I was just listening to CNN, and Hillary was doing an interview. Asked what the first thing she would do in the white house was, she said: formalize a plan to pull all troops out within 60 days, and ask the senate and house to re-send bills banning embryonic stem cell research.

With all the recent advances in stem cell research, why are Democrats still pushing for it?

Because the advances are not yet a replacement for embryonic stem cells. Plus, the ban on it is still stupid even if a replacement is found.

My question is why were Republicans ever against it?

Well, you know the answer to that question.

But anyways, I was under the impression that recent results showed there were viable replacements for stem cell production?

To quote Kinky Friedman, "why the hell not?"

I don't see any ethical problems with using embryonic stem cells, and I'm pro-life myself. A blastula isn't human life. "Potential human life" is not a viable argument, because every minute you spend not having unprotected sex is the elimination of potential human life. Perhaps your neighbor's son's future best friend won't exist simply because your wife won't have that 11th child.

I mean a reason that isn't totally full of crap.



Those are very early but very promising results. I know the right-wing media has jumped all over it, but science isn't exactly their strong suit, you know.

In fact, the scientists who recently discovered a method of extracting embryonic stem cells without destroying the embryo also want the ban lifted.

"It's here and now, and could increase massively the number of stem cells available," says Lanza, who wants Bush to give immediate ethical approval for new cell lines to be produced using the ACT approach. "We could triple the number of hESC lines available within a few months," says Lanza.

Since Bush's clampdown in 2001, only 22 cell lines have been available for use by US government-funded researchers, but most are of such poor quality they are useless, so fresh supplies are desperately needed.

"Hopefully the president will do the right thing," says Lanza. "We've been in dialogue with the White House, and it's our understanding that they would wait until a peer-reviewed paper appeared before approving our approach."

And I'm not aware of any pro-life Republicans who have raised any objections to IVF despite the fact that it results in the discarding of thousands of fertilized eggs every year. And remember, most pro-life Republicans regard a fertilized egg as a human being with fully protected Constitutional rights. In fact, Bush has praised the practice while still banning federal funding of embryonic stem cell research on moral grounds.

Yeah, I'm not saying I agree with the ban, just that what's the point in explaining it, since you know very well why it is how it is.

I suppose your point does make sense: "Why not?"

If it will lead to an advance, then I'm all for it, so I suppose it is a smart decision. It just caught me off guard as one of the top things she would do, I wasn't expecting it.

A fertilized egg is a cell. A cell. Like the millions of cells that are shed when you scratch your scalp. Given developing cloning technology, shedding dandruff will soon become a monumental culling of potential human life. A flea is a vastly more complex organism than a blastula.

Besides, my main reason for a pro-life stance is that readily available abortions wreak havoc on the social contract. I believe in a compromise where only married individuals above 18 and unmarried individuals above 21 can receive abortions, except in cases of medical or criminal-justice necessity.

Two different types of cells though.

Eggs are germ cells, which are vastly different from any other type of cell in the human body. I don't know the practical implications of this on research, just saying, there is a big difference between the two.

In terms of biological function, yes. In terms of soon-to-come technology, that's all moot.

To claim that germ cells are somehow holy and divine in the name of Christ is a real insult to us conservatives that don't believe in a flat earth.

Obviously. I wasn't referring to that, I was more commenting on how you compared scalp cells to fertilized egg germ cells, and was merely wondering if that is in fact as plausible as you suggest.

There actually are states that have tried to impose IVF regulations, for instance, only one egg may be fertilized per cycle (totally useless, as anyone who knows anything about IVF knows), though most proposed legislation is more about trying to ban gay and lesbian couples from using IVF, though single women get fucked over as well.

Oh, my mistake. Creating organisms directly from somatic cells is still far away right now. I meant to say that, soon enough, DNA from any cell can soon be used in an ovum for cloning purposes. Therefore at this point, germ cells still retain their special status.

Forcing people to have children they don't want or can't supprt also tends to wreck havoc on the social contract. Do people realize that most women that have abortions do so to protect the family they already have?



http://www.lacrossetribune.com/articles ... 4abort.txt

Precisely. Therefore read the sentence after the one you boldfaced.

I think you allude to a very important point. None of this is about "fertlized eggs are human beings." It's more to do with punishing non-procreative sex out of wedlock. It's why they are against abortion but not against IFV even though they argue that a fertilized egg is a human being. It's why they're against gay marriage but not against divorce even though the latter truly undermines the institution of marriage. It's why they're against the morning after pill even though there is no abortion involved and may prevent abortions from taking place. It's why they are for abstinence-only education even though it does not prevent teens from having sex or contracting STDs. It's why they are against the use Gardisil even though it is clinically proven to prevent cervical cancer.

Each of these issues has a self-contained rationale that does not hold up against their rationale on other issues, but that does all up to one consistent explanation - punishing women who have sex for fun.

Alas, that's the great hypocrisy revealed! Exactly what those people think. IVF is an act of procreation, therefore suspension of disbelief is called for on all moral matters.

Even though I don't condone sex out of wedlock, the federal (or any other) government has no fucking business legislating that.