Comments on: Obama To Lift Bush’s Restrictions on Stem Cell Research

By: Eclectic Radical

Eclectic Radical — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 20:39:14 +0000

I agree entirely.

By: Ron Chusid

Ron Chusid — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 19:59:06 +0000

The issue is not a question of whether one likes abortion but, as you get to at the end, a question of whether the decision is made by the woman whose body is involved or by the state.

By: Eclectic Radical

Eclectic Radical — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 19:16:28 +0000

“Bushes quote would lead someone to believe that the bill he passed is somehow saving actual human lives by keeping them out of some made-up cloning abortion black market…”

That’s exactly why he said it the way he said it, to make people believe just that. Left or right, the abortion issue is only mentioned in politics for political reasons. Conservatives and liberals talk about abortion to rally the party faithful to their side and shore up support regardless of whom their policies benefit.

I don’t like abortion. While I don’t quite think life begins at conception, I do believe it begins somewhere in the womb before birth. That said, I am too conscious of the politicization of the abortion issue to vote for a candidate entirely opposed to my principles solely because I do not like abortion.

I don’t think anyone likes abortion and, with the possible exception of some hardcore advocates of reproductive freedom, I don’t think anyone believes abortion is the best choice in 99.9% of cases. At the same time, when make someone’s choices for them in such a personal area, we are talking about the most egregious abuse of government power possible. Only someone in the situation of pondering an abortion can make a truly informed decision about whether to have one.

By: nomoreGOP

nomoreGOP — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:50:06 +0000

”This good law prohibits one of the most egregious abuses in biomedical research, the trafficking in human fetuses that are created with the sole intent of aborting them to harvest their parts. Human beings are not a raw material to be exploited, or a commodity to be bought or sold, and this bill will help ensure that we respect the fundamental ethical line”.

I still am absolutely appalled that this man was the leader of our country for 8 years.. He is most definitely an egregious liar… But thats about all that is “egregious” here.. (although it is quite entertaining following W’s vocabulary debacles..he is like a kid that just found out what dictionaries and thesaurus’ are.. but still cant quite get it right.. “when in rome,” right? LOL)

But it still doesnt move away from the fact that he actually claims that there is a practice of “trafficking human fetuses for the sole purpose of aborting them.” This statement is just plain ridiculous..

There just is no such thing as a middle ground to these people is there? Bushes quote would lead someone to believe that the bill he passed is somehow saving actual human lives by keeping them out of some made-up cloning abortion black market… I mean while he is at it, why not just pass a few bills that prevent time travel, since there is a .00001 chance it might happen in the future sometime.. Time to ” ensure that we respect the fundamental ethical line” right?

By: Eclectic Radical

Eclectic Radical — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 05:21:25 +0000

Genetic evolution is more than just species evolution. Environmental and physical adaptations inform conception and fetal development on even a generational level, though it may take many generations of generations for them to observed in a meaningful sense. We may not have evolved into Nietzche’s ubermensch yet, but there is some reason to believe that we are not precisely the same people we were at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution either. Yet we are still, to all intents and purposes, the same species.

I don’t completely disagree with you, but it is still an important factor to keep in mind when making a big decision.

By: Ron Chusid

Ron Chusid — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 04:09:15 +0000

Natural genetic evolution is very slow. (So slow that many conservatives can deny that it occurs in humans). Compared to the rapid changes people might make when they can control their genes, evolution might turn out to be irrelevant.

By: Eclectic Radical

Eclectic Radical — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 04:01:28 +0000

Well Fritz, I’m not explaining why people are weirded out by cloning or why cloning should be illegal or banned. I guess I was thinking too rationally and answering the scientific question, which is really major concern of mine with cloning.

Ron, I don’t know if the question of genetic evolution will ever become irrelevant. I’m not saying genetic engineering on that level is impossible, but is certainly the sort of thing one gets a little skeptical about until it actually happens.

I do not have a moral objection to research into cloning, necessarily. I do believe there is a moral concern at work on one level alone: when we reach the point of experimenting with a genuine cloned human being, we will be creating a life. I would prefer not to see our ‘first born child’ (in the scientific sense) live as a lab specimen. Those on the left with objections to cloning are probably coming from someplace similar. The religious objection doesn’t need to be explained, I think. It goes without saying and one either agrees with it or not.

Personally, I think God has bigger concerns. I am more concerned about whether we would treat the product of such experimentation with the dignity he or she would deserve.

By: Ron Chusid

Ron Chusid — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 01:47:26 +0000

If everyone was a computer programmer we’d probably all be living in a virtual reality matrix by now.

The argument against cloning based upon evolution might be irrelevant. If we get to that point where we are capable of cloning I suspect we will also be reaching the point where evolution becomes a matter of our own choices in genetic engineering as opposed to natural selection.

By: Ron Chusid

Ron Chusid — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 00:24:28 +0000

Personally I think that once the science is there to do it safely cloning will be done, regardless of what governments decide. Government action to inhibit science might delay that, and might make it more difficult and rarer once developed, but it won’t absolutely stop it.

I prefer to avoid discussion of cloning as it is a side issue with regards to stem cell research. Sure, maybe if you oppose cloning it might be of use to inhibit biotechnology and delay when cloning becomes possible, but that hardly seems fair to all those people who might benefit from stem cell research.

By: Fritz

Fritz — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 23:35:05 +0000

And if everyone was a computer programmer we would all starve to death. It makes no sense to ban actions for individuals on the notion of “What if everyone did it?”.

People just seem to be much more weirded out by cloning than by identical twins, and I don’t understand the visceral reaction.

By: Eclectic Radical

Eclectic Radical — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 21:04:11 +0000

Scientifically speaking, reproductive cloning risks putting an end to genetic evolution. If one is merely copying the same products over and over, instead of creating new material, then nothing really changes and you get genetic stagnation. Genetic evolution happens at a much faster pace than species evolution, and is important to species survival. Reproductive cloning, if it entirely replaced traditional breeding, would stop that process entirely.

By: Fritz

Fritz — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 01:05:05 +0000

So what is the objection everyone has to cloning for reproduction? It’s just identical twins with a time-shift, after all.

(OK, there are health risks. But most people wailing about it don’t say “as long as there are significant risks for birth defects”. They just go on about how unnatural it is.)

By: thevoice@voicedup.com

thevoice@voicedup.com — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 00:36:41 +0000

Finally, after almost a decade of limiting taxpayer money for research president Barrack Obama has lifted the restrictions on federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research today. Let’s think of how many Americans are suffering from ailments and what this research can do for them. I’m sure everyone reading this knows someone important to them that is affected by one of these maladies such as Parkinson’s, repairing spinal cord injuries as well as treating diabetes, cancer, heart disease, multiple sclerosis and many more defects.

By: Ron Chusid

Ron Chusid — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 21:30:47 +0000

Bush confuses what is essentially a clump of cells (with the potential to benefit those living with disease) with fully formed human fetuses. Ultimately Bush and the right wing confuse stem cells with babies in their minds, showing a lack of understanding of both biology and ethics.

By: Faith

Faith — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 20:14:33 +0000

This quote from George Bush tells the decent way to handle this research.”This good law prohibits one of the most egregious abuses in biomedical research, the trafficking in human fetuses that are created with the sole intent of aborting them to harvest their parts. Human beings are not a raw material to be exploited, or a commodity to be bought or sold, and this bill will help ensure that we respect the fundamental ethical line”.