Bush vetos stem cell bill - Page 3

Does the Bush family know any biotech moguls? Do any pharmaceutical companies donate to the GOP?

Can publicly funded research be patented and profited from?

Do you see where I'm going with this? The same old "It's for Jesus, err I mean ethics" smokescreen when it's really for big GOP donors.

Can publicly funded research be patented and profited from?


Yes

MYTH: This bill would result in embryos being killed.
FACT: Only embryos already scheduled to be destroyed would be used for stem cells.

So, the whole show Bush made of holding up an frozen embryo adopted baby and implying the poor thing would have been murdered under the bill that he vetoed is, quite simply, a LIE.

MYTH: This bill would allow tax money to be used to kill embryos.
FACT: Your precious tax dollars would NOT be used to destroy embryos.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13864044/

Now hold on...you're dodging the issue again. I want to know when you think life begins. That's all I'm asking. So far you refuse to take a position. It's an essential precursor to any debate on this topic, or the topic of abortion.

I've already stated the reason: Because it's creating new life and then taking it away.

It's not murder because murder is the unjustified and illegal taking of life. There are circumstances where the taking of a life is not murder...many of them. What Bush is saying, and what I am saying, is that while he can accept private corporations performing these experiments, he doesn't want to fund them if they involve creating new life and then destroying it. I don't consider it "murder" and I don't think he does either. The question is merely one of public financing. There are plenty of things we don't fund that aren't illegal at the same time.

Does this not seem reasonable to you?

Yes you have. We listed reasons which you have to do in a debate. You listed nothing but a " belief " and tried to claim we were doing the same. Unless you can list reasons to support your argument like we have you have just lost.

As to government policy when someone obstructs progress without reason as you have just demonstrated someone has to something. It's the one side imposing it's beliefs on the other without reason.

OK, so not one week.

What about two?

Three?

Six?

12?

13 must be the cutoff.

No it seems incomplete. What are your reasons?
My guess is if you listed them they would seem as nonsensical as Chris's.

I'm asking if the decision is reasonable. That's all. It seem like a pretty balanced one given what could have happened.

Sigh! We're only talking about one week. This is when these cells are harvested. And things biologically are very different at that time. But we've already covered this last night. Go back and read what's come before SDW. And quit trying to cloud the issue.

Once again we've already been over this. Life from the moment it's a living cell is there. So if your saying that we shouldn't destroy any life think about that the next time you step on an ant. Human life starts much later. Exactly when is up for debate but it's clearly not there at that point of one week. The building blocks are there but it hasn't been built yet. We covered this quite well last night SDW on page 2. Go back and read.

Strawman.

I have not said we shouldn't destroy any life. There are times when it's justifiable and times when it's not. Secondly, that's not even the debate. It's a question of funding it publicly.

No.


As have you.


The reason is that it might be a human life we're destory for the purposes of progress. Until that has not be conclusively determined, stopping it is a wise decision.

It's not even a choice of that. No one is even saying "stop." What we're talking about is federal funding, and nothing more.

I just love it when you guys can't use logic or reason because you sound so helpless and lame!

I trust you are familure with the term " Informed opinion ".

That's what you've been talking about. Chris apparently hasn't been talking about anything.

It is amazing how fiercely you must cling to your fantasies.

Well coming from someone who clings to nothing.......

You haven't listed any reasons. You're almost impossible to tie down to a position when asked.

That must be a new tactic with you and SDW because if someone can tie you down or if you don't give any reasons there's no danger of being wrong and having it proved to you.


Well that's wrong. Look up the word " Forum ". In a forum you debate using logic. You have to supply reasons for your position. Childish statements like the one you just made ( while they might sound clever ) won't cut it.


Until you've listed some facts or ideas for your position on this subject ( which I'm not even sure what that is because you don't make it clear ) I don't see any reason to talk to you as you're not here to exchange ideas you're just here to harass.

I rarely see that here. Particularly from you.


A fertlized cell is known to evolve into a fully formed human being. How's that? Is that a true statement? Is it a fact?

Any date on the timeline after that point is arbitrary in terms of defining "human life form".

The "clump of cells" is a clump of human cells with a genetic code that is the earliest, least developed form of a human being. But a human being nonetheless.

All human chromosomes are present on day one. It (the zygote as we call it this stage) is alive. It has its own unique DNA. It fulfills the four criteria needed to establish biological life: metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction. Approximately four days after fertilization and after several cycles of cell division, the totipotent cells, that hardeehar refer to, begin to specialize. Within the first 2-weeks cells have begun to multiply and become specialized for muscular, neural, reproductive, skeletal, digestive, and circulatory functions (in fact, by the 6th day it has multiplied more than 250 cells). By the end of the 3rd week the heart begins to beat (Which means it has developed during the previous 3 weeks) with the childs own blood and eyes have begun to form and the nervous system begins developing.

There is a huge amount happening with that "clump of cells" in just the first week alone. In my considered (and informed) opinion...this is a human being at the very earliest stages of its growth, development and life.

Huh?

Propose then your defining feature of *human* life.

What? You folks believe in evolution now?

Clearly being 'human' to Chris is being a clump of a few cells. As ever the Christians have morbid contempt for life.

If only science could do a test of dna at conception for the 'fundie' gene, and anyone found to have it would be put permanently in frozen suspence. Thats OK for the fundies, because being a frozen clump of cells is to be as equally human as the rest of us, so they wouldn't miss the quality of life, and better for the rest of us for not having to deal with them.

SDW, your latest arguments are without merit, because under the bill vetoed by Bush, NO FEDERAL MONEY COULD BE USED FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF ANY EMBRYOS.

I'll repeat what I quoted earlier:

"The bill would lift most restrictions on federal funding for ES research. The key exception: the actual destruction of the embryo cannot be paid by the federal government money. So, with private money, a researcher could go to a fertility clinic, and so long as the parents who produced the embryo give permission, he could harvest stem cells from a frozen embryo. Then, the same or a different scientist could use an NIH grant to work with the cells."

Source.

Yes but it hasn't happened yet. Did you also know that any cell in your body has genetic material that a human can be created from? So next time you cut your finger watch that blood!

I know you don't see how silly this is. But it is.

The logic just isn't there. Plus you're doing what you were having trouble with when I tried to explain. You're defining when human life begins.

You'll have to do better than that.

I presented facts on which I base my belief.

You presented facts on which you base your belief.

Neither belief is necessarily "provable" in terms of a definition of human life...because the definition basically is the statement of belief.

My belief is just as likely as yours. I am comfortable with that notion. I have no problem with it. I know you won't see it this way. You won't agree to that. I know you won't actually try to refute or debate the facts...you'll simply discount my belief and hold your own up as "fact" itself. I know why you need life to start a later time. I understand completely. If the facts I presented are inconvenient for you. I understand. But stop ranting "i'm being logical and you're not"...it simply doesn't hold up to rational scrutiny.

And of course Chris, I understand why you need for human life to start at the fusion of the egg cell and sperm, and to further believe that this entity is uniquely human and a belief it is because there is plenty of evidence that doesn't support that belief. But of course, belief isn't evidence based and a belief can continue in the presence of only contradictory evidence...

And why is that?


Of course that is incorrect.

EDIT: I should at least say that no one here has presented "plenty of evidence that doesn't support that belief" (or any for that matter).


Incorrect. Belief picks up where evidence ends.


Of course it can. I am seeing evidence of that now.

Because you have a moral framework that would collapse if it wasn't true. You will expend more energy defending this small point than you will avoiding inconsistencies in your own moral judgements. The implication that the human soul does not in fact begin at conception (or at all) brings down your belief system.



Of course it isn't. Take that newly created zygote and put in into a developing mouse embyro, and those human cells begin to behave as if they were mouse cells and after they differentiate they don't go back to being able to become human. So are they human or are the mouse? (The answer is that it is an arbitrary distiction).



And belief can exist in the absence of all evidence. So in other words, belief isn't evidence based, which is what I said in the first place...



It's good that you are so introspective.

Of course not.


Such as?


Not at all.


Citation?


Fallacious conclusion.

Except that your facts weren't enough to support your conclusions. And I told you why they weren't. I know you don't like the reality of the situation but there it is.

You just don't get it. You're still dealing with potential not actuality. That's what hardeharhar meant when he gave you the mouse cells scenerio.

In your opinion.


You did no such thing.

In black and white.

And yes I did.

Where precisely in this statement:


Do you explain why my "facts (presented again below) weren't enough to support your conclusions"?

- A fertlized egg is known to evolve into a fully formed human being.
- All human chromosomes are present on day one.
- It (the zygote as we call it this stage) is alive.
- It has its own unique DNA.
- It fulfills the four criteria needed to establish biological life: metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction.
- Approximately four days after fertilization and after several cycles of cell division, the totipotent cells, that hardeehar refer to, begin to specialize.
- Within the first 2-weeks cells have begun to multiply and become specialized for muscular, neural, reproductive, skeletal, digestive, and circulatory functions.
- By the 6th day it has multiplied more than 250 cells.
- By the end of the 3rd week the heart begins to beat (Which means it has developed during the previous 3 weeks) with the childs own blood and eyes have begun to form and the nervous system begins developing.

More like this statement :

" Except that your facts weren't enough to support your conclusions. And I told you why they weren't. I know you don't like the reality of the situation but there it is.

You just don't get it. You're still dealing with potential not actuality. That's what hardeharhar meant when he gave you the mouse cells scenerio. "

Say it slowly with me : Potential. It could turn out to be a human eventually. As a matter of fact it most likely will. But that hasn't happened yet. Which is not the same thing.

So, because you believe we are only dealing with potential, you believe that my "facts weren't enough to support" my conclusions. So the "why" is that you believe we are only dealing with potential.

I'm sorry, but why is any of that important to you guys? I for one am willing to agree with every you said, (except calling a 3 week embryo a "child"). Why cannot we put a value on this life? Like we do with prisoners on death row? Like we do with a 3 month old fetus diagnosed with a severe disability? Like we do with all the embryos that sit in IVF clinics just waiting to be disposed of?

Yup! because it's not the same thing as actually human which is what this situation is all about. In your facts you were leaving this aspect out which unravels the whole premise.

In your belief.

See, nothing you have said reduces or eliminates the "human-ness" of the cells under discussion or the "live-ness" of their state.

You have failed to address any of these critical facts:

- A fertlized egg is known to evolve into a fully formed human being.
- All human chromosomes are present on day one.
- It (the zygote as we call it this stage) is alive.
- It has its own unique DNA.
- It fulfills the four criteria needed to establish biological life: metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction.
- Approximately four days after fertilization and after several cycles of cell division, the totipotent cells, that hardeehar refer to, begin to specialize.

You just prattle on about "potential"...providing no logical refutation about the "human-ness" or the "alive-ness" of this "clump of cells".

Are these human cells? Yes.
Are they alive? Yes.
Are they in the earliest stage of development and growth? Yes.

Because it hasn't become human yet. Potential and actuality aren't the same thing. If it were then everything would happen at once. Which curiously enough some physicists think actually happens. We just percieve things ( past, present, future ) in a linear fashion as an illusion. But I digress. I think for the pupose of this discussion we should stick to conventiual ideas of time and space.