NEWS: Bush to Abort Stem Cell Bill, Again

I think they're taking the wrong approach on this, instead of claiming they can cure people with these stem cells they need to start claiming they can make a better Gay Bomb by using them. We all know the race for a better Gay Bomb is no laughing matter.

You are confusing how something ends up with how it begins. The first stage of all life is conception (or fertilization or asexual division, but you get the point.) The fact that the bunch of cells ends up as a human being does not make it a "human being" at the beginning. Fact is, the large majority of fertilized ovum never become "human beings" at all. They are sloughed off by the body, for a whole variety of reasons.

In fact, a fertilized ovum is not morphologically identifyable as a human embryo until well into its development.

The only system of thought that identifies human life as beginning at conception is religious doctrine.

Yeah, that's a good point. I'm pretty sure there is quite a bit of private funding, and even some state funding going on, so progress is certainly being made as is.

This is a tricky subject. As someone else mentioned, it is diffcult to force someone to support something that they find morally objectionable. Personally i believe the benefits far outweigh the cost, but a lot of people definitely don't feel the same way, and i don't see any good way to convince them otherwise. Tricky tricky things, science and morality...

i think i see what you are trying to say here (it's not a human being) at conception, but it is without a doubt human life and it does in-fact begin at conception. that is in no way religious doctrine, but a scientific fact. i guess were going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

No, again, you are confusing ends with beginnings. A fertilized ovum is not human life, in fact it is not human at all, and in the early stages of its development it is indistinguishable from any other mammalian life form. It is a mass of dividing cells, which, if it negotiates the fallopian tubes (it may not), successfully implants on the uterine wall (it usually doesn't) remains implanted (it often doesn't) lives through the entire gestational period and negotiates the trauma of the trip down the birth canal, will be a human life.

Now arguably that life is human even before it is makes the trip down the birth canal, but to say that every human life started out as a fertilized ovum is not to say that every fertilized ovum is a human life.

The idea that human life begins when sperm fertilizes egg is most definitely religious doctrine, as it has no basis in science. The earliest science can definitively tag the beginning of human life is around two weeks after fertilzation, when the ovum is implanted in the urterine wall and differentiation begins.

I understand what you are saying, but I'm not quite sure I fully agree with the logic. To say that the cell splitting ball isn't human life until it gets implanted on the uterine wall is just as much simantics as saying that firtilization is. Truely the only constant is that all human life was concieved. Where fertilization happens, when, or even how (test-tube) can be in a constant flux. With advancement in science we can fertilize outside of the body and remove sooner and sooner and through incubation have a living human being. I'm not trying to shoot down what you are saying, just saying that with the way science can change living; it can change the definition of it as well.

BTW- if it is legal for private companies to do this reseach I'm really pissed that they spend all their time making elderly mens dicks hard, but not helping them to remember what they can do with it.

I'm guessing part of the issue with private funding -- and why researchers want more federal funding -- is that the private companies would most likely be more interested in developing something they could market and sell to turn a profit rather than something that will really and truly help people. The two might coincide -- making money and helping those who need it -- but then again, they might not.

I think there might actually be a chance of this bill passing due to a veto override. They just might pull it off, giving Bush a major defeat (like he gives a shit, he'll still be the selfish, spoiled, stubborn ape he was before the vote). In other news...

Scientists Make Stem Cells From Skin

If this works, the whole embryonic stem cell debate is rather moot.

It may seem like semantics, but I think the point is that there are countless more unsuccessful fertilized blastocysts then implanted blastocycsts (which now have a chance at becoming a viable human being). However, implanted cells must successfully undergo embryonic development in order to come to full term. Again, a large number are aborted (naturally) through miscarriage at various points of development. The point is that there is a relatively low incidence of viability among these types of cells, and an even lower incidence of reproductivity among parent gametes. To treat cells as sacred is purely religious dogma, one that should not be imposed upon others who might disagree with religious opinion. True, after a certain point of development (into the 3rd term), it may be unethical to abort, except as a medical necessity. But up until then, it should be a woman's choice. As far as culturing stem cells goes, it's an inevitability whether they be embryonic or otherwise. The politicians who oppose this type of development are merely annoying road bumps stalling ethical scientific advancement. There are millions of people who stand to benefit, but they are being denied a cure in exchange for prolonged pain and treatment.

Michael West, a prominent researcher of stem cells, has argued that they the blastocysts are not really alive, because they have not individualized. They are still capable of seperating and forming multiple people or fusing with another to form a single person, the point being that how can they be alive if they aren't even an individual.

Whether you agree with that or not you must realize that the blastocysts are completely incapable of suffering for the simple fact that they have no neurons. As far as morals go I think you'd be hard pressed to come up with a logical argument of why a mircoscopic ball of 150 cells is more important that millions of suffering children and adults.

No, it is not semantics. Think of it this way. You have a roll of sheet metal. It is one of thousands of rolls of sheet metal, lying in a warehouse. A forklift goes in, picks up that roll of sheet metal, puts it on a truck and delivers it to a Ford factory in Mexico and it is shaped into a Ford. Now, was it a Ford when it sat in the warehouse? No, because, at that point it could also have become a Chevrolet, or a refrigerator.

What something ends up is not necessarily how it begins. A sperm and an egg also have the "potential" to become "human life," but are they human life? No. Why? Because there are many detours along the path. Ditto for a fertilized ovum. Until it actually implants to the uterine wall it does not actually have the potential to become anything. Which is why real scientists agree that the earliest that life can be said to begin is at that point. Until then there is not "life" except in the same sense that a skin cell or a blood cell has "life."

The fact that the whole process can be replicated in a lab means nothing. The bottom line will always be that, until that ball of cells does what it needs to do to begin the process of differentiation, it is just a ball of cells,

The idea that "life begins at conception" is religious doctrine, for which there is no scientific support. The concept has no business being the basis of our law.