking shit out of context.
Talk about lame excuses. But please explain the context then.

Despite all the liberal anger against the religious right for opposing murder... I mean embryonic stem cell research, the fact of the matter is that all successful treatment using stem cells has been from adult stem cells. The best chance at curing paralysis is through adult stem cells. Of course the radical left doesn't want you to know that. That would hurt their cause.

It just boggles my mind that Bush lets personal opinion block humanity's progress.
Or that Kerry lets personal opinion block humanity's progress. I don't consider murder, progress. That's a degression back to the dark ages.

[Mr.Lum]

Or that Kerry lets personal opinion block humanity's progress. I don't consider murder, progress. That's a degression back to the dark ages.


Who is it "murdering"? Where's this 'llife"? That may work on abortion, only because you kill a pregnant woman you get double murder, but it really does not work for stem cells. You just sound foolish with that "murder!" nonsense.

[ism]

Despite all the liberal anger against the religious right for opposing murder... I mean embryonic stem cell research, the fact of the matter is that all successful treatment using stem cells has been from adult stem cells. The best chance at curing paralysis is through adult stem cells. Of course the radical left doesn't want you to know that. That would hurt their cause.

Or that Kerry lets personal opinion block humanity's progress. I don't consider murder, progress. That's a degression back to the dark ages.Alright, if this is going back to the same concept as abortion=murder or not then no one's ever going to see eye-to-eye on this issue. From a scientific perspective, though, you don't know that adult stem cells have the "best chance at curing paralysis." And I'm not sure why it's so "radical left" to consider available theories when doing science research -- I think I missed the part about the Scientific Method being a liberal conspiracy. If the main problem is about the sanctity of life, please stick to that, but leave the scientific argument alone.

[Mr.Lum]

Yellowman sounds like one of those people who was against teaching about evolution. Yes, because science is eeeevill! Progress in any form unless the Pope or the Book explicitly states it to be right is WRONG!!! Give me a bloody break.

[Yeahman]

Alright, if this is going back to the same concept as abortion=murder or not then no one's ever going to see eye-to-eye on this issue. From a scientific perspective, though, you don't know that adult stem cells have the "best chance at curing paralysis." And I'm not sure why it's so "radical left" to consider available theories when doing science research -- I think I missed the part about the Scientific Method being a liberal conspiracy. If the main problem is about the sanctity of life, please stick to that, but leave the scientific argument alone.
Of course noone's gonna see eye-to-eye on this. That's another problem with the radical left. They think they have a monopoly on the truth and that all others should either believe as they do or shutup.
It is a left-wing tactic to suggest, as Edwards did, that embryonic stem cell research will cure paralysis when the fact of the matter is that the most promising signs of a cure are in adult stem cell research which conservatives fully support. The liberals are promoting bad science.
Now that's not to say that embryonic stem cell research will not yield valuable information. And all research should be pursued within ethical bounds. We shouldn't use humans as lab rats. If you don't believe that an embryo is human then you may not have any problems with embryonic stem cell research but that doesn't mean you have to exagerate the claims, like Edwards did, either.

[Mr.Lum]

It is a left-wing tactic to suggest, as Edwards did, that embryonic stem cell research will cure paralysis when the fact of the matter is that the most promising signs of a cure are in adult stem cell research which conservatives fully support. The liberals are promoting bad science.


That's not left wing. That's just a political move. They all do that.

Now that's not to say that embryonic stem cell research will not yield valuable information. And all research should be pursued within ethical bounds. We shouldn't use humans as lab rats. If you don't believe that an embryo is human then you may not have any problems with embryonic stem cell research but that doesn't mean you have to exagerate the claims, like Edwards did, either.

We should not use Papal ethical codes in the USA. We should use secular ones. Keep that shit in Rome and your church.

[Yeahman]

Who is it "murdering"? Where's this 'llife"? That may work on abortion, only because you kill a pregnant woman you get double murder, but it really does not work for stem cells. You just sound foolish with that "murder!" nonsense.
Can anyone provide a coherent synopsis of what Lum just said?
You are charged with double murder because the law says so. The law says that embryonic stem cell research is not allowed. Your ethics are derived from Washington politicans?

We should not use Papal ethical codes in the USA. We should use secular ones. Keep that shit in Rome and your church.
And the secular law says, no more embryonic stem cell research.

[kasia]

Overview:
A stem cell is a primitive type of cell that can be coaxed into developing into most of the 220 types of cells found in the human body (e.g. blood cells, heart cells, brain cells, etc). Some researchers regard them as offering the greatest potential for the alleviation of human suffering since the development of antibiotics. Over 100 million Americans suffer from diseases that may eventually be treated more effectively with stem cells or even cured. These include heart disease, diabetes, and certain types of cancer.

Stem cells can be extracted from very young human embryos -- typically from surplus frozen embryos left over from in-vitro fertilization procedures at fertility clinics. There are currently about 100,000 surplus embryos in storage. However, a minority of pro-lifers object to the use of embryos. They feel that a few-days-old embryo is a human person. Extracting its stem cells kills the embryo -- an act that they consider murder. Stem cells can now be grown in the laboratory, so (in a pinch) some research can be done using existing stem cells. No further harvesting needs to be made from embryos. However, existing stem cell lines are degrading and will soon be useless for research.

Stem cells can also be extracted from adult tissue, without harm to the subject. Unfortunately, they are difficult to remove, are severely limited in quantity, and appear to be limited in usefulness.

Research using stem cells had been authorized in Britain, but was initially halted in the U.S. by President George W. Bush. He decided on 2001-AUG-9 to allow research to resume in government labs, but restricted researchers to use only 72 existing lines of stem cells. By 2003-MAY, most of these lines had become useless; some of the lines are genetically identical to others; only 11 remain available for research. Research continues in U.S. private labs and in both government and private labs in the UK, Japan, France, Australia, and other countries. On 2002-SEP, Governor Davis of California signed bill SB 253 into law. It is the first law in the U.S. that permits stem cell research. Davis simultaneously signed a bill that permanently bans all human cloning in the state for reproduction purposes -- i.e. any effort to create a cloned individual.

Following former president Ronald Reagan's death due to Alzheimer's in 2004-JUN -- a slow, lingering death that took a decade to kill him, Nancy Reagan and all of her family, except for Michael Reagan, have mounted a campaign to encourage President Bush to relax restrictions on embryo stem cell research. Fifty-eight senators, almost all Democrats, sent a letter to President Bush, urging the same action.

from: http://www.religioustolerance.org/res_stem.htm


how is this murder? what would otherwise be done with the embryos? if the embryo is considered a human being, then i would say that keeping a human being in a freezer is cruel and unusual punishment.

if you want, you can read the above to see why embryonic stem cell research is more practical.

[Mr.Lum]

Can anyone provide a coherent synopsis of what Lum just said?
You are charged with double murder because the law says so. The law says that embryonic stem cell research is not allowed. Your ethics are derived from Washington politicans?



Stem cells is recent and I somewhat care about it. And it should be changed. My ethnics are derived from common sense. Washington politicians don't have ethics for the most part anyway. That legislation is worthless unless you're looking to hold back science.


And the secular law says, no more embryonic stem cell research.


That "secular" law is a front for a foolish religious belief penalizing those who do not share it. It's foolishness and ought be taken off the books. It's not secular, Republicans almostnever are secular. That's why they are bad leaders. The foolish, religion infused law says no more embryonic stemcell research. Until these morons get their asses into the 21st century and into the light of day, out of church, they have no respect from me because all they do is showcase their foolishness. And just to note, I wasn't talking about a law right there. I was talking about how people seem to think that the Pope and the church and their say is soooo important in legislation. IT's not. They are for the most part out of touch and, dare I say it foreign. Plus they conflict with the state.

[kasia]

And the secular law says, no more embryonic stem cell research.

he was talking about ethics, not the law. if you continue to respond without reading the posts, i will consider it trolling and take the appropriate steps to rid a troll.

[Yeahman]

he was talking about ethics, not the law. if you continue to respond without reading the posts, i will consider it trolling and take the appropriate steps to rid a troll.
He also said the pro-life position may be justifiable because killing a pregnant women is considered double murder by secular law. Lum is suggesting that ethics be guided by the law.

[Mr.Lum]

He also said the pro-life position may be justifiable because killing a pregnant women is considered double murder by secular law. Lum is suggesting that ethics be guided by the law.

No I'm not. What I mean when I say that you can call abortion "murder" because it's double murder if you kill a pregnant woman is simply that you can say that because of that law. I'm not saying the law isn't flawed. The ethnics there is also flawed. You are playing with your jumping to conclusions map again.

And it is MR.Lum.

[Yeahman]

how is this murder?
It is destroying an embryo.

what would otherwise be done with the embryos?
That's a seperate question; If we should use embryos that are going to die anyway. I have a pro-choice friend who is opposed to embryonic stem cell research. It's one thing to destroy an embryo. It's quite another to use it for organ harvesting.

if the embryo is considered a human being, then i would say that keeping a human being in a freezer is cruel and unusual punishment.
I don't think they should be kept in a freezer either.

No I'm not. What I mean when I say that you can call abortion "murder" because it's double murder if you kill a pregnant woman is simply that you can say that because of that law. I'm not saying the law isn't flawed. The ethnics there is also flawed. You are playing with your jumping to conclusions map again.

And it is MR.Lum.
And why can't I say that destroying embryos is murder because it is also illegal?

[Mr.Lum]

It is destroying an embryo.



An embryo is a human being? If I run over an embryo should I be locked up?


And why can't I say that destroying embryos is murder because it is also illegal?


Because it's foolishness. Extremism. Furthermore, there is hardly any material human tissue there. There's no human there. Where is it? Show me these tiny embryonic people. The whole idea of it being a "life" is foolish. Furthermore, that reason is only a legal reason. It's not a moral or ethical one (regaurding abortion as murder).

[Yeahman]

An embryo is a human being? If I run over an embryo should I be locked up?
If you did it with intent? Yes. And that is the current law. You cannot destroy embryos.

Because it's foolishness. Extremism. Furthermore, there is hardly any material human tissue there. There's no human there. Where is it? Show me these tiny embryonic people. The whole idea of it being a "life" is foolish. Furthermore, that reason is only a legal reason. It's not a moral or ethical one (regaurding abortion as murder).
Of course you have not actual reasons. You just think it's foolish. Great supporting evidence!

And can you please be consistant?
Who is it "murdering"? Where's this 'llife"? That may work on abortion, only because you kill a pregnant woman you get double murder, but it really does not work for stem cells.
Please explain that. Why would it work for abortion and not destroying embryos?
You said it's because killing a pregnant woman gets you charged with double murder. Destroying an embryo will get you locked up too. It is also illegal.

[ism]

It is a left-wing tactic to suggest, as Edwards did, that embryonic stem cell research will cure paralysis when the fact of the matter is that the most promising signs of a cure are in adult stem cell research which conservatives fully support. The liberals are promoting bad science.
Now that's not to say that embryonic stem cell research will not yield valuable information. And all research should be pursued within ethical bounds. We shouldn't use humans as lab rats. If you don't believe that an embryo is human then you may not have any problems with embryonic stem cell research but that doesn't mean you have to exagerate the claims, like Edwards did, either.Okay, so it's a bad quote because of hyperbole. I still don't know what these "bad science" claims are about.

It is bad science to use political and religious guidelines to put a blanket ban at the federal level on certain types of research. The scientific community is not a loose cannon and has ethics boards to determine what is appropriate or not. I would like Bush to leave the decision to these boards which have a well-defined process to make such a determination.

Humans are frequently used in experiments (I won't argue about stem cells being human or not since it looks like you're set on that). I've participated on both ends and in the ethics process. Every hospital and research facility has some form of IRB (Institutional Review Board). It is a long process, requiring many people, documentation, assurances, and previous research. To completely skip over this and institute a law banning something is a complete subversion of the scientific process. A ban is bad science, and letting the scientific process continue is... science.

[Mr.Lum]

Of course you have not actual reasons. You just think it's foolish. Great supporting evidence!



Provide evidence as to how it is "murder". Who is being killed? Prove it is a person. Give me your supporting evidence. The loss of an embryo is not the same as the loss of a human life. If I put a gun to your head, and blow it off, I killed you. You're a person. People will miss you(I'm not sure who) and someone will need to fill your place in society. This is not the case with an "embryonic person". To pretend those two actions are the same is simply extremism.

Please explain that. Why would it work for abortion and not destroying embryos?
You said it's because killing a pregnant woman gets you charged with double murder. Destroying an embryo will get you locked up too. It is also illegal.

You like to call abortion "murder" you can do that. By law it pretty much is. However, there is at least a little bit of reason to think that. There's the beginings of a little person in her.

And can you please be consistant?


I have been consistant. You seem to lack reading comprehension skills.



If you did it with intent? Yes. And that is the current law. You cannot destroy embryos.



That is why the current law is flawed and ought be changed. Nobody was harmed by my running over that embryo.

Humans are frequently used in experiments (I won't argue about stem cells being human or not since it looks like you're set on that).

He's set on a LOT of things. He generally refuses to think beyond what the Pope says or what some conservative white man tells him it would seem.

[Yeahman]

Okay, so it's a bad quote because of hyperbole. I still don't know what these "bad science" claims are about.

It is bad science to use political and religious guidelines to put a blanket ban at the federal level on certain types of research. The scientific community is not a loose cannon and has ethics boards to determine what is appropriate or not. I would like Bush to leave the decision to these boards which have a well-defined process to make such a determination.

Humans are frequently used in experiments (I won't argue about stem cells being human or not since it looks like you're set on that). I've participated on both ends and in the ethics process. Every hospital and research facility has some form of IRB (Institutional Review Board). It is a long process, requiring many people, documentation, assurances, and previous research. To completely skip over this and institute a law banning something is a complete subversion of the scientific process. A ban is bad science, and letting the scientific process continue is... science.
Then I assume that you are also opposed to the ban on human cloning?
And humans are not actively killed and harvested for organs. If they should die naturally, they may be used for research but even then only with the expressed premission of the individual before death.

[Mr.Lum]

I might add that Fundamentalist Christians in the US and possibly the Pope are just about the only people who are calling it 'murder". While the rest of the world moves forward, thanks to the backward we are bound to sit where we are and watch the world pass.

[Yeahman]

Provide evidence as to how it is "murder". Who is being killed? Prove it is a person. Give me your supporting evidence. The loss of an embryo is not the same as the loss of a human life. If I put a gun to your head, and blow it off, I killed you. You're a person. People will miss you(I'm not sure who) and someone will need to fill your place in society. This is not the case with an "embryonic person". To pretend those two actions are the same is simply extremism.
So a life is measured by its utilitarian value in society? A homeless guy with no family or friends is not as human as you or I?
I do not have evidence that life begins at conception. I never claimed to have any proof. Nor is there any evidence to the contrary. It is my belief which is why I would never call anyone who believes in abortion, "foolish." I do not claim to have a monopoly on the truth as you do. You are incapable of seeing both sides of an issue.

You like to call abortion "murder" you can do that. By law it pretty much is. However, there is at least a little bit of reason to think that. There's the beginings of a little person in her.
So how is that any different from the embryo taht you want to use for stem cell research? You failed to answer that question.

That is why the current law is flawed and ought be changed. Nobody was harmed by my running over that embryo.
The embryo is.

[Mr.Lum]

Science ought be nurtured by government, just like people say the war effort should be supported by the people. Don't get pissed off when you hear "liberals" that are agaisnt the Moron War and say they aren't supporting the troops. The government isn't supporting many ill people and science when it is not supporting them. Those assholes.


So a life is measured by its utilitarian value in society? A homeless guy with no family or friends is not as human as you or I?
I do not have evidence that life begins at conception. I never claimed to have any proof. Nor is there any evidence to the contrary. It is my belief which is why I would never call anyone who believes in abortion, "foolish." I do not claim to have a monopoly on the truth as you do.



I don't either. By talking about how it ought to be banned and is "murder" you are. That bum is just as much a human being. He's out here, he's alive, he can feel, he can communicate just like you and I the embryo cannot. I just think you sound foolish. Ignoring science and all. You wouldn't call a pro-lifer "foolish" but you'd call a 15 year old girl who gets an abortion a "murderer" wouldn't you.


So how is that any different from the embryo taht you want to use for stem cell research? You failed to answer that question.



It's about to be born. If you take it out you have a little I dunno, thing in your hand. It's something. It's more than embryo. Hell, it might even have a room and a nice little stroller. That embryo in all likelyhood does not.

The embryo is.

Is society? No. Soceity gains from it if it for scientific reasons. Furthermore, those embryos often would be destroyed anyway. The only difference in their fate is that when they are used for research they benefit society rather than just going to waste. Is killing bacteria wrong in your view as well? It is hurt as well. It is undeneyable life.

[kitty]

not really getting into this debate because it's a fundamental embryo = human or not argument that went nowhere with the abortion debate.

let me say this though:

people talk about adult stem cells being 'more useful'. well, we actually don't know. the current lines that people can research with are contaminated with mouse cells and are basically useless. we may have made more progress with adult stem cells because we've actually had the opportunity to progress further with the research. embryonic stem cells have greater potential to do good, but we don't really know what the limitations or full power of them are because right now we can only theorize.

I see no problem with edwards' quote because he was saying that if stem cell researchers could just be allowed to do their job, we most likely eventually could cure people like christover reeve and other paraplegics. the theory is sound, but we can't even check to see if we're wrong. that's hardly an 'idiotic quote'.

my problem with this debate is that when people on both sides talk, it almost sounds like no one really knows what a stem cell is and what it can do.

[Bhodi_Li]

Provide evidence as to how it is "murder". Who is being killed? Prove it is a person. Give me your supporting evidence. The loss of an embryo is not the same as the loss of a human life. That's not what an expecting parent says.

[Mr.Lum]

That's not what an expecting parent says.

An expecting parent wouldn't be using those embryos. They are most often ones that aren't used and would be tossed off anyway. An expecting parent wouldn't be worrying about.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

An expecting parent wouldn't be using those embryos. They are most often ones that aren't used and would be tossed off anyway. An expecting parent wouldn't be worrying about.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying...but...I'm guessing Bhodi Li meant that expecting parents value the embryo just as if it is already a human life. Your argument is like saying we shouldn't value or seek to preserve certain human lives because there are people out there that nobody cares about and nobody cares if they die or not (or perhaps there are others that WANT them to die), basically insinuating that the value of each human life is subjective. But I guess again it all comes down to whether or not you see the embryo as a 'life' or not *shrug*. I personally am undecided...on the one hand, I see the embryo as a life because it is growing, and in essence, 'alive'. However on the other hand, the embryo cannot develop or grow independently or apart from the mother yet. But I'm not quite sure if that eliminates the embryo from 'life' status.

[Mr.Lum]

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying...but...I'm guessing Bhodi Li meant that expecting parents value the embryo just as if it is already a human life. Your argument is like saying we shouldn't value human life because there are people out there that nobody cares about and nobody cares if they die or not (or perhaps there are others that WANT them to die), and that the value of each human life is subjective.

My agruement is that those embryos are going to be destroyed anyway. Nobodys going to be using them. It's a waste to keep them around and do nothing with them. Nobody will miss them. They'd be tossed in the trash anyway. Why not use them to benefit society instead of throwing them in the trash heap?

The embryo isn't going to care. I'm not saying that folks people don't like shouldn't be valued as people, but I am saying that embryos that have the "potential for life" are not lives and should not be treated as if they are functioning members of society or living beings.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

My agruement is that those embryos are going to be destroyed anyway. Nobodys going to be using them. It's a waste to keep them around and do nothing with them. Nobody will miss them. They'd be tossed in the trash anyway. Why not use them to benefit society instead of throwing them in the trash heap?

The embryo isn't going to care. I'm not saying that folks people don't like shouldn't be valued as people, but I am saying that embryos that have the "potential for life" are not lives and should not be treated as if they are functioning members of society or living beings.

Well I edited my post a bit to elaborate further on my stance regarding the abortion issue. For the sake of argument, why do you feel as if embryos are in the stage of 'having potential for life' rather than already actually being alive? How are they not alive if they are actually separate from the mother (although inside) and already going through life developmental processes (via nourishment from the mother no less) such as the hardening of cartilage and cell duplication? I'm not an expert in the realm of natural sciences, but aren't there studies showing that the embryo acquires awareness at a certain stage? Ultimately however, this stage of awareness should be irrelevant in determining whether or not the embryo is actually a life or not.

[Mr.Lum]

Well I edited my post a bit to elaborate further on my stance regarding the abortion issue. For the sake of argument, why do you feel as if embryos are in the stage of 'having potential for life' rather than already actually being alive? How are they not alive if they are actually separate from the mother (although inside) and already going through life developmental processes (via nourishment from the mother no less) such as the hardening of cartilage and cell duplication? I'm

Embryos outside of a mother, in a lab have potential but are not alive yet. They need a body to actually be on their way. That's like a kid who wants to be a doctor, he has the potential right? But he doesn't have the schooling for it yet.

I'm not an expert in the realm of natural sciences, but aren't there studies showing that the embryo acquires awareness at a certain stage

I wouldn't know. But if it's in a dish or a tube or w/e and not in a mother then I really see no reason as to why it should be withheld from research. Unused embyros should be put to better use than just being thrown out.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Embryos outside of a mother, in a lab have potential but are not alive yet. They need a body to actually be on their way. That's like a kid who wants to be a doctor, he has the potential right? But he doesn't have the schooling for it yet.

Well using that argument, newborn babies (or even young children) are completely incapable of survival or development on their own and need outside intervention and assistance from doctors and parents. Yet no one questions whether or not newborns are alive.

[Mr.Lum]

Well using that argument, newborn babies (or even young children) are completely uanble of survival on their own and need outside intervention and assistance from doctors and parents as well otherwise they die off quickly. Yet no one questions whether or not newborns are alive.

Newborn babies are able to live and breath on their own, they just need to learn. They're not compeletely dependant. Embryos are. A newborn has gone through all the things that an embryo could. The baby like anyone else in society dies without outside help. That's why people form groups. Fertalization has been completed and it's been born. I would imagine that it is undeneyable that there is a life at the end of pregnancy (unless the baby keels over during birth). Thats the point of it, to make a life. Taking an embryo before it becomes a fetus to use to save people who are compeletely developed from suffering is not killing someone. Minimal sacrifices can be made for something like that.

[Arex]

Despite all the liberal anger against the religious right for opposing murder... The anger is not against the religious right opposing "murder," it's against the religious right imposing their belief on others that "murder" applies to embryos and fetuses when it's clear that many do not, nor ever will, share those views, particularly when the current state of the law does not recognize abortion or destruction of an embryo as "murder."

I mean embryonic stem cell research, the fact of the matter is that all successful treatment using stem cells has been from adult stem cells. The best chance at curing paralysis is through adult stem cells.While it may be the case that successful treatments have thus far originated from research on adult stem cells, I imagine that's largely due to the fact that more research has been done using adult stem cells. What is your source that the "best" chance at curing paralysis is through adult stem cells? Given the current restrictions on embryonic stem cell research, that unfortunately may be the case. But that's like saying if we prohibit all research on HIV and AIDS, our "best" chance at overcoming the epidemic is by evolving as a species to meet the challenge. That's pretty retarded.

Here's my idiotic quote of the day:
Of course the radical left doesn't want you to know that. That would hurt their cause.Yes, because everyone knows it's the secret desire of the radical left to destroy as many embryos as possible for no fucking reason. We just wanna destroy 'em 'cause we're mean like that.=)

Anyway, here's question I posed in the other thread about abortion that I don't think anyone from the anti-choice, anti-embryonic stem cell research camp ever responded to: if an original clump of embryonic cells that would ordinarily develop into a living, breathing person if left in the uterus can be tricked into developing instead into a living, beating human heart, does it make sense to call that original lump of cells a "person" with the same rights to "life" as every other man and woman on the street? And, if so, is the process by which the cells are tricked into developing into a heart considered "murder" even though the cells are still alive and well?


RX

[Faithless]

As far as I know, the religious right does not oppose murder. They support it.

Just look at who supports capital punishment.

Haven't figured out how stem cells equals murder though. Sounds like more wack conservative logic.