Statement of philosophy number 1: Let's kill defenseless babies and we might find a cure for some diseases.

Statement of philosophy number 2: Let's kill the old, weak, mentally handicapped, & defenseless to give the healthy ones a better chance.

Not much difference, is there? The first is what the philosophy of ESCR supporters boils down to. The second is Hitler's philosophy.

Now, because of politicans making excessive and exaggerated comparisons, on way too many occasions, between their opponents and Hitler, bringing Hitler into any conversation seems to be somewhat taboo. I believe it is a dangerous trend to forget what happened at the Holocaust. We need to remember and avoid making those same mistakes.

It is not permissible to kill a life to save a life. By killing one life (embryos) to save another life (diseased), you are actually doing exactly what the cartoon depicts George as saying: You are making a judgement that some stages of life are more important than others.

This cartoon is actually ludicrous in the extreme. It advocates a position that is exactly in line with the vilified character's statement in the cartoon.

Quote of the moment: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." - Declaration of Independence

1. I'll give you that it's a hyperbolic cartoon, but cartoons are often limited to exagerrated points by the medium.

2. What is happening to the leftover embryos not used by a fertility clinic now, Hans?

Despite the national soul-searching stirred up by stem cell research, human embryos are discarded all the time in fertility clinics - and hardly anyone seems to mind.

At one Bay Area clinic, they are flushed down the drain in a metal sink. At another, a technician drops them into a medical waste bin, to be picked up and incinerated by hospital staff.

At still another, a "quiet area" is set aside in the lab, where frozen embryos are thawed and allowed to live out their last days - usually no more than three or four at most.

"We have to follow the wishes of the patient," said Dr. Carl Herbert, president of the San Francisco Fertility Centers, which operates two clinics in the city. "It's up to them to decide what happens to their own embryos."

But the creation and destruction of human embryos is part and parcel of modern infertility treatments, reflecting both the inherent inefficiency of human reproduction and efforts by fertility clinics to keep costs down and success rates as high as possible.

Now, the stem cell controversy has begun raising the political stakes at the same time medical technology keeps pushing the limits of human fertility. So the number of surplus embryos stored in the nation's approximately 360 in vitro fertilization clinics promises to increase.

No one knows how many exist already, but some claim the number may be close to 200,000 - not counting the many others that are discarded immediately without being frozen.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2001/08/20/MN58092.DTL

The cartoon is not merely hyperbolic, it is advocating a position that it makes fun of in the very same cartoon.

Of course, they probably didn't notice that when they wrote it. *grin*

You really threw me for a loop with your second point. I don't what I believe about that... I'm still trying to figure it out.

I need to go consult Jerry Falwell on what I'm supposed to believe. I'm kidding! ;)

Fair enough about the cartoon, though this inconsistency still cuts both ways.

The bill up for approval does not approve the creation of embryos for stem cell research, it allows scientists to use embryos that are leftover from fertility treatments. Not all of these embryos are adopted.

I'm sorry... I don't understand what you are saying about the inconsistency cutting both ways...

For more: http://hansmast.com/index.php?title=embryonic_stem_cell_research

IVF and discarded embryos are wrong too, and we were immoral to go down that path to begin with. It was indeed a slippery slope. Especially when you suspect that all the crazy IVF and elderly-mom and quads-and-quint stories are due to women delaying pregnancy, damaging the machinery with abortion, then desparately trying to make up for it all in their late 30s or 40s. It's all quite disordered.

Bill, I believe your point about the current discard of embryos left unused in fertility treatments touches on why this current discussion is so important: we have, until now, been content to passively ignore the issue.

It might be generally agreed that the destruction of these embryos is far from a good thing. The current discussion, then, is over whether to destroy the extra embryos outright or destroy them in the process of researching new avenues of medical treatment. The item not being discussed is the system that results in the extra embryos to begin with.

It is certainly valid to argue the benefits of researching techniques that may treat ailments outside the current sphere of medical treatment, as it is plainly a better use of the embryos than simply flushing them down a sink. There must be a parallel discussion, however, into the causes of the surplus. When one wishes only to use the excess, one must realize that this is a function of the quantities produced and used.

Where are the limitations on production, and what would prevent the similar discard of embryos in excess of those needed for research? With federal money in play, it is almost certain that the surplus embryo supply will increase as well. If the cause of the current embryo surplus is not addressed, the ethical problem will simply expand to include the new volume destined for research.

Forgetting the moral debate, how about a bottom line debate. Does the federal government need to subsidize the drug companies? If these developments are so great let the private sector go to it. I don't see the Germans or Japanese funding their bio techs? Does this mean they aren't interested in profits?

I don't see the Germans or Japanese funding their bio techs?

1. Wrong.

2. The US Federal government doesn't primarily fund "biotechs," except in certain cases, like when a biotech gets a tax break for developing a drug for an orphan disease.

Much of the grant money goes to academics.

To complete the Cox&Forkum cartoon they really should have Dr. Cranford standing behind the disabled kid with a large pillow ready to smother him, pillow labeled "courtesy the Quality of Life Club"

"The bill up for approval does not approve the creation of embryos for stem cell research, it allows scientists to use embryos that are leftover from fertility treatments. Not all of these embryos are adopted."

For now, but there are advocates out there who do. They also support theraputic cloning.

ESCR is not prohibited in the US, it is not illegal. If you want to support it, then pull out your checkbook and cut a check, but the taxpayer shouldn't be expected to foot the bill for something that many see as immoral, and isn't as promising as other types of stem cell research that don't involve taking a life, or at least what many people regard as a life.

This bill isn't about whether or not the research should exist, but whether or not the taxpayer should fund it. And frankly, even if I wasn't morally opposed to ESCR, I would still think it a waste of taxpayer money given that other areas of stem cell research have netter far more results (even where ESCR is funded).

And do you think that research studies on the mating patterns of Bonobo monkeys are a waste of your tax dollars?

Allowing scientists to compete for grants in ESR does not necessarily mean that more of your tax dollars are taken from you. Read my comments under the other threads that explain this in detail.

"And do you think that research studies on the mating patterns of Bonobo monkeys are a waste of your tax dollars?"

The quick answer is yes. But then I am one of those people who thinks the federal government has its hands in way too many things and funds way too many things, and once you fund something, there is no way to stop, the funding only gets bigger and expands more, and gets the federal government involved in even more things it isn't constitutionally mandated to do.

For the most part I think scientific research should be privately funded, not federally funded unless there is a compelling interest for the government to fund it (ie funding research in the area of defense would be a compelling reason to fund scientific research in that area and in some matters of health-like infectious desease). But for the most part I think the Fed's have their hands in too much.

Just Me -

For the most part I think scientific research should be privately funded, not federally funded unless there is a compelling interest for the government to fund it

I don't feel like reposting my comments from previous threads, but boiling it down: scientific research is an imperfect market. Basic research does not have short midterm profit applications that make it tangible for private industry.

This internet that you're using right now? Your tax dollars.

Pharma companies that go after specific drugs take a big gamble, nevermind investing in blue sky research that has no tangible light at the end of the tunnel.

Investing in science IS AS VITAL as investing in our military. If the framers had a crystal ball and could see how 21st century economies complement the utility of armies, it would be "constitutionally mandated" as well.

Don't be hidebound and short-sighted.

Okay, so you support all government funding for scientific research.

How much should ethical standards be applied to this, or should ethics just be damned and those who have moral objections to some of this stuff, just take it shut up and sit down.

Right now it is about embryonic stem cell research. So what happens, when the scietists want to start creating embryos specifically for research, is that okay? Theraputic cloning? Does it matter at all that there is a large segment of people who object on moral grounds to these things? Should they be forced to pay for them?

Where is the ethical line drawn in the name of science? Should there be one or should anything go? Who gets to decide? Do those with moral objections get their moral objections pooed pooed, because they are moral objections?

Scientific research for the sake of science, isn't always the best argument to make-but if you say "well they can't have a say, because their belief that the embryo has any value is just stupid and anti science" then what about when we ratchet it up to the next step-or the next, when do the moral beliefs start to count and who gets to decide whether or not they count.

The ethical angle - which I don't agree with, especially in the case of this bill, which would enable the use of embryos that will never become human beings anyway - is a legitimate limit on science.

I just think that its application in this case is wrong.

I agree with the previous comment that these embryos would be discarded anyway. When the president and others draw a line in the sand on this issue, it just undermines their credibility.