Latest News on Stem-Cell ResearchFollow

No, I didn't. I said that I hadn't heard a reason "why research on cells from willingly donated embryos from IVF procedures is worse than the alternative." Honestly, man. This stuff is on page one of the thread. If you're going to lie to save face, at least do it somewhere less obvious.Only to the guy left groping for any sort of a win.

I know. I'm the one who quoted the exact line two times. You're the one who keeps trying to change the meaning of what you said. I'll note that even here in your paraphrasing you leave off the word "ethical". Why? You keep subtly restating the phrase in order to support whatever argument you have at the moment.


The bit you are focusing on here is (interestingly enough given Samira's post) a false dilema. You've presented this as some kind of choice. Use them for research, or burn them in an incinerator. Ok. There's some validity to that, but it's not a "change". It's not like we came to a fork in the road and have to choose. We've been destroying leftover embryos from IVF for 30+ years. You're insisting that we do something else cause it's not as bad as the alternative. You even argue that you've never heard an ethical reason why it's not as bad as the alternative. But again (how many times do I have to make this point), the very fact that many people oppose ESC harvesting from those embryos proves that they *do* believe that is worse then the alternative. Clearly, they *would* rather those unused embryos be destroyed then used for medical research. Clearly also, this is an ethical thing for them.

Thus, your statement is wrong. Ok. Maybe you've never heard that reason, but it seems unlikely given the number of times we've argued this. Additionally, it's really an assumed position. If someone is opposed to the harvesting of embryos for stem cells then by default they *are* more in favor of incinerating them then using them for research. No one needs to actually say this too you, it's an obvious conclusion from the facts of the issue itself. Hence why I found your statement so utterly baffling.

And it's an intersting example of a reverse slipperly slope as well. Afterall, it was the same pro-life folks who were originally opposed to IVF for exactly the reason that there would be extra fertilized embryos that ultimately would be destroyed.

You're now essentially arguing that since they lost the arguement over IVF 40 years ago and it's now "ok" to destroy embryos as a result, that they should not be able to complain when you now present the "well, since they're going to be destroyed anyway..." argument.

Funny that you (and others like you) constantly dismiss other people's arguements (especially ethical ones) as "slipperly slope" arguments, yet you seem to so consistently rely on the slipperly slope to support your own. Your entire argument about one being worse then the alternative is based on the assumption that since we're already doing one thing that the pro-life people don't really like that it's ok to do something a bit worse. Pure slippery slope. But I'm sure you'll insist that it isn't.



Again though, at the end of the day what matters is that there is a significant percentage of people who oppose said harvesting (especially using federal funds). You can quibble about whether or not they also like the alternatives, but that's irrelevant. They oppose this on ethical grounds. Period. End of story. In the context of this discussion, it's a relevant thing because the government should always attempt to avoid doing things that violate a large percentage of the population's ethical beliefs. You don't have to agree with it, but you should respect their position on this and support funding that seeks to find alternative means with which to achieve the goals of this science.


And I guess that's what's most annoying about this. You present a "this is better then the alternative" argument, but seem utterly unable to see the same when it's presented to you. I would say that there is a much stronger ethical argument for pursuing alternative means to find pluripotent stem cells for research then harvesting them from embryos. If we're going to insist that we follow the most ethical path, why not apply that logic to the entire issue? Why not pursue the techniques that *don't* create a huge ethical problem for us?


Is that not obvious? I think so...

Hey Joph

Do you still feel smart pwning gbaji when it's now clear he gave varus his password?

If by 'pro-life, you are refering to the 'Christian' folk. Then your argument falls as flat as a fart.

I don't believe that 'religion' and 'ethics' deserve to even appear in the same sentence.

While i do have reservations about any type of genetic tinkering, I would rather it was guided by scientific research and modern medical thinking, as opposed to the knee-jerk reaction of a bunch of God-bothering hillbillies.



Werd.

Unfortunately, comin from you, hypocritical in the extreme.

Wait, wait, wait... don't tell me.

"Those numbers don't matter!!!"


Right?

Meh, no reason at this point. I've read as much desperate spin and redefinition as I need to for one day.

Im saying that 'christian folk' arn't 'medical scientists' (generally speaking). Their opposition to IVF was based upon their religeous beliefs, wich has nothing to do with medical science.

Im not going into the history of religion and its effects on the progress of 'medical science in the last billion years, but if you think religious zealots make 'informed' choices and decisions based upon their Bible, or Quran or whatever, then you is wrong. Patently obvious to most people I would have thought.



Yes. Debate amongst informed individuals is an important part of the process. But if those concerns are based upon a belief that "My invisible friend says its wrong, so it must be wrong", then i would say that 'those' people have no usefull input, and as such told to go and get fucked.




Maybe in the US, enough people had been frightened into believing that Sadaam was a threat to their way of life, byu talk of mushroom clouds etc, but the rest of the world knew it was bollox.

I guess that the difference between your quotes above and the ones Bush and Condi and Cheney made in the lead up to the ILLEGAL INVASION OF A SOVEREIGN COUNTRY, are that the ones qouted above are actually true.....

Just sayin'.

Joph, if it wasn't for the enjoyment I receive reading the constant and thorough trouncing you give gbaji every time he opens his mouth I would skip any political or ethical thread he posted in.




Incidentally, my spell check tries to correct 'gbaji' to 'dingbat'. I find that appropriate

Sure, give a cite.That'd be my excuse too. It's okay though -- I doubt anyone expects better from you at this point in the game.

As for your Wiki quote, read the linked cite. The Catechism does not object to IVF because of excess embryos.Who to believe? Who to believe? Wikipedia or the Vatican? Hrrrmmm.... Of course, you have the awesome cite of "this jives with what I remember about this issue when I was a kid growing up in a Catholic home back in the 70s". If only I knew anyone else who grew up Catholic in the 1970s... Damn.Really? Did you accuse him of lying in order to secure funding for himself? 'Cause that seems to be your usual tact when a scientist tells you something you didn't want to hear

Oh, and he's not a "scientist". He's a doctor & public speaker who works in a fertility clinic. The two are not synonymous. While I'd guess that Dr. Weller knows a great deal about IVF, let's not confuse the two simply because you're hurting for supporting information.So you've backpedalled from your statement of "Afterall, it was the same pro-life folks who were originally opposed to IVF for exactly the reason that there would be extra fertilized embryos that ultimately would be destroyed." to "Well, I bet someone did it and you know it too!"? Well, again, it makes sense that you'd do so.

It must suck to be wrong so often.

Edited, Jun 13th 2007 7:31am by Jophiel

"Jive"



What a groooovy word!

Great job Joph. You found the official reason why the Catholic Church opposes "artificial fertilization" (emphasis on the "fertilization").


Of course, maybe if you'd done a bit more searching, you might have found out the Church's position on Embryos (which presumably covers leftover embryos from IVF as well):




Got any more ideas? Cause this one sure proved your point for ya.




Edited, Jun 13th 2007 8:18pm by gbaji

Sure they are. Ethics in science is not making up your results until you've seen the data and thrown out the obviously wrong numbers.