It's official: Obama overturns stem cell ban

[PLC1]

No matter what power the discarders possess, their power, or the planned use of it, does not make that use right.

The right thing to do is to keep those embryos alive and suspended for implant for the the benefit of childless couples, no matter what couples authorized their creation.

And the right thing to do is to suspend further creation of IVF embryos until scientific advances match our progressive neuropsychological evolution and the IVF process has been modified and regulated to create only the number of embryos that will be actually implanted at that time.



No matter what their perceived social status, the thread I link to below has proven that an IVF embryo is a human being in that person's earliest stage of life ... and polls show that over half the population agrees.

Experimenting on people because of their social status may be the Mengele thing to do ...

... But there are no disposable people in a just, progressive society ...

... And there is also no ageism as well.



The same right that gave everyone, everywhere, the right to speak up in defense of the Jews in Germany 70 years ago.

When it comes to speaking up against atocities being perpetrated on a group, the age of members of that group is irrelevant, lest you comit the bias of ageism, a bias which is akin to ethnic bias in function.

And defaming those who are more humane and progressive than you with the verbally abusive term "wingnut" merely because they grasp what you emotionally suppress ... only means you are likely less evolved.

But if you'd like to lose your "flat-earther" title in the matter, here is the place to do so: A Conception's Right To Life.

Enjoy.

Do you think the "Octomom" was right in giving birth to her remaining embryos? The rationale she gave was that they were already her children, and that the right thing to do was to give them a chance at life.

If so, then you're the first one I've come across on this or any other forum who thinks that the Octomom did the right thing.

 

[Chip]

Do you think the "Octomom" was right in giving birth to her remaining embryos? The rationale she gave was that they were already her children, and that the right thing to do was to give them a chance at life.

If so, then you're the first one I've come across on this or any other forum who thinks that the Octomom did the right thing.

Prior to being inseminated, Octomom did a lot of topically related stupid things, in my opinion, likely motivated by less than sane or laudable reasons.

But once her embryos were created, her decision to continue their lives through birth is the right one, though maybe not to her, but to other childless couples.

It is important when referencing Octomom to differentiate between the nuttiness of her behavior leading up to the creation of her embryos, nuttiness that is evidenced by a person with six children, way more than she could already handle as it was, wanting to create even more children, and the sanity of her behavior of bringing those people to life once they were created rather than murdering them.

The valid criticism of Octomom is regarding her decision to have 14 kids and creating those embryos in the first place!

Invalid criticism of her is regarding her continuing those people's lives after they were created.

Those who fail to evidence that they get this easily distinguished accurate perspective merely to make a cheap and easily rebutted point ... should be ashamed.

And again, this entire situation illustrates that the practice of IVF should be discontinued until only the desired amount of embryos are created per attempt, not excess embryos that must be rescued.

 

[PLC1]

Prior to being inseminated, Octomom did a lot of topically related stupid things, in my opinion, likely motivated by less than sane or laudable reasons.

But once her embryos were created, her decision to continue their lives through birth is the right one, though maybe not to her, but to other childless couples.

It is important when referencing Octomom to differentiate between the nuttiness of her behavior leading up to the creation of her embryos, nuttiness that is evidenced by a person with six children, way more than she could already handle as it was, wanting to create even more children, and the sanity of her behavior of bringing those people to life once they were created rather than murdering them.

The valid criticism of Octomom is regarding her decision to have 14 kids and creating those embryos in the first place!

Invalid criticism of her is regarding her continuing those people's lives after they were created.

Those who fail to evidence that they get this easily distinguished accurate perspective merely to make a cheap and easily rebutted point ... should be ashamed.

And again, this entire situation illustrates that the practice of IVF should be discontinued until only the desired amount of embryos are created per attempt, not excess embryos that must be rescued.

So, given the situation she was in, which was admittedly due to some bad decisions on her part, those six embryos were just as much her children as the six already born. She really had no other choice, then, than to have the embryos implanted. Throwing away the embryos would have been tantamount to throwing away the other six.

That is taking the argument to its logical conclusion, of course, and it is the argument she used to justify having fourteen children.

If you buy the idea that an embryo is the equivalent of a child, then she was right, wasn't she?

 

[top gun]

Regardless of what Bush did or didn't do ...

... Embryonic stem cell research functions to murder newly conceived human beings ...

... Depriving these people of their foundational inalienable right to life ...

... And therefore embryonic stem cell research is an act that is simply wrong.

Besides ...

... It has long been common front-page headline news that, not too many months ago, scientists created base stem cells from more mature human tissue without killing anyone, and now advancements in that technique have solved all of the stem cell issue matters: Stem Cell Research Breakthrough.

There is simply no need to continue Dr. Mengele type experimentation on people, murdering them in the process, which is what happens in embryonic stem cell "research" ...

... And, President Obama most certainly knows there has long been no need to continue embryonic stem cell research.

Thus Obama's "release" of embryonic stem cell research is nothing more than a pander to those of his ilk, a cheap, easy pay-back to those who campaigned for him, a posturing act of blind partisanship ...

... Which, once again, illustrates that BHO is nothing special, whatsoever.

Well it's both not true that all the advancements that were being made with embryonic stem cells was being completely replicated by other forms of cells and it's also ludicrous to equate frozen embryos to the killing of a person. Unfeeling & brainless embryos might under the right conditions continue to multiply and divide from a few cells to a live birth but they are certainly not the definition of a person... or a baby. If they were then there wouldn't be the need for a separate word called EMBRYO!

All that aside though the main quandary would be this. I doubt anyone would be for restricting a woman's right to have embryos implanted because of some problem with becoming pregnant in the routine way.

And it's just a plain fact that in these cases there are often left over embryos that are frozen and have a limited shelf life.

So do we FORCE ALL WOMEN IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE TO BECOME THE OCTOMOM and implant and give birth to all against her will. Or do we let the embryos expire in their frozen limbo state and charge the mothers with murder.

Or do we have half a brain and choose to put particular religious dogma aside and use those embryos to help cure devastating diseases and handicaps?

I am on the side of the latter (the over half a brain group!)

 

[Chip]

Well it's both not true that all the advancements that were being made with embryonic stem cells was being completely replicated by other forms of cells and it's also ludicrous to equate frozen embryos to the killing of a person. Unfeeling & brainless embryos might under the right conditions continue to multiply and divide from a few cells to a live birth but they are certainly not the definition of a person... or a baby. If they were then there wouldn't be the need for a separate word called EMBRYO!

All that aside though the main quandary would be this. I doubt anyone would be for restricting a woman's right to have embryos implanted because of some problem with becoming pregnant in the routine way.

And it's just a plain fact that in these cases there are often left over embryos that are frozen and have a limited shelf life.

So do we FORCE ALL WOMEN IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE TO BECOME THE OCTOMOM and implant and give birth to all against her will. Or do we let the embryos expire in their frozen limbo state and charge the mothers with murder.

Or do we have half a brain and choose to put particular religious dogma aside and use those embryos to help cure devastating diseases and handicaps?

I am on the side of the latter (the over half a brain group!)

I would expect nothing different than a utilitarian fuk-and-kill presentation from you, Top Gun.

Nevertheless, reality will rule, in time -- historically, reality always does, and that's why true progress is made.

It is beyond rational conjecture, in this modern state-of-the-art science world, that a unique individual human being begins to live that person's life at the moment of conception.

No matter what you utilitarian users say on that matter, science continues to prove you wrong.

All frozen embryos are thus people in suspended animation, people who should be kept suspended until they can be implanted in the womb of a woman.

In addition, it continues to be the ontologically-based epistemologically understood right thing to immediately cease IVF processes until the methods of doing so will produce no more newly conceived people in the testtube than plan to be immediately implanted.

I realize you utilitarians lack the ontological base and the epistemological understanding to grasp not only the rightness of my recommendations or the why of them, but that is, of course, immaterial with respect to the reality of the nature of progress.

Progress historically moves in the direction of recognizing and respecting the lives of everyone, no matter how young those people may be.

Though utilitarians like Germany's Dr. Mengele during WW II occasionally have their abhorrent way, they are always eventually done away with in the name of what's ontologically and epistemologically right.

Users, like utilitarians, will never likely get the basic concepts of right and wrong, much less how to recognize and differentiate between the two.

They are too busy looking for their fix ... and like most addicts, they are not at all concerned that their fix can come at the expense of the lives of others they don't even know.

 

[top gun]

I would expect nothing different than a utilitarian fuk-and-kill presentation from you, Top Gun.

Nevertheless, reality will rule, in time -- historically, reality always does, and that's why true progress is made.

It is beyond rational conjecture, in this modern state-of-the-art science world, that a unique individual human being begins to live that person's life at the moment of conception.

No matter what you utilitarian users say on that matter, science continues to prove you wrong.

All frozen embryos are thus people in suspended animation, people who should be kept suspended until they can be implanted in the womb of a woman.

In addition, it continues to be the ontologically-based epistemologically understood right thing to immediately cease IVF processes until the methods of doing so will produce no more newly conceived people in the testtube than plan to be immediately implanted.

I realize you utilitarians lack the ontological base and the epistemological understanding to grasp not only the rightness of my recommendations or the why of them, but that is, of course, immaterial with respect to the reality of the nature of progress.

Progress historically moves in the direction of recognizing and respecting the lives of everyone, no matter how young those people may be.

Though utilitarians like Germany's Dr. Mengele during WW II occasionally have their abhorrent way, they are always eventually done away with in the name of what's ontologically and epistemologically right.

Users, like utilitarians, will never likely get the basic concepts of right and wrong, much less how to recognize and differentiate between the two.

They are too busy looking for their fix ... and like most addicts, they are not at all concerned that their fix can come at the expense of the lives of others they don't even know.

Blah, Blah, Blah... saying anyone who isn't a person of tyrannical religious dogma is a Dr. Mengele is stupid.

You Taliban types need to just follow your own path by your personal actions and leave your dirty little hands off everybody else's free will and personal conscience.

Much like Priests hiding behind religion while raping the little boys you have no right to dictate peoples personal use of their bodies or how they donate to science.

It's a very good thing stem cells research is back in full swing!

 

[PLC1]

Just to play devil's advocate here:

If you've read my posts, you know I'm on the side of stem cell research, and don't buy the idea that embryos represent human life any more than acorns are oak trees.

However, we've seen that there are people who believe that human embryos are indeed human life, that life begins at conception, and that using embryos for research is a great moral wrong.

So, how are we to say that those on the other side of the argument must pay (in tax dollars) for something that they don't believe in? Why can't private capital fund stem cell research?

 

[Little-Acorn]

Why can't private capital fund stem cell research?

It can. And it has been, for as long as the science has existed.

In fact, Federal money HAS paid for embryonic stem cell research, throughout the Bush administration and during others, too.

It just couldn't be used on NEW strains of embryonic stem cells. It was free to use on existing strains, and it has been used extensively on them.

You beg the question, of course: Why can't ALL research be done with private funds? How about it the Fed quits taxing us for the resarch, and just lets private concerns do it all?

And the corrollary question: Where in the Constitution does it say that the Fed govt has authority to pay for this research... or any kind, for that matter?

 

[PLC1]

It can. And it has been, for as long as the science has existed.

In fact, Federal money HAS paid for embryonic stem cell research, throughout the Bush administration and during others, too.

It just couldn't be used on NEW strains of embryonic stem cells. It was free to use on existing strains, and it has been used extensively on them.

You beg the question, of course: Why can't ALL research be done with private funds? How about it the Fed quits taxing us for the resarch, and just lets private concerns do it all?

And the corrollary question: Where in the Constitution does it say that the Fed govt has authority to pay for this research... or any kind, for that matter?

That's the crux of the matter, isn't it? Just how much should we expect the federal government to do? It seems to me that our tax money, along with borrowed money unfortunately, is being spent for things that could better be done by the states, individuals, or private corporations.

The central government is supposed to be limited by the Constitution. Stem cell research is a good example of why: We are seeing research being guided not by science, but by the ideology of whoever happens to be in the White House.

 

[The Scotsman]

The central government is supposed to be limited by the Constitution. Stem cell research is a good example of why: We are seeing research being guided not by science, but by the ideology of whoever happens to be in the White House.

..........yeah.....that's pretty much the same issues affecting UK research....

One of the researchers involved in the work said last night that the grant applications may have been blocked by scientists on the funding committees who are morally opposed to the creation of cloned hybrid embryos derived from mixing human cells with the eggs of cows, pigs or rabbits.

The decision threatens Britain's leading position in the world in terms of creating of stem cells from animal-human hybrid embryos, research which in the US is banned from receiving federal government funding.

But surely its private funding which is going to be at the forefront of the US research effort? Does it matter if the federal government is involved or not?

 

[PLC1]

..........yeah.....that's pretty much the same issues affecting UK research....



But surely its private funding which is going to be at the forefront of the US research effort? Does it matter if the federal government is involved or not?

It shouldn't, but it appears to be a big issue. Everyone wants those free federal bucks, it seems.

 

[top gun]

Just to play devil's advocate here:

If you've read my posts, you know I'm on the side of stem cell research, and don't buy the idea that embryos represent human life any more than acorns are oak trees.

However, we've seen that there are people who believe that human embryos are indeed human life, that life begins at conception, and that using embryos for research is a great moral wrong.

So, how are we to say that those on the other side of the argument must pay (in tax dollars) for something that they don't believe in? Why can't private capital fund stem cell research?

This is some of the most important research that's absolutely NOT been getting the funding it's needed since Bush stepped in and gummed up the works.

The other consideration is this embryonic stem cell research is only being done with stem cells from embryos that are going to be discarded in the trash anyway. It isn't even an issue about saving the embryos... they are gone either way.

But one way can really, REALLY help people!

So we have the opportunity here to spend money where it can do the most good. I can think of hundreds of Federally Funded medical research studies that aren't even close to the importance to humanity that stem cell research is.

There will always be some who object for one reason or another to research... it might just be about not wanting their tax money to Federally Fund medical research period.

Does that mean we should not Federally Fund Cancer research...

I think not!

 

[Chip]

Blah, Blah, Blah...

As always, Top Gun, your projections are irrelevant.

saying anyone who isn't a person of tyrannical religious dogma is a Dr. Mengele is stupid.

Erroneous. Out of context.

I didn't say any such thing.

You have a tendency to get stuck in your erroneous transference and imagine polarizations where none exist.

You also have a tendency to imagine that religion exists in a matter where it doesn't.

You are therefore out of touch with reality, as always.

Experimenting on human beings is what Dr. Mengele did.

Experimenting on human beings is what embryonic stem cell researchers do.

No religion involved in that accurate observation of reality.

No "Taliban" there either.

You have a serious issue with religion, Top Gun, and you project your issues with religion all over the place where it doesn't apply or belong.

You also have a serious denial problem about your issues with religion as well, Top Gun.

You Taliban types need to just follow your own path by your personal actions and leave your dirty little hands off everybody else's free will and personal conscience.

Translation: "I, Top Gun, will do whatever I want, no matter who I hurt or kill in the process and you can stop me, nah, nah, nah!"

Rather childish reaction there, Top Gun.

Then again, that's the usual emotional state of a utilitarian: an emotionally undeveloped child.

Much like Priests hiding behind religion while raping the little boys

Erroneous.

Here you continue to evoke images of your personal devil: religion ... even though there is no religion involved in any way shape or form in the accurate Dr. Mengele observation.

Indeed, only science is used to substantiate the Dr. Mengele analogy.

You lose, once again, Top Gun.

you have no right to dictate peoples personal use of their bodies

Oh, but I and all of a healthy society most certainly do!

We can most certainly dictate that murder is wrong and severely punishable.

You can't use your body to murder people.

And although there is still progress to be made to keep ageists and other likewise biggoted people from succeeding in making excuses for their murderous behavior, in time, no biggoted excuse will be allowed to justify murder.

or how they donate to science.

No one owns the life of another, no one.

Your "donate" to science euphemism is simply a candy-coated word for murder.

No one has the right to donate other people for murderous experimentation.

But, as always, you just can't say it straight, Top Gun.

You have to hide in euphemisms like "donate" and "pro-choice" and other ways of hiding your embarrassing pro-murderous truth.

Give it up, Top Gun -- you've long been exposed as a pro-murder, pro-abortion utilitarian.

You can't hide behind candy-coated words any longer.

It's a very good thing stem cells research is back in full swing!

Erroneous.

It's not back in "full swing".

BHO's release of stem lines is merely a temporary aberration in human progress, one that will eventually get him reviled by people who respect the scientific revelation that a person begins to live at the moment of conception, a decades-old revelation that BHO should know, does most probably know, and thus convicts him of having known better.

His failure will also group him with the Dr. Mengele's of the world.

Eventually, as progress always does, BHO's Dr. Mengele edict will be overturned.

Tick tock, Top Gun.

You really would do well to switch to the side possessing ontological and epistemological integrity, the eventual winning side: science-based pro-life.

 

[PLC1]

This is some of the most important research that's absolutely NOT been getting the funding it's needed since Bush stepped in and gummed up the works.

The other consideration is this embryonic stem cell research is only being done with stem cells from embryos that are going to be discarded in the trash anyway. It isn't even an issue about saving the embryos... they are gone either way.

But one way can really, REALLY help people!

So we have the opportunity here to spend money where it can do the most good. I can think of hundreds of Federally Funded medical research studies that aren't even close to the importance to humanity that stem cell research is.

There will always be some who object for one reason or another to research... it might just be about not wanting their tax money to Federally Fund medical research period.

Does that mean we should not Federally Fund Cancer research...

I think not!

The issue is not whether or not they are important research projects, but whether or not the money to fund them should come from the federal government.

Funding them from tax dollars puts some in the position of having money taken away from them by force in order to fund things that they find morally reprehensible.

Whether you or I disagree with the morality of such research is immaterial. The issue is one of the proper role of the federal government.

 

[Little-Acorn]

But surely its private funding which is going to be at the forefront of the US research effort? Does it matter if the federal government is involved or not?

Not much. The whole issue assumed an exaggerated role when leftists in America seized on it to pretend the President had somehow done something "wrong", and kept screaming endlessly about it, a technique that would make their mentor Herr Goebbels proud.

Some of the B.S. still lingers among the less informed on this side of the pond, so you get silly threads like this.