[lotuseclat79]

Article here.

As the debate over stem cell research resumes in Washington this week, the moral principle on which the White House bases its position remains largely unexamined

This article discusses the moral issue at the heart of the controversy: Are the opponents of stem cell research correct in their claim that the unimplanted human embryo is already a human being, morally equivalent to a person?

-- Tom

[Blackmirror]

There is a sad story in the UK at the moment ..

A woman had embryos frozen before she had cancer treatment .

5 years later she wants a baby and her ex partner has refused ....

She is distraught but the law is saying both partners must consent

[lotuseclat79]

Hi Blackmirror,

Yeah, I heard about that, but its a little off topic. The article is really very crystal clear about Bush's policy vs the principle he uses to justify it - a very concise and accurate analysis!

-- Tom

[Blackmirror]

Originally Posted by lotuseclat79

Hi Blackmirror,

Yeah, I heard about that, but its a little off topic. The article is really very crystal clear about Bush's policy vs the principle he uses to justify it - a very concise and accurate analysis!

-- Tom

Yes im sorry but as im the UK i cant really comment on Bush

Just a teeny bit OT ..

[Knotbored]

There is no ban on stem cell research.
There is a limit on federal funding until some advancement or breakthrough happens on the existing research.
The drug companies that stand to benefit financially don't need subsidies to proceed, (they are already the most lucrative businesses out there.)

[lotuseclat79]

Yes, Knotbored, we know there is no ban on stem cell research, but, if you had read the article, you would know that there is a disconnect between Bush's priciples and the lack of a ban vs his arguments for the lack of Federal funding.

But, your claim that federal funding is limited until a breakthrough or advancement happens on existing research ignores that breakthroughs have already occured - so, where is the line?

-- Tom

[TooBad]

Originally Posted by lotuseclat79

Yes, Knotbored, we know there is no ban on stem cell research, but, if you had read the article, you would know that there is a disconnect between Bush's priciples and the lack of a ban vs his arguments for the lack of Federal funding.

But, your claim that federal funding is limited until a breakthrough or advancement happens on existing research ignores that breakthroughs have already occured - so, where is the line?

-- Tom

There is no ban on research on Adult stem cells where all the breakthroughs have occured!! The limit on Federal funding is, IMHO, proper as the ethics are not clear and I would argue to err on the side of humanity not the secularists desire to kill babies!! If you think for one minute that if there were money to be made in the intentional killing and harvesting of embryos that evil, and unscrupulous doctors and medical personnel would not take advantage of it, I have a bridge in NY that connects to some nice property in FL to sell you!

[lotuseclat79]

Originally Posted by TooBad

There is no ban on research on Adult stem cells where all the breakthroughs have occured!! The limit on Federal funding is, IMHO, proper as the ethics are not clear and I would argue to err on the side of humanity not the secularists desire to kill babies!! If you think for one minute that if there were money to be made in the intentional killing and harvesting of embryos that evil, and unscrupulous doctors and medical personnel would not take advantage of it, I have a bridge in NY that connects to some nice property in FL to sell you!

Hi TooBad,

Neither the writer of the article nor myself claimed there was a ban on adult stem cell research.

The limit on Federal funding as you state, the ethics are not clear - i.e. regarding the policy vs the principle its based upon vs the arguments used by the POTUS which leaves the whole question open to debate.

Secularists do not desire to kill babies - quit being alarmist! Evil and unscrupulous doctors and medical personel should be proscecuted under the law when the law is violated.

Can you produce the deed to your bridge in NY? No? I thought as much!

-- Tom

[ChrisJones]

Originally Posted by Blackmirror

There is a sad story in the UK at the moment ..

A woman had embryos frozen before she had cancer treatment .

5 years later she wants a baby and her ex partner has refused ....

She is distraught but the law is saying both partners must consent

If I might just detract from the conversation for a moment I feel I must comment on this point.

I cannot stand the way the man involved in this case has been villified and turned into a monster by the press. He has equal rights to the woman. At the time of her diagnosis of cancer they were in a loving relationship and he consented to the storage of the embryos IN CASE they decided to have children at a later date. However the split a few years later and he has stated, that he doesn't want a child with the woman and he doesn't consent to the embryos being used.

We are told almost daily that the surge in single parent families is bad for the development of children and that children should be brought up in a family home with both parents present. Why is it wrong that this man has decided he doesn't what a child with this woman?If an embryo was implanted and she gave birth to a child, HE would be legally and financially responsible for that child until it is 18 years old just as much as the mother.

All this man has done is defend his right to decide, if, when and with whom he has a child and starts a family. I am thankfull that for once the European courts have seen sense and have backed UK law on this.

[Mulderator]

Lotus--are you starved for attention? This subject has been done before

http://forums.techguy.org/civilized-...ight=stem+cell

What's most amazing is YOU started another thread on it here a mere 4 months ago:

http://forums.techguy.org/civilized-...ight=stem+cell

I suggest you ask a mod to merge it.

[lotuseclat79]

Hi Mulder,

Did you read the article? I think not. To be perfectly clear, the first link is about Bush vetoing the previous stem cell bill, and the second thread is about stem cell research both of which are different subtopics different from this thread on embryo ethics which by the way, if you read it, you will find out that it contains a really great analysis of the disconnect in the Bush Admin policy vs the principle he uses to argue for his policy. After all, you are a lawyer (no pun intended), and should be able to appreciate the argument put forth in the article even if you either don't like it or don't agree with it - it is a well formed and well put together analysis.

You being from the right-wing of political persuasion, I suppose I don't expect you to read the article - probably because you have proven in the past to not be very open minded about anything you detect to be either against the POTUS or you just label everything as being liberal if it isn't right-wing.

I will contact the author of the first thread to get their view on merging though - you see, unlike you, I do am not so intolerant of the likes of you as you appear to be of others not of your political persuasion, meaning, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt when you've proven that you are being the slightest bit reasonable.

However, the taunt about being starved for attention - trust me Mulder - you are worth ignoring. You should learn to apply the golden rule.

-- Tom

P.S. You should remember the old adage not to judge a book by its cover - YKWIM.

[Dzurlord]

Originally Posted by ChrisJones

If I might just detract from the conversation for a moment I feel I must comment on this point.

I cannot stand the way the man involved in this case has been villified and turned into a monster by the press. He has equal rights to the woman. At the time of her diagnosis of cancer they were in a loving relationship and he consented to the storage of the embryos IN CASE they decided to have children at a later date. However the split a few years later and he has stated, that he doesn't want a child with the woman and he doesn't consent to the embryos being used.

We are told almost daily that the surge in single parent families is bad for the development of children and that children should be brought up in a family home with both parents present. Why is it wrong that this man has decided he doesn't what a child with this woman?If an embryo was implanted and she gave birth to a child, HE would be legally and financially responsible for that child until it is 18 years old just as much as the mother.

All this man has done is defend his right to decide, if, when and with whom he has a child and starts a family. I am thankfull that for once the European courts have seen sense and have backed UK law on this.

I assume he would be forced to pay child support? as this would be his child.... I would not consent either.

[ChrisJones]

Originally Posted by Dzurlord

I assume he would be forced to pay child support? as this would be his child.... I would not consent either.

Yes that's right, he would have to pay child support until the child is 18 or 21 if they decide to go into further education.

I have a great deal of sympathy for the woman, on the one hand he seems heartless because he is "depriving" this woman of the ability to ever have a child. On the other hand he is protecting his right to choose if and with whom he becomes a father, and yes I'm sure the finacial burden of a child is a factor as well.

[ChrisJones]

And back to topic.........

That was a very interesting article Lotus. It does betray a fundamental flaw in Mr Bush's policy in this regard.

IMO, embryonic stem cell research and use is a just and valid use of our knowledge, the potential for good far, far outweighs the potential for bad. I simply do not understand why people take the position that even "leftover" embryos from fertility clinics should not be used for this purpose. They are going to be destroyed anyway why not let some potential good come from the "loss"?

Just this week Brazilian and US scientists revealed that they had discovered a technique to help combat type 1 diabetes (the most serious kind) by preventing the body's immune systems from attacking the insulin producing cells in the pancreas. Though they stress the results are preliminary and that work remains to be done. I must point out that they used the patients own stem cells so perhaps this isn't relevant to this discussion but it shows that this research is bearing fruit. Why cut off a supply of material that can help save many people?

[johnnyburst79]

Excerpt from Cato

I believe abortion is morally wrong, but I also believe that current U.S. law correctly recognizes that, in a conflict between mother and fetus, the woman’s rights take precedence over those of her fetus. A human being’s rights under the law increase with maturity. That has been the tradition under Anglo-American law as well as worldwide for most of history.

The suggestion that a fetus should have the same legal standing as an adult is not only unprecedented, but unacceptable. In balancing the rights of fetuses with those of their mothers, women’s rights must always take priority; otherwise the law is treating women as second to, or of lesser value than, the fetuses they are carrying – the law would be treating women first and foremost as communally owned vessels for bringing forth life and only second as autonomous individuals.

Cato Library