Tax Dollars Fund Human Experimentation
by Doug TenNapel“You can’t go from an is to an ought.” That’s a philosophical consensus from Christians like C.S. Lewis to Atheists like David Hume. Science deals in the realm of the “is.” It looks at a clump of cells and can only make measurements, experiment and fulfill or deny predictions. Those cells may be of a human embryo, a living child, a consenting adult or an adult Jew being experimented upon in Nazi Germany.
The results of science are indifferent to the ethics involved. A scientist can experiment on an unwilling adult and get perfectly scientific results from his work. That’s because science has nothing to say about ethics. Ethics are philosophical, and how we act on what is true is determined by other disciplines like theology, epistemology or philosophy.
The president has claimed that his administration is “pro-science,” implying that Bush was anti-science. As an observer of the culture war, I have to note how Democrat leadership uses cultural name-calling as a form of logical debate. You can be for or against embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) and it has nothing to do with you being for or against science.
Oh, sure, you could claim that government funding going to scientists and their experiments technically increases research so it creates more science, but by that standard you’d be just as pro-science by funding experimentation on unwilling Gitmo detainees. You’d get some good research results out of that, so you’d be pro science, I guess. And if you opposed experimentation on unwilling Gitmo detainees, you’d be anti-science.
That’s the level of debate I usually hear over ESCR.
I’ll add that those who oppose animal experimentation are also anti-science. Those who are against funding to expand research to make the combustion engine continue to burn fossil fuels are also anti-science. Using this standard, if you opposed the Tuskegee Airmen experiments you would be anti-science.
That leaves us with the idea that science has proven empirically that we ought to destroy embryos to find a cure for X and Y. But science doesn’t deal with “oughts.” That’s philosophy. So the very people who claim that to be against ESCR is to be anti-science are the ones who are anti-science. Science does not discover ethics. How much does fairness weigh? Is there a litmus paper that measures compassion? What does hope look like under a microscope?
This is an ethical battle and President Obama is the master of using language to frame and win the debate before it even begins. His use of language is Orwellian, and I won’t obey him. I don’t embrace his post-modern-relativist vocabulary and I find his use of it dangerous.
For those of you tired of my posting about abortion and life issues, I’ll stop talking about it when the President removes his jack-boot off the back of the unborn human. He systematically works to constantly expand abortion, destroy unborn life on every front, and in every way to the farthest left extreme. This is the guy who votes “present” on the Senate floor, but only has the moral fortitude to stand up and debate when he stands to defend the practice of forbidding aid to babies born of a botched abortion.
As President Obama appeals to the special interest groups that launched his campaign, so I appeal to the 3 million pro-life Republicans and Democrats to change their vote in the next election.
So it’s with a heavy heart and complete shame, that what I once thought could be a harmless novelty of a President, is now becoming one of the sickest, worst leaders I’ve seen in my lifetime. On March 9th, 2009, America extracted money from the people to perform human experimentation. President Obama signed an executive order ending the restrictions on using federal dollars for ESCR.
Here’s President Obama’s explanation:
…In recent years, when it comes to stem cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values. In this case, I believe the two are not inconsistent. As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering. I believe we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research – and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly.
Notice in all of Obama’s rollover he does not bring up the possibility of civil rights for the unborn in the earliest stages of life. See, that would require him to actually reach across the aisle and grasp the opposition’s position. He has no interest in that. He wants me to trust him, in spite of the lack of evidence, that his intent is good enough. See, I’m trying to take care of each embryo and work to ease human embryo suffering. If its lack of brain is justification to kill it then why not remove Christopher Reeve’s brain to end his suffering? There are already ways to alleviate human suffering without ESCR, so it’s not like this is the best path. It’s just the path that requires the cheapest, quickest destruction of innocent human life.
I can also promise that we will never undertake this research lightly. We will support it only when it is both scientifically worthy and responsibly conducted. We will develop strict guidelines, which we will rigorously enforce, because we cannot ever tolerate misuse or abuse. And we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction. It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society.
President Obama can talk for hours and he will never address the opposition. Having not grasped the other side due to what I can only assume is a lack of curiosity; he extends the acreage of his circular argument. See, to destroy human embryos is to tolerate misuse and abuse. Duh. Then I’m supposed to find comfort that he won’t allow humans to be cloned for reproduction.
See, he thinks it’s moral to clone for experimentation so long as you kill it. Suddenly the President is confident the culture will agree with his sleight of words so he goes off on how profoundly wrong it is. Is it also pro-science to think cloning for reproduction is wrong? Don’t try to make sense of it. There’s no reasoning to his reasoning. These are all positions backed into by leftist cultural emotion and political expedience. This guy is supposed to be our smart president.
This Order is an important step in advancing the cause of science in America. But let’s be clear: promoting science isn’t just about providing resources – it is also about protecting free and open inquiry. It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it’s inconvenient – especially when it’s inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda – and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.
What the hell is that supposed to mean? This is the construction of some fictional Bush-boogie man with no evidence. Am I alone in smelling a little bit of overlap with Global Warming dogma? How exactly was scientific data distorted for a political agenda? I guess scientists under the Bush administration proved that embryos didn’t have souls, that they weren’t under the category of human life…it was empirically proven in a lab that this was not human life made in the image of God and the Bush-Rove-Rush administration distorted and concealed the data.
Christopher did not get that chance. But if we pursue this research, maybe one day – maybe not in our lifetime, or even in our children’s lifetime – but maybe one day, others like him might.
Great, roll out the image of Christopher Reeve to justify human experimentation. But look at how long they intend to fund ESCR with no results. Some didn’t vote for McCain because they believed the media’s narrative that he wanted a 100 year war. The horror. Now we fund a different 100 year war with 1,000 times the body count.
P.S. Can we please remove two bad arguments from this debate? My side shouldn’t use the viable presence of adult stem cell research to negate ESCR because we’d be against it even if there were calculable benefits to ESCR.
It’s wrong even if it works.
And the opposition should stop using the argument that we’re going to throw away these embryos anyway. Because you’d still be for the procedure if they were created and donated for the purpose of experimentation. Cloning and creation of embryos to provide bodies for ESCR is next and you’ll have no problem with it if it promises a cure for Michael J. Fox.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
83 Comments
Now for my P.S. I am against tax dollars for ALL medical research. Those things should be privately funded, not publicly. I am against ESCR regardless of how it is funded.
Now for my P.S. I am against tax dollars for ALL medical research. Those things should be privately funded, not publicly. However, I am against ESCR regardless of how it is funded.
Let's there:
When is personhood triggered? At conception, or birth?
Be careful; pro-choice=pro-abortion=wrong-choice fanatics say that one is not a person until birth. That's how they try to justify abortion.
best write-up to date regarding this sham of a potus and his stance on KILLING the unborn. God help u.s. the war on words will only get worse from here on out.
I don't know what personhood means. If you are asking when life begins, I say conception. If the next thing said is then: "then fertility clinics are creating and destroying life" I would agree. I am against what fertility clinics do in creating embryos.
The great and powerful Messiah believes he has the power to kill babies in any point, early or late term and justifies his horrible beliefs. I bet he's all for yanking our private rights when it comes to saving a salamander or a bird though. He's no Abe Lincoln, he's more like that psychotic meglomaniac that ruled Germany. Every day this country is subject to another jaw-dropping decision made by this inept man.
p.s. – could the production and selling of embryos be far behind?
Doug,
Each post gets better.
You have clearly spelled out the fallacy of scientism–the belief that science is the end-all and be-all, and has the answers for everything. Both the gulags of the Soviet Union and the extermination camps of the Nazis were justified in the name of 'science'.
This decision is also just plain lousy science. ESCR has been long on extravagant promises, and pitifully short on accomplishing anything except killing lab rats. This is why private investors have shied away from putting money into it. This will now change.
By signalling that there will now be a federal cash cow, many speculative investors will plow money into ESCR regardless of lack of successful outcomes. We'll get another tech bubble in ESCR stocks. Meanwhile, research moneys in ASCR will be siphoned away, and real cures will be postponed.
Obama is the ultimate strawman builder. He does it everytime he speaks. He does say nothing rather well, doesn't he? Good speech writing of total bs. As for Christopher Reeve, it's the same as the Jersey Girls, and Michael J. Fox. Democrats love their "victims." They know if they drag them out, and people see them, they will feel badly for them, and there's no way you can say anything negative against their narrative, otherwise you will be painted as mean and evil. Who doesn't want poor so and so, (fill in the blank), to get the help,care,justice, (fill in the blank), they deserve? Are you heartless? I knew when I first was told he had such a great NARAL rating that he would do all he could to push for these issues. Of course one of his first acts as President was to sign in to law funding for overseas abortions. Evidently, he wanted to make sure he kept his promises to NARAL that he made to them back years ago. Priorites. Not the economy.
Actually, Doug, we use adult stem cell research not necessarily as an argument against ESCR but to recommend it (as research is proving) as a superior alternative. The great thing about the adult stem cell recommendation is that the self-proclaimed pro-science left will hear nothing of it. This proves the issue is more political than scientific for them. As you've so deftly illustrated, if they were truly pro-science they'd be open to all research but, indeed, they pick and choose as it benefits them politically. Nothing new under the sun.
Perfect example: "It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion…It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda – and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology." He's using this for ESCR but what better argument against the left's "Green" agenda.
Yet, he claims that these moral decisions regarding human life are 'above his pay grade'.
Just how long can an embryo be kept before it has to be killed in the name of science? Since the embryo is now just property of the lab, what prevents the scientists from letting it grow into a fetus and then killing it for experimentation? Obama took the issue of medical ethics and morality out of this with his Executive Orders. He restored funding of ESTR and defunded other forms of stem cell research. That means those who prefer to kill embryos get unquestioned federal grants while those who went on the side of medical ethics need to beg from universities and private sources.
Education is the enemy of abortion.
==I don't know what personhood means.==
You don't???
== If you are asking when life begins, I say conception.==
So do I. That's scientific fact.
== If the next thing said is then: "then fertility clinics are creating and destroying life" I would agree.==
So do I.
== I am against what fertility clinics do in creating embryos. ==
So am I.
[continued b'lo]
[continued from above]
Public Law 107-207 says that "separation" is "birth." It says that this can happen "at ANY stage of development." This would include the embryonic stage. Thus, the embryo is born.
Pro-choice=pro-abortion=wrong-choice fanatics say that only birth triggers personhood. Their purpose is to say that abortion does not kill a person. Word tricks. The Nazis, for example, didn't kill; they "cleansed."
Therefore, even to the pro-choice = pro-abortion = wrong-choice extremists, the embryo is a person.
So, if this research harvests stem cells, killing the embryo, it kills a person, and that is murder.
"Personhood" cannot be found in Science. It is found in law. It is found in what society, culture, country decide. That takes the Legislative. The state legislatures of Montana and North Dakota are close to finalizing a definition of "personhood." All states should do the same. Bypass Congress.
After further review I believe personhood starts BEFORE conception:
Jeremiah 1:5
Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
Keep up the good fight, Mr. Incredible.
One day we'll look back on these days and realize Heinlein's tag for them (even if not his content) was correct. These are the Crazy Years. One day our grandchildren will be taught of abortion alongside slavery and the extermination of Indian tribes. One day, every human will be valued.
Isn't that what the purpose of ESCR .. to dehumanize the embryo so that it is no longer human life, but property? In essence, it is the right of one group to possess another.
If a researcher decided that only embryos from Black or Hispanic people were the most useful in ESCR, would that NOT cause a 'civil rights' outcry? Would that NOT be declared a return to slavery and bigotry, even though it was a 'scientific' decision?
Equally infuriating has been the presumption that this (and all scientific research) MUST be government funded. GWB never banned -private- funding of ESCR, only the use of public dollars. The left often likes to say they don't like their tax dollars going to support the military. In their mind this justifies their use of my tax dollars to fund their pet programs. I point out to them that the Constitution REQUIRES a military and that it be funded. Their pet project (global warming, ESCR, etc.) is not. If they don't like it then they are welcome to try and change the constitution.
For Obama to imply using federal dollars will somehow eliminate any influence (especially political) or "coercion" of scientific research is contemptuously condescending. Anyone granting money for any reason, state or private, will have a say in how it is used and what the consequences will be if it isn't spent that way. My father used to say "there are no two brothers so close a dollar bill can't slip between them".
As an aside, I think "pre"born is a better description than"un"born. While technically correct, un- (meaning "not") is most often used in a negative way: untrue, unhappy, unfair, unfelt, unseen, unrest, unruly, unmerciful, etc., while pre- (meaning "before") indicates something follows: preschool, prepare, preventive, prepay, prescribe, precaution, prenatal. So a "preborn" baby is a baby about to be born.
==After further review I believe personhood starts BEFORE conception:
Jeremiah 1:5
Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. ==
I agree that's the truth and, PRAISE THE LORD, the Truth, if you take my meaning.
However, there's no way for the law to handle personhood before conception. To do that, the law would have to hold some man and some woman responsible for NOT conceiving, for denying personhood by denying physical existence. That would be impossible. How would you determine which man and which woman WOULD HAVE conceived? You would first have to determine that any given man and any given woman WOULD HAVE known each other. It's too complicated even to go through here.
Exactly!!
The technology already exists to enhance adult stem cell production to replace damaged cells in our own bodies.
Check out this link and it will make perfect sense.
http://www.ronnidonni.stemtechbiz.com
The problem with embryonic stem cells is there is no way to predict what they will become, ergo their reason to throw all the money at it. It's all about the money and I would be sure there are many embryonic stem cell scientists that have no desire to accomplish anything; they just want the money. It's a bottomless pit and they know it.
That's not to say there are not many serious and honest scientists looking into it, but they have been blinded to the fact the technology does already exist.
==Keep up the good fight, Mr. Incredible. ==
I'm trying, thanks. However, I can't be the only one doing the work. There have to be more of us speaking out boldly and confidently, with knowledge and Knowledge.
A very nice exposition, Doug. Thank you for the analysis.
Indeed, I am sickened by the One who gave this speech. I am sickened by the lackeys who recorded it and commented on it as though he were commemorating the opening of a new theme park. And, I am sickened by a "scientific" community that has elevated itself to some kind of Holy Order, whose appetites and ambitions shant be impugned or deterred.
Just disgusting.
God will judge us one day.
p.s. And, yes, it is easy to hear the "The debate is over" tone of his commentary. He has no respect for his political opponents on such as weighty matter. He, too, will be judged.
"It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda – and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology."
This sick twisting of the facts risks being underserved by the term "orwellian". Every single biology/embryology textbook will tell you that a new unique individual creature comes to be at the moment of conception. THIS is the scientific data concealed to serve a political agenda!
==Isn't that what the purpose of ESCR .. to dehumanize the embryo so that it is no longer human life, but property?==
Maybe. SCOTUS has ruled that the one "creating" life has a property interest in that life. After all, half the stuff that goes into making the baby belongs to the father. The mother merely carries that property. It's a bailment. If she aborts the pregnancy and, thereby, destroy the property, that's conversion. So, there may be several ways to go about this.
== In essence, it is the right of one group to possess another. ==
It could come to that.
==If a researcher decided that only embryos from Black or Hispanic people were the most useful in ESCR, would that NOT cause a 'civil rights' outcry? Would that NOT be declared a return to slavery and bigotry, even though it was a 'scientific' decision?==
Yes, and it's good that you see the inconsistency in their argument, that this thing can get out of hand.
Excellent point, Hermie.
It may be "above his pay grade". But, he still feels perfectly comfortable rewriting the laws, expanding the research, ignoring those who hold opposing views, and making arrogant, self-righteous statements like the one dissected above.
What a piece of work.
Not that I'm the star, but the points I make above are key to challenging this program.
If this technology and research are so promising, why aren't PRIVATE companies flocking to it and pouring billions of dollars into them??? You would think that, if this program promises commercial success, PRIVATE companies would be right in there. They're not.
You'll notice that, in the past, it hasn't been a government that's come up with discoveries; it's been PRIVATE enterprise. Where are they now??? They've had the money. They haven't needed public money to do it.
==GWB never banned -private- funding of ESCR, only the use of public dollars. ==
As I say, if this is such a big-potential commercial matter, why aren't commercial entities pushing each other out of the way to get at it?? You'd think that they would be eager to pour in billions of dollars. But no. What's wrong with this picture?
I don't know if anyone has said this yet, but George W. Bush did NOT ban ESCR. He only banned the use of federal funds. It is a specious argument to accuse him of being anti-science when it was a funding issue and an ethical one. This scares me more – If Obama has no problem destroying embryonic life, when will he turn his sights to euthenasia for the elderly and chronically infirmed? Euthenasia is certainly a "viable option" to defray medical costs. The elderly and infirmed drain precious resources from any nationalized health coverage.
Great points, Doug! I whole-heartedly agree.
And as Dr. Seuss said, "A person's a person, no matter how small."
Amen! Keep it up. I love this site!!!
==Every single biology/embryology textbook will tell you that a new unique individual creature comes to be at the moment of conception. ==
The pro-choice=pro-abortion=wrong-choice fanatics, who are part of the bunch of Liberals who tell us that we have the Right to know, withhold such information from the debate. That's cuz it's detrimental to their agenda propaganda.
the argument of "they are just going to throw them away" was used on me last week. it horrified me then as it always will. using that logic, then our hospices, old folks homes, trauma centers are filled with extra body parts and human tissues to do with what we will. after all….they are just going to be put into the ground.
Thanks Doug. Another great post.
Again, these are the same people who will fight tooth and nail to save a spotted owl or a stripped trout and yet they can so casually talk about human embryos like they're scrapes of waste ready for the garbage disposal. And then, of course, roll out the pictures of Christopher Reeve to tug at everybody's heartstrings. At least we know where President Obama stands.
http://the100mostannoyingthings.blogspot.com/
Science is, and has been wrong before. This is humanism posing as science- the absolute right over conception, and the denial of the sanctity of life posing as a 'health and wellness' issue. That's why it is so troubling- the inherent deception- obscures the possible merits. We can be pro science and pro life; these are not diametric opposites.
Keep up the writing; stay strong and courageous. I could not agree more. BTW, regarding the "pay grade" comments: it appears that this issue is no longer "above" his pay grade now that he has been elected.
Ah another Heinlein Fan, me too. What is interesting is that he thought he was only a hack writer for years churning out short stories and novels not even understanding how much he was commenting on the human condition. When he started writing his long form novels he started to take his own writing more seriously and finally near the end he took himself too seriously and went a little off the deep end but was still miles above the rest.
Alfonzo Rachel, you are brilliant!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84u8SEdk09w
It may be couched in "street", but like most of the commentators here, true, nonetheless.
Nothing new. The Left mocks the idea of an actual Messiah by claiming that even the most logical restrictions on abortion is "cramming your viewpoint down my throat." Then they cook up a faux Messiah and cram his viewpoint down our throat.
ESCR poses the possibility of a danger to the person "guilty" of it in certain religious/philosophical outlooks. Reproductive-cloning, on the other hand, poses a much more REAL danger: The potential to stunt evolution by replicating a generation of DNA rather than procreating in-line with natual selection.
What does natural selection have to say about the people with degenerative illnesses that make them require cures from ESCR? What does natural selection have to say about the 8 year old who requires insulin injections to live?
[...] “You can’t go from an is to an ought.” That’s a philosophical consensus from Christians like C.S. Lewis to Atheists like David Hume. Science deals in the realm of the “is.” It looks at a clump of cells and can only make measurements, experiment and fulfill or deny predictions. Those cells may be of a human embryo, a living child, a consenting adult or an adult Jew being experimented upon in Nazi Germany. [...]
I'm with the research if it's done in the private sector. I agree that tax dollars shouldn't fund it.
Have you noticed that every time The One begins a statement with "Let me be clear," he isn't? What invariably follows is a line of obfuscation.
The viable presence of adult stem cell research is the very thing that needs to be presented in this argument. Without government funding for a failed science, there would be an end to stem cell research. In a real world lab, research is results oriented. In a government funded lab research is funding oriented.
MSM made it sound like the US completely stopped ALL stem cell research when Bush was in office. The truth is that nobody ever stopped experimenting or researching. The difference is now WE get to pay for it. Thanks a bunch Obama.
Amen to the comparison of BO to Hitler. I've been saying that for months. Now I'm just waiting for him to tell us he's made the trains run on time.
Even scientifically, the fact is that every amount of DNA that is required to form a full human is present at the moment of conception. The DNA information is there at that moment, your eye color, hair color, everything about you is there at conception. Once the egg is fertilized, its a done deal. You exist.
Very well written and reasoned piece.
Obama is confident the culture will agree with his sleight of words because it has been proved out. Ack.
People are all about giving all the information to kids about sex – let them see what an aborted baby looks like. Not pictures, but in jars passed around an assembly audience. It cures you of being pro abortion. Give it form and a face and then it will be given voice. Until then, it is a blob.
Isn't the false argument that we cannot cure diseases like parkinsons without ESCR?
It gals me that he seems to make no distinction between embryonic stem cell research and the myriad of other versions of stem cell research. Adult, cord blood, embryonic stem cells extracted by ethical means, embryonic stem cells research done on adult stem cells that can mimic embryonic stem cells. There are more than one but Obama seems oblivious to that fact.
Also, science seems to have dropped the ethical axiom they once used to live by: just because we can do something doesn't mean we should. It seems the idea of conforming scientific method to philosophical ethics seemed to start be dropped around 1973. Hmmmm, that is coincidental.
Your P.S. makes a great point, though I am not against ESCR because there are other methods, but the fact that there are other methods makes the ESCR debate moot.
<a href=”http://lonewolfarcher.blogspot.com/” target=”_blank”>http://lonewolfarcher.blogspot.com/
We must do the science in order to save people’s lives. These are not really people and they will be destroyed anyway.
-Joseph Mengele
Private funding for medical research requires that medicine supply a profit for investors. This is something that should be made clear and something that requires standing fast against the trend to view the profit motivation in medicine as an evil thing.
Reproductive cloning offers no real danger of any sort to anything.
A clone is no more damaging to natural selection than having twins or triplets or quads, and we don't do away with the extras in those cases (barring the utterly barbaric practice of pregnancy reduction.) And since a clone is a twin in a different womb, the person is actually less alike than a twin would be due to maternal mitochondrial DNA.
You're reaching on this in a very odd way. What do you think will happen? A whole generation of clones because we allow human clones to be born?
What it says is that holding up natural selection as an assumed primal necessity is silly.
Natural selection has actually given us some diseases when there is a pairing between malaria resistance and another disease (which I can't remember for sure without looking up) or diabetes and and the ability to survive famine.
It's part of the bait-and-switch at which liberals excel.
"And we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction. It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society."
This isn't that much of a stretch when you figure that *any* reproduction of humans is seen as morally questionable, even the old fashioned do-it-yourself sort of reproduction. Babies are something we are "punished" with, and not just the parents, but society given yet another consumer and gaia being given yet another cancer cell to eat away at her. Over-population you know. People are bad. More people are worse. (And never mind that *actual* barely replacement numbers in developed nations… facts and reason may not apply.)
So reproductive *anything* is already wrong. Add the "profoundly" wrong in the case of cloning for reproduction and who will argue? The most liberal or godless sorts are likely to agree that reproduction itself is mostly a bad thing, and the religious others will agree that creating people in the laboratory is an offense to God.
Human clones aren't frightening, not any more so than an embryo created through IVF and implanted in a womb. They have to be carried to term the "old fashioned" way. They have the full set of genetic relatives that any twin is born having. They are individuals and not copies… less alike than identical twins.
The only thing we really have to worry about is that humans are accorded human rights and persons person-hood and the protections that go with those things, that we don't create a class of illegal people. And this is hard to do so long as some human life is defined as property, expendable, and not a person.
==I'm with the research if it's done in the private sector. I agree that tax dollars shouldn't fund it==
Soooo, the private sector should be allowed to murder???
Well said!
So you're comparing Obama to Hitler now? FAIL!
I tried to post that earlier, but it's "in moderation". You are right. My fear is when will Obama et al. turn their sights on euthenasia. End-of- life and chronic illness issues cost a lot of money. Our upcoming nationalized health care plan might not be able to fund these healthcare issues anymore. Hey, maybe we can used this human refuse for medical science to fund health care for the healthy young people.
Alfonzo Rachel, you are brilliant!
<a href=”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84u8SEdk09w” target=”_blank”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84u8SEdk09w
It may be couched in "street", but like the article and most of the commentators here, true, nonetheless.
You misunderstand.
Multiple-births may be genetically identical, but they all occur at the same time and thus in the same generation. In reproductive cloning, the resulting (theoretical) being is an EXACT duplicate of the DNA of the generation it was cloned from, which means it's (at least) one evolutionary "notch" BEHIND it's contemporaries. If this were to become a "standard" method of reproduction for even a third of the population, on a long enough timeline you could begin to see the emergence of a tangibly-different "genetic underclass" who are – to varying degrees – "lower-evolved lifeforms" because they're families (going back decades) had children primarily through cloning and are thus lagging behind the (now) higher-evolved family-lines who reproduced the old-fashioned way and thus benefited from natural selection's trial-and-error.
I'm not saying it's a likely scenario, but it's at least something one can actually call a REAL possibility by simple process of calculation; which is more than I can say for the supposed spiritual consequences of ESCR.
Natural Selection is a process, not a god or any other personifiable force. We all have our weaknesses, strengths and challenges. What we do with them – or in spite of them – is what fuels that process. Longer claws and sharper minds are only beneficial traits if we USE them to benefit, and the same is true of negative ones. Our Cro-Magnon ancestors were smaller and weaker than their Neanderthal rivals. They made do with the unwieldily-curious minds mutation gave them, and in doing so properly eventually dominated a "superior" enemy.
What I have to say is that the diseases you speak of have generally existed as long as man has, maybe longer. And that it is Natural Selection that has given us the opportunity to treat and even cure them, by giving us – though generation upon generation of trial and error and chaos and mutation – the evolved brains capable of commanding the science with which to do so.
Natural Selection is not a process. There is no such thing as a causative agent called "Nature" nor does it "select". It's just a term used for nobody doing anything and the claim is that this is an adequate explanation to create information, data, consciousness, even meaning. It's silly of course, but if there's one thing man tends to do is create culturally preferable gods in his own image. At least it's appropriate that you capitalized Natural Selection.
Your argument refutes itself because in a purely naturalist world, humans cloning their own offspring is no less "Natural Selection" than the more common form of our past. It's just another illusion of agency and it's false to give higher meaning to one form of Natural Selection over another. You can't get an ought from an is. If we choose to clone, then it just is. There is no "we ought to prefer traditional natural selection over this new cloning kind." That would imply transcendent immaterial values and your house of cards of a world view will fall. So it should be avoided at all cost.
Your second paragraph is also self refuting because the same minds that evolved to give us the opportunity to treat disease also gave us the opportunity to clone offspring. You haven't given a reason for why it is morally bad as Obama claims, because your world view has no room for values outside of what is.
No, it's you who misunderstand. Cloning does not produce the kind of EXACT duplication of DNA that is immune to mutation. Mutation can happen at any time, not just at conception. It's why identical twins aren't actually identical. It may be a "notch" AHEAD of it's contemporaries if it's contemporaries are mutating in a way that makes them less likely to survive.
Your entire fantasy of evolution premise doesn't even grasp that we can manipulate the DNA of clones to improve them by hand, making the human mind an even better evolver than Natural Selection.
Your scenario doesn't even register on likelihood, because it's complete science fiction, like the reasons why Obama would be horrified by cloning for reproduction but fine with cloning for human experimentation. You claim calculation, and I think you're using the discipline of creative writing instead. I have no idea what you mean by the spiritual consequences of ESCR but to get back on topic our President is ignorant of what it means to pro or against science if he thinks opposing ESCR is within the same camp.
Compared to the influence of medicine, particularly reproductive medicine but also anything that keeps anyone alive when they might have died of stupidity or disease, the affect of cloning on evolution would seem trivial.
Human Cloning is WRONG because: it loses the dignity of human life given to us by God…life is being engineered genetically connotes a parental power to predetermine the make up of others…it distorts generations (giving birth to yourself not to a daughter)…and, the creation of an identical twin for the premeditated purpose of ending her life in order to harvest her tissues is a grave evil…to create life for the purpose of exploiting and destroying it is unethical. (Source: Rev. Dr Tadeusz Pacholczyk, Ethicist, http://www.ncbcenter.org)
http://www.cathmed.org/pdf/frcstemcell.pdf
The effect of all of these escr manipulations will be NUCLEAR WAR, boys and girls.
"You haven't given a reason for why it is morally bad as Obama claims, because your world view has no room for values outside of what is."
I'm not talking about morals – hence why my "house of cards" still stands – I'm talking about practicality when it comes to cloning having the potential to stunt evolutionary process. A permanent (and ever-widening) underclass of primarily clone-descended, less-evolved persons potentially creates dozens more problems than anything it could be intended to solve. It's all speculative, sure, but it concerns me none the less; if nothing else much more so than any qualms about ESCR, of which I have very few.
Obama took his teleprompter and his carnie barker show to TV and announced that opposing science with ethics is a false dichotomy. He's a liar and an obfuscator. It is not a false dichotomy, it is a clear dichotomy. Scientists do what scientists do (e.g. creating the atomic bomb). Ethicists (and moralists) do what they do (e.g. opposing the use of the atom bomb in nearly all possible scenarios). That's where leadership comes in. Take the two entirely independent parts of the dichotomy and attempt a good resolution. Harry Truman looked at the scientific creation, considered the ethics of using it, and made a decision based on his best assessment of what would create the least amount of harm for the smallest number of humans. He used the bomb. Many assert that he should not have. But both sides agree: there is such a thing as a bomb (scientific), and there is a question of whether it should ever be used (ethics).
Obama knows full well that there is a scientific-moral/ethical question involved here. So in his haughty, I'm smarter than you manner, he changes the topic. Anyone who morally/ethically opposes embryonic stem cell research is, ipso facto, anti-science. Now THAT'S a false dichotomy. If he were honest, he would simply say "I have made the scientific decision that adult, placental and embryonic stem cells are scientifically indistinguishable. I have made the moral/ethical decision that embryos are not human life, so I am today endorsing embryonic stem cell research." I think he is horribly wrong, but at least that would be an honest assessment of the issue we face.
"It is dangerous, profoundly wrong"
So when Obama, a follower of Jesus Christ says that cloning for reproduction is profoundly wrong you hear that it's not the moral sense of the word wrong, but the anti-natural selection use of the word wrong?
Is racism profoundly wrong because it's bad for evolution or because it's inherently bad? That is, if racism helped promote the survival of the species would it not be wrong?
What makes you think clones would be underclass? That's science fiction. Why couldn't they have equal rights? You don't seem to have a problem with the unborn underclass being removed from the gene pool through ESCR though they may be the most fit to survive at the genetic level.
It's good to see that your mind is so concerned with non-existent the future of cloned underclass screwing up evolution vs. your relative peace with the very real human experimentation we're paying for today.
Jeez, MovieBob, just wrap your mind around the fact that cloning for any purpose is stupid, immoral, and unnecessary.
It's immoral for the same reason as is impregnating your own sister–cubed. The tissues created by cloning will be subject to all of the diseases we commonly associate with inbreeding, and then some. "Therapeutic" cloning will be about bringing diseased tissues to market.
Reproductive cloning will also create human beings with genetic diseases, but they will be nonetheless human, and entitled to the protections and rights which are inherent to humans.
Both cloning and ESC research are examples of the black magical thinking so common among "progressives". Do something unspeakable, and win a prize!
"So when Obama, a follower of Jesus Christ says that cloning for reproduction is profoundly wrong you hear that it's not the moral sense of the word wrong, but the anti-natural selection use of the word wrong?"
I don't give a flip what His Change-i-ness thinks on the matter. My opinions, and concerns, are my own.
"If this technology and research are so promising, why aren't PRIVATE companies flocking to it and pouring billions of dollars into them???"
ummm……they are. ESCR has gone on all throughout the 'ban'. Privately and publically funded(there are approved stem cell lines).
Basically, all Obama's silly pronouncement means is that further lines will be developed and approved for government funding.
Thank you for stating the facts. It's encouraging to know there's someone out there willing to take off the warm, fuzzy blind-fold and seek out the cold, harsh truth.
Visitor recommendations…
[...]one of our visitors recently recommended the following website[...]……
Gems form the internet…
[...]very few websites that happen to be detailed below, from our point of view are undoubtedly well worth checking out[...]……
Sites we Like……
[...] Every once in a while we choose blogs that we read. Listed below are the latest sites that we choose [...]……
Awesome website…
[...]the time to read or visit the content or sites we have linked to below the[...]……
Random Post Of The Day…
Dear readers, this article has been chosen as the random post of the day…….
[...] Suicide bomber hits Iraq military base, 19 deadDeadly Attack on Pakistani Military Base Due to 'Errors'Fort Riley Military Base Military Personnel Division in Junction City, 66441Big Hollywood [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.