Daganev2006-07-21 19:09:42
QUOTE(Sylphas @ Jul 21 2006, 11:57 AM) 310118
I'm still amazed that you actually worry about which sperm live or die.
Life doesn't work in black and white, Daganev. I'm firmly opposed to the concept that every human is worth the same, and that there is such a sharp divide between right and wrong.
Also, you keep using arguments involving fully functional adults, and equating them with embryos which can't be distinguished from any those of any other mammal without genetic testing.
You are the one looking at things in black and white. Its a concern to be weighed, its not a defining factor in a decision.
Verithrax, not two pages ago you said that an embryo is alive but that doesn't mean its human. Now you are saying its not alive yet!!?!?
Sylphas2006-07-21 19:14:03
It's alive, but it's life really can't be compared to that of a fully functional human. So it's not "alive" yet. It's a semantics thing.
How am I seeing this in black and white, and you're not? You seem to be saying that if it's a human at any stage, it shouldn't be killed, and if it's not, it's ok. We're arguing that it's not so clear as that.
How am I seeing this in black and white, and you're not? You seem to be saying that if it's a human at any stage, it shouldn't be killed, and if it's not, it's ok. We're arguing that it's not so clear as that.
Verithrax2006-07-21 19:16:51
Wait a minute, where did I say that?
Daganev2006-07-21 19:35:14
QUOTE(Verithrax @ Jul 20 2006, 05:11 PM) 309715
... 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....
Verithrax2006-07-21 20:01:12
Er, where in that phrase do I say it's not human?
Daganev2006-07-21 20:09:29
QUOTE(Verithrax @ Jul 20 2006, 05:11 PM) 309715
.... . 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. ...
Verithrax2006-07-21 20:12:36
Oh. People = Someone you can have a conversation with. I say the same about babies and conservatives.
Daganev2006-07-21 20:23:42
Bring on the Syphilis experiments!
Verithrax2006-07-21 20:26:38
I have no bloody idea of what you're talking about but yeah, sure. As long as they're done on right-wing people.
Daganev2006-07-21 20:27:43
Guess you didn't click on the link you quoted.
Verithrax2006-07-22 10:54:23
...What link, again?
Daganev2006-07-23 18:41:51
The one about the syphilis experiments in the Us done on poor black people.
Roark2006-07-24 00:23:16
This has been interesting to watch. Supporters of stem cell research make it out that Bush banned it completely, when really he only restricted tax funding from the feds; he did not restrict private funding nor tax funding from states, and there actually is some small funding from the feds for old lines. Opponents of it say it ought not be funded by tax dollars at all but have not moved to eliminate the small funding Bush has allowed nor moved to stop states from funding it nor stop private funding. So the fight is really about if tax funding ought to be expanded or not, which I've been intrigues by the fact is not how it's been billed in the public at all.
Putting aside moral issues, what I found fascinating on this is a lesson in how strings get attached to federal funding and how those rules can change at any time. I saw this in a newspaper article. Supposedly the ban on tax funds is not just for grant money, but any research lab that has taken money from tax payers cannot do the research. Thus research facilities have to build new redundant labs that clone existing facilities using private dollars or outsource to another country. So that turns it into a de facto ban because (and this is where it gets interesting) there are so few labs in the country that have not become addicted to the federal tax payer. This has created a situation where the federal government could potentially almost completely control all scientific research in the country if it wanted to. Well maybe not quite that dire since if it gets too restrictive then everyone will go to private funding where they have full freedom. But it's still a scary thought that there are so few independent research labs left in the country.
Putting aside moral issues, what I found fascinating on this is a lesson in how strings get attached to federal funding and how those rules can change at any time. I saw this in a newspaper article. Supposedly the ban on tax funds is not just for grant money, but any research lab that has taken money from tax payers cannot do the research. Thus research facilities have to build new redundant labs that clone existing facilities using private dollars or outsource to another country. So that turns it into a de facto ban because (and this is where it gets interesting) there are so few labs in the country that have not become addicted to the federal tax payer. This has created a situation where the federal government could potentially almost completely control all scientific research in the country if it wanted to. Well maybe not quite that dire since if it gets too restrictive then everyone will go to private funding where they have full freedom. But it's still a scary thought that there are so few independent research labs left in the country.
Daganev2006-07-24 02:23:02
QUOTE(roark @ Jul 23 2006, 05:23 PM) 310864
This has been interesting to watch. Supporters of stem cell research make it out that Bush banned it completely, when really he only restricted tax funding from the feds; he did not restrict private funding nor tax funding from states, and there actually is some small funding from the feds for old lines. Opponents of it say it ought not be funded by tax dollars at all but have not moved to eliminate the small funding Bush has allowed nor moved to stop states from funding it nor stop private funding. So the fight is really about if tax funding ought to be expanded or not, which I've been intrigues by the fact is not how it's been billed in the public at all.
Putting aside moral issues, what I found fascinating on this is a lesson in how strings get attached to federal funding and how those rules can change at any time. I saw this in a newspaper article. Supposedly the ban on tax funds is not just for grant money, but any research lab that has taken money from tax payers cannot do the research. Thus research facilities have to build new redundant labs that clone existing facilities using private dollars or outsource to another country. So that turns it into a de facto ban because (and this is where it gets interesting) there are so few labs in the country that have not become addicted to the federal tax payer. This has created a situation where the federal government could potentially almost completely control all scientific research in the country if it wanted to. Well maybe not quite that dire since if it gets too restrictive then everyone will go to private funding where they have full freedom. But it's still a scary thought that there are so few independent research labs left in the country.
True, but now that Germany is pushing a complete funding ban in the EU, I think the debate is larger than just the thing Bush did.
In California there is a group, using pure legal concepts, which is fighting the 3 billion dollar bond California has for embryonic stem cell research.
