FH

I agree Will has offered no scientific premise for his metrics nor any scientific reason for his less than stellar arguments. When confronted with his limitations he simply retorts to "of course not." He has yet to answer most of my questions with science nor has he offered me a metric that I can judge since his metrics are not true metrics since if you do not fulfill his metric it still could be true (fuzzy math). He even goes as far as to buttress his arguments with aliens from outer space and chimpanzees writing poetry, both of which we have not been found to exist in our Universe. But hey who says Will has to be rational or for me in that case. I do agree with one thing Will said I really do not want to waste my time responding to mere words.

Iowa: You can't win...he just takes your arguments, places them in the confines of his metric and then tells you why they don't work. He also throws a few "brain deads" in their to be arrogant and to demean anybody that might have a different view than him. Of course, the basic tenets' of his metric have been the rationale behind slavery, ethnic cleansing and almost every kind of barbarism we as a species have chosen to visit on one another.

Of course, then he's going to talk to me about Bush...I didn't vote for him.

Can it not be enough that the object of our discussion contains the same genetic material that makes you, you. Every egg represents a potential individual of our species...a unique individual...does that not at least give you pause? Don't answer that.

My God told me that it is okay to use embryos that are going to be tossed in the garbage to help seek cures for suffering people.

Iowa (presumably)-

"How ironic I am a speciest since I will not recognize a chimpanzee as human even if he has the ability to write poetry and groom himself..."

Which is actually quite insane. If aliens landed on the planet and demonstrated all the capabilities of humans, what possible reason would you have for denying them moral considerations? Why do you treat dogs differently than cockroaches?

"yet you can perform experimentation on a chimpanzee only because he can not write poetry which I assume means if someone who is severely handicap can not perform functions similar to chimpanzees we can do experimentation on them as well."

Where did this craziness come from? Who said I wanted to "perform experimentation" on chimpanzees?

Of course you cannot do experimentation on a human who has the same capacities as a chimpanzee (perhaps a severeley retarded person?) but you can act in their best interests and preform necessary medical procedures without their consent. Part of the reason is a bit of healthy specieism, but more likely it is because a severely retarded human is still capacitorially more developed than a chimpanzee (or at least comparable).

But again your rant is unnecessary because never did I say we should preform experimentation on chimpanzees. I think I was talking about mice? Whatever.

"I am a speciest out of a profound belief that humans are unique in God's eye, you are a speciest simply because you can be one."

Oh bravo. What do you know about "God's eye"? What does that even mean? I'm not a specieist because my metric makes no specific mention of "humanity" to determine moral worth.

If you were going to argue with me for thousands of words over very nuanced moral theory just so you could blast out this late in the argument your own divine inspiration, then why the hell did you waste so much of both our times? If your moral theory really is "because God told me so" then why are you debating the issue at all?

Will,

How ironic I am a speciest since I will not recognize a chimpanzee as human even if he has the ability to write poetry and groom himself, yet you can perform experimentation on a chimpanzee only because he can not write poetry which I assume means if someone who is severely handicap can not perform functions similar to chimpanzees we can do experimentation on them as well. I am a speciest out of a profound belief that humans are unique in God's eye, you are a speciest simply because you can be one. Who really is the monster?

Iowa-

"The problem is how do we define what is human?"

Why is this a problem? Are you confused about how to define a human?

"How I define what is human and what that means in my world view will guide my decision making process."

Why? Are you a specieist? Have you ever owned a dog? If so, did you mourn when the dog died? If so, why?

You seem to have this confused view that something has moral worth in virtue of it being "human". So if a chimpanzee learned english, wrote poetry, spoke like a human, and even groomed itself to look like a human, you would still refuse it moral consideration? Why this insistence on "humanism"?

It is more likely that you extend moral considerations to humans because they posess a set of qualities that you also posess. Namely, humans happen to be self aware, pain perceptive, responsive, and cognitive entities in ways that chimpanzees are not. If aliens landed on the planet tomorrow and exhibited all these qualities, logically you would have to extend upon them all the same moral considerations.

If you really mean to define "blastocyt" as "human" then you have to explain what differenciates "blastocyt" from "cockroach" because without a metric that makes any sense, cockroach=human at least as much as blastocyt=human.

"However, a cockroach or any other animal will never be a human."

And...? In virtue of WHAT exactly are humans extended special moral privaledge? Why do you think humans deserve more moral consideration than a cockroach?

HINT: "humanness" is an answer that begs the question.

This one vote alone is reason for the ouster of Senator Nelson. How anyone could not understand the importance of this, when the cells are being discarded anyway, is beyound me. POLITICS.

Will

"What makes someone a human has to do with biology, not morality or ethics."

I think we can agree on this point. The problem is how do we define what is human? How I define what is human and what that means in my world view will guide my decision making process. Do my views agree with the majority of the general public absolutely not but my values should never be formed by popular vote.

You continue to drive home the point that early life is not human since cockroaches and the like process more advance functionality. However, a cockroach or any other animal will never be a human. Again I drive home the point my degree of functionality does not make me more or less human. I am human for what my biology processes regardless if I am a one day old embryo or a 40 year old chemist.

Iowa-

"I assumed your metrics were to be used to define what is human am I not correct?"

No. We are having a discussion about the moral worth of a particular kind of entity. Many non-human entities have moral worth, and some human entities do not. And it is conceptually possible that a non-human entity could enjoy all the moral considerations of a human. Thus, your elaborate yet retarded insistence on defining my position as making someone "less human" is both tiresome and uninteresting.

"So I assume that for someone to be human they must fit your metric for isn't that what makes a metric a metric?"

No. Humanity is not at all determined by one's receptivity to pain or self-awareness. A vegetable on life support is still a human. An embryo might conceptually be called a "human" just as a fish egg might sometimes be referred to as a "fish". What makes someone a human has to do with biology, not morality or ethics.

Iowa-

"I suggest you go to a basic developmental biology book and read about the differences. There is enormous change once and egg is fertilized compared to before it is fertilized and a fertilize egg is vastly different than a sperm cell."

Are the differences relevant? Does a one day embryo have receptivity to pain, or self awareness, or any functioning compacity that a cockroach lacks? Please describe what a 1 day embryo can do that a cockroach cannot.

"So if someone has lost pain receptors I guess its OK to cut off their arm as long as we stop the bleeding after all those limbs are rather useless for them."

No, actually, since a quadrapalegic is in posession of his arm and would have to consent to that for it to be morally permissible. You see, some actions, even if they do not elicit physical harm in a person, are immoral. For instance, it might not cause you physical harm if I steal your car, but if I take it away from you without your consent (and you legitimately own the vehicle) then I would be immoral.

The reason PEOPLE get to "own things" and COCKROACHES do not is because of a set of capacities and qualities that people have that cockroaches lack. These qualities dictate what one can do to a person and what one can do to a cockroach. In other words, the qualities and capacities are the grounding for moral decisions.

"Because I can feel or not feel pain does not make me less human nor are my arms or legs less than human parts because they have lost the ability to receive pain. I suggest you speak to someone who has lost these functions and ask their opinion...but are they human...your right don't waste your breath."

Of course it doesn't make one less human. It might, however, increase the amount of morally permissible things I can do to you. For instance, I need not alert a quadrapalegic that I am inserting an IV into their arm since they cannot feel it. Doing so to a fully conscious and pain-receptive individual might elicit a stern rebuke from that individual, however.

But as always you've missed the point. RECEPTIVITY TO PAIN is not the only metric, but one of many. There are qualities people have that cockroaches do not. There are things we can do to cockroaches that we cannot do to people, like stomp on them or pluck their legs off one by one. One of many reasons it is morally permissible to pluck the legs off a cockroach, and not a human being, is because the cockroach lacks a nervous system capable of pain receptivity to the same degree that people have. Hence, you do not get to pull the legs off people.

Embryos do not even have legs, so their "leg-pull-off-moral-consideration" is even more limited than cockroaches. Hence why I group them with similarly capable organisms... like E. Bola viruses.

Will,

I suggest you go to a basic developmental biology book and read about the differences. There is enormous change once and egg is fertilized compared to before it is fertilized and a fertilize egg is vastly different than a sperm cell. Your argument works in your head because you do not know what you are talking about

I assumed your metrics were to be used to define what is human am I not correct? So I assume that for someone to be human they must fit your metric for isn't that what makes a metric a metric? Are you saying your metrics are fuzzy (it depends)? How can I reject your metric unless you give me something I can measure?

Your metric

"Receptivity to pain -- because if an entity cannot feel pain it cannot be "hurt". That severely restricts the amount of morally impermissible actions one can preform on an entity"

I asked

What if I have lost my capacity to feel pain am I something other than human?

"Of course not, you just happen to be a human who cannot feel pain. And if you had no feeling in your foot you would treat someone differently if they stepped on it then you would if you had feeling.

And in the sense that pain is our adaptive quality for responding to extreme stimuli, you cannot do whatever you want to a quadrapalegic. Because even if they cannot "feel" you sawing off their arm, they will surely be harmed by the blood loss that results."

So if someone has lost pain receptors I guess its OK to cut off their arm as long as we stop the bleeding after all those limbs are rather useless for them. Hey we could do a little experimentation (after all its not really human). Please your logic needs a lot of retooling. Because I can feel or not feel pain does not make me less human nor are my arms or legs less than human parts because they have lost the ability to receive pain. I suggest you speak to someone who has lost these functions and ask their opinion...but are they human...your right don't waste your breath.

Iowa-

"Will I suggest you read about the differences between embryo's and sperm cells and their capacity to form human life."

You're not trying to debate that embryos have the "capacity to form human life" you are trying to say that embryos represent "life". You've assumed the conclusion we're trying to debate.

As for their differences, I still reject them as meaningless. Wait, they are different. Sperm cells have a propulsion system. What physical differences are you describing, exactly? The presence of two sets of chromosomes?

There is virtually no discernible physical capacity difference (propulsion system aside) between a 1 second old embryo and a sperm cell. You seem to be suggesting that some physical event occurrs, typically in a womb, whereas one second an entity (sperm) goes from having absolutely no moral consideration and a second later it has absolute moral consideration? It must be magic!

Whereas I've devised a moral metric that actually describes the world. It is dependent on QUALITIES and CAPACITIES that actual organisms actually have, rather than a fairly arbitrary measure of when a sperm wiggles into an egg.

"I am also at a loss for how can an infant take care of itself outside the womb unless it has a care giver to help it develop into self-supporting adult."

You're not at a loss, you're just dumb as a brick wall. No fault of my own.

An infant cannot take care of itself. However, self-sufficiency is HARDLY a measure of whether an entity deserves moral consideration. Rather self-sufficiency is the metric YOU provided when you said: "An egg and a sperm cell in and of themselves will not form a human life or am I missing something." Of course they won't. Neither will an embryo. Or an infant for that matter.

Which is precisely why I rejected your metric (and your distinction between sperm and embryos) as uninteresting. The fact that whether an entity can sustain itself independently tells us nothing substantive about the entity's moral status is PRECISELY why your "potential life" metric is silly.

"Even then there are adults who for whatever reason do not have the capacity to care for themselves, yet we do not consider them the same as sperm cells, or even dogs or cats."

Or embryos. Right. Why do you think that is?

"I would say I reject your metric yet I have not seen a clear metric from you."

I will make it more clear. The moral considerations we give an entity relate directly to a set of real life properties that entity has that makes it morally considerable. Here are a few:

Receptivity to pain -- because if an entity cannot feel pain it cannot be "hurt". That severely restricts the amount of morally impermissible actions one can preform on an entity.

Self awareness -- because entities that are not self aware are not aware of being "wronged" by some immoral action.

Responsiveness or perception -- an entity that cannot perceive or respond to a stimulus cannot be wronged by the stimulus. You can hurt a tree by restricting the shade it receives but you cannot do the same to a blind cave frog.

And so on and so forth.

"If I use the above statement as your metric am I less human if I do not fulfill your entire metric."

What an odd conclusion, that someone is "less human" because they should be treated different morally? As I've pointed out, we treat 3 year olds differently than we would a 21 year old, yet the two are equally "human". This concept of "human" is really meaningless to the discussion, anyways, since we are talking about the moral worth of entities. It's conceptually possible that non-human entities are absolute moral entities. And, in fact, we extend certain (but not all) moral consideration to non-human entities (think: dogs and chimpanzees).

"What if I have lost my capacity to feel pain am I something other than human?"

Of course not, you just happen to be a human who cannot feel pain. And if you had no feeling in your foot you would treat someone differently if they stepped on it then you would if you had feeling.

And in the sense that pain is our adaptive quality for responding to extreme stimuli, you cannot do whatever you want to a quadrapalegic. Because even if they cannot "feel" you sawing off their arm, they will surely be harmed by the blood loss that results.

"If my awareness is clouded is my being human in question. You offer a very fuzzy metric indeed."

Of course not, and it is not fuzzy. What I would point out is that people who "have their awareness clouded" are the targets of the euthanasia debate precisely because they "have their awareness clouded". It raises LEGITIMATE questions about the considerations we give them as moral entities. A vegetable on a machine can be treated very differently from a fully grown healthy adult... again, do you ever wonder WHY that is? Do you think it has to do with an arbitrary time of when a sperm wiggles into an egg or when their head hits the windshield? Or does it have to do with specific qualities they lack that the rest of us have?

"In the say sense, scientists are making progress in developing stem cell not form human embryos. I did not say it would be easy but doing the right thing is not always easy."

It's an apples to oranges comparison and inappropriate. Mountains are not moral entities, neither are natural resources like fossil fuel. What we do to them is entirely a practical matter. They should be treated efficiently and, thus, we should harvest them in a way so as to maximize the utility they have for moral entities (like humans).

Blastocyts *might* be moral entities... but then again they might not. That's what this debate is about. If they are moral entities are they moral entities comparable to dogs? Or are they moral entities comparable to cows? To people?

I've argued cockroaches, which makes them essentially meaningless moral entities. Even if I elevated them to the level of COW, which is a resource, it would still morally limit our engagings with them in miniscule degrees. If we can kill and eat millions of fully functioning cows to eat, it's perfectly reasonable to harvest blastocyts to end life damaging or threatening diseases.

This debate is about where blastocyts exist in our moral compass. You can argue that point but please please please stop using the natural resources analogy. It isn't relevant.

Oh Iowa, You are boring me now.

I didn't "assume" anything about your views on the war or the death penalty and I don't see either mentioned in your sarcastic posts where you go off the rails and imply that I am for the mercy killing of "inferiors" in our society. Your irrational responses are a clear signal that you are sealed in an ideological bubble that can't be broken.You fail to address any of the questions posed to you by Will in Texas who has been far more eloquent than myself on this topic. I simply can't have a discussion with someone who refuses to acknowledge that an embryo simply has the POTENTIAL to become a human being given a receptive uterus and barring any other complications. You come at this much the same way Bush does, by wrongly evoking creepy scenarios in which fetuses are "grown" so that their "spare parts" might be harvested. I guess the scare tactics just keep coming! Well I know for certain that Mr. Bush is too dim to make scientific judgements about anything but you claim to be a scientist. If your religion informs you that the second a sperm and egg unite that it is a human being, even if they came together in a petri dish, then I would never expect you would change your mind. Nothing is "wrong" with being a Roman Catholic, if that is how you want to live your life that's your business. Just don't expect public health policy to fall in line with your belief system.

Will,

You reject my metric, wow now that's a surprise.

Will I suggest you read about the differences between embryo's and sperm cells and their capacity to form human life. If I use your logic that neither (sperm or embryo) can function on their own thus they are equal is fuzzy indeed. I am also at a loss for how can an infant take care of itself outside the womb unless it has a care giver to help it develop into self-supporting adult. Even then there are adults who for whatever reason do not have the capacity to care for themselves, yet we do not consider them the same as sperm cells, or even dogs or cats.

"But 1 day old embryos do not cloud this debate anymore than sperm cells or cockroaches would; they absolutely lack any of the capacities (self awareness, perception, pain receptivity, so on and so forth) that make human beings moral entities.

I would say I reject your metric yet I have not seen a clear metric from you. If I use the above statement as your metric am I less human if I do not fulfill your entire metric. What if I have lost my capacity to feel pain am I something other than human? If my awareness is clouded is my being human in question. You offer a very fuzzy metric indeed.

I go back to our natural resource argument. We can find oil and dig up half of the Rocky Mountains in our pursuit of energy but does it make it right. I would say no and I would suggest that we change our ways (energy consumption) and seek out alternative forms of energy that do not denigrate our environment. In the say sense, scientists are making progress in developing stem cell not form human embryos. I did not say it would be easy but doing the right thing is not always easy. Who knows maybe if more diplomacy was used in the first place we would not be in war.

Maria,

Obviously, you do not have the capacity to read all that well for I do not support the war in Iraq nor am I for the death penalty (I assume you think I am). Who says I have to be an Evangelical Christian (Liberty reference) is there anything wrong with being a Roman Catholic?

"That's a false choice...the question we are asking is...is it o.k. to kill the embryo in a premeditated fashion in order to save the toddler in the crib."

No, fh, it is YOU who are making the false choice. The embryos in question (those covered by the legislation) are specifically those that would be destroyed if not used for research. Look it up. These embryos are going to be destroyed anyway. The research is prevented, but the embryos are not saved.

"Considering how many pro-choice people I know who typically vote republican, I just don't see stem cell research being the deciding issue for independents and weary republicans. What do you think?"

I think it may be a deciding issue for those of us with family members with chronic disease that could possibly be helped by this research.

Never underestimate the power of being personally affected by legislation.

See: Nancy Reagan.

"Bush has announced that he is "honor bound" to veto stem cell research. Honor bound?"

He's the decider, see? And he already made the decision. It was hard work, but the decider already decided. OK? So it's done. It's over with. And he had to veto the bill, because he already decided this issue. That's what the decider does. Otherwise he'd be a flip-flopper. Done. Over. End of discussion. Next. Watch this drive.

Iowa-

"You fail to one understand the difference between human embryos and how sperm cells and woman eggs differ. An egg and a sperm cell in and of themselves will not form a human life or am I missing something. In that matter not all embryos have the genetic make-up to complete the formation of a human life as well (problems with miscarriages, etc).. However, we still do not know what causes this nor do we know which will suffer this fate."

At least you've offered a metric which seems to be: if an entity is slated for personhood than it should be treated with the moral authority of a person.

I reject this metric for a few reasons:

1) I find your distinction between a sperm and an embryo meaningless. An embryo suffers the same fate as the sperm in that it cannot form life by itself. It still requires absolute dependence on another organism with a uterus.
2) Even if we accept your metric that Embryo=personhood, it doesn't necessarily imply that we should treat embryos equally to woman with embryos inside of them. Something could be a "person" yet not have absolute moral consideration. This is why hypotheticals such as "Would you save the embryo or the baby in the crib" are so revealing; they explain why people, quite reasonably, give higher moral consideration to an actual baby than they do to an embryo, even those people who claim that the embryo demands "full moral consideration".
3) Somewhat returning to 1), your metric is illogical. While it is certainly the case that no particular sperm cell will necessarily become an individual, it is the case that one particular sperm cell actually does. The sperm cell has as much "personhood potential" as an embryo seeing as how their personhood in this hypothetical is actually realized by impregmentation (and hopefully a healthy baby). Since there is no reasonable way for us to currently distinguish the ultimately successful sperm cells from the lazy ones, we have no way to determine which are worthy of moral consideration (by your metric) and thus should treat them all equally. As a result, murder of the actual sperm that results in a baby is immoral, and since we cannot determine which sperm are successful, murder of *all* sperm is morally impermissible, by your metric.

"In the same analogue, must we destroy human life in order to improve the lives of others in the immediate?"

Well of course, we do this everyday. What do you think the purpose of war is? Prison? The death penalty?

But we aren't talking about killing one fully grown adult to save another fully grown adult, we're talking about killing 1 million blastocyts to save one actual fully moral entity. I'll repeat my question; why would you hesitate? A blastocyt has no developmental qualities that a cockroach lacks, yet we have no problem stepping on them with impunity. Your only defense of the embryo vs. the cockroach is that it has some vague "personhood potential" (I called it "future-of-value" in my previous post). I've already outlined a few of the philosophical problems this metric has.

"We do not even know if this research will pan out only the promise that it will."

It doesn't need to "pan out" for the action to be morally permissible. If you notice a child is drowning in a pool and you swim to save him, whether or not you actually save the child is irrelevant to the moral permissibility of the action. If an action is morally permissible it will be so even if the results are not the ones you had hoped for.

The LIKELIHOOD of success is certainly a factor in determining the morality of an action, so I agree that we should consider killing embryos only when, at the very least, POTENTIALLY fruitful activity would result. I think the burden has been met by the scientific community on the potential benefits of stem cell research. Do you disagree?

The question then becomes a tug-of-war between the likelihood of it and the moral worth of a blastocyt. Since blastocyts operate without any feelings whatsoever and are less physically developed than a cockroach, I extend the same moral considerations to them I would to a bug (which is actually an elevation in status, because bugs are *more* developed). Since it is morally permissible to destroy cockroaches with my boot, it seems perfectly reasonable to argue by proxy that it is morally permissible to crush blastocyts with my shoe. Even more permissible it is to use them for beneficial research that helps actual people.

I will extend a bit of extra EMOTIONAL consideration to the blastocyt in light of the fact that it has a merely potential "future of value". But this emotional consideration is not enough to abandon potentially helpful scientific research that could help ACTUAL morally considered entities.

"Often the hype does not pan out. I would point out that alternative means to producing stem cell from other than human embryos has been shown to be promising. But then again now I am pitching."

And if we can do it without hurting blastocyts, that's wonderful. If I can use a computer model to determine the effects of a drug rather than using it on mice, that's great. But I don't save the mice and wait for the computer model. I develop them both coterminously and abandon the mice when I get the working computer model.

And again, mice likely deserve more moral consideration than blastocyts given their fully developed nervous systems.

"We walk do a slippy slope when we start allowing the use of human embryos in scientific research. I have seen interviews of children of altimerzm patients who say they would donate embryos if would help their parents. Their stories are compelling and I grieve with them knowing I have relatives too who suffer from this illness. However, the question must be asked when do you stop?. If you say an embryo is OK but a fetus is not are you not only arbitrary defining you definition of human worth."

This is an insane slippery slope. There are clearly recognizable differences between a fetus and a blastocyt, just as their are differences between a 9 month old fetus and a 1 week old embryo. The former typically has a developed nervous system and pain receptors and observable levels of consciousness and perception, whereas the latter never does.

So when you ask, quite irrationally, where do we stop? We stop as the entity develops into a moral being. The current arbitrary determinant of life is the birthing process, which I find irrational. Perhaps we need to rethink this, which is why we are having a national debate over the legitimacy of third trimester abortion. But 1 day old embryos do not cloud this debate anymore than sperm cells or cockroaches would; they absolutely lack any of the capacities (self awareness, perception, pain receptivity, so on and so forth) that make human beings moral entities.

"I am wondering does the value of someone improve as they age and is there an age at which life starts to get less valuable (please fill me in on your wisdom)."

You've confused "moral consideration" with "worth" here. Undisputed lives, such as those of a 3 year old or those of a fully functioning adult, should be protected as a matter of moral imperative. However, these entities have different "moral considerations". For instance, I can spank a three year old without doing something that is morally impermissible... yet to spank a fully grown adult would be quite odd and, furthermore, assault (or some form of sexual indiscretion, who knows).

And that goes two ways. I can neglect a fully functioning adult, but I cannot neglect an infant.

The point, which you've seemed to miss, is that we have quite reasonable ways of distinguishing between the moral worth of entities that are all accepted as "living". And the reason we distinguish between them is a matter of their CAPACITIES, not of their differing "values" of life. That's why the Euthanasia debate always surrounds non-functioning human lives, in other words, human lives lacking in certain CAPACITIES that other people enjoy. No one is debating euthanating full grown healthy adults, yet some people consider euthanating vegetables dependent on machines to live. Do you ever wonder why that is? Likely because we assign different moral considerations to entities based off their capacities... cows have nervous systems but taste delicious!

"Why is the 3 yr old less important than the 21 year old? You say you despise moral relatively however the metric you use is extremely fuzzy in deed."

3 year old isn't less important and if you kill one you get the same punishment that you would for killing a 21 year old. But that doesn't mean they are "equally moral" entities; I can't have sex with a 3 year old because they lack the capacity to consent to such behavior. A 21 year old can. However a 21 year old is in full control of their own grooming habits, so while I can forceably cut the hair of a 3 year old without their consent, if I snuck into a 21 year old's house and cut his hair I would have done something illegal.

And these differences in moral consideration hinge on the differing capacities these entities have; in this case regarding consent which is a function of self-awareness.

There's nothing fuzzy about this metric and there is no hypothetical you could produce that I'd be bothered by.

Iowa,
How can you claim to be a scientist and then fail to acknowledge the obvious differences between a fetus and a blastocyst? Is your degree from Liberty University? How is an embryo a "human life" and not merely material that *could* develop into a fetus and then a baby under the right circumstances? No one in their right mind is going to cry over the thousands of discarded embryos tossed into the biohazard bins of fertility clinics. If your "core values" inform you that these embryos are worthy of the same protection as fetuses and newborns then you are facing an uphill battle. Your "slippery slope" paranoia is not shared by 75% of the population even though our nation still has two more years left being held hostage by an intellectually bankrupt administration. When you bring up Clinton's personal "mistakes" while in office when we are having a discussion about life and death issues, it only reveals the blind ideology that is driving your comments here. Why don't you go take a look at images of dead children in Iraq, burned alive or run over by tanks and tell me if you REALLY want to have a discussion about Bill Clinton getting a blow job again.

I have a question concerning "waiting" while there are viable alternatives. First this is a real question not a rhetorical sarcastic trap.

Since I have not researched enough to know the viability of alternative sources of stem cells, I have to ask: If these alternative sources are truly viable, then why would any even remotely moral scientist WANT to research using embryos and destroy them?

I found the discussion on Romney's appeal to evangelical Christians very interesting. While Mormons and evangelicals do share similar attitudes on most social issues, there is a strong anti-Mormon prejudice among many evangelicals. This is anecdotal, but I live in the Bible Belt (north Florida) and I personally know many evangelicals who consider the Church of the LDS as a cult. (Before anyone decides to attack me: THIS IS NOT MY PERSONAL VIEW!!! I just have met a number of peopel who express that view.) I remember news reports during the 2000 elections that Bob Jones University's web site had some statements to that effect as well. So, Romney might not be as successful as some imagine in securing evangelical votes.

Will,

"I mean maybe save the child...if we're right...you know...based on what we expect...if everything panes out. Throw in the fact that in a year or two we are very likely to find other less harmful ways to get the same scientific benefits, and you are left with the obvious question...why can't we save the blastocyst and the toddler."
So your solution is to wait for an alternative because it would just be OH SO HORRIBLE to have to make ethical decisions about blastosyts?
Give me a break. YOU might be ethically crippled by this debate because you have brain trauma, but the rest of the reasoned world isn't going to stand by while actual people die in the name of absolute-moral-entity-blastocyts.
The only possible argument that demands ethical treatment of blastocyts is a "future of value" nonsense that makes similar acts of "future of value" killing unethical as well; and consequently means every person who masturbates commits genocide and every woman who fails to impregnate herself during a menstrual cycle a murder."
Here are a few of your more astute comments: You fail to one understand the difference between human embryos and how sperm cells and woman eggs differ. An egg and a sperm cell in and of themselves will not form a human life or am I missing something. In that matter not all embryos have the genetic make-up to complete the formation of a human life as well (problems with miscarriages, etc).. However, we still do not know what causes this nor do we know which will suffer this fate.
Concerning waiting, why not are there alternative solutions. Hence my post was concerning why waiting. Must we destroy our natural resources for a few more barrels of oil or maybe alternatives to our consumption and production could be implemented. In the same analogue, must we destroy human life in order to improve the lives of others in the immediate? We do not even know if this research will pan out only the promise that it will. I have spent my career as a scientist in both industry and academia and I have heard numerous stories that something being pitched will be the next great discovery. Often the hype does not pan out. I would point out that alternative means to producing stem cell from other than human embryos has been shown to be promising. But then again now I am pitching.
We walk do a slippy slope when we start allowing the use of human embryos in scientific research. I have seen interviews of children of altimerzm patients who say they would donate embryos if would help their parents. Their stories are compelling and I grieve with them knowing I have relatives too who suffer from this illness. However, the question must be asked when do you stop?. If you say an embryo is OK but a fetus is not are you not only arbitrary defining you definition of human worth.
Here is another insightful comment
"The real ethical standard is hardly so difficult to evaluate and doesn't contain nearly as many shades of grey. We can consider receptivity to pain or the development of the nervous system. Hence a cockroach or e. bola virus doesn't garner much ethical treatment whereas a dog would... though less than a chimpanzee which gets less than a 2 month old embryo which gets less than a 3 month old embryo which gets less than a 3 year old baby which gets less than a 21 year old adult human being. What's difficult about that?
Is what makes us human defined in our receptivity to pain? If someone had a genetic disorder and disease which impared their ability to feel pain (try legorace) are they then of less value than a :"normal person." I am wondering does the value of someone improve as they age and is there an age at which life starts to get less valuable (please fill me in on your wisdom). Why is the 3 yr old less important than the 21 year old? You say you despise moral relatively however the metric you use is extremely fuzzy in deed.

Iowa-

"We have to drive home the point that ethics is how you define ethics so there really is no such thing as ethics since we all have different ethics."

This is precisely what I was arguing against hence when I said "moral relativism is morally repugnant." I can disagree with people who feel that blastocyts deserve absolute moral worth because at least they are willing to argue a false proposition. I detest intellectual cowards who insist that "morality is relative" and "we cannot possibly face the moral dilemnas and thus should condemn ourselves to inaction."

"We may have a little trouble with that higher moral good argument since that requires some type of standard...oh details details."

What do you think we are trying to determine? We work with hypotheticals when possible. Would you kill 1 million blastocyts to save a baby? I say of course, given that there are things we can ethically do to a blastocyt (or cockroach, or cow) that we cannot do to 2 year old babies.

If you think I'm wrong, please explain why. What qualities exist in the blastocyt that do not exist in cockroaches or cows? Why are you so reluctant to offer a moral metric that we can challenge? Is it because sarcasm is easier or is it because you're just boring?

Re: the oil drilling scenario the answer is clear. If we risk damaging our resources then it *MIGHT* be morally impermissible to proceed with the drilling because it would be robbing us of precisely what we want from the drilling. Thus the drilling is self defeating. Of course the hypothetical changes depending on the circumstance; if people are dieing because of our hesitation, then we could be morally obligated to drill. This ethical dilemna would require more discussion, but it's utterly irrelevant to the matter at hand. Apples to oranges.

You seem to want to connect natural resources to blastocyts by analogy. As a practical matter this is a false comparison since it's unlikely that MORE babies are a "valuable" resource in an already overcrowded society.

But such a discussion is irrelevant, really, because you don't determine moral worth of blastocyts based off their "value" anymore than you determine the moral worth of a full grown human being based off its "value". These values are necessarily subjective and, more importantly, determining the moral relevancy of a blastocyt or human degrades the entity. Humans are ends in and of themselves and are not valued MERELY because they are "valuable resources".

The blastocyts in question are neither valuable nor necessary nor physically developed enough to place upon them some undue moral worth. You've yet to propose (anything really) a metric by which we can measure blastocyts as morally considerable.

Gattsuru: "The right to survival is a human right, like all other rights (including the right to bear arms, vote, or be free) can be negated on the violation of a law. Otherwise it would be impossible to put someone in prison, and we'd be consitutionally required to let felons buy handguns and vote Democrat.

While there are great reasons to argue against the death penalty - it is more expensive to get the courts to kill someone in even Texas than to get life in prison, the deterrant arguement is debatable, and it can not be commuted on new evidence - the right to life is not a legally valid reason."

I do not understand your argument. Are you saying that if someone breaks the law, he/she no longer has the right to live? That's a pretty stiff penalty.

Maria,

It would appear that you made the argument of who is of more value I only extended your argument. I see that others extend arguments posted by pro-life individual and you applaud them so I assume you would agree that holds for your argument as well or is there a double standard.

Concerning our President, I think I can agree on stands and principles he makes and disagree with others or am I bound to blindly follow one political party or the other? I am sure you agree with much of what Clinton did in office, but I would think you also disagreed with many of his decisions (especially personal decisions). However, you may just be a rubber stamp for one party or the other. And who said I voted for Bush, here in Iowa you can still be a Democrat and also be Pro-life is that not the same in the DC area. Speaking of which I did happen to grow-up in Maryland and now reside in the Midwest and I find that people here share more of my core values.

Will and Maria,

It's great we are all on the same team and against those inferiors. I love those cockroaches analogies really drives home our point that we are all creatures of some type (even though I detest those vial things). We have to drive home the point that ethics is how you define ethics so there really is no such thing as ethics since we all have different ethics. We may have a little trouble with that higher moral good argument since that requires some type of standard...oh details details. Now we have to think up an angle (Maria already used that Budge Angle). I know we all hate paying $3 for gasoline how about responsible energy policy. Let's promise we can lower the price of gas (we will surely score big points here).

Let propose drilling where ever there might be oil (hey Alaska comes to mind or better yet let dig up some of the National Parks for shale). Why should we have wait and develop better technology for more energy efficiency or waste our time developing alternative energy sources (boring). Believe you me I am not going to give up my SUV for some wimpy car nor am I going to ride mass transient especially since a lot of those inferiors might also be riding. Speaking of which I must have saw a million cockroaches running around at the Metro stop just the other day or was that embryos. I do not know it's hard to tell the difference.

Will keep those posts coming....

Michael: The passage is the passage, and the following verse leaves no doubt about the meaning. Nice touch with the Greek thing, though, makes you seem like you know something we don't without having to offer proof.

Why does the Fix believe that Ford's pro-research vote is a liability? 2/3 of the country supports the research, and Tennessee isn't that conservative. I would guess a majority there would support it as well.

Will in Texas:

This was my initial quote: On a personal note, the direction science is taking in regards to the destruction of embryo's in order to help the living makes me very nervous in an "Outer Limits" kind of way. I'm very afraid it's going to lead to more ethical dilemmas. This is harvesting, and although it seems morally acceptable on the surface as these are embryo's that are due for destruction anyway...it still sets a precedent. Our science seems to be well in advance of our character as a species, and we would do well to tread carefully with regards to this direction IMO.

I never said we should not do the research...I said we should be careful going forward. Every other comment I made was in response to tangential moral arguments, which are always opinion based.

weseto: This is a cat. (True) This cat is black (True) All cats are black (False). Do you still need more detail

Your logic is nice...but I said should be acceptable not must be acceptable.

You should read at least some philosophy, might be good for you to expand your mind and to figure out the dichotomy you present is utterly without merit (start with Leviatan and social contract theory before hitting Plato's Republic, though I have a feeling you'll misread Mills and stop there as justification of your position

I'm not going to get into the original greek and interpretations of "mischief" and how to interpret in this passage, so let's say we disagree here and leave it at that because it's an unnecessary sidetrack for this particular debate (you read the death as the fetus, I and many others read it as the woman). I will however say that, when you talked about basing your moral combass on God's word, i naturally assumed you meant the scriptures, but clearly you just meant whatever was in your head at the time and not the unchanging word of God.

FH asks ;

"weseto: What exactly was my false conclusion? You make a haughty statement and then don't follow it up with any detail".

Your false conclusion is the following comment.

"or you don't believe in a God or a higher power and hence a morality based on anything that enhances humanity should be acceptable".

Did you not take logic 101?
This is a cat. (True) This cat is black (True) All cats are black (False). Do you still need more detail?

FH asks ;

"weseto: What exactly was my false conclusion? You make a haughty statement and then don't follow it up with any detail".

Your false conclusion is the following comment.

"or you don't believe in a God or a higher power and hence a morality based on anything that enhances humanity should be acceptable".

Did you not take logic 101?
This is a cat. (True) This cat is black (True) All cats are black (False). Do you still need more detail?

FH-

"It must be nice to have all the answers."

Typical self-defeatist attitude; the battle cry of the mental cripple.

It's not that I have "all the answers" but that I have a brain. When I go out to purchase food, I don't buy a box of nails. But I must have all the answers than!

It's obvious to anyone with a head why a cockroach demands less moral attention than a human being and the judgement is based off our understanding of the roaches nervous system (or lack thereof). In other words, it's the biological development, stupid.

"I'm not sure who you are to assign moral worth..."

Uhm, a person with a brain? How silly you must feel having a discussion about "moral worth" the entire time determining quite unreasonably that other people cannot make reasonable determinations of moral worth. So by what basis do you think killing babies is wrong? By what basis do you think murdering full grown adults is wrong? It is with strange "confidence" that you place the "value upon life" of blastocyts. I'm merely pointing out how utterly unreasonable your moral compass is. Don't play games.

"or by whose authority you so confidently place those values upon life."

By the only authority that could possibly render such a decision; the rational mind of a social, self-aware being. Who else places values upon life besides folks like you and me? Does a wolf place a moral value on a deer's life?

Where do you think morality originates from... God? Stone tablets? Spaghetti monsters?

Moral assignment can and does only come from people, like me, and we are constantly burdened by moral decisions. Do I lament that I accidently stepped on teh cockroach? Why or why not? Similarly, if a blatoscyt was found under the heel of my boot, would I mourn its passing? Why or why not?

You seem to live in a world where you don't even attempt to define a metric, rather you just condescindingly complain "who are you to judge..." I'm a rational person, damnit, that's who. Moral relativism is morally repugnant.

So while we've got your attention, please define for us the qualities that make blastocytes worthy of moral consideration that don't exist in E. Bola virus, cockroaches, cows, or sperm? I'd love to hear you actually present a reasonable moral metric rather than insisting the rest of us abandon ours. Your brand of moral cripplism is fine, in so far as you want to be an utter coward. But I live in a world of consequences where each day you pass unnecessary moral worth upon a blastocyt is another day that a legitimately moral entity suffers from alzheimers.

Will in Texas: It must be nice to have all the answers. I'm not sure who you are to assign moral worth...or by whose authority you so confidently place those values upon life.

weseto: What exactly was my false conclusion? You make a haughty statement and then don't follow it up with any detail. Then your pal Michael misquotes the Bible and tries to tell me I need to read more philosophy?

Thank you, Will in Texas. Well said.

Iowa, how you make the jump from saying that since I support using embryos for stem cell research that I must also support eugenics and somehow "doing away with" "inferior" or disabled human beings? A bit of a stretch, don't you think? How do you feel about your tax dollars going to research and create biological and chemical weapons whose only purpose is to destroy life? I guess that's okay with you because your Dear Leader claims to have God on his side, whispering in his very ear that he was chosen to be President.......

I will point out to you that under George Bush, more children today live in poverty that when he came into office.
That's a Pro-Lifer for you, cares so deeply about the blastocyst and the fetus but once the kid is born, just leave it up to the free market to decide!

FH-

"That's a false choice...the question we are asking is...is it o.k. to kill the embryo in a premeditated fashion in order to save the toddler in the crib."

It's not a false choice, it's a legitimate example meant to express a perfectly reasonable point; though blastocyts have moral worth, their moral worth cannot possibly be measured equal to that of a 2 year old child in a crib. Therefore there are things we can ethically do to a blastosyt that we cannot ethically do to a 2 year old, just as there are things we cannot ethically do to a 2 year old that we could ethically do to an 18 year old.

Can you see that? Do you understand why different levels of consciousness/development imply different moral treatments? Do you ever wonder why cows with brain stems and fully developed nervous systems can be bled for food yet people cannot, ethically, be eaten? Do you ever wonder why the Euthanasia debate surrounds people whose quality of life is under question? No one defends euthanating perfectly healthy children... why do you think that is?

You seem indifferent. Establishing that something is "alive" does not by itself imply absolute moral consideration upon it.

"Is it o.k. to kill millions of embryo's in order to save the child in the crib..."

Of course it is. Only a monster would save the embryo's. Would you kill millions of cocroaches if it saved one child's life? A cockroach is considerably more developed than a blastosyt.

"I mean maybe save the child...if we're right...you know...based on what we expect...if everything panes out. Throw in the fact that in a year or two we are very likely to find other less harmful ways to get the same scientific benefits, and you are left with the obvious question...why can't we save the blastocyst and the toddler."

So your solution is to wait for an alternative because it would just be OH SO HORRIBLE to have to make ethical decisions about blastosyts?

Give me a break. YOU might be ethically crippled by this debate because you have brain trauma, but the rest of the reasoned world isn't going to stand by while actual people die in the name of absolute-moral-entity-blastocyts.

The only possible argument that demands ethical treatment of blastocyts is a "future of value" nonsense that makes similar acts of "future of value" killing unethical as well; and consequently means every person who masturbates commits genocide and every woman who fails to impregnate herself during a menstral cycle a murder.

The real ethical standard is hardly so difficult to evaluate and doesn't contain nearly as many shades of grey. We can consider receptivity to pain or the development of the nervous system. Hence a cockroach or e. bola virus doesn't garner much ethical treatment whereas a dog would... though less than a chimpanzee which gets less than a 2 month old embryo which gets less than a 3 month old embryo which gets less than a 3 year old baby which gets less than a 21 year old adult human being. What's difficult about that?

"During his campaign, Nelson has gone out of his way to associate himself with President Bush, who remains popular in the Cornhusker State."

The just released SurveyUSA poll of Bush's approval in all 50 states has his approval in Nebraska at 45% and his disapproval at 53% for a net negative approval (-8%). I don't this should be described as "remains popular in the Cornhusker State".

Michael: If you're going to quote the Bible, get it right. Exodus 21:22 says if she gives birth prematurely but there is no harm to the baby there will be a fine. The follow-up verse to that says that if the baby dies...life for life.

Also, I'm not Catholic so I really don't care what the church said at St. Augustine.

I never used the Bible in my argument, I'm not sure why you used it against me. But your moral argument seems to be "well, as long as their going to die anyway...might as well do some experimentation on them." That's kind of a low standard, especially when you consider it is very well possible that the same scientific benefits may be found shortly using a less harmful method.

Well, a couple of the Ten commandments, I don't see "I am the lord thy God, thou shalt have no Gods before me" as being that vital, and it seems to me coveting thy neighbors posessions is the essence of capitalism and thus we run counter to that as well.

BUt, believing in God isn't in itself demanding you be pro-life in the conservative Christian construct. But, yes, FH should go read some Kant, Mills, Hobbes, Plato, or Aristotle and see how societies derive their laws and how religious dictation has little to do with it.

I'm sure the 6,000 Iraqis killed due to Bush's Failure in Iraq agree with him on how much Bush cares for life.

Or maybe not.

But I agree with Kurt this is totally a play to give some Republicans something to "disagree" with Bush on, as otherwise they're getting kicked out.

FH says;

" The bottom line is you either believe in God and base your moral compass on his/her words as you understand them, or you don't believe in a God or a higher power and hence a morality based on anything that enhances humanity should be acceptable".

You state a given, 'Yor belive in a god or you don't' and then you draw a false conclusion starting with the word 'hence'.

You appear not to know very much about religion or philosophy. The ten commandents are a necessary part of a code that is essential to any civilized society. They predate any and all religions. I do not believe in a "Creator God". I am a Buddist. However, I do believe in the basis tennents of the ten commandnts.

This is an interesting academic discussion, but all George Bush and his band of ethical cretins have accomplished is to temporarily stop federal government support of stem cell research. It's going on at various places all over the world, with funding both private and public, and its results will benefit us all. Too bad the research applications can't be denied to those who would deny the conduct of the research.

Many of these arguments supporting the veto are leaving out one key point. That each individual couple who has these embryos that they created would have had the right to decide if those embryos should be donated to research, offered for embryo adoption, or to be discarded.

What about "limited government"? What about "deregluation"? The government shouldn't regulate big companies because they always behave, but they should regulate extreamely personal decisions like what to do with the embryo that was once your hope for a child and is now set to be discarded?

I believe in God, morals, ethics, and I also beleive in logic. At the end of the day, I have not seen a single logical argument for why the government should specifically not fund this research. The US funds a lot of research that could be questioned based only on morals, but that is why for the most part polititions shouldn't decide everything. A logic system that allows for funding under strict guidelines just wasn't a political option for Bush, he had already drawn his line in the sand on this issue.

"So morality is based on the size of the life-form?"

Great strawman- not what anyone's talking about. Life has been one of the most difficult things for scientists to define, and where it begins is even harder (when you get into when it becomes a human life, it's more difficult all together given the implications of rights human beings are entitled to in society). The argument is, if it doesn't look like a duck and quack like a duck, it's probably not a duck. An embryo is about 12 cells with human DNA that at this point hasn't even been implanted in the womb. That's not a human life, and no modern fundamentalist Christian revisionism can sway me otherwise.

You seem to be guided by God's unchanging moral standard, FH, so please explain to me why life begins at quickening (when fetal movement is first detects) was the standard of the church from the time of St Augustine until the 19th Century? Better yet, please explain to me why God established the penalty for causing a miscarriage as a fine to be paid to the husband (Exodus 21:22), while Numbers 35 teaches that anyone who kills, even accidentally, is a murderer and should be put to death or exiled for life? Even the Bible seems conflicted on the issue...

The standard is simple
1. Is there any benefit to be gained from merely discarding embryos when humanity has a chance to greatly benefit from them
2. Do the moral dilemmas outweigh those benefits

Beyond that, the question about the ethics has been decided clearly in favor of the research because virtually no one is trying to outlaw it- the issue here is federal funding. If Bush is so anti-research and views this as murder, why isn't he trying to outlaw it, and why isn't he trying to restrict the fertility labs from creating so many embryos in the first place solely to be discarded when the doctors at the lab determine them not to be optimal for implantation due to low prospects for viability? The whole issue put forth by Bush and backed by the radical right is absolutely insane with no moral grounds to stand on.

I think this warrants discussion -
A number of states including Michigan, which has a very tight Gov race this year, have laws on the books against stem cell research. Candidates like Dick DeVos who take the Bush line on stem cells should be accountable for their position on election day.

Maria asks,

"I just want to know where it stops...and who decides when it becomes immoral".

Didn't you hear him Maria. The little Cowboy said, "I am the decider". Well, I have also made a decision. I will never vote for a Republican as long as I live, never, ever. And, I always vote.

What I want to know is, how would the religious right feel about frozen embryos being "saved" by having lesbians offer to carry them through birth and raise those babies in gay households? My guess is that the religious right would rather see such embryos discarded as medical waste rather than "saved" in such a fashion.

Bush claims he vetoed the stemcell bill because he wants to defend life. How much life has he defended in Iraq. Probably close to 100,000 Iraqis have been needlessly killed, as well as 2500 American military. Bush is a hypocrite, like most of the pro-lifers. Some lives are better to them than others. They like embryoes but not real people.

Well, I am happy that Jon Stewart is not the only one to recognize the inherent fallacy in Bush's reasoning. Bush is content to pursue a questionable war that kills many, many innocent people in the name of ... what, exactly? But the destruction of embryos soon to be destroyed anyway for the sake of treating diseases and SAVING lives is morally reprehensible to him. The man is a walking contradiction and arrogant to a fault. His veto and anyone who voted against this research are darker marks on morality than anything I have seen in quite some time.

" Crosses a moral boundary" Is that a different moral boundary than lying about everything from WMD to ESC research ?
And holding up a bunch of "snowflake" children and saying they are not spare parts to be discarded. He can't even get his facts straight when he wants to lie. Please ! This man is beneath contempt.

maria: If a house is on fire, ask yourself, are you going to save the blastocyst in the freezer or the toddler in the crib?

That's a false choice...the question we are asking is...is it o.k. to kill the embryo in a premeditated fashion in order to save the toddler in the crib. Is it o.k. to kill millions of embryo's in order to save the child in the crib...I mean maybe save the child...if we're right...you know...based on what we expect...if everything panes out. Throw in the fact that in a year or two we are very likely to find other less harmful ways to get the same scientific benefits, and you are left with the obvious question...why can't we save the blastocyst and the toddler.

Maria,

Why not save both? Great situational ethics question (takes me back to the fourth grade). I too am bothered by all the inferiors on this planet better to do away with them now than to have them waste our natural resources. Think of the money we could save by not having Special Olympics and the like. Medicine would be a lot cheaper as well not to mention all that money saved by not having the inferiors alive. Yes, I see the angle "Balance the Budget" who could argue.

I think we should also let scientist decide what is right let's get all those ethicist and religious nuts out of their hair or better DNA. You know save money and all (remember our premise about the budget). History has shown that when a group police's itself only good occurs (normally speaking). I mean on rare occasion you may have money influencing decisions but those are by and large are the exceptions. We all know that science only brings about positive change and everything that is predicted always occurs. Why I remember John Kerry saying that we would have had cures now for all sorts of alignments that beset inferiors. Yes, I know that progress sometimes brings about a few inconveniences on society like Global Warming but that is sooo minor.

I was thinking while we are at it, how about doing away with our judicial system since we all know how to care for the "Common Good." Hey just ask me. I think we could get Amnesty International to join us once they find out about the woman being jailed for manslaughter (you know that tired old miscarriage defense they so often use). However, if Judge Carter is presiding we are in trouble given his injection of reason, not to mention is astute observations. Wow, we will have to ponder long and hard if we come up again the "Judge."

Maria keep those post coming....

I have to disagree with anyone that doesn't think this veto/vote will have political implications come November. As quite a few people have noted in their posts, almost everyone knows SOMEONE would could (I admit, it's far from certain) potentially benefit from stem cell research. For that reason alone, this is a harder issue for people to ignore than abortion. Since '73, a whole bunch of generally pro-choice voters have felt comfortable voting Republican b/c they've felt that the Courts would make sure that abortion stayed legal.

With this issue, members of the same moderate group know that voting Republican will essentially preclude scientific research in this area from fully developing. I doubt that constitutes a net plus for a whole bunch of people. Add to that fact the far more precarious standing of Roe and abortion rights PLUS Republicans abdication of the smaller government principles that have attacked this demographic group to the party and I think you have a recipe for either: (1) A bunch of people sitting on their hands; or (2) Even better, a significant shift into the D column.

I have to disagree with anyone that doesn't think this veto/vote will have political implications come November. As quite a few people have noted in their posts, almost everyone knows SOMEONE would could (I admit, it's far from certain) potentially benefit from stem cell research. For that reason alone, this is a harder issue for people to ignore than abortion. Since '73, a whole bunch of generally pro-choice voters have felt comfortable voting Republican b/c they've felt that the Courts would make sure that abortion stayed legal.

With this issue, members of the same moderate group know that voting Republican will essentially preclude scientific research in this area from fully developing. I doubt that constitutes a net plus for a whole bunch of people. Add to that fact the far more precarious standing of Roe and abortion rights PLUS Republicans abdication of the smaller government principles that have attacked this demographic group to the party and I think you have a recipe for either: (1) A bunch of people sitting on their hands; or (2) Even better, a significant shift into the D column.

I agree with Melissa, anyone who is "pro-life" but is for the death penalty exists is the most skewed sort of moral wasteland possible. Only in America can a politician get away with such a hypocritical point of view.

Oh FH, Sorry that the World is not so black and white as you would like it to be.

If a house is on fire, ask yourself, are you going to save the blastocyst in the freezer or the toddler in the crib?

My Higher Power/ Moral Compass would tell me to save the living, breathing child over the cell cluster. I guess for that I will just have to find out later whether or not I will burn in Hell for all eternity.

To see the stem cell debate explained with visuals and how the political argument put forth by the President is ultimately an absurd manipulation of the facts...link here:

http://www.thoughttheater.com/2006/07/bushs_flawed_stem_cell_rationa.php

Gattsuru said:
"What's the difference? Neither an embryo nor an individual with significant brain damage can sustain themselves, nor for that matter can many children. Appearance? I don't think I need to remind you how well discrimination on appearance has gone in the past. Size? Age? Some other attribute?"

-I'll tell you what the difference is. An embryo has no brain, no heart, no nerves, nothing that will even begin to resemble a human being until it is actually *successfully* implanted in a uterus and is allowed to develop. Do you have a uterus that you want to offer up to see that all those unwanted embryos can realize their full potential? You "remind" me "how well discrimination based on appearance has gone in the past?" Is that supposed to be funny? We are talking about a cluster of cells barely visible to the naked eye. I suppose an embryo might be more attractive than a protazoa or a mold spore but now we are getting off track.

You go on to say:
"Do you really want George Bush, Hillary Clinton, or the sort of 'scientists' that had no problem giving speechs in favor of the health benefits of tobacco smoke, to define who and what is acceptable to 'destroy'?"

-No, I don't want George Bush or politically driven fake "scientists" defining what is acceptable to destroy. I thought I was pretty clear on that. We already have Bush destroying life in our name. Real live people with children and wives and husbands. I find it laughable that he can claim to be pro-life when speaking of a 100-celled embryo but he can mock a woman on death row who asks for mercy before her execution.
He can shrug off civilian death in his war as simply the unfortunate cost of "protecting" our values. This man has no values other than what he thinks will save his ass politically. So once again , NO, I don't think he can claim any "moral" postion when dismissing a bill that has the support of a majority of Americans.

Quote : Furthermore, a stem cell is a POTENTIAL human being while someone in prison IS a human being (regardless of what crime he/she has committed). /Quote

The right to survival is a human right, like all other rights (including the right to bear arms, vote, or be free) can be negated on the violation of a law. Otherwise it would be impossible to put someone in priso