You don't have to beleive it, but its true.

And here is an article from a few years back when the Chancellor tried to reduce the ban a bit.





It was removed because of the order in which the debate was held, it had nothing to do with the actual phrasing of the bill.

They motioned that the bill can not be voted on untill next session, or something along those lines. The only reason they did so, was so that the Presidant would not be siging into law, anything that showed that Bush supports science and research when done by ethical standards that everyone can support.

'Particularly sensitive' means that history tinges their towards a more conversative side, not that they're all suddenly afraid of becoming Nazis. It's the difference between "My grandfather shot three men to death, I'm afraid if I buy a gun I'll be a murderer" and "I saw the trouble my grandfather caused by being an alchoholic, I'm very careful about what I drink." It sounds like an informed debate was had, and they decided to ban it, not "OMG, NAZIS, CAN'T DO THAT!!!"

Umm ok, your definitly reading things into my posts that are not there.... However, untill you look up what was said, you're making WAAAY to many assumptions.

Oh, I'm sorry that I assume a national government is actually reasonable.




Actually, thinking of America right now, that's not actually sarcasm.

Just read about the current push by Germany to ban Stem-cell research across all the EU.

My view is, they shouldn't be used to make children anyway, they're are enough abandoned/unwanted/orphaned children in the world. I don't see a problem with using the stem cells to make organs though.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, go live in a commune, damn hippy. We'd be dying of easily preventable diseases, have an average lifespan of seven years and by six you'd be begging for death, and thrown smack bang in the middle of the food chain with everything vicious on top (Dropbears, kangaroos, mountain lions, bengal tigers) and everything faster than us below (Gazelles, wild horses, manatees). Oh, and no books, no television, no newspapers, no sports, no Lusternia, no art, no entertainment of any kind except what the village elder (Who would be twelve) carved on that piece of bark that time when he was high off his arse on the magic mushrooms.

Oh, and my opinion? Sure, go ahead. The embryos in question are in very early stages of development - They're what you get when you throw some sperm at an egg and let it simmer for between a few hours and a day. They don't have defined organs or anything. And there are billions of them, more than anyone could conceivably use to make actual babies, specially when the additional cost and effort of using their own genetic material, or adopting normally, is the same or less. Thsoe embryos are not going to use it. This is pretty much like banning masturbation; they're putative people, and putative people have no rights.



Actually, it's been proven that embryo stem cells are the only ones that can currently give the best results, and people have already been cured by using them, so both your statements are false.

And, seeing Republicans and the Christian Right with diseases that have high chances of being cured by stem cell research just hits me on the face with irony. Yummy, delicious, Reagan-tastic irony.

YET ANOTHER EDIT: Oh, and throwing the Christian creation story guilt card is not going to work on me and going to make you look bad as far as I'm concerned, as you're using irrational bias as an argument, hmmmkay?

Both extremes of this viewpoint are fairly much wr- alright, that's a filthy lie. Technology has made our lives better and, on average, increased our lifespan, fast food and undeveloped countries not withstanding. Now if we could just find a way to work on a large scale with fossil fuel replacements and lowering global warming some..

Two hugely important caveats, though. The first, which medical researchers can't emphasize enough: what works in rodents may not work at all in humans. Cancer, for example, as was famously explained after an overblown story about a new treatment back in 1998, has been cured dozens of different times in mice. The Johns Hopkins scientists will try pigs next, but it's years before any such treatment is tried, even as an experiment, in humans.

Thats from a June 20th 2006 article... who's been cured by stem cells exactly?


And from the ISSCR (International society for Stem Cell Reasearch)


12. Are stem cells currently used in therapies today?
Hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs), present in the bone marrow and precursors to all blood cells, are currently the only type of stem cells commonly used for therapy. Doctors have been transferring HSCs in bone marrow transplants for more than 40 years. Advanced techniques for collecting or "harvesting" HSCs are now used to treat leukemia, lymphoma and several inherited blood disorders.

The clinical potential of stem cells has also been demonstrated in the treatment of other human diseases, including diabetes and advanced kidney cancer. However, these new therapies have been offered only to a very limited number of patients using adult stem cells.

New clinical applications for stem cells are currently being tested therapeutically for the treatment of liver diseases, coronary diseases, autoimmune and metabolic disorders (amyloidosis), chronic inflammatory diseases (lupus) and other advanced cancers.


So explain to me again how my statements were false?

I can't find the reference I was looking for, so I won't provide it, and so my argument fails on that account.

However, you still fail to estabilish why use of embryonary stem cells is unethical in any way, and it is very true that those are not only necessary as they're also several orders of magnitude more easily avaliable.

If you think its ethical to kill a person to harvest thier organs so you can save the life of another person, then I can't argue with you.

If your going to deny the science that an embryo is life, than I'm not sure how to respond.

Whats the difference between an embryo and a 2 month old fetus? or a 3 month? or a new born baby? or an old man only alive because of machines and wishing to stay alive?

Embryos can be frozen in such a way that you have twins, born 13 years apart....

An embryo is life. However, so are small rats, and no one has a problem killing them. An embryo cannot survive without advanced medical care, so I discount it as a viable life, as I do with anyone living solely by means of life-support with no chance. They have a chance at growing up/waking up again, and that's wonderful. But if they don't, I don't see it as a big loss. And yes, I've had close relatives on life-support, and still hold to this position.

Defined organs. A brain. The ability to communicate intelligibly, and so on and so forth. The thing is, those embryos are going to either go to research or just stay frozen indefinitely. They're never going to develop into anything even remotely resembling life, much less extra-uterine life. They're barely more than a zygote, no organs have begun to form. They're not even putative people because there's no real possibility of them becoming people, and even if there was, they're not people. I've nothing against killing an animal to harvest its organs (Eat foie gras lately?), so the argument "it's life" is invalid, as me, and pretty much the majority of people, including most opponents of stem cell research, are not opposed to killing life. The argument you're looking for is "it's human", but that's not valid with me, either. The argument that is valid is "it's sentient", but embryos are nowhere close to sentient - it's nothing more than a clump of cells, and it only gets in its way to sentience at about the fourth or fifth month (Even though, as far as I'm concerned, real sentience only really kicks in a few days or so after birth). How do you define human life? You define it as something with human genes? Then we should stop women from killing all those innocent eggs every month!

Not sure what that has to do with anything...

But I take it then that you think the following scenario is perfectly ok?


You are a young single mother of 3, you make $10,000 a year. You give birth to a baby, if you give it all the medical treatment it needs, you won't be able to feed your other 3 children, so you cut it up, stick it in the oven, and feed it to your children?

If we had a choice, most of us would stop it. Sadly, all things that give us this choice are still in testing

Oh, but for your convenience or for saving the lives of all the poor eggs? I could've just as easily said something about men, but that would've raised idiotic jokes.


*ahem*
*puts on ridiculous pro-life activist suit*
SLIPPERY SLOPE! SLIPPERY SLOPE! EMBRYOS ARE PEOPLE! PRO-CHOICE ACTIVISTS EAT BABIES! THEY WANT TO KILL OUR BABIES!

So someoone with an IQ of 10 can be killed and his organs harvested?

First of all, there are adoption agencies that deal with snowflake children. So there is a larger than 0 chance of these embryos eventually going to university.

An egg, is not alive. regardless of this, there are people who think its wrong to needlessly throw away eggs and sperm if you can help it.

How is sentience a deffinition? Does that mean a person who is a sleep can be killed since they don't know whats going on around them, and don't even know whats happeneing o themselvees?




What the hell are you on?

It was in responce to sylphas who said, that life is life, and if it can't support istself you can use it to save another person.

Whats the difference between a baby who is not only draining your resournces, but is also unable to support itsself? Leave a baby alone for some time, see how well it takes care of itself and grows up.

Er, yes? The IQ scale doesn't work the way you think it does. It's not linear and not a precise measurement. Someone with 'an IQ of 10' is either doing the test by pulling random numbers out of his arse, or too stupid to hold a pencil, or not conscious. There is no such a thing as an IQ of ten. However, people in a coma with no chances of recovery are fair game.


There are far too many of them to be adopted. And again, it's putative. "They might, someday, maybe, go to college. That means they're BABIES." They're not. Are you going to argue for the rights of sperm stored in sperm banks, now?


Those people are religious fanatics. Oh, and no, an egg is very much alive - it has cellular activity. It just can't live without a life support system, or being frozen. Much like an embryo.


Actually, the word I was looking for is sapience - Sentience is just more recognizable. And, the English language is horribly limited, as it doesn't let me distinguish elegantly between properties of beings and states of being, but I mean sentience/sapience/self-awareness as an inherent property of beings, not as a state. If you can't tell the difference, then whatshisface's proposition about language influencing our thought-processes is much too true.


The baby has sapience. It is aware of its surroundings, capable of learning, and capable of (Simple, but extremely complex by the standards of most animals) thought processes. A vegetable with no brain activity is not.

According to a few places I just looked up, the spinal cord and brain stem are developed after 14 days, not 5 months.

*squee*
Then all I need is a nice sharp knife and I can harvest most of Achaea, and a few Lusternians.
*drools*