page 3 is gay

7/20/2006 2:13:52 PM

Quote :

"And even so, it doesn' tmatter if 1000 diseases are cured if we are using unethical means to obtain those cures."

Yes it does matter. See most people with common sense are worried about the people who are here today. Not little clumps of cells that don't even remotely resemble a human being. See the problem with social conservatives is that they oppose such funding until a disease or accident that stem cells could have cured (or at least drastically improved the victims condition) hits close to home (themselves or a loved one). Then all of a sudden they come out in support of stem cell research and start foundations here and there. Look at how Limbaugh's tone towards drug addicts changed when he was outed as a drug addict himself. Social conservatives nonsensical, backwards policies always come back to bite them in the ass sooner or later.

7/20/2006 3:24:39 PM

Protostar...you mean like private foundations and charitable giving?

Or taxation and forcing through federal means?

7/20/2006 4:19:57 PM

Quote :

"Yes it does matter. See most people with common sense are worried about the people who are here today. Not little clumps of cells that don't even remotely resemble a human being."

But we do not need to do research that destroys these tiny humans, it's bogus. We can study adult stem cells towards the same goal of curing disease. Perhaps it would be easier to use babies to research, but that is no excuse to do it. I mean maybe we could get better at curing a number of diseases if we just killed the people with those diseases to learn more about the disease's progression before the terminal stage. Why not just create a subclass of people to harvest parts from, like in Coma or more recently The Island.

Ultimately if embryonic stemcell research is approved it may cure some diseases (that we could cure other ways anyways.) but it's real political use is to rationalize the abuse of the unborn. If the technology allows you can bet that they would attempt to use aborted fetuses to help supply material for cures, then abortion would be rationalized under the "good" of such actions. God forbid.

7/20/2006 4:53:47 PM

Quote :

"But we do not need to do research that destroys these tiny humans"

embryos are not "tiny humans"

the embryos are going to be destroyed anyway

Quote :

"We can study adult stem cells towards the same goal of curing disease"

adult stem cells are already specialized. they do not have the same potential to become ANY type of human tissue like embryonic stem cells do.

embryonic stem cells have the potential to repair vital organs. adult stem cells do not.

Quote :

"Ultimately if embryonic stemcell research is approved it may cure some diseases (that we could cure other ways anyways.)"

O RLY???

7/20/2006 4:59:24 PM

7/20/2006 5:04:56 PM

exactly

[Edited on July 20, 2006 at 5:05 PM. Reason : O RLY??????]

7/20/2006 5:05:22 PM

Remember: The House was only 51 votes short of overriding the veto.

7/21/2006 12:31:41 PM

i can't tell if you're being sarcastic

7/21/2006 1:52:34 PM

Quote :

"Ultimately if embryonic stemcell research is approved it may cure some diseases (that we could cure other ways anyways.)"

Yeah we should be devoting more time researching great technologies like prayer, and panacetic jesus bones, and magic hands!

7/21/2006 2:08:21 PM

Quote :

"Yeah we should be devoting more time researching great technologies like prayer, and panacetic jesus bones, and magic hands!"

I don't expect much from somebody who is somehow still a communist, but come on.

Let me make it simple for you.

Adult stem cell research.

Still find cures.

no ethical dilemma.

easy.

7/21/2006 8:08:48 PM

let me make it simple for you:


THESE EMBRYOS ARE GOING TO BE DESTROYED REGARDLESS

[Edited on July 21, 2006 at 8:18 PM. Reason : /]

7/21/2006 8:13:08 PM

Quote :

"of course bush doesnt have the balls to ban the destruction of embryoes, the only logical position to derive from such a belief he just wants to make sure their destruction doesnt help cure anything -- he wont do anything about the fact that hundreds of embryoes are destroyed daily by fertility clinics"

It's already allowed. He can't stop it. I'm sure that if he was President when the bill allowing said destruction came along, he would have vetoed it, just as he would sign a bill banning it. Congress makes the laws, last I checked. Now I remember why I stopped frequenting the Soap Box.

7/21/2006 8:25:40 PM

Quote :

"Let me make it simple for you. Adult stem cell research. Still find cures. no ethical dilemma. easy."

Well they still make something of an ethical dilemma, I mean those cells are alive.

I've got a better idea! They're scientists right? Let's let them figure out how to make replacement organs out of toothpicks and rubber bands. Nobody has any ethical problems with those.

7/21/2006 8:33:56 PM

Quote :

"Why not just create a subclass of people to harvest parts from, like in Coma or more recently The Island. "

People are people, embryoes are a collection of cells that will never become a human without implanation into a uterus.

And also, if embryonic in vitro ferilization methods was never researched, such embyoes would never be able to become life, there would be no snowflake babies.

According to you, if i take an egg from a human that just ovulated, place it in a cup then jerk off into it, we've got a real live unburn human. Its absurd.



[Edited on July 21, 2006 at 9:55 PM. Reason : gyuiygui]

7/21/2006 9:52:18 PM

I'd like to know where the fuck it says in the Constitution that the Federal government should subsidize ANYTHING not related to defense of the nation.

Also,

If there was genuine promise in this specific type of stem cell research, the private sector would be all over it. Am I the only one that sees issues with "embryo farming" if this type of research were allowed?

7/21/2006 9:58:14 PM

Quote :

"I'd like to know where the fuck it says in the Constitution that the Federal government should subsidize ANYTHING not related to defense of the nation."

this is the dumbest thing ive read all year

Quote :

"If there was genuine promise in this specific type of stem cell research, the private sector would be all over it."

another idiotic comment. there is tons of private funding, the problem is that most acedemic reserach in the US is funding federaly, and a lot of federal money comes from donations from the private sector. just look at other countries, they are all arggresively pursuing stem cell research.

its clear from your use of the word 'promise' that you dont understand scientific research. maybe do some thinking ... or learning .... just anthing aside from espousing your uninformed views



[Edited on July 21, 2006 at 10:10 PM. Reason : fghfg]

7/21/2006 10:07:10 PM

its only dumb if you haven't read the fucking thing.

Just like welfare, social fucking security, the FDA, and government education... I'm fucking sick of all the goddamned shit I have to pay for that the federal government was never supposed to participate in in the first place.

Little water baby socialists like you can't comprehend this because government is your pet project.

Actually I work in the pharmaceutical industry... I read RFP's, project budgets and trial protocols every day. Its pretty fucking expensive to bring regulated products to market, but if the benefits of a so-called panacea like embryotic stem cell research were truely feasible, they wouldn't be waiting for federal funding for it to make it happen.

[Edited on July 21, 2006 at 10:15 PM. Reason : .]

If embryotic stem cells lead to another dick pill, this wouldn't even be an issue. There'd be another product on the market as soon as it passed its NDA.


[Edited on July 21, 2006 at 10:16 PM. Reason : .]

7/21/2006 10:12:32 PM

Quote :

"Section. 7. Clause 1: All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills. "

there you have it. no go cry in a corner becuase youve been pwnted.

i see nothing about restricting revenue to to the military.

Quote :

"Section. 8. Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;"

anyway...youre done.

[Edited on July 21, 2006 at 10:16 PM. Reason : 234]

7/21/2006 10:15:28 PM

Ok, "general welfare" is a bit more ambiguous than "common defence" don't you think?

Infrastructure development (roads, water, law enforcement): "General Welfare"
Education: maybe "General Welfare"
Giving money to people who should be paying for shit themselves: Not General Welfare.
Social Security: Not General Welfare
Welfare: Only general welfare to those on the receiving end, certainly not to those having to pay for the shit.


Mind you, that I'm all for this veto as a person who suffers from a disease that is rumored to be treatable via stem cell research.

7/21/2006 10:23:02 PM

does it not sting?

7/21/2006 10:26:30 PM

actually it does.

everytime I look at my paycheck stub and see money that goes to waste.

then it stings more when people like you advocate more wasteful government spending.

because I know that people like you will always exist.

7/21/2006 10:29:49 PM

curing diseases....such a waste

7/21/2006 10:30:47 PM

Curing diseases would still happen. You lack faith in the capitalist market.

Plus, haven't you noticed that the "herd" needs a little thinning? China's got a billion people, and there are certainly a lot of genetic failures around here that should have failed darwin's little test.

(I say this again, as someone that would probably be dead if not for medical technology)

[Edited on July 21, 2006 at 10:34 PM. Reason : .]

7/21/2006 10:34:29 PM

HEY GUYS WE SHOULD STOP CURING DISEASE CAUSE THE EARTH IS FULL AND ALL

7/21/2006 10:52:29 PM

hes done.

7/21/2006 11:01:33 PM

Quote :

"Plus, haven't you noticed that the "herd" needs a little thinning? China's got a billion people, and there are certainly a lot of genetic failures around here that should have failed darwin's little test."

If the herd needs thinning, we don't need all these damn embryos lying around to make things worse.

7/21/2006 11:14:26 PM

He should volunteer for thinning.

7/21/2006 11:18:14 PM

Quote :

"I've got a better idea! They're scientists right? Let's let them figure out how to make replacement organs out of toothpicks and rubber bands. Nobody has any ethical problems with those."

what is wrong with you?

Quote :

"THESE EMBRYOS ARE GOING TO BE DESTROYED REGARDLESS"

Two wrongs don't make a right. Guess we should go start testing experimental drugs on the Lebanese around Hezbolla, afterall Israel is going to kill them all regardless, might as well put them to use.

Quote :

"People are people, embryoes are a collection of cells that will never become a human without implanation into a uterus."

No. Embryoes are people to and they only exist outside the uterus because of the barbaric practices of some doctors. The natural order of things is that most of the time the embryo will become a baby safely inside the mother. While I can sympathize with the intent of infertile couples to have kids, its hardly humane to arrange to add to your family in such a way that half or more of the additions die. When there are so many children needing adoption that is what is truly absurd.

Quote :

"According to you, if i take an egg from a human that just ovulated, place it in a cup then jerk off into it, we've got a real live unburn human. Its absurd."

Again what is absurd here is extracting the egg and fertilizing it in a cup.

7/22/2006 12:34:18 AM

Please remake your argument. You clearly dont know the facts.

Quote :

"No. Embryoes are people to and they only exist outside the uterus because of the barbaric practices of some doctors. "

1. Often times, an egg is fertilized in vivo, yet not implanted in the uterus. It is excreted upon menstruation. Is this murder? Do we have funerals in such occasions? A women wouldnt even know. It happens.

Quote :

" The natural order of things is that most of the time the embryo will become a baby safely inside the mother"

Wrong. In fact, most conceptions do not result in a baby. If there is early termination, which could be causes by a number of things, the mother doesnt even know most of the time. Once pregnancy is verified, still, there is a high probablility for misscarriage, especially among some women, the odds can reach 50%.

Your logic would suggest that since a women has had 1-2 misscarraiges, thus we now know she has over 60% odds of having another, we should have her prosecuter for muder. After all, the is knowingly killing embyoes.

But that would be crazy, that is, your position.


References

Quote :

"According to previous scientific reports anywhere from 31 percent to 89 percent of all conceptions result in miscarriage."

http://www.umich.edu/news/index.html?Releases/2006/Feb06/r022006a

Learn. Then, return.

[Edited on July 22, 2006 at 1:16 AM. Reason : rtyu1 ]

7/22/2006 1:11:26 AM

Quote :

"Let me make it simple for you. Adult stem cell research. Still find cures. no ethical dilemma. easy."

Adult stem cells are predestined to turn into a certain type of tissue.

Embryonic stem cells (which have only split once) can turn into any type of tissue.

I think it's obvious why the latter would be preferable.

7/22/2006 2:16:05 AM

Quote :

"You lack faith in the capitalist market."

Look into positive externalities. The private sector cannot be relied upon to cure diseases, only treat them.

Quote :

"what is wrong with you?"

Nothing, I'm putting the arguement into perspective.

[Edited on July 22, 2006 at 2:18 AM. Reason : ]

7/22/2006 2:17:10 AM

Quote :

"1. Often times, an egg is fertilized in vivo, yet not implanted in the uterus. It is excreted upon menstruation. Is this murder? Do we have funerals in such occasions? A women wouldnt even know. It happens."

sorry, as a mathematician I should have enough sense to change "only" to usually. And I suppose as long as were chasing this rabbit I should concede that some embryos end up in the fallopian tubes not even in the uterus.

Of course it's not murder, the woman to which it happened had no intent for the death. It was just an accident. An unavoidable accident if we are ever to procreate.

Fact remains, gestation in utero is way way way way more safe than IVF.

According to Leon Speroff, Clinical Gynecologic Endocrinology and Infertility
(Baltimore , Md. : Williams and Wilkins, 5th ed. , 1994), 937-9.

29 out of 30 embryos die in order to implant a single child

That is considerably more dangerous than the natural route (even using your stats.)

Quote :

"Your logic would suggest that since a women has had 1-2 misscarraiges, thus we now know she has over 60% odds of having another, we should have her prosecuter for muder. After all, the is knowingly killing embyoes. But that would be crazy, that is, your position."

I wouldn't say that. I don't think we know for a particular person what the real odds are. On the average perhaps, but I would not make natural procreation illegal. Whatever risks there are there that is unfortunate, but we are not causing those risks, in contrast to IVF. I am of course speaking of responsible, non-substance abusing mothers.

I would say that such people who have mulitple miscarriages should reconsider trying again in light of the mountain of biological data that suggests that emryos are very close to being what most of us would call human. For examples, after insertion into the uterus the following have been observed,

6 1/2 weeks, "the baby weighs about 1/30 of an ounce and has all the internal organs of an adult in various stages of developement, a little mouth with lips, an early tongue and buds for 20 milk teeth. It's sex and reproductive organs have begun to sprout"

8 weeks, hands feets and fingerprints in place, baby responds to mothers movements.
9 weeks, baby will will bend fingers to grasp object placed in palm, suck thumb
10 weeks, baby squints swallows and frowns.
12 weeks, baby is kicking, moving its feet, curling and fanning toes, bending wrists, opening mouth

beside the point here but, 80% of all abortions happen during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, something to think about.

Granted the activities above cannot be done by an embryo, but if nature is allowed to take its course the embryo will become a functioning human in a short time. The fact that some meet an unfortunate demise before they can be implanted does not give some justification for killing more. If anything we should try to find a way for less natural accidents to occur, clearly the statistics of IVF go the other direction.

Quote :

"Adult stem cells are predestined to turn into a certain type of tissue. Embryonic stem cells (which have only split once) can turn into any type of tissue. I think it's obvious why the latter would be preferable."

Health research done on humans is more directly applicable then that done on other species.

Children in Africa are humans which have about a 50% survival rate to age 5 in many poor areas.

We should experiment on African kids because less will die in clinical trials.

Putting their life in jeapordy is ok because they were likely to die anyways.

7/22/2006 5:15:31 PM

Quote :

"Two wrongs don't make a right."

Unless you are opposed to fertillity treatments (this administration is not) then this is not a wrong so using them for potential good would not be another wrong.

7/22/2006 6:14:33 PM

Quote :

"Of course it's not murder, the woman to which it happened had no intent for the death. It was just an accident. An unavoidable accident if we are ever to procreate."

so, destruction of embyoes is ok in some cases, according to you.

Quote :

" 29 out of 30 embryos die in order to implant a single child That is considerably more dangerous than the natural route (even using your stats.)"

so its ok for a women to have 5 misscarriages, if shes trying to have one baby?
but its murder to need to kill 29 embryoes so someone can have twins?
When does it become ok? You have to show me the line. You show me the math. 3 embyoes for 1 life? 10 for one life? You have to tell me this. Wheres the equation?

We know that the odds are such that certain women will have 2-3 misscarriages in their life depending on their stress, enviroment and genetics can exceed 50%, thus your argument that its an accident is invalid. they cannot claim their murder of an embryo was accidental when they knew that their odds for having another is over 50%. I cant point a rovolver at you with 3 bullets and claim there is no intent to murder. We know the odds, therefor its no accident. According to you, these women are murderers before they've even given birth to one baby.

Quote :

"An unavoidable accident if we are ever to procreate."

not true, we dont NEED all women to have babies, just a lot of em too.



Thus, claiming embryo destruction by intent is murder is abusrd.
AND
You freely admit that its ok that embryoes are destroyed ... why? you believe the ends justify the means -- youve said its becuase we need to survive and procreate. If thats not an argument for IVF and stem cell reserach, i dont know what is.





[Edited on July 22, 2006 at 6:39 PM. Reason : erwt]

7/22/2006 6:18:47 PM

its beyond my comprehension how anybody could agree with this veto

7/22/2006 7:22:07 PM

Arn't the embryos we the President just saved going to sit in a freezer until they die anyway? I'm getting a little tired of this, its one cell, but it has a soul shit.

[Edited on July 22, 2006 at 11:20 PM. Reason : ]

7/22/2006 11:19:59 PM

Quote :

"Children in Africa are humans which have about a 50% survival rate to age 5 in many poor areas. We should experiment on African kids because less will die in clinical trials. Putting their life in jeapordy is ok because they were likely to die anyways. "

A ridiculous argument if there ever was one. If we can remove those kids from their circumstances to experiment on them, we could just remove them into a better situation. Besides, the kids are living, functioning human beings and embryos aren't.

Seeing as how there is zero evidence for a non-physical, magical soul, what makes a human a human? A functioning brain, capable of creating a consciousness. Anything before a functioning brain just isn't a human being. How do you justify that an embryo is?

7/23/2006 12:08:43 AM

Quote :

"Two wrongs don't make a right. Guess we should go start testing experimental drugs on the Lebanese around Hezbolla, afterall Israel is going to kill them all regardless, might as well put them to use. "

Haha, that's such a completely retarded thing to say. Those people have a significant (or at least non-0) chance of being able to survive.

The embryos scheduled to be used in these experiments are ones that are going to be destroyed anyway... that's 100% chance that they weren't going to ever become a human being, short of someone breaking in to the facility, stealing them, then implanting them in someone else.

This is different than experimenting on a human destined for death (like a prisoner) because it has conflict-of-interest complexities throughout the legal process, and various other issues with experimenting on a live, non-consenting sentient being.

There's really no reason to be against the stem cell bill as it was written unless you are a blind right-wing nutjob, or you have no idea about how the embryos they are using came about. It's not like they are sneaking in to people's bedrooms after they've screwed, knocking them out, and stealing their embryos, that would be highly unethical. That's comparable to breaking in to someone's house and stealing their TV. What these researchers want to do with gov. funding is essentially dumpster diving.

7/23/2006 12:22:33 AM

Quote :

"so, destruction of embyoes is ok in some cases, according to you. "

No it is never ok. It is just sometimes unavoidable. This is what I meant when I said it was "An unavoidable accident if we are ever to procreate." So long as people are having kids some people are going to miscarry. Its inevitable. But in the natural scheme of things much fewer will be lost and none will be experimented on.

Quote :

"so its ok for a women to have 5 misscarriages, if shes trying to have one baby? but its murder to need to kill 29 embryoes so someone can have twins? When does it become ok? You have to show me the line. You show me the math. 3 embyoes for 1 life? 10 for one life? You have to tell me this. Wheres the equation? We know that the odds are such that certain women will have 2-3 misscarriages in their life depending on their stress, enviroment and genetics can exceed 50%, thus your argument that its an accident is invalid. they cannot claim their murder of an embryo was accidental when they knew that their odds for having another is over 50%. I cant point a rovolver at you with 3 bullets and claim there is no intent to murder. We know the odds, therefor its no accident. According to you, these women are murderers before they've even given birth to one baby."

Of course I don't know the equation anymore than you can tell me when a baby becomes human (in the sense of having the right to not be murdered). I mean what is the dividing line between murder and manslaughter, where do you draw the line ? I don't know in general. In terms of law though I think that its fairly obvious that we could prevent the loss of life due to IVF.

However, while I do think it is ethically questionable at best for women who miscarry like that to keep trying, I find it basically impossible to enforce such a law. In constrast to IVF all such women have to do is engage in the usual adult activities, IVF folks have do do much more. Anyway, medicine is not so exacting. My mother was never to have children, but the science was wrong (statistically) and she had 4 kids. You could never really apply such a law even if you made it as there would almost never be a completely ironclad case against a particular women. And on the other hand there is always some chance of miscarriage in every pregnancy. So everyone would be guilty in some sense. Its an unavoidable risk.

Quote :

"not true, we dont NEED all women to have babies, just a lot of em too. "

but EVERY woman who gets pregant has risk of miscarriage, this is my point. It is thus unavoidable. The extra risk from IVF is obviously avoidable.

Quote :

"Thus, claiming embryo destruction by intent is murder is abusrd. AND You freely admit that its ok that embryoes are destroyed ... why? you believe the ends justify the means -- youve said its becuase we need to survive and procreate. If thats not an argument for IVF and stem cell reserach, i dont know what is."

I have never said that embryo destruction is ok, only that whatever we do some loss is unavoidable. I would never condone an activity which encouraged more of such, because I believe human life is sacred and should not be destroyed just for the convenience of making other human life or studying disease. I have a much larger problem with using them to study disease as the intent is obviously not to let them live, as compared with the loss duing IVF where at least the intent was that they might live. There is no such possility in the stem cell reasearch.

Anyway we can use adult stem cells so this whole argument need not even be had.

As far as IVF goes it is clearly political suicide to suggest it be made illegal. Even I don't see it as black and white, because as you said I don't know what exact percentage should be considered murder, I'd rather err on the side of life, but not everybody in the prolife community is as die-hard as me.

[Edited on July 23, 2006 at 12:35 AM. Reason : .]

7/23/2006 12:30:45 AM

Quote :

"However, while I do think it is ethically questionable at best for women who miscarry like that to keep trying, I find it basically impossible to enforce such a law"

So you are saying you would in fact create a law that demands women who often get miscarriages get their tubes tied becuase they are murders, there is no problem with enforcement. These stats are reported, sometime hospital visits are needed. We'd just arrest them, sedate them, and then a doctor would tie her tubes. You would want this, thats right?

Quote :

"My mother was never to have children, but the science was wrong (statistically) and she had 4 kids."

So "science" told your mom she couldnt have kids? Or was it more like, a doctor told her she probably cant? Im not sure if this is new to you, but the phrase "you probably cant have kids" is not WRONG is you have 4 kids. Look up the definition of probably. Its not absolute. Science, or said doctor, was still RIGHT.

Quote :

"So everyone would be guilty in some sense. Its an unavoidable risk."

Not in the SPECIFIC CASE that ive been talking about. Women who have had even ONE misscarriage now have over 50% odds of having another.

Quote :

"I believe human life is sacred and should not be destroyed just for the convenience of making other human life or studying disease."

It follows from this logic that all women who risk their lives (a small percentage do) to give birth should be arrested and given an abortion. It simply logically follows that if she is putting one life at risk to create another, by your ethics, we have to kill the baby.

Overall, I have to say, nobody would want to live in a world where people werent allowed to freely chose to participate in events that risk/give their lives for the sake of others.

Youve made an argument to outlaw firefighting. We know many firefighters die in the line of duty every year saving others. But this is immoral in your world, should godless firehouses not be abolished?



[Edited on July 23, 2006 at 1:02 AM. Reason : teyur]

7/23/2006 12:55:08 AM

So many appalling views on both sides.

As for my two cents, a side story:

My mother has been a nurse in labor and delivery for over 20 years and I've gotten to hang around the department a lot. About 10 years ago there was a nurse who worked in the same department who was trying to desperately have a child. She wasn't past 30 but she would continually miscarry. After the third or fourth time she just gave up. I can't tell you how painful it was to see how resigned she was to being barren.

Imagine, a labor and delivery nurse who delivers babies every day, suddenly finds herself not able to have one.

A woman carried each and every one of us inside her. Maybe she wasn't a good mother. But we are all more than a bunch of cells. Whether it is intentional or not, when a man and a woman conceive a child it is more than just a pairing of chromosomes.

As far as I'm concerned it does not matter that the cells would be thrown away anyways. Their true potential has already been wasted. Perhaps potential is a bad word, because it is hard to measure the true worth of a person as they would become or are. It seems to me that you are just bastardizing the whole human experience when you begin to redefine what is "human". As far as my worth is concerned, I enjoyed three pints of Guinness last night and I'm glad that 21+ years ago my parents gave me a shot.

Just my retarded opinion.

7/23/2006 1:08:45 AM

^ What does that have to do with stem cell research?

Your opinion is neither for or against what this thread is about. Someone with your beliefs can be on either side without compromising those beliefs.

7/23/2006 1:42:21 AM

Quote :

"So many appalling views on both sides."

yes, we all think we're correct, dont we.

7/23/2006 1:58:08 AM

In Red State America,



=

7/23/2006 1:32:45 PM

Here's my question:

The Bush administration has heralded their funding for grandfathered lines. If stem cell research is truly killing innocent life then why would they pay for the murder of existing lines?

7/23/2006 5:26:58 PM

cant kill the non-living twice i suppose

7/23/2006 8:29:27 PM

But isn't "You can use these lines because they already exist so its not murder" on par with "You can use these because they are going to be destroyed anyways"

If you concede that the existing lines can be used for research you can't stand on the morality of using stem cells.

7/23/2006 8:55:15 PM

It is indeed a slippery slope.

7/24/2006 1:32:43 AM