Ugh, Not Again. Our Moral President Vetos Stem Cell Bill

I'm asking the (mostlikely Christian) fundamentalists here what on Earth is wrong with research.
Research is good, and research to stemcells even better. If you don't want to improve why not give up live at all. It has no use if you don't want to make it any better.
Yeah you kill an embryo, so what, like he even cares.

It's the same as abortion: "OH NO, WE'RE KILLING SOMEONE!!!"

That someone will never know, so why even bother.

You also kill wasps, and maybe even shoot deers. So what's wrong with "killing" something that doesn't even know it doesn't exist anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stig

I'm asking the (mostlikely Christian) fundamentalists here what on Earth is wrong with research.
Research is good, and research to stemcells even better. If you don't want to improve why not give up live at all. It has no use if you don't want to make it any better.
Yeah you kill an embryo, so what, like he even cares.

It's the same as abortion: "OH NO, WE'RE KILLING SOMEONE!!!"

That someone will never know, so why even bother.

You also kill wasps, and maybe even shoot deers. So what's wrong with "killing" something that doesn't even know it doesn't exist anymore.

---

Christian yes, fundamentalist no. Standard cradle Catholic with usual lapse in faith from 17-30.

We believe that life begins at conception and that each unique human individual is animated by a "soul" from that point forward. Taking that life, save in the most extreme circumstances, is wrong. From this perspective, harvesting embryos for their stem cells would be mass murder.

If you do not believe life begins at conception, then you probably view the whole kerflaffle as scientific luddism and can't understand why anyone would oppose a medical research issue with so much promise.


Be careful, your last point is self defeating. If you are correct, it would be legitimate to kill you as you would, from that point, not "even know [you don't] exist anymore." :devilish:

but WHY do catholics believe life begins at conception? that seems unfounded. Is it just beacuse "da pope" said so? Id like to see the evidence they used to make this decision.

Quote:

---

but WHY do catholics believe life begins at conception?

---

Thats an easy one. Because it does :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

but WHY do catholics believe life begins at conception? that seems unfounded. Is it just beacuse "da pope" said so? Id like to see the evidence they used to make this decision.

---

I'm no theologian, but I think they use this old testament (Jerimiah) passage:

Quote:

---

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.

---

to assert a pre-existing individual soul, that gets infused with "life" at the precise instant that sperm and egg unite.

That infusion entitles the union, and all growth afterwards, to protection from harm/death, under the 5th commandment.

Thus rendering Roe vs Wade unconstitutional

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Thus rendering Roe vs Wade unconstitutional

---

Un-biblical certainly; we pay other wise guys to decide unconstitutionality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

wise guys

---

Wise guys or Vice guys? Hmmm....

well, I mean at least Bhuddistas provide some explanation behind their claims. In the Book of the Dead it very carefully explains the passage of the soul through the 9 days journey of death and the 'entering' of another body at the moment of conception.

Not all that different in concept, though, yes? At some magical (or at least invisible) way, a 'spirit' gets fused to a couple of cells. The difference seems to be defining who/what controls that fusing/welding/whatever.

Well, there's a biological argument to be made as well. A zygote is genetically distinct from the host it draws its nourishment from.

As for the theological basis, I actually think Jews at the time of Christ still believed in the Guff (the Hall of Souls) and that a soul descended upon a woman in childbirth, carried by a sparrow.

But this thread isn't about abortion. It's tangentially about 'when does life begin'. Even so, regardless of whether embryonic stem cell research proceeds or doesn't, thousands upon thousands of embryos get flushed down the drain every day. Hell, they have freezers full of the poor things that will never be thawed. They're in permanent stasis, they can't even die.

If we're just going to toss them into the sewer, why not make a more appropriate use of them? Again, I'm not arguing for funding. Pfeizer gets enough money out of me when my wife goes to the pharmacy, they don't need a nice big fat check comprised of my taxes to boot.

I hate to repeat myself (okay, maybe I don't) but is anbody else struck by the profound denial the American Left are in on this? If you called up Michael J. Fox and told him "We want to start a new tax. It's not going to actually go towards public services, we're just going to give it to the oil companies, or the agricultural industry, or the pharmaceutical companies", do you think he'd say yes? No. Bless his little lefty heart, he'd be shrieking about corporate welfare. Yet that's exactly what he's asking for in this particular case. He wants us to pry open our wallets and pay new tax to pharmaceutical companies (for the record, the most profitable of all industries (oil companies generate larger overall profits, but the margin on drugs is higher).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

but WHY do catholics believe life begins at conception? that seems unfounded. Is it just beacuse "da pope" said so? Id like to see the evidence they used to make this decision.

---

It's not just catholics m8, here in Holland the protestants are far and far worse.
Hell the catholics are far better.

Again the good Don keeps hitting the nail on the head. Why should we support corporate welfare. Thats what this really boils down to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Again the good Don keeps hitting the nail on the head. Why should we support corporate welfare. Thats what this really boils down to.

---

You would because it has the possibility to benefit society as a whole.

Quote:

---

You would because it has the possibility to benefit society as a whole.

---

Not giving them money could also benefit society. Let the government do only what the constitution gives it the power to do. Thats why it was written. If we funded everything that could possibly benefit society we would go broke in one big hurry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Not giving them money could also benefit society. Let the government do only what the constitution gives it the power to do. Thats why it was written. If we funded everything that could possibly benefit society we would go broke in one big hurry.

---

Valid point, but I'm wondering if you will feel the same way when you get one of the many diseases that could have been cured by this research.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Not giving them money could also benefit society. Let the government do only what the constitution gives it the power to do. Thats why it was written. If we funded everything that could possibly benefit society we would go broke in one big hurry.

---

Possibly the ROI on stem cells is far greater then welfare payments...

I do think big business should pay for this as they are quite happy to make the profit but not pay for the fundamental research that creates it quite often (sometimes from pure government funded research, sometimes from hiring the guys in the know from somewhere else or sometimes slightly less ethical and more clandestine knowledge transfer).

The potential for massive profits is certainly there, so I can see private companies pumping in the cash.

The question is, if an overseas company gets the lions share of these royalties how happy will US citizens (edit) be missing the (/edit) boat on the profits (doubtful as the same foreign companies are going to have a lot of US shareholders)...

I think that if government funds something, there is going to be embezzlement. You get what is ALOT of money going through a system, and with all that cash, it sometimes disappears...

Companies are more...careful...with their profits, and it streamlines the process.

Quote:

---

Valid point, but I'm wondering if you will feel the same way when you get one of the many diseases that could have been cured by this research.

---

Besides at my age they dont have long to make the discovery any way

Quote:

---

The potential for massive profits is certainly there, so I can see private companies pumping in the cash.

---

This is why most new drugs are discovered here. We dont actually subsidize them . What we do is not allow drugs from other countries in. This way they get their research money back by charging high prices. Then people complain and want to buy the same drugs cheaper from Canada. So what are we to do? If we let in the cheaper drugs their goes their incentive to spend all that money on research.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Thus rendering Roe vs Wade unconstitutional

---

That assumes the old testement is correct. Roe vs Wade is based on the constitution, the 14th amendement, and this is the classice problem with seperation of state and religion.

If the constitution provided guidence in the area of when life begins I would agree, but the due process clause of the 14th amendment was applied and has never been over turned, and it wont be because the decision was correct, based on constitutional law.

While I disagree with this process of using the unborn for expirements, we have been down the road of what is and what isnt a life form. So should we throw these individuals away? Or make the best of it under the law? I vote the later.

Don pretty much nails my feelings on the money part of it.

Quote:

---

That assumes the old testement is correct. Roe vs Wade is based on the constitution, the 14th

---

Thats a lie take it back. The whole thing was based on a stupid seldom enforced law by some states prohibiting couples from using birth control. It has barely hung on by its teeth since its inception. It sure is a very liberal interpretation of the constitution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Thats a lie take it back. The whole thing was based on a stupid seldom enforced law by some states prohibiting couples from using birth control. It has barely hung on by its teeth since its inception. It sure is a very liberal interpretation of the constitution.

---

The theory of due process is "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Abortion can be claimed as someones choice of liberty, however sad i find it, it dosent change the constitution, as there is no provision made for the determination of when life begins.

Obviously that argument wasnt necessary when it was written, perhaps now it is. That would require an amendment, and given the long road we have travelled with this issue, it would obviously turn into a fight of religion.

The roe decision was based on privacy under the 14th amendment. It also states that a woman has the right to abortion up to the point the fetus has the ability to live outside of the womb, with artifical aid.

what we really need here is for some communist country to make some breakthrough...no matter how small on this area...

then america will go bananas and throw money at this very serious problem so they can solve it before the reds....


yup....the good old sputnik effect....that´s what we need here...

come on china!

Quote:

---

The roe decision was based on privacy under the 14th amendment

---

This is all made up you reaslise.

Heres the case its based on. I can give you others that preceeded it if you like

Quote:

---

Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972), this crucial (6-1) decision invalidated a Massachusetts statute making it a crime for anyone to distribute contraceptives, other than doctors and pharmacists prescribing them to married persons. The lead opinion, written by Brennan and getting the vote of three others, went far past the limited right of "marital privacy" found in Griswold by holding that the right to privacy inheres in the individual not married couples--and that the law therefore violates the Equal Protection Clause by discriminating against unmarried people.

Brennan's oft quoted opinion says: "If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted government intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." Eisenstadt at 453. This language was clearly setting the stage for Roe, which, when Eisenstadt came down, had already been argued before the Supreme Court. White and Blackmun concurred on other grounds, holding that reversal was justified by the fact that the record did not disclose whether the contraceptive distributed by Baird was given to a married or an unmarried person. Powell and Rehnquist did not participate. Chief Justice Burger dissented holding that the court's opinion would "seriously invade the constitutional prerogatives of the States and regrettably hark back to the heyday of substantive due process." He held that there was a legitimate health purpose for the statute's doctor/pharmacist requirement and that therefore the married/single issue is not legitimately before the court.

---

It was this wording that they used to claim that abortion also comes under this heading. It didnt address anything about after the child had already been begotten. Its bad law.

The part you bolded is clearly in line with the 14th amendment.

Look, you and I have a similar view on this issue, but once you start in with the constitution, that raises my eyebrow.

It maybe a liberal interpredation, but subsequent SCJ have not been able to overturn it based on law, the 14th amendment citation in the Roe opinion trumps them everytime.

I'll stand with you on the morality of the stem cell issue, but the abortion thingy, and these petry dishes with children are not the governments property, they are individuals, and as such more so then ever the 14th amendment applies.

Quote:

---

The theory of due process is "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Abortion can be claimed as someones choice of liberty,

---

It flies in the face of what you just stated. What is the first right of all of us. Thats right Life. Now what does abortion do?

Quote:

---

The part you bolded is clearly in line with the 14th amendment.

---

If it were then why do we keep getting 5-4 decisions on the matter. Its quite a stretch. Certainly everyone agrees prohibiting birth control is unconstitutional. That again is what this is based on not abortion. They took one word from the oral argument and turned it into Roe Vs Wade.

The word was beget. But that doesnt mean they have a choice to kill it . It meant they had the right to use birth control and it wasnt any buissiness of the government if they did so. Its as plain as the nose on your face. You should see the other case leading up to it.

Even Roe now opposes it,.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

It flies in the face of what you just stated. What is the first right of all of us. Thats right Life. Now what does abortion do?

---

As i stated before, the constitution dosent make the clarification of when life starts.

Quote:

---

If it were then why do we keep getting 5-4 decisions on the matter.

---

Because it is a stretch, but it continues to be upheld time and time again, under the original decision, based on the 14th amendment.

Quote:

---

As i stated before, the constitution dosent make the clarification of when life starts.

---

So as Ive argued countless times should we not err on the side of life? Im not sure its alive so Ill kill it? And there never is a doubt that its alive. Only if its sentinet.

Quote:

---

Because it is a stretch, but it continues to be upheld time and time again, under the original decision, based on the 14th amendment.

---

Ever hear of Dread Scott? If it were clear we would be talking about this now would we. Ive shown you how silly it is in reality. It was meant to stop the government with intefering with birth control. Now it has gone so far that most here see it as a legitimate form of birth control. Which it is not.!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

So as Ive argued countless times should we not err on the side of life? Im not sure its alive so Ill kill it? And there never is a doubt that its alive. Only if its sentinet.

---

Sure we should, but the SC dosent have that luxury does it? They have to base decisions on prior decisions and the constitution, not on what they think is the right thing to do. While that can be a factor, again, the constitution dosent provide for the theory of when life starts.

I concede it wasnt a necessity at the time, but the only way around it is an amendment.

Quote:

---

Now it has gone so far that most here see it as a legitimate form of birth control. Which it is not.!!!!!!!!!!!!

---

yes, and foder for research grants. :no:

Quote:

---

Sure we should, but the SC dosent have that luxury does it?

---

No it has that duty

Quote:

---

They have to base decisions on prior decisions and the constitution, not on what they think is the right thing to do.

---

But they did not in this case. How does what I posted give any right to abortion. Its clearly as I said a birth control matter not an abortion one. It took a hell of a lot of stretching to get to where we are today. Just like this new notion of seperation of church and state.