Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Since I have the icon, what better way than to try it out.
I am copying and pasting from a chat I was participating in on IRC, though I was doing most of the talking:
<@PogoDrake> Pres. Bush is expected to veto the stem cell research bill today.
That is so sick. More stem cell research could save the lives
of thousands of people. And it could make quality of life
lots more comfortable for thousands of others.
<@Technosapien> Is he vetoing stem cell research funding, or embryonic stem
cell research funding?
<@Technosapien> If it's embryonic, he's at least being consistent. If it's all
stem cell treatment, it's just shows he's too stupid to
recognize there's a difference.
<@PogoDrake> They just said stem cell on GMA. but it could be embryonic - shrug
<@Technosapien> Hm.
<@Technosapien> Any idea what bill it is?
<@PogoDrake> No
(some web-searching later)
<@Technosapien> S5?
<@Technosapien> He's going to veto S5? That's... old.
<@Technosapien> That was passed April 11
<@Technosapien> Yup, he's vetoing b/c of embryonic stem cell issues
<@PogoDrake> which bill is S5?
<@Technosapien> Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007
<@Technosapien> It appears to loosen restrictions on use of embryonic stem cells
<@Technosapien> So this is probably why he's vetoing it
<@Technosapien> They want to update ethical requirements so that those who
wish to donate embryos can, with certain provisions, such as
knowledge that embryo would never be used to implant and thus
would otherwise be discarded.
<@Technosapien> And that couples or individuals doing so are getting no money
for doing it.
<@Technosapien> so this is what I think.... Embryonic stem cells should be
usable for research if it's known the embryos will never be
used for implantation. People who express moral outrage at
this need to consider what happens to these embryos if they're
not used for research: they're destroyed anyway. If they
truly object to the destruction of embryos, then they need to
not only oppose stem cell research, but also need to advocate
laws making destruction of frozen embryos illegal, and supplant
those laws with their tax dollars - since it will cost those
who store embryos millions of dollars to keep them all. Or,
they can make it illegal to use in-vitro fertilization
techniques, thus negating the entire argument since there will
be no more embryos made this way to consider, however they
have to be content with robbing couples having trouble of a
very successful means of conception.
<@Technosapien> Or, people expressing such moral outrage need to advocate laws
forcing people who have embryos via in-vitro to use them all.
Or force companies that store them to implant them all.
<@Technosapien> But that opens up a whole different set of ethical and legal
complications.
<@Technosapien> I... just don't get it, honestly. An embryo, sure, capable of
becoming a human being, or of being tossed in the trash? I
would think going to research to help cure diseases is a
nobler end than trash. Like organ donation. it's a noble cause.
Especially if the only alternative is... trash.
<@Technosapien> it could save lives, cure diseases, etc etc etc.
<@Technosapien> it's not like researchers are purposely creating embryos just
so they can make them into stem cells.
<@Technosapien> sometimes I Think life would be simpler if I weren't a nurse.
Then I wouldn't understand these issues enough to be so
bewildered by these nutjobs.
Yeah. So. Thoughts?
I am copying and pasting from a chat I was participating in on IRC, though I was doing most of the talking:
<@PogoDrake> Pres. Bush is expected to veto the stem cell research bill today.
That is so sick. More stem cell research could save the lives
of thousands of people. And it could make quality of life
lots more comfortable for thousands of others.
<@Technosapien> Is he vetoing stem cell research funding, or embryonic stem
cell research funding?
<@Technosapien> If it's embryonic, he's at least being consistent. If it's all
stem cell treatment, it's just shows he's too stupid to
recognize there's a difference.
<@PogoDrake> They just said stem cell on GMA. but it could be embryonic - shrug
<@Technosapien> Hm.
<@Technosapien> Any idea what bill it is?
<@PogoDrake> No
(some web-searching later)
<@Technosapien> S5?
<@Technosapien> He's going to veto S5? That's... old.
<@Technosapien> That was passed April 11
<@Technosapien> Yup, he's vetoing b/c of embryonic stem cell issues
<@PogoDrake> which bill is S5?
<@Technosapien> Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007
<@Technosapien> It appears to loosen restrictions on use of embryonic stem cells
<@Technosapien> So this is probably why he's vetoing it
<@Technosapien> They want to update ethical requirements so that those who
wish to donate embryos can, with certain provisions, such as
knowledge that embryo would never be used to implant and thus
would otherwise be discarded.
<@Technosapien> And that couples or individuals doing so are getting no money
for doing it.
<@Technosapien> so this is what I think.... Embryonic stem cells should be
usable for research if it's known the embryos will never be
used for implantation. People who express moral outrage at
this need to consider what happens to these embryos if they're
not used for research: they're destroyed anyway. If they
truly object to the destruction of embryos, then they need to
not only oppose stem cell research, but also need to advocate
laws making destruction of frozen embryos illegal, and supplant
those laws with their tax dollars - since it will cost those
who store embryos millions of dollars to keep them all. Or,
they can make it illegal to use in-vitro fertilization
techniques, thus negating the entire argument since there will
be no more embryos made this way to consider, however they
have to be content with robbing couples having trouble of a
very successful means of conception.
<@Technosapien> Or, people expressing such moral outrage need to advocate laws
forcing people who have embryos via in-vitro to use them all.
Or force companies that store them to implant them all.
<@Technosapien> But that opens up a whole different set of ethical and legal
complications.
<@Technosapien> I... just don't get it, honestly. An embryo, sure, capable of
becoming a human being, or of being tossed in the trash? I
would think going to research to help cure diseases is a
nobler end than trash. Like organ donation. it's a noble cause.
Especially if the only alternative is... trash.
<@Technosapien> it could save lives, cure diseases, etc etc etc.
<@Technosapien> it's not like researchers are purposely creating embryos just
so they can make them into stem cells.
<@Technosapien> sometimes I Think life would be simpler if I weren't a nurse.
Then I wouldn't understand these issues enough to be so
bewildered by these nutjobs.
Yeah. So. Thoughts?