And yet federal funding for this research would reduce this type of killing by forcing the largest market, the US, to follow stringent ethical guidelines. This argument is an overly beaten one. Your utopian position against all research will never be realized but utilizing NIH guidelines will force researchers to avoid condoning and justifying ridiculous stuff like this.
Who's "utopian" position is more realistic. You hope researchers will be ethical. I respect that. However, I remain a realistic cynic. Money is power -- and innocent life is powerless.
And all the millions of people with diseases like Parkinson's and diabetes who could possibly be cured of their illnesses if the research was encouraged, people who are paralyzed who may be able to reform their spinal cords, and so forth. It's not that clear cut. And it's not anymore clear cut than whether a fertilized egg is a 'child'. The Ukraine, and the countries were there's a major black-market export, are just trying to participate in the market. Trying to make their paper, y'know. They're in the shadow of the market though - we're in the sunshine. But, worldwide, it's the same market, and it's usually just a matter of generational luck whether you find yourself doing some investment banking or whether you're killing babies to make your green.
As I replied to SamFisher in another thread, I do not consider myself bright enough to find where the hair is split when determining "life" and "not life." I concede that medical breakthroughs will come from stem cell research. But my question is whether the cost/benefit ratio will outweigh the shame borne by humanity for its inhumanity.
I consider myself bright enough to know that, while there's no consensus on where life starts, that there are many people alive right now who could potentially have their lives saved, have their pain reduced, by the results of stem cell research. I don't consider a fertilized egg 'life' in the sense of you and me and babies and such. I don't see any inhumanity in taking cells from a fertilized egg to save the life of someone who is right here, right now. Someone who know's that they're suffering, and that they're going to die. And for every year that passes where stem cell therapy is delayed by controversy and sectarian concerns, more people suffer from something that could potentially be cured. The shame, to me, is letting those people suffer and die, letting politics and religious convictions (that they may or may not share) stiff-arm them from a potential cure.
I'm not hoping anyone will be ethical. I stated in a long post as to why having federally funded research would force researchers throughout the US to conform to NIH ethical guidelines (which would prohibit research on stem cells that were acquired in ways such as this). Also, federally funded research would attract top scientists back to the US where they could be subjected to stricter rules. Federal funding is a win-win and I don't see how having the federal government fund this research would make things any worse than it already is in terms of ethics.
Again, I concede that I am a cynic. People with the same mindset as Thadeus will always push the envelope, cloaking themselves in the name of good. You are probably not old enough to remember how abortion rights started as a positive movement. Unfortunately, the positives began to get ugly as abortion clinics sprang up in response to the money to be made. Now we are up to the partial birth dilemma. I may be alone in my concern over this, but I cannot help expressing my sadness and despair over such horror. It's just the opinion of a former idealist. As I said before, stem cell research will bring about new cures. I am a diabetic -- no one hopes for new cures more than me. However, I repeat my question: "At what cost?" With each step further down the stem cell road, I fear for our very souls.
I'm not sure what you mean by post partem dilemma? I don't think anyone is condoning the killing of newborns.
This story does sound kind of strange because the plenipotenary stem cells that come from embryos have already differentiated by the time you get to the fetal stage. There are some stem cells left in the umbilacal chord blood but my understanding is those aren't plenipotenary. Also the amniotic membrane around the fetus can also be wrapped around transplanted tissue preventing rejection. What may be going on here is harvesting the infant organs and other parts in the belief that they can be grown and transplanted or a mistaken belief that there are more stem cells in the infants.
I made the correction. Good catch. I was writing on automatic pilot while attending to too many other activities.
Can you provide any support for this whatsoever? EDIT: have done some googling, and despite a pro life claimi that abortion is enormously profitable, based on raw numbers from planned parenthood (though if you look at them closely, you'd realize it's not profitable at ll) - there's almost no support for this conclusion. If anything it's one of the LEAST profitable procedures becuase Drs. keep fees low - despite ever-increasing costs (how many other physicians have to wear bullet proof vests, surveillance cameras, armed guards?). Compared to delivering a baby in a hospital (which involves several times the amount of fees & costs) it's a lot cheaper.
I respect your argument and your willingness to defend your point-of-view, but this was a rather *******-ish thing to say.
Come now, Sam. What support is needed -- that abortion clinics make lots of money or that fetuses don't talk back?
They don't make a lot of money - it's fabricated on your part. They're among hte least profitable areas of medicine.
You're right, i probably shouldn't have even used taht word. Most doctors barely break even, if at all, and only perform abortions and risk their lives because they believe it's a valid medical procedure and that they shouldn't be bullied by others. Anyway, even if it were simply were a matter of it being "less profitable" it still pretty much invalidates your spiel about "follow the money, blah blah blah". If we were to follow the money, we would follow it to a path that makes more money (no abortions) rather than one that makes less. Planned Parenthood's medical services cost $520 million per year against a clinical income of $346 million. They manage to stay afloat because of donations and subsidies, which comprise over half their income. Tell me how this renders an individual abortion profitable?
