Most of the time, I'm proud to live in the great state of Georgia. Other times, I cover my face in shame. This would be one of those times.
This week, in response to Thee Obama's lift on banned federal funding for stem cell research, the Good Ole' Georgia senate passed a bill that declares a clusters of cells the size of a pin-point is a human being:
http://www.ajc.com/services/content/printedition/2009/03/10/stemed0310.html
If that wasn't vaginally intrusive enough, Senator Ralph Hudgens of Athens wants to introduce an "Octomom" bill to limit the number of embryos a doctor can implant, because, you know, old Ralph there's pretty smart and God-like, and knows what works for his vagina, so it should be his responsibility to determine how many babies you can have::
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/03/03/georgia.octomom.bill/index.html
Here in VA the Senate can pass a bill but it has to be approved in the House of Representatives as well as signed into law by the Governor. Is there a possibility that your other governing bodies will vote the bill down or veto it?
So does spanking one's monkey consitute a mass murder?
Sadly, the Republicans control the state House, Senate, and the Governor's mansion; not that I'd rather see the democrats have total control. The AJC article makes it sound as though Sonny (our Governor) may oppose the bill, but seeing as this is the guy who has stated multiple times (including very recently) that there will be NO referendum on Sunday alcohol sales (welcome to Joe-Juh,) that seems unlikely.
Well, to be fair, I think they should outlaw the use or sale of any drugs developed or helped by stem-cell research, you know, because it's wrong benefit from killing "people".
aircooled wrote:
Well, to be fair, I think they should outlaw the use or sale of any drugs developed or helped by stem-cell research, you know, because it's wrong benefit from killing "people".
brilliant response. No buy in.. No benefit.
...however, keep the Soylent Green coming!
It's the only thing I've found to quench a thirst better than Brawndo!
ignorant wrote:
aircooled wrote:
Well, to be fair, I think they should outlaw the use or sale of any drugs developed or helped by stem-cell research, you know, because it's wrong benefit from killing "people".
brilliant response. No buy in.. No benefit.
+1. Along these same lines, I don't think California should receive electricity from out of state. 
aircooled wrote:
Well, to be fair, I think they should outlaw the use or sale of any drugs developed or helped by stem-cell research, you know, because it's wrong benefit from killing "people".
From what I understand, and I could be wrong, the ban was not on stem-cell research but government funding of stem cell research.
I think:
This is the start of the 'slippery slope.'
Justification of it is based on emotion, i.e. "If your kid had X then you'd be for it"
The Nazis (yes, I just lost the argument
) advanced medicine by their horrible experiments.
I think medical advances in general are just great, but we should err on the side of not destroying "tissue masses" that would become human if they were in the womb.
'It's only a few' and 'we're going to trash them otherwise' are not a good enough answers for me.
-James
SVreX
SuperDork
3/13/09 1:10 p.m.
I question the GA thing too.
But was there really a point in the change in the law at the National level, with the new developments in (non-embryonic) stem cell research?
Seems a little premature, and rash considering the political and moral divide on the subject.
Looked like a political ideologue pushing an agenda.
To my knowledge, there never was a law expressly banning stem-cell research on a federal level.
Limiting federal funding to a few "lines," however, was done. Private companies could have at.
http://ora.stanford.edu/hesc/procedures.asp
"I. Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research Funding Issues
On August 9, 2001, President George W. Bush announced that federal funds may not be used for research using human embryonic stem cell (hESC) lines unless (1) the stem cells were derived from an embryo that was created for reproductive purposes and was no longer needed; (2) informed consent was obtained for the donation of the embryo, and the donation did not involve financial inducements; and (3) the process of derivation was begun prior to 9 pm EDT on August 9, 2001. "
That said, Georgia is being pretty stupid about the whole thing.
SVreX wrote:
I question the GA thing too.
But was there really a point in the change in the law at the National level, with the new developments in (non-embryonic) stem cell research?
Seems a little premature, and rash considering the political and moral divide on the subject.
Looked like a political ideologue pushing an agenda.
...or a big "F.U." to Obama, sort of like the refusal of some of the federal funds.
jamscal wrote:
....I think medical advances in general are just great, but we should err on the side of not destroying "tissue masses" that would become human if they were in the womb....
I really only think this is a logical argument if the use of these "tissue masses" would encourage the "creation" of more. I don't believe there is a link like that in any way. But of course that is a completely different argument.
You DO know that an embryo is different than sperm, right?
I won't comment on the second link, but I do hold that human life starts at conception. There are a LOT of implications to that, many of which are difficult for many to stomach.
It certainly is logical though..... as opposed to attempting to define a set time that the "cluster of cells" becomes "human".
There have been a lot of advancements (I'm told) to stem cell research that doesn't require and embryo........
spitfirebill wrote:
So does spanking one's monkey consitute a mass murder?
No, of course not... but be careful. Those motherberkeleyers will kill you if you make them work for you.
You DO know that an embryo is different than sperm, right?
Absolutely. You do understand that we're not talking about vacuuming out a 7 month old fetus and bludgeoning it in the head with the business end of a clawhammer, right?
Watch more Monty Python:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8
Monty Python references aside, njansenv does point out that equating a sperm with an embrio shows a marked lack of knowledge.
The whole embrionic stem cell issue really comes down to legalized murder. After that, it's just a matter of semantics and lawyers arguing time tables. We've known what causes pregnancy for quite some time. It is quite easy to avoid. Arguments suggesting that murdering children is OK because otherwise they might be poor or bad is not only ridiculous, but outright evil. Perhaps the rest of us should sit around and decide if, say, poopshovel should be executed. I mean, I'm sure we can find some lawyer that (for a price, of course) will argue that poopshovel really needs a "late term" abortion. Like a 90th (or whatever) trimester abortion. Easy enough. Or, ignorant. He's unemployed, after all, and thus clearly a burden on society and all of society would be better off if he had a 84th trimester abortion. How about your child, ignorant? When is it OK to kill little iggy? Today? Yesterday? A few months ago? Last year? When? Why don't you tell us "On ## / ## / 200#, it was OK to kill my child and I would have no problem ordering his execution, but on ## / ##+1 / 200#, it was not OK because on that day, he became a person."
Where do you draw the line? Kill them all and let Science sort it out? There are those of us who think it better to err on the side of humanity and compassion and not kill indiscriminantly. Perhaps those of you advocating death should think about it before one of your political leaders decides you need a "late term."
Dr. Hess wrote:
Monty Python references aside, njansenv does point out that equating a sperm with an embrio shows a marked lack of knowledge.
The whole embrionic stem cell issue really comes down to legalized murder. After that, it's just a matter of semantics and lawyers arguing time tables. We've known what causes pregnancy for quite some time. It is quite easy to avoid. Arguments suggesting that murdering children is OK because otherwise they might be poor or bad is not only ridiculous, but outright evil. Perhaps the rest of us should sit around and decide if, say, poopshovel should be executed. I mean, I'm sure we can find some lawyer that (for a price, of course) will argue that poopshovel really needs a "late term" abortion. Like a 90th (or whatever) trimester abortion. Easy enough. Or, ignorant. He's unemployed, after all, and thus clearly a burden on society and all of society would be better off if he had a 84th trimester abortion. How about your child, ignorant? When is it OK to kill little iggy? Today? Yesterday? A few months ago? Last year? When? Why don't you tell us "On ## / ## / 200#, it was OK to kill my child and I would have no problem ordering his execution, but on ## / ##+1 / 200#, it was not OK because on that day, he became a person."
Where do you draw the line? Kill them all and let Science sort it out? There are those of us who think it better to err on the side of humanity and compassion and not kill indiscriminantly. Perhaps those of you advocating death should think about it before one of your political leaders decides you need a "late term."
+1 and some way high number that I can't count to.
Dr. Hess wrote:
...We've known what causes pregnancy for quite some time. It is quite easy to avoid...
Facts and reality contradict you. There is something far more powerful than biology involved here.
poopshovel wrote:
Every sperm is sacred....
In my 10th grade biology class the teacher was doing the reproductive system, etc. Giggles a plenty. "OK, OK, we're all adults here." So he continued with the speal the latin and the approved policy.
A little girl in the back, never said boo, was into the 4H, horses and cheerleading, leaned over and in a quiet moment said to her girfriend "...and it really burns when it gets in your eye."
Don't mean to get off topic Poop, just lightening things up a bit. True story.
Wonder what she's doing these days......
Dr. Hess wrote:
Or, ignorant. He's unemployed, after all, and thus clearly a burden on society and all of society would be better off if he had a 84th trimester abortion. How about your child, ignorant? When is it OK to kill little iggy? Today? Yesterday? A few months ago? Last year? When? Why don't you tell us "On ## / ## / 200#, it was OK to kill my child and I would have no problem ordering his execution, but on ## / ##+1 / 200#, it was not OK because on that day, he became a person."
Where do you draw the line? Kill them all and let Science sort it out?
You raise some good questions. I don't know all the science, but I can say that I if someone in my family could be saved from a major problem by stem cell science I'd be rather angry with those who were blocking this research. I would be very angry.
As for my child, We will be collecting its cord blood and storing for later use. ( I have family at a major cord blood bank and he's giving it to us for free as a gift).
"HUMAN Life" doesn't begin at conception. Molecular processes begin but many, many never make it to the stage that you would say someone lost a baby. Most of the time you never even know about the mis-fires.
HUMAN LIFE begins at awareness.
With that out of the way here's something I stumbled upon last week.
"Recent papers confirm that induced pluripotent stem cells should allow peace for all parties—in fact, it appears that these cells are proving to be superior to embryonic stem cells in certain respects. One of the initial worries about the method, however, was that the viral vectors used to introduce the transcription factors that reprogram the adult cells to a pluripotent state might cause cancer. But one of the just-released papers, authored by Dr. Shinya Yamanaka–the researcher behind the previous ipsc discoveries–notes that the cancer risk can be overcome."
Pro lifers, what would your response be to a woman who's just had a spontaneous miscarriage? Should she be investigated to make damn sure she didn't do it on purpose? 
One of my co workers had that happen to her about 2 1/2 years ago, BTW.
I find abortion personally abhorrent. I find using the police, courts and government to force someone to have a child they don't want based on my beliefs to be abhorrent as well. In keeping with that dichotomy, I can't oppose embryonic stem cell research without being a complete hypocrite.
Having said that, I am happy to hear of the advances in adult stem cell (iPS cell) research. That has the potential to defuse this explosive question. If you've never known anyone with Parkinson's disease, watching them go downhill can help you understand how important stem cell research can be. I suppose it does come down to the question Hess posed in a sorta roundabout way: what's more important, an embryonic cell mass or a desperately sick adult?
Monty Python references aside, njansenv does point out that equating a sperm with an embrio shows a marked lack of knowledge.
One might also point out that the inability to spell the word "embryo" correctly shows a marked lack of knowledge on that subject, but what the hell do I know? I'm not a berkeleying doctor, right?
I wasn't "equating" sperm with embryos, just like I wouldn't equate the value or importance of a tiny clump of cells to that of a 30-year-old human being.
Your "Cartman's Mom" theory on late-term abortion is cute, but completely irrelevant.
