CNN's Koppel uncritically reported GOP argument that new research moots stem cell debate
On the June 7 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, during a segment on Congress' passage of a bill expanding federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, host Wolf Blitzer noted that President Bush had suggested that a recent breakthrough in which scientists reprogrammed skin cells in mice "could change the whole debate" by "creating, in effect, the equivalent of embryonic stem cells by another procedure that wouldn't require destroying these human embryos." Blitzer went on to ask CNN congressional correspondent Andrea Koppel about Congress' reaction to this scientific development. Koppel replied that during the House debate over the bill, Republicans talked about "the fact that you could use the skin cells from mice." But the scientists who published the findings did not find that mouse skin cells could be used to create human stem cells. To the contrary, they have warned that the process might not work with human cells, and several news reports noted that adapting the process could take a significant amount of time. Moreover, neither Koppel nor Blitzer noted that these scientists have expressed their support for the bill that the House passed.
A June 7 Washington Post article reported on the scientists' findings:
Three teams of scientists said yesterday they had coaxed ordinary mouse skin cells to become what are effectively embryonic stem cells without creating or destroying embryos in the process -- an advance that, if it works with human cells, could revolutionize stem cell research and quench one of the hottest bioethical controversies of the decade.
In work being published today, the scientists describe a method for turning back the biological clocks of skin cells growing in laboratory dishes. Thus rejuvenated, the cells give rise to daughter cells that are able to become all the parts needed to make a new mouse.
The Post went on to note that the scientists "called for Congress to pass the bill" and "cautioned that their success with mouse cells does not guarantee quick success with human cells":
The findings have generated tumult on Capitol Hill, where the House is set to vote today on a bill that would loosen President Bush's 2001 restrictions on the use of human embryos in stem cell research.
Acutely aware that their new work could undermine that key political goal, the scientists cautioned that their success with mouse cells does not guarantee quick success with human cells. They called for Congress to pass the bill, which would give federally funded researchers access to embryos slated for destruction at fertility clinics.
On the June 7 edition of NBC's Today, NBC chief science correspondent Robert Bazell reported that, because it is not yet known whether the procedure will work with humans, the potential new cells are not substitutes for embryonic stem cells: "[T]he scientists themselves, and many others, say they are a long way from resolving the ethical debate because their work has been done only with mice." NBC aired a quote from the senior author of one of the stem cell papers, Dr. Konrad Hochedlinger, in which Hochedlinger said, "I would say at this point we don't know whether it works in humans. So it -- we are far from having a therapy using this new approach." Similarly, a June 7 New York Times article noted that "scientists say they cannot predict when they can overcome the considerable problems in adapting the method to human cells."
Koppel reported that the Democrats responded to the Republicans' "argument[]" "by saying it's sort of coincidental that, every time there's one of these big votes, we get a big story like this about breakthrough in research on stem cells."
From the June 7 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
KOPPEL: And a recent CNN/Opinion Research poll shows a majority of Americans are in the Democrats' corner, something Colorado's [Rep.] Diana DeGette [D], whose 13-year-old daughter, Francesca, has diabetes, predicts could cost Republicans the next time voters go to the polls.
DeGETTE [video clip]: In the past election in 2006, we won at least two Senate seats in large part because of this research, and 14 House seats. Fourteen Democrats replaced anti-stem-cell Republicans.
KOPPEL: Now, once the president vetoes the bill, over in the Senate, leadership aides on both sides of the aisle say that the override vote would be razor-thin, perhaps falling short by a vote. Over in the House, Republicans are confidently predicting they have the votes there to sustain the president's veto.
BLITZER: The president, as you know, Andrea, is suggesting that this potential breakthrough that scientists are now talking about, of creating, in effect, the equivalent of embryonic stem cells by another procedure that wouldn't require destroying these human embryos, that that could change this whole debate. What are they saying on the Hill?
KOPPEL: Well, certainly, it was one of the arguments that we did hear some Republicans mention today. The fact that you could use the -- the -- the skin cells from mice. That was one argument.
But Democrats responded by saying it's sort of coincidental that every time there's one of these big votes, we get a big story like this about breakthrough in research on stem cells -- Wolf.
BLITZER: All right, Andrea Koppel, watching this important story for us. Thank you.
From the June 7 edition of NBC's Today:
BAZELL: Scientists have high hopes embryonic stem cells might treat many diseases, including Parkinson's and diabetes, although that is yet to be proved.
Until now the scientists could only make embryonic stem cells with eggs and embryos. This research could be the first step toward resolving all the ethical controversy that it's created.
MARIUS WERNIG (postdoctoral researcher): There is no ethical problems with this approach in our eyes, because you basically turn a mature cell into an embryonic cell but you don't destroy life.
BAZELL: But the scientists themselves, and many others, say they are a long way from resolving the ethical debate because their work has been done only with mice.
HOCHEDLINGER: I would say at this point we don't know whether it works in humans. So it -- we are far from having a therapy using this new approach.
At least there are some scientists actually looking for alternative methods of creating stem cells. It doesn't matter that it isn't proven to work with human skin, yet. The fact that it does work on mice is a promising advancement towards eliminating the need to destroy humans in order to save humans.
Embryos aren't humans. It's not as if we're sacrificing people, you know, grown folks, to science. We're trying to let people use discarded embryos from invitro clinics that are going to be tossed into the biohazard collection anyway.
I'm sure you're one of those "pro life" folks who are for the death penalty, and love the war, and care about the "children" right up until the point that they're born, and then quaintly forget about them. Am I right?
This one is easy. No.
So, do you picket outside of fertility clinics when they throw away their unused embryos?
Do you stand out in front of Walter Reed holding protest signs saying, Maimed for a Lie" and "Enlist here to die for Halliburton?"
What does one have to do with the other?
easy: protesting the destruction of unused fetuses is a visible and pointless act ; so is protesting in front of reed.
I am pro life as far as i will advise no one to abort a baby. I am pro choice as far as not wanting govt interference. and i oppose the death penalty as easy on the convict.
I think it is great that there is an option to embryos since i do not wish my life to depend on the death of an innocent. If my cells are coaxed to become stem cells no one dies. this is better.
the third way
That doesn't make any sense. Anyone who is against ESCR should be willing to answer the question of what to do with the hundreds of thousands of unwanted embryos on ice at fertility clinics throughout the world. None of those posters against ESCR has offered their solution on what to do with the embryos that will be discarded anyway.
It's also a false comparison to bring up demonstrating in from of Walter Reed taunting sentient individuals that have been maimed in the line of duty.
Anyone doing that is asking for a serious ass beating from most Americans from the right or the left.
Worrier, why do you think the "religious" right takes the hypocritical position of opposing ESCR but not IVF, which produces emboyos destined for the trash heap?
Could it be that opposing IVF would hurt their bottom line?
I think you are over generalizing. Many people do take issue with IVF for the same reasons they oppose ESCR.
I'm sure many people do. But who among the leadership of the "religious" right does?
are you married? if so then why is your wife not impregnated with 3-5-6 of those blastocysts that are going to be destroyed anyway? if she isn't you are a hypocrite. And if you have any daughters or nieces over the age of 12-13 they better be impregnated to, or once again you are a hypocrite. after all according to the 'pro-life' camp women don't deserve any control of their wombs so you should have no issue with making sure it happens, unless you are a girly-man. :)
Please name one prominent pro-lifer who has advocated the halting of in-vitro fertilization. Please name one justice who has been nominated for whom in-vitro fertilization has been a "litmus test." Further, please link a news story pertaining to folks picketting an in-vitro fertilization clinic. Have threats been made against these doctors?
None of those posters against ESCR has offered their solution on what to do with the embryos that will be discarded anyway.
And why would anyone against escr offer their opinion on that matter on THIS site. No one would understand or believe what they say, anyway. That statement is made merely as a tool to be able to cry more hatred towards moral, compassionate people.
When you pro-abortion liberals give a true explanation and proof that an unborn fetus is NOT human, then you will deserve the answer you seek. Especially considering that 'the fetus is not a human until it's born' is one of your main mantra's to support abortion. But, since none of you will (can) offer proof that a fetus is NOT human, I doubt anyone against escr would offer an opinion on what to do with unborn babies that you feel the need to throw away.
Worrierking, when you answer when does the fetus stop being not-human and I'll answer the question you ask. Maybe solon would be interested in that offer. Nah, I doubt it. He's too chicken to offer an opinion on subjects that matter in the world. He's too busy calling people names and changing subject matter when he loses an arguement.
I know what your answers will be. You'll be shocked by mine! Do it quick, this thread will only be active for another day or two.
"But, since none of you will (can) offer proof that a fetus is NOT human"--autopsych
You seem to have a little difficulty with the logic on that. It is your positive contention that a fetus IS human. It is your job to prove that. Considering medical science hasn't done it yet, you should be quite busy.
Likewise, it is the pro-abortionist's absolute contention that the fetus is NOT human, so the burdon of proof is as much on them as it is on me. But, like I said, I don't think any of you will be able to, let alone willing (much like you are unwilling). But, that's a good try at deflecting the issue.
How are you supposed to prove a negative?
There are some conservatives out there who think a negative can be proven and Autopsychic seems to be one of them.
And there seem to be a lot of liberals who think the 'negative' one is fact. Which they use to base their entire anti-abortion arguement on.
No. I think this explains your misconception though. Because neither opinion can be determined scientifically to be true, it should be left up to the individual to decide.
You have shown you have no concept of the liberal position on this. You are making a fool of yourself with these obvious strawman arguments.
"Likewise, it is the pro-abortionist's [the only people that I know are pro-abortionists is the Chinese government which forces women to have abortions against their will] absolute contention that the fetus is NOT human, so the burdon of proof is as much on them as it is on me."
If the medical community thought that a fetus was a human being they would have termed it a human being and not a fetus. There are several stages of development before a person is termed a human being. During the first stage (germinal) we’re termed zygotes; the next stage (embryonic) we’re termed embryos; and the final stage before you become a full fledged human beings is termed the fetal stage.
And your logic is flawed. It is your job to prove that something exists; it is not our job prove that something does not exist. It’s like me saying “Autopsychic fùcks dogs” and then me asking you to prove that you don’t fùck dogs. If you ever come up with proof that a fetus is indeed a human being, we’ll either acknowledge it or try to poke holes in your argument.
Here is a clue for you. When a claim contains either the words "no" or "not", it is usually a negative claim as your example above describes. Your claim is that a fetus "IS" a human, which makes your contention a positive one.
The burden is always on the positive claim as a negative cannot usually be proven in most instances.
Ok. Fair enough. Will you believe the proof or brush it off as so many times before?
Every hear of Samuel Armas? For a quick refresher, you can go to: [link to www.freerepublic.com] or [link to en.wikipedia.org] Both prove that the "fetus" is a live human before being born. One article I read even says that brain waves are measurable at 5 weeks ([link to www.operationsaveamerica.org] Check any of them or even just google Samuel Armas. What more proof do you need to show that the fetus is still a human even when it isn't born and even when it is called a fetus.
I've done my part, now it's your turn to show proof that the fetus is not human as so many use as an excuse to promote abortion rights.
Let me try those links again. A couple didn't work the first time.
http://www.operationsaveamerica.org/streets/baby/life.html http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1012548/posts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Armas
Are you trying to argue this is somehow proof that a fetus is "human life"? How exactly does this prove anything? Sorry, but I don't see it.
Your argument that pro-choice people have to argue that a fetus is "NOT human life" is a strawman argument. You are making a fool of yourself by continuingly trying to frame the argument dishonestly.
The pro-choice argument is that it is up to each individual to decide this question of metaphysics since the issue hasn't and can't really be resolved scientifically.
Your argument that pro-choice people have to argue that a fetus is "NOT human life" is a strawman argument. You are making a fool of yourself by continuingly trying to frame the argument dishonestly.
You're hilarious! I provide proof that a "fetus" (as you call it) is human, even while it's still considered a fetus, and you go on some kind of denial rant trying to shift blame somewhere else. You have nothing! I have the proof and you cannot counter it! Until now, you have argued to a very high degree, but now you slink down to solon's level. Quit the denial aspect and respond to the question at hand. I realize that you cannot argue a pro-abortion arguement while claiming the fetus is not human, but at least admit that fact or step up to the plate and show me something besides denial of FACTS!
"You're hilarious! I provide proof that a "fetus" (as you call it) is human, even while it's still considered a fetus"--autopsych
No. It is apparent that you believe this to be true, but all you did was post a link to picture of an anesthetized fetus' hand sticking out of a uterus and claim something about brain activity at a certain gestational date. I fail to see where that proves anything at all. You do. It is a difference of opinion as I have stated all along.
I think you need to take some courses on critical thinking and/or logic because your arguments are frighteningly devoid of either.
all you did was post a link to picture of an anesthetized fetus' hand sticking out of a uterus and claim something about brain activity at a certain gestational date.
Open your eyes, then! Was that a dog's hand? Was it a horses hand? Science uses scientific methods to prove life and death in adults...such as brainwaves being present (see Terry Schaivo), a 'fetus' has brainwaves at 5 weeks of gestation, that proves by scientific methods that the fetus is alive. While you can call it whatever you want, the fact remains it was not a dog's hand sticking out of that uterus. That wasn't a dog who's pictured with his mom 3 years later.
What a closed-minded person you are. You ask for proof then deny the proof given. Even when it is given in the form you ask for. No wonder many people have no positive regard for the liberal mentallity. People who think like you do only make situations worse, never better.
Like I said, I can provide scientific proof. What do you have? Nothing but excuses. And you know what they say about excuses!
I don't find your picture convincing in any way. It is just an appeal to emotion and not really evidence (much less proof) of anything on its own. We know the developmental stages of an embryo/fetus. That is just a picture of a fetal arm. It doesn't really make a point about anything.
Your "brain activity" argument is more interesting. I am sure that monkeys have brain waves at the same gestational period, does that mean you would object to monkey abortions? How about cow abortions? If monkey fetuses have brain activity, does that mean they are human life?
Do you object to abortions when there is no brain activity? When do you think babies get their soul? Do you think it matters if they have a soul or not? Do you think you can be human and not have a soul?
Although a lack of brain activity is a current definition of death, it seems a bit ambiguous. According to wikipedia, that idea is being more narrowly defined:
A five week embryo may have brain activity, but there is a difference between metabolic and lower function activity and cognitive activity. If an embryo is displaying cognitive activity, they I might be more convinced.
In regards to Terri Schiavo, I believe she had brain activity, but it looked like her soul had left her body long ago. All that was left was a barely functioning empty vessel. I am sure you view it differently. It is a matter of opinion and speculation.
There are many questions regarding this argument that are merely a matter of opinion and aren't supported by scientific facts. Your assertions do not serve to make mere opinions into facts.
Unfortunately you have also skipped over a few steps. We need to come to some agreement on what defines "life" and then move onto what defines "human life". Unless we can agree on that premise, then we cannot properly decide if something uniquely fits that criteria or not.
I think you need to take some courses on critical thinking and/or logic because your arguments are frighteningly devoid of either.
Yeah and your arguements are logical? Here's your arguement: " I won't believe scientific proof because I'm holding my hands over my eyes and don't see the proof you offer! Therefor I choose not to believe you. " Yeah, you're quite the debator!! You certainly haven't offered anything related to logic or critical thinking.
All YOU bring to the table is denial of scientific fact. Why is that? No, you don't have to answer that, I know why....hypocrisy. You CAN'T admit the fetus is human because then you can't support the woman's right to murder a human.
I think you are just lashing out here. You have made an unconvincing argument and you want to blame someone. Fine. Blame me. I am willing to consider your evidence, I just do not believe it is "proof" of your contention for the reasons I stated above. We probably should have started with an agreeable definition. That is usually the best way to argue such a thing.
I think your point about brain activity is interesting and I will look into it some more.
As for your reasoning. I find that you throw around the word "prove" and "proof" a little too easily for me to take your arguments very seriously at times. It is very difficult to "prove" anything scientifically. There is almost always some measure of doubt behind everything or a necessary condition cannot be ascertained. I believe that is the case with this issue.
Also, science and the scientific method are bound by the rules of logic. Your frequent use of your own definitions, strawmen and fallacies of all kinds gives me reason to doubt your even basic understanding of how science works.
My skepticism should not surprise you as a healthy skepticism is a requirement of reasonable people and credible scientists. No one should believe anything they hear without careful skepticism. If you think I am being unreasonable, then I will take that into consideration.
It is very difficult to "prove" anything scientifically. There is almost always some measure of doubt behind everything or a necessary condition cannot be ascertained.
Gee, I'm sorry. The picture of the hand...was that a human hand or a monkey hand? That's the proof I offer, not whether it was 'grasping' anything. I'm pointing out that it was a HUMAN hand, not monkey, not elephant, not dog. What proof would you even accept to prove that the hand was a human hand? I did post the after-he-was-born picture. He ended up being a human afterall. Go figure.
No, Auto, I am genuinely curious. I don't know why one is such a hot button issue, but not the other.
I have no idea, I just came back to this thread after the weekend and saw it myself. Somewhat puzzling to be sure....
Auto,
Do you picket outside fertility clinics if embryos go unused and are tossed?
Great point.
If using these embryos for science is bad, how is it less worse to simply throw them away? If this is a "respect for life" issue, how can they stand by and see these fertilized eggs thrown away as medical waste? How on God's green earth do they stop being life if they're being described as medical waste but they are humans if they're used to help scientific research?
Hey now, Bush had a photo op with those ... uh... what'd they call 'em? Snowflake children. Something like that? Over FOUR HUNDRED children have been born from donated embryos! FOUR HUNDRED! This "solution" is the way regressives get off the hypocrisy hook.
You and the others seem to have forgotten that researchers can use discarded embryos if they so choose. There are research embryos available and government funded.
Many people object because they feel human beings are being killed in order to advance science. Just because they are in the first stage of life does not make them any less human. There is a logical correlation to the vile experiments Hitler scientists conducted on innocent human beings when he was in power. You may not agree, but that is how many people see ESCR.
And as far as I know, (please correct me if I am wrong,) there are no tangible results from ESCR when there are dozens of successful applications derived from adult stem cells.
ESCR is part of the slippery slope. Many ethicists believe widespread use of ESCR will lead to body part farms where some scientist or engineer decides who lives and who supplies extra organs. A chilling thought.
And as far as I know, (please correct me if I am wrong,) there are no tangible results from ESCR when there are dozens of successful applications derived from adult stem cells. - from AA
There's no rational basis for comparison. Adult stem cells were isolated decades ago. We have had all of that time for experiments and testing. In that time they have proved successful for treatment of a limited number of ailments.
Embryonic stem cells have only been isolated within the last decade. It takes time to design, perform and evaluate medical experiments. There simply has not been enough time for that to occur with ESCR.
Many ethicists believe widespread use of ESCR will lead to body part farms where some scientist or engineer decides who lives and who supplies extra organs. A chilling thought. - from AA
No, that's more of an emotional, hysterical, irrational thought. Paranoid fantasies can be generated about virtually any medical procedure. That's all you've expressed here.
So your argument is that someday there might be some results from ESCR. Not a very good argument in my opinion. How long do we have to wait for you to prove your point? One year? Ten years?
I know I postulated a nightmare scenario, but something similar happened in Germany and it could happen again. That is why it is called a slippery slope. You may not like it, and obviously you do not agree, but that doesn't make the ethical argument go away.
I'd rather see my tax dollars go toward research that is currently producing results using a procedure that isn't ethically repugnant to me than have the money sucked up by the promise that someday maybe something will come of it.
Why spend money on the long shot when you have an acceptable an working and producing method now. In addition, if I remember correctly, recently some researchers have had some success turning adult stem cells into embryonic stem cells and no human embryo was destroyed doing it. Wouldn't that be a better way to go?
Who says it's a "long shot"? Isn't the support of the scientific community based on the idea that it's more likely to provide great results?
I think you are framing this dishonestly.
So your argument is that someday there might be some results from ESCR. Not a very good argument in my opinion. How long do we have to wait for you to prove your point? One year? Ten years? - AA
You should really be more careful about displaying your ignorance. There are very good reasons why scientists in the field are excited about the potential of ESCR. The tests and experiments thus far have given them excellent reason to be excited about its potential. However, it's simply moronic to be criticizing them for not having produced results when its an absolute, inarguable fact that THERE SIMPLY HASN'T BEEN ENOUGH TIME FOR THOSE RESULTS.
Be realistic. If adult stem cells showed the same potential as do embryonic stem cells, do you really think this would be an issue? Do you think research scientists are seeking to experiment with them because they're bored with adult stem cells and think embryonic stem cells would be more fun? Embryonic stem cells DO have greater potential for therapeutic treatments of a wide variety of ailments.
I know I postulated a nightmare scenario, but something similar happened in Germany and it could happen again. - from AA
No, what happened in Germany was not at all similar. It was far, far from anywhere that ESCR is ever likely to lead outside of paranoid fantasies.
Why spend money on the long shot when you have an acceptable an working and producing method now. - from AA
Because no one who has any amount of knowledge of the topic believes it to be a long shot. Think logically. Adult stem cell research has managed to produce a number of medical treatments over the four decades it's been available for research. In the short amount of time embryonic stem cells have been available for experimentation, they have been demonstrated to have greater flexibility than do adult stem cells.
What you're basically saying is that we shouldn't explore a field of research that has huge potential because you feel squeamish about it and there is another field that has at least a little of the same potential.
You still didn't answer my question. I'm not surprised that you failed to do so, but I'm going to rub your nose in it because it's fun!
If it's wrong to use additional embryos that will otherwise be discarded as medical waste in scientific research, why is it not equally disturbing to throw those embryos away?
Why is it acceptable to discard them in the same that we throw out tissue removed during surgeries, in a medical waste incinerator, but not acceptable for them to be destroyed in medical research?
The reason you didn't answer? Because you cannot answer fairly and not be shown to be the ultimate hypocrite. If it's wrong to use them in research, it's wrong to throw them away. It's wrong to ever create a single embryo that's not guaranteed to be used, because something has to be done with them. Would you demand that none are ever destroyed, and that we pay for frozen storage forever, even though their usefulness has time constraints? How long would we have to store them before we decide that they have degraded sufficiently to not be "humans" any more, and therefore we can burn them in an incinerator without "killing" a human?
Rub your nose in this and see where the hypocrit really is! Let's see if one of you pro abortionists will answer this question (I may be waiting several years to get one of you to answer it, though).
At what point, before birth, does the embryo (fetus) stop being "not-human"? Or is it never human until it leaves the woman's body? Since the pro-abortion stance is that since a fetus is not human it can be killed without the problem of murder being involved.
"Rub your nose in this and see where the hypocrit really is! Let's see if one of you pro abortionists will answer this question" --autopsych
There are no real "pro abortionists" on this site that I have seen. That is your first problem. Maybe that is why you aren't getting the answers you seek.
No, I won't get the answer to that question because you are afraid to tackle the tough questions. The ones that have meaning in the world! Why don't one of you non-pro-abortion people answer it, then? Oh, I know why, because you're afraid to, also.
"At what point, before birth, does the embryo (fetus) stop being "not-human"? Or is it never human until it leaves the woman's body? Since the pro-abortion stance is that since a fetus is not human it can be killed without the problem of murder being involved." --autopsych
I cannot possibly write for all "non-pro-abortionists", but it is my own personal opinion that human life begins (on the physical level) at conception. That is when the empty vessel is created. The soul enters the body at birth. In my religion - Christianity - there exists a duality of a physical body and a spirit.
No. I work for a living. Do you expect ME to take the lead in deciding what to do with a problem you got yourself into?
Fried, (like AnotherAmerican said) " Do you stand out in front of Walter Reed holding protest signs saying, Maimed for a Lie" and "Enlist here to die for Halliburton? "
I thought it quite funny that king got his panties all bunched up when that comparison was made. Sounded quite hypocritical to me for him to say one protest isn't allowed but the other is expected. But, from my experiences, that's what liberalism is all about...hypocrisy.
Auto, I think the responses to the Walter Reed analogy were probably wondering why somebody would protest a hospital.That would be like Christian anti-choice fanatics protesting an adoption center.
Not all protests are equal. It's not a question of rights to protest, to say one had the right to protest one but not the other would be hypocritical. It's a question of accepted values and propriety. For instance, protesting a funeral isn't appropriate, but protesting near the white house is.
A distinct and significant difference disqualifies charges of hypocrisy, for the thinking man at least.
You're not making any sense. You're reading things into my post that I never wrote.
You sound like you could use a nap.
I don't think its the same at all. You and AA were telling me that life begins at contraception and all life should be protected. In response, I asked a simple question based on embryos and fetuses that is logically consistent.
As to your question, while I believe the war was started on lies and would discourage people from signing up, like abortion, I do not feel it is my decision to make for someone else whether they enlist in the armed forces or not.
So, you see, I am pro-choice on both of these. If someone wants to serve in the armed forces in Iraq, I will stand up for their right to do so even though I disagree with them. Likewise, with abortion, I never hope to have one (or have a partner who does, but I cannot make the decision for her), but I will stand up for the right of another to exercise that right/choice.
Is that better?
Scientist's commonly look at things from all sorts of angles,part of the job description.
Your description of a human being includes fertilized eggs.
The number of fertilized eggs that fail to attach to the wall of the womb, leave the body as part of a period, and end up in sewage systems the world over. What's your feeling on this?
Seems to be an attrocious waste to me. If its not entirly idiology driven to deny this resource. show me.
From The Post;
"Acutely aware that their new work could undermine that key political goal, the scientists cautioned that their success with mouse cells does not guarantee quick success with human cells."
Political goal? I think that would be a scientific goal. One that the scientists are protecting by ensuring that some hypothetical future breakthrough isn't used politically to undermine current research.
That said, it would be great if this was successful.Not that the religious nuts wouldn't find something else to start meddling in, but it might advance the science more quickly.
You have my permission to go collecting them.
Which flashes another lyric in my head. Weird Al Yankovic's, One more minute with you. " I'd rather clean all the urinals in Grand Central Station with my tongue, than spend one more minute with you."
Not meant personally.
Maybe I can out source it to Winston Rhothchild's Sewage and Septics-cking Service. Per one ad, "We don't just s-ck."
What kind pay for this? It won't be cheap to do and the prices for respirator filters alone could break me. We're talking electron microscpes in bulk here. Hepa filtered ventilation systems. Clean rooms. decon supplies and a host of essentials.
when a embryo fails to attach where is the concious act of will to destroy? If my child dies from a previously unknwown allergy rom a peanut butter sandwich its not equivalent to hiding peanut butter in a cake so he organs can be harvested for another
I do not agree that a child and an embrio are equivalent enough to make an analogy like yours.
I do not agree that a child and an embrio are equivalent
Why is that? When are they equivalent? At what point do they become equivalent?
For one, when they both have a soul.
Who decides THAT? You, me, someone else or God? If it's someone else, who gives them that authority? I understand who gives God the authority, but do not understand anyone else having it. And, if you agree it is God who gives someone a soul, who are you (or I) to say He doesn't give the soul earlier than expected?
If the aspect of a soul is relevant at all (and I don't think it is), then you can respond to my post about what happens to them. Do they go to hell? Do you really believe in a God that would instill a soul in an embryo he knows is going to be destroyed, and then send that soul to hell?
And if that soul doesn't go to hell, what's the damn problem? What's the damage?
Do you really believe in a God that would instill a soul in an embryo he knows is going to be destroyed, and then send that soul to hell?
Are YOU going to live forever? God instilled a soul into YOU knowing YOU would be destroyed. Are YOU going to hell? If He isn't sending YOU to hell, why would He send someone who has committed NO sin to hell?
That's your answer? Seriously? You don't see any difference between, say, a few days of being an egg and eighty or so years of judgable actions?
Wow! I think you might want to try again on that one.
Why? Cause you can't understand the logic? I've made my statement, you either accept it or not. I'm not going to change my mind because someone doesn't agree with me. I'm not a liberal, I don't do it that way.
You have no logic. I personally don't believe in hell, but if there is one then I'm almost surely going there, because I don't believe in God. That's a judgable action on my part, and is completely irrelevant to the fate of an embryonyic soul, which has committed no actions of any kind whatsoever.
You can keep your opinion if you insist, I'm just pointing out that it doesn't make a damn bit of sense. Clearly you don't have any means to argue otherwise.
I should say I appreciate that you don't think God would send an embryonic soul to hell. So then the question is, again, what's the problem? If they don't go to hell, what difference does it make if they have one at that point or not? Remember, we're talking about any embryo here, not a matter of abortion, in case you've forgotten the context of the thread.
The problem is the same as if you kill a one-day old baby. Has it committed any sin? Where does it go? Heaven or hell, either way it goes somewhere. Heaven in my opinion, hell in yours.
I don't believe in hell. Since you can't read, I guess I had to type that again.
A one-day old baby has been committed to. Killing it would be wrong for societal reasons and for the parents, outside of a religious argument. That's the whole point, is that an embryo has no value to society. You were the one asking about if an embryo has a soul. If it does, you think it goes to heaven, so what's the problem?
"Who decides THAT? You, me, someone else or God?"--Autopsych
What a silly question. We decide - as it should be. You seem to want the state to decide for us (ever so coincidentally dictating to the rest of us your own personal opinion as law for everyone).
I don't see how God should decide things. Are you claiming God tells you what to think about abortion? How long have you heard those voices? How do you know it is really God? How do I know that voice in your head is really God? If you are interpreting the Bible, how do I know your interpretation is correct? Which is more important to you, reason or what you believe the Bible tells you?
What a silly question. We decide - as it should be. You seem to want the state to decide for us (ever so coincidentally dictating to the rest of us your own personal opinion as law for everyone).
What are you talking about. You used to be an intelligent poster, now....? How can "we" decide who and when someone gets a soul? You may have an opinion of whether someone has a soul or not, but there ain't no way that "we" get to decide who has a soul.
I don't see how God should decide things. Are you claiming God tells you what to think about abortion?
It's obvious you just make statements in order to fit in with your liberal friends. You really seem to be quite paranoid when you start saying someone is talking to God when asked "who decides who gets a soul". And, yes God tells me what to think about abortion. He tells you too (since you claim to be Christian), but it seems you ignore God when it comes to abortion. How about murder, do you ignore that teaching, also? Are you another "pick and choose" liberal when it comes to Christianity? Sounds like it. You make your own rules when God's rule restricts your fun?
So the answer to the question of "reason or the bible" clearly seems to be "the bible".
If people are declaring that God is deciding things through them, then that's still people deciding them. I could sue someone at random for money saying that God told me to do it, I'm not going to get any money out of that, because the objective reality of it is that it's just me behind the action. You can believe whatever you like due to your faith, but that doesn't have any influence on the world at large. That's why restrictions of other people's actions have to be based on more than your faith.
I've explained this before. The basis of the value of human life is our ability and willingness to support it, not an all-encompassing assumption of God's will, where the very possibility of life dictates that it must be preserved. It's not "the more life the better". It's what works for individual families and society in general that counts, not the rights of an embryo.
Once a woman establishes a willingness and a commitment to having a child, that is where value of life is determined. When a child is born, the woman and society both have responsibilities to support and protect it. That's where the third-trimester concept comes in, because you need some point in the timeline at which to say that the woman has made that commitment.
And yes, I know that "if the woman isn't willing she shouldn't get pregnant", but what are you going to do? To bring however many unwanted and/or unsupportable lives into this world as some sort of moral lesson to women is draconian and clearly harmful to society.
When a child is born, the woman and society both have responsibilities to support and protect it.
While the child is in the womb the woman has a responsibility to support and protect it. In the liberal mentallity, society must now care for the baby after birth. However, the responsibility is on the mother/father (with assistance available from society) to support and protect the baby. Liberal thinking says that all babies should immediately be put on some sort of government program designed to forever 'watch over' them. Of course liberal thinking refuses to acknowledge personal responsibility, and that's where we get this whole abortion problem from. 2 people caused a baby to be formed. 2 people made the "choice" to create a baby. Are liberals saying that only one of them is able to support/protect that baby when 2 are involved in creating it?
One person has the role of pushing it out of her body and has the bulk of the responsibilities in caring for it, traditionally. Therefore, one person gets to make that decision.
There is no "baby" until it's born. There is no need to protect it until there is a commitment to bring it into the world, and that does not mean mere conception. The idea that every pregnancy is a "choice" by two people is ludicrous, since birth control doesn't always work.
Here's a thought experiment for you, I know it's late in the thread but it's something you might want to chew on for a few years. Imagine that there's a disease that has overwhelmed the world. It doesn't affect anyone directly, but it lingers in people's systems and severely damages pregnancies. 90% of babies that are born are essentially vegetables, where they can't possibly contribute to society and have to be cared for constantly. It's possible to detect this early on in the pregnancy. The question is, do you still believe abortion of those 90% is wrong? Do you believe that they all deserve protection, whether you classify them as embryos or babies or human beings or whatever? Would you think that supporting thousands and millions of these children and later adults would be a tremendous strain on people and society in general? You can't just stop having children altogether, obviously, so what do you do?
The point is that morality is relative and dependant on circumstances. Many black-and-white Christians would look at that situation above and say that every child deserves to live. On the other hand, thinking people understand the nightmare of those consequences, which is tangible on a real-world level and not just a theoretical religious one.
This is why the value of life is based on the willingness and ability to support it. If you had all those millions of aborted fetuses actually born into situations of poverty and personal strife, imagine the added strain on the lives of millions of people and the added effects of poverty and crime.
They were saying the same thing on the Today show this morning. No misinformation here.
The Today Show? Well, as long as your corroborating sources are solid. ;0)
You must be a student of Goebels. Because it was uttered more than once -- it is therefore true.
I take that back. Even Goebels had a higher standard than that.
; )
It's incredible this is actually deemed controversial. The cells from which embryonic stem cells are harvested can not be reasonably called human life. There is not a single heart cell. There is not a single brain cell. There isn't the slightest hint of metabolism. AND THEY WOULD BE DESTROYED IN ANY CASE!!!
Emotion far outstrips reason among the opponents of embryonic stem cell research.
It would be nice if there were actually another source of such stem cells that are as easy to obtain or even nearly so. It would be nice to bypass the histrionics of the overly emotional and scientifically ignorant opponents of such research. Unfortunately, we don't currently have such a source and there isn't one on the horizon. Common sense dictates that we use the simple and abundant supply that is currently available to us as that would be much better than simply disposing of them.
Bill, Bill, Bill, you silly man. Embryos are automatically given souls, don't you know? The spark of life. And when you destroy them, they go to hell for eternity. How could it be any more obvious?
Of course, how foolish of me. You've shown me the error of my ways and I herewith renounce all of my prior statements.
Brab and Bill, You are only showing your ignorance of Christian theology. I challenge you to show us where any Christian denomination says unborn children who die end up in Hell.
I'm not actually saying they do. it's a point I've made before;if they don't go to hell, what's the problem? There's no brain cells, no heart cells, no nerve cells, right? So it's not a question of suffering. Even if they do have souls, what happens to them?
You don't think they go to hell, so any religious reason you have for protecting these souls has just been shot down the tubes. Nice work.
Very interesting argument. Well done.
Thanks!
I'm not showing ignorance of christian mythol... I mean theology. I'm showing a casual disinterest in it. The idea of hell is a childish scare tactic and i couldn't care less about the christian view of it as long as it stays separate from public policy.
and i couldn't care less about the christian view of it as long as it stays separate from public policy.
Atheism is a religion, also. Keep it seperate from public policy, TOO! The last thing this nation needs is anti-God activists telling the government how to run this country. Let the government do their job and keep your religious view out of it.
"Atheism is a religion, also. Keep it seperate from public policy, TOO!"--autopsych
What a pathetically transparent canard. If you hold that Atheism is indeed a "religion", their over-riding message would be that "There is no God". Where has our government ever explicitly acknowledged the Atheistic belief that "There is no God" or any form of that idea?
Secondly, if Atheism is indeed a "religion" as you say, then its adherents necessarily have the exact same rights to freedom of religion as Christians and other Theists do. Rights are something that everyone shares equally. One person's right isn't anymore valid than another's. I would have to ask why the Theists right is asserted in the Pledge of Allegiance (i.e. "under God") and not the Atheists equal right (i.e. "under NO God")? Do you think Christians and Theists are just more equal than Atheists? If so, why?
You are in error if you think casting Atheism as a religion helps your point. It doesn't change it one bit. The only compromise position that satisfies the equal rights of Atheists and Theists/Christians is the government to stay away from all of it.
I would have to ask why the Theists right is asserted in the Pledge of Allegiance (i.e. "under God") and not the Atheists equal right (i.e. "under NO God")? Do you think Christians and Theists are just more equal than Atheists? If so, why?
Yes, you go right ahead and ask that. Why is "IN GOD WE TRUST" printed on all money in the US? Ask why you cannot get that removed. Keep asking.
I answered your question above. Could you do me the same favor instead of simply providing another example of injustice to Atheists?
How is the acceptance that there is a "Creator" being exclusive to atheists? What is being denied them with the acknowledgement that creation happened? Did our founding fathers once mention God in the constitution or bill of rights? Are you saying atheists don't think someone or something created the universe? And by that thinking they are being discriminated against. Hogwash, simple hogwash!
What 'rights' do Christians have that atheists do not? You are mistaken to say they are a lesser group by not believing in a God. You are even more mistaken to say they are being discriminated against and being denied rights under the same premise.
"Are you saying atheists don't think someone or something created the universe?"
No, we don't think someone or something created the universe. That would require belief in the supernatural, a belief in a higher power. An Atheist is;
"a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings."
"n. <!--EOF_HEAD--> <!--BOF_DEF-->One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods." (both my emphasis)
And now, the definition of "God"; " 3.(lowercase) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
A "creator" would certinly qualify as a "god" or a "supreme being". A supernatural being who influences our existence. Perhaps what you're "thinking" here is that an atheist merely disagrees with the organized religion or biblical view of God. That would essentially be a "Deist". A Deist believes God created the universe, but not in the Bible (I was officially a Deist for a while after I broke my ties with the Mormon church, although I never ever believed in the Bible). Deism and Atheism are not the same thing, because Atheists don't believe in any god at all.
Does that clear that up for you at all?
No, we don't think someone or something created the universe.
How did the universe appear? Big-bang theory? Or did it suddenly just appear out of nowhere? If you're going to make an arguement supporting your position at least don't do it in denial of what you think.
My point is entirely in refutation to your near-retarded suggestion that Atheists believe in a "creator". The actual merits of Atheism vs. Theism is a much larger conversation.
Where did God come from? Does he stretch backwards eternally into time? If that is conceivable, then the concept of the universe stretching back infinitely into time is also possible. The fallacy of your argument is that existence itself does not prove a God. By your logic, if it's possible to have this conversation at all, if there's anything outside of complete blankness and darkness, without any matter, time, or space, then there must be a God. That's ludicrous, obviously.
Although you did not answer my previous questions at all, I will show some good old Christian generosity and unselfishly extend to you the courtesy you denied me.
The best way to exemplify the way an atheist would feel would be to ask you if you are willing to accept that there is "NO Creator". How open are you to that? I would imagine an Atheist would feel similarly to that.
I am unaware of what you are talking about. Maybe you can clarify that. What does that have to do with the argument at hand?
The word "God" does not appear in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that I can find. Please provide a quote if you believe there is a reference I don't see.
I would imagine that is the case unless by "something", you are willing to accept natural physical processes.
I fail to see your point. Please explain. Would you be comforable if your government told you that God didn't exist and taught your children to acknowledge that fact at the beginning of each school day? Why would you expect Atheists to be any different?
For one, the right to have their own view represented in the Pledge of Allegiance. The state is constantly undermining Atheists' parental rights by having the Pledge recited at the beginning of each school day. Christian children are not asked to similarly deny the existence of God, but the children of Atheists must do just that or possibly be ostracized.
For another, it isn't all about current rights. There is a constant defensive struggle against erosion of rights by fundamentalist Theistic initiatives. If the courts decided to agree with persistent fundamentalist Theistic legal arguments, Creationism (which is demonstrably unscientific) would be taught to Atheist children as if it was real science. Monuments to Theistic religions like the Decalogue would "welcome" Atheists in publicly owned buildings. Taxes from Atheists as well as the general population would be collected and given to Theistic religions to support their non-secular purposes.
A persistent threat to the Atheist is the natural right to freedom of conscience and freedom of expression. Fundamentalists work hard to show displays of Christianity and Christian themes while denying or making it prohibitively difficult for Atheists to display their own items on equal footing.
What are atheists similarly doing to push their view that "there is no God" on any Christians?
I never said that. They are definitely treated that way often by Christians and sometimes the government, but that doesn't make them a "lesser group" in reality.
I think your argument fell apart when your supposed "premise" was revealed to be a strawman. Nice try. Lol.
And you won't answer, will you? Or are you arguing with yourself?
I'm going to ignore the silly bit about atheism being a religion. It's meaningless and the argument always devolves down to a petty level of dueling definitions. If you want to define religion so broadly that it encompasses atheism, knock yourself out.
You seem to implicitly agree that public policy should be religion-neutral. With a few exceptions that is how it is in the USA. I can't think of any public policy that's ever been put in place that is atheistic in nature. Non-theistic, yes. That's how it should be. Atheistic, no, there isn't a thing.
Your rant expresses paranoid fear without any factual basis.
Your rant expresses paranoid fear without any factual basis.
Aha ha ha, and your's do not? Get over yourself. You won't address the situation because you'll lose your arguement. Just as newdow can't get "In God We Trust" removed from the money. It's because we are a nation formed by a "Creator" and you atheists just can't handle living somewhere that a "Creator" is considered an authority in law and governing.
Uh no. We are a nation formed by the people and laws, which came from secular origins. Not a "Creator".
Your rant expresses paranoid fear without any factual basis.
Aha ha ha, and your's do not?
Perhaps you could point out where I expressed a paranoid fear? I also notice that you don't seem to be able to provide and example of any laws, rules or regulations that are atheistic in nature. The simple reason is that there aren't any, thus exposing your earlier fear as paranoid and baseless.
Of course there aren't any. Do atheists have any laws or rules they follow? Probably not. Why would they? If they did then it would tend to make one think that they are following rules and laws of someone's God. Since they have no belief in God, I don't see where they would have any sense of morality or base for it. So, of course they have no laws in place in our government.
You need to keep your fantasies straight. First you're ranting about how atheists should keep their atheist policies out of government, then you're trying to claim that atheists have no beliefs, laws or rules that they could use to make policies. Obviously you're wrong on both counts, the first being baseless and the second a falsehood, but you should at least try to avoid contradicting yourself.
Every species that lives in groups has evolved standards of conduct that allow them to coexist and, in most cases, cooperate. Individuals lacking the biochemical processes that allow that coexistence are removed through natural selection. Likewise for a group that loses that ability. It's plainly apparent all through life on earth.
It's nothing but theistic conceit to believe that standards of conduct couldn't exist without supernatural influence or instigation. Humans have simply reached a level of intelligence that allow us to intellectualize our biology. We create such codes as the Golden Rule, which is irrelevant to any religion, but in concordance with our biology.
Be sure to respect your mother and father, or you'll get up to a year in prison. Oh, there's no law about that? Hmmm.
Laws are based on societal standards, not religious ones. It's not as if it was declared "Thou shalt not kill" or "Thou shalt not steal" and everyone was all surprised, as I've said before. Societies can recognize that they need to protect their members (and therefore create laws) without involvement from religious influences.
The idea that atheists have no reason to respect any rules or laws because they think they'd be following the law of God is positively inane. I'm not sure it breaks the record set by your "atheism is a religion" whopper, but a good effort nonetheless.
Do you honestly believe this crap you're spouting? Do you take any time at all to evaluate what you say? I really want to know.
"Since they have no belief in God, I don't see where they would have any sense of morality or base for it." --autopsych
That is a dumb and insulting statement. I can honestly say some of the most moral people I have met have been Atheists. Morality can be founded on reasonable principles.
American common-law is based ultimately on Roman Common law, which has no basis in Christianity. Our government was formed by enlightenment and Age of Reason philosophy and has almost nothing to do with Christian principles if anything at all.
Just ask yourself how many of the Ten Commandments are current federal law.
Try using a Biblical argument in court and see how far you get. Reason is often the basis for Atheistic principles in my experience. Many Theists would benefit from that outlook as well. Especially some that don't know that the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim in an argument.
Just to nit-pick, atheists aren't "anti-God", for the simple reason that we don't believe in God. To say you're against something requires for there to actually be something, so "Anti-" simply doesn't apply to things where the existence is questioned. Are adults "anti-Santa Claus"? And it has nothing to do with the number of people who believe in anything, it has to do with objective evidence of existence.
The larger "atheism is a religion" point is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen or heard in my entire life. Just jaw-droppingly absurd.
I agree. I don't think that argument works for autopsych either way.
Bill as I mentioned above, there are alternatives. There are adult stem cells and there are those lines of stem cells already approved. Beyond that private researchers can use embryonic stem cells.
I've read the reason they don't is that adult stem cell research is where the action is. A quick search shows that
With adult stem cells, physicians have successfully treated autoimmune diseases such as lupus, multiple sclerosis, Crohn's disease, and rheumatoid arthritis. Furthermore, adult stem cells have helped to avert corneal degeneration and to restore vision in cases of blindness.They have also restored proper cardiac function to heart attack sufferers and improved movement in spinal cord injury patients.
Embryonic stem cell research, which requires the destruction of early human life to acquire the cells, has not produced any successes in human patients as far as I know.
Don't pretend it's an either/or issue. Research using both types of stem cells is quite reasonable. However, it's a falsehood that ESCR isn't being pursued because adult stem cell research is "where the action is." Most medical research involves federal funding at some level and if the exclusion of it is stifling. It's an established fact that the number of existing stem cell lines was grossly overstated by this administration and most of them are now contaminated and degraded.
A person would be a fool or a liar to suggest that ESCR SHOULD have produced medical therapies by now. It's an objective fact that ESCR HAS NOT HAD TIME YET TO PRODUCE RESULTS. I can't believe that there are people who think that is a valid criticism of the research. It's nothing short of idiotic.
I can't believe that there are people who think that is a valid criticism of the research. It's nothing short of idiotic.
And how much "time" do you expect to need? (as AnotherAmerican asked). Why is it unreasonable to expect results within 15 years? That is how long they've been doing it, right? ANY other research shows that if something isn't figured out in that time the research stops and moves on to another type of research. You're just wasting time and money at the expense of human beings.
The cells from which embryonic stem cells are harvested can not be reasonably called human life. There is not a single heart cell. There is not a single brain cell. There isn't the slightest hint of metabolism.
Ok, tell us at what point does this collection "become" human? At the point of a single heart cell? Single brain cell? When metablolism begins? Tell us! When does this collection suddenly stop being "not human"?!?
These embryos aren't ever going to become human, because they're not being used. It's genetic material, nothing more. If you believe a soul is involved, then you can answer my question above.
Otherwise, your argument is dead on arrival.
Why is it unreasonable to expect results within 15 years? That is how long they've been doing it, right? - from AP
Um, no, that's very wrong. Embryonic stem cells (ESC) were first isolated in November 1998. That's only 8 1/2 years ago. And it's not as though they immediately became widely available for research projects that were already prepared to kick into progress. First they were examined and tested, especially comparing their potential against that of adult stem cells (ASC). That's the point at which scientists first became aware of the huge potential of ESC, far beyond that of the ASC. All of this would have taken a minimum of a year and probably more.
Next comes the design, setup and implementation of actual medical treatments. It takes an average about 15 years to bring a new drug to market from its earliest stages to its approval for general human use. These aren't drugs. These are a number of new medical procedures with little historical precedent. Put that together with being hobbled by lack of federal funding (virtually ubiquitous in US medical research) or, alternately, hobbled by having a severely limited number of available cell lines, badly contaminated and degraded, and you're effectivel minimizing the research that can be done.
That isn't to suggest that progress hasn't been made. I could fill up a post with link after link after link describing the promising results of experiments with ESC at this very, very early stage of research.
Whatever your personal squeamishness with ESC research, it remains as an exercise in ignorance to pretend that lack of cures to date is a rational objection.
Moreover, this isn't even something for us non-scientists to be second-guessing, at this point. If scientists believe that there is merit and potential to the work, then they will keep doing it as long as they like. If they don't, then they'll drop it.
The only reason for outsiders to be asking questions about it is if there's some moral issue involved. Cloning, for instance, is hugely controversial or a good reason. There are scores of ethical and moral questions that arise from that, even outside of a God-fearing perspective. In this case, there are two moral concerns, one that these are "human beings", and the other that the embryo has a soul. Both of these have been addressed. Unless there's some relevant and legitimate responses on those points forthcoming, then what right do opponents think they have to object, honestly?
It's all subjective, of course, but opposition to scientific progress must be based on reasonable grounds, not some absolutist religious standard.
Good points. It's preposterous for the average poster here (or even sub-average, like AutoeroticPsycho) to presume to state that ASC have greater or equal potential to that of ESC. And, as you pointed out, unless a moral negative of actual substance can be demonstrated, it would be irresponsible to to restrict ESC research.
If we were to take AA or AP's assertions about ASC research as fact we would have to conclude that scientists working in the field are foregoing work on more promising ASC to work on ESC because they take some joy in beating their heads against the government establishment. Or because they harbor some deep desire to mess with embryos.
Does that make sense to any rational person?
The key element in this story is, as the Democrats pointed out, that every time this bill comes up for passage, some new alternative to embryonic stem cell research is annouced days before. Someone should look into this obvious ploy to derail the legislation. I can't believe how hte press plays into their hands by putting these stories on the front page. This latest revelation about using skin cells was announced in 2005. It is mentioned in the book Stem Cell Wars published in 2006. Why is it front page news now. What a disgrace.