Out of curiousity, would you have supported using Terry Schiavo for medical experiments?

We know for sure, life does not start in a laboratory dish.

On the contrary, it is precisely because we know life does start there that we find those cells useful for anything at all, whether it be implantation or experimentation.

There isn't a single scientist on this planet who can credibly argue that the embryos do not have a life.

Just to make my last point clear: there are definitely sound metaphysical arguments about the status of embryos. There simply is no argument, however, about their physical status.

I'm sure that the Bush position on stem-cell research has a decent philosophical basis.No-one should want to start down a road which could lead to 'harvesting' of people for the benefit of other (and RICHER) people,but to prefer to destroy unused embryos rather than put them to legitimate medical research use seems clueless .

More importantly in a very practical sense no-one will understand the 'nuances'of such a position.It is a political dead-end,and will allow Democrats to use this issue against the very agenda the religious right supposedly supports.How can this be a 'good' thing?

So in one fell swoop,the 'no research,no way'folks have latched onto a strategy that looks dicey both ethically and practically.Quite a feat.If you believe that the State should not be funding this research then make that argument ,and emphasize that argument.Maybe the State should NOT be doing this research both on principle and as a matter of good fiscal governance(let private industry pay for it),but to harp on the 'immoral'aspect when most don't believe you,is doomed to failure.

Can someone explain to me why the government should subsidize the pharmaceutical industry? What a bunch of fertilizer. If this is so wonderful are we to believe these firms aren't conducting this research overseas or that other firms aren't doing it all ready? Follow the money and watch where the money goes.

Bill,

I have always respected you and your blog while we disagree on Life issues. I will not rehash those disagreements now.

INDC:

Yet Brownback, et al, would rather keep hundreds of thousands of unused embryos in either indefinite cold storage or let them continue to pour down drains, rather than make them available for research purposes.

I just wanted to point out that we are already sliding down a major slippery slope. A slope we started on when the people that were opposed to the "test-tube baby" technology were shouted down. I admit I was/am a supporter of that technology and thought that the opponents were nuts. Now I find that they may have had a point. Where will it lead when we (those opposed to harvesting) are shouted down?

Incrementalism

Out of curiousity, would you have supported using Terry Schiavo for medical experiments?

Piss off. Seriously.

mcg -

I understand your semantical point - and I disagree with the way Specter phrases it - of course it's "life."

But seeing as the hundreds of thousands of extra embryos will never be put into a womb and start cellularly dividing, there is a distinction between ESR and abortion.

I wonder if Jeff Boulier up there makes any distinction between Terry Schiavo, embryos and individual sperm. I do.

I must say I don't follow your reasoning on this issue Bill. For those people, such as myself, who believe that human life begins at conception, using and destroying stem cells in medical experimentation is morally no different than exploiting the indigent, or criminals, etc in similar experiments.

So where exactly is your point of objection here?

Oh and don't dismiss me as a religious fool, I am not. Rather I have never seen an adequate demonstration —scientific or philosophical— that human life originates at any other point than conception. I doubt one exists, though if you would provide me with one Bill I would be most ready to change my position. However the consequentialist reasoning you seem to ascribe to is most unsatisfying.

I sure would like to see the majority leader, Senator Frist, bitch slap Senator Arlen Spector silly. Frist needs to demonstate that those who do not support the agenda do not get to call the tune. Spector has been soft on the president's judges and he had been soft on the constitutional option. Time for Frist to do open heart surgery on Spector.

I have never seen an adequate demonstration —scientific or philosophical— that human life originates at any other point than conception.

How about when cells start and keep dividing, growing, formulating more complex cellular structures from simple structures - you know, the inevitable metabolic progression that becomes and defines a human being. I don't disagree that "life" begins at conception, but then again, my definition of "life" includes things like plants and individual sperm cells, fighting their way to an egg.

Thes embryos in question are extra from fertilization efforts, many, many destroyed, others frozen forever, never changing and developing into anything other than what they are.

It's very easy and clear to say that a fertilized egg is equivalent to a human baby, and I understand the ethical consistency of that standpoint.

Just as I also understand the ethical consistency of pacifists that say that killing another human being - in war, self-defense, capital punishment, as unfortunate collateral damage in an otherwise noble endeavor - is always wrong. Always.

I understand these ethically consistent positions, in some ways respect them, and see how they're usually easy (sometime hard) to take - but I don't think that they are very complex, or right in all cases. And frankly, though I understand the slippery slope arguments (which are arguments that tend to be abused), though I can envision the "brave new world" creepiness that some fear, I frankly think that the fetishization of very simple embryos with no consciousness or complex metabolism - that will never be a thinking human being - never - is overwrought.

Unless you are religious and believe in the concept of an immortal soul granted at conception, which you say that you don't.

David -

I think that your comment is hyperbolic and ridiculous.

Bill---thank you for the reply. I think it gets back to the slippery slope/incrementalism argument another poster made earlier. A good many of those who oppose ESR also oppose the cavalier treatment of embryos in IVF as well---or IVF altogether, for that matter, even though modern methods now make it possible to avoid the production of excess embryos.

Thus it makes no sense to those opposed to ESR to say that "well, they were going to be discarded anyway", because that's only visiting further wrong upon wrong.

I think the fact that the President's politicial photo opportunity surrounding this debate involved children conceived from adopted embryos is indicative that this is the political base to which he is appealing.

Sen. Arlen Specter has Lymph Cancer. He is being treated with chemotherapy, but in effect he is DYING.

He is NOT RATIONAL at this moment.

By the way I quite like this treatment on the issue, and the insuing discussion, from JustOneMinute.

Leaddog2, I disagree. I think that Specter believes in the issue as he sees it. I do think, however, he's trying to use his own illness to demagogue a bit, which is kind of disingenuous since ESR is so far from even the slightest hope of curing his own affliction.

leaddog -

I'm not terminally ill, nor are the bill's co-sponsors - what are our excuses?

Bill seems to be arguing the ethics of the research instead of what I believe is the more fundamental issue of the limits of federal government.

I agree with dougf's assessment that some Republicans anyway have taken exactly the wrong tack in this debate. I haven't seen any of the President's recent statements, but it seems to me his reasoning for the initial ban on public funding was hitting the right notes.

I very simply yet strenuously disagree that taxpayer dollars should be spent on pharmaceutical research, especially considering there is a thriving market of private researchers working with stem cells.

I find it to be disingenous and highly hypocritical, not to mention quite rank with the stench of political opportunism, for so many to spend so much lobbying for this, instead of spending their money on pure research of their choosing.

I personally find the ethical slope involved with embryonic stem cell research to be quite slippery indeed, and worthy of its own debate; but I can say with a clean conscience that that bias does not inform my motivation to limit the scope of the government, particularly when such an endeavor fundamentally is at odds with the free-market success story that is the U.S.

Bill

Erica Jong also seems to feel that some people "fetishize" blastocysts.

Eugene Volokh easily disposes of her argument. You may notice, I past comments on this subject are easily in line with Volokh's... no matter that I do not oppose possible research using existing embryos, I also am not moved by some of the arguments of the pro-ESR advocates.

To offer another analogy, I'm NOT a vegetarian, but I do NOT feel that animals slaughtered for my table should be treated any old way JUST because they are going to die anyway.

Embryos are still nascent human life and we cannot, should not, treat them as commodities due no more consideration than aphids on a rosebush.

Embryos are still nascent human life and we cannot, should not, treat them as commodities due no more consideration than aphids on a rosebush.

Who does that point have anything to do with?

Did I think embryos are equal to aphids? No, I'm making common sense arguments about hundreds of thousands of embryos that will never grow and become babies. That will be flushed down a drain or kept in storage indefinitely. Your noble sound bites are throwaways at odds with reality.

From a rational perspective, keeping them in stasis until the end of time, as their numbers accumulate, because of an inviolable moral code that declares them "sacred," is "fetishization."

Are you going to adopt all of them, Darleen? Maybe a few thousand, keep them in a fridge in your basement, grant them citizenship, claim them as deductions on your taxes? It's simply not feasible. If you don't grant them status as Americans, aren't you making (GASP) as DISTINCTION about their status and value?

And as for your arguments about animals, what the Hell does cruelty have to do with this argument? It's not even a factor. Go chat with Peter Singer.

krakatoa -

I very simply yet strenuously disagree that taxpayer dollars should be spent on pharmaceutical research, especially considering there is a thriving market of private researchers working with stem cells.

Read my comments under other threads.

1. This is not "pharmaceutical research." That happens when researchers conduct basic research with public sector funds and then companies develop profitable applications.

2. If the govt stopped funding scientific research, our country would be crippled, as it's a highly imperfect market.

Not every paradigm fits within a template of "govermment spending is bad."

Tell me, would you like to disband the Army, too? Let some private companies take care of our defense?

From a rational perspective, keeping them in stasis until the end of time, as their numbers accumulate, because of an inviolable moral code that declares them "sacred," is "fetishization."

A moral code that declares embryos as worthy of protection as human life necessarily also declares it was wrong to freeze them in the first place, and wrong to discard them as well. The only course of action currently available under that moral code is 1) to cease all future production of excess embryos, and 2) to fund the preservation of all current embryos until such time as someone has adopted them.

Now I understand that you likely disagree with that moral framework, but that is the one you have to counter.

Also, a brief word about the funding issue. As someone who has engaged in IVF a number of times, we have been forced to pre-declare what to do with excess embryos---the options being freezing, discarding, and donation to research. In our case we selected freezing, intending to eventually implant all embryos we produce, but in fact have never had to exercise that option. But the fact that this option does exist makes it clear to me at least that research is being performed with new embryos today---with, apparently, private funds.

Thus it really is not accurate to suggest that without federal funding this kind of research is not possible. It apparently is.

Oops: " this option does exist " should read " the donation option does exist "

Read my comments under other threads.

No offense, Bill, but I don't really have the time to track down disparate comments under other threads. This seems like a simple enough debate that doesn't really require a lot of deep thought.

1. This is not "pharmaceutical research." That happens when researchers conduct basic research with public sector funds and then companies develop profitable applications.

I disagree. Of course it's pharmaceutical research. Splitting hairs and calling it "scientific research" hardly changes the fundamentals of my objection.

2. If the govt stopped funding scientific research, our country would be crippled, as it's a highly imperfect market.

I'm sorry... this is evidenced by what exactly? To the contrary, there are hundreds of pharmaceutical companies doing competing research and developing amazing remedies on a plethora of maladies. Most without any government funding. Sickness and Death is big business, brother. There are no lack of people ready and willing to throw money at promising research.

Not every paradigm fits within a template of "govermment spending is bad."

Tell me, would you like to disband the Army, too? Let some private companies take care of our defense?

I agree. And your example is valid. There are certainly some instances, like the military, where government spending is good.

I think that your argument however goes both ways. Just as not every bit of spending is bad, neither is every bit good.

The best you can hope for is a draw on that avenue.

Explain to me exactly what it is about embryonic stem cell research you think taxpayer dollars can achieve that private funding won't? Research so far has shown embryonic stem cells to be a dead end. I'd rather my dollars be spent on something a little more fruitful.

Give me the argument that taxpayer dollars are going to make a difference that is worth the near permanent money pit that any government program creates.

Then give the argument that spending on ESR should take precedence over things like border control, or infrastructure, or any number of other things that benefit a larger majority of people.

I disagree. Of course it's pharmaceutical research. Splitting hairs and calling it "scientific research" hardly changes the fundamentals of my objection.

I'm not "splitting hairs" - your assertion was inaccurate and fundamentally undermines your opinion on the topic. "Pharmaceutical research" has profit potential that more easily incites private investment. Baseline scientific research often requires govt funds because it's got no short to midterm profit potential and often completely fails to produce an applicable result.

No offense, Bill, but I don't really have the time to track down disparate comments under other threads.

I don't typically have time to rewrite my comments five times, even less than you have to bother to scroll down two inches and read them. What an arrogant comment - that I need to rewrite the comments for you, because you're too lazy to read the ones that I've already written (multiple times) in the preceding 5 posts.

Suffice it to say, your deep ignorance on the topic of how scientific research is conducted and funded is showing. When combined with aggressively asserting your opinion, that's bad.

Not everything fits into a "private funding is better, the market will take care of it" philosophy. Pharmaceutical companies take massive risks to create specific drugs, based on baseline scientific research that's often conducted by other governments or academic scientists funded by ours. That secondary or tertiary risk that those companies take is the "pharmaceutical research" you nonchalantly equate with what we are talking about.

These pharmaceutical R&D costs are built into the price of drugs, and are some of the main reasons that health care is so exorbitantly expensive. Now what YOU are asking is that private companies - with often no practical or in any way foreseeable profit incentive - take on baseline, wide open research that reveals either fundamental scientific truths or almost nothing at all. You want them to forecast out business models with 30 year timelines and an 80%+ failure rate ("failure" being defined as not producing an application that they can sell).

You don't have an accurate read on the process, either in your soundbites about private funding for med research, or asking me, a layman not involved in the research, to guarantee you results. That's not how research works - it's not like opening a Subway Sandwich shop. And this doesn't even scrape the surface of understanding how technological research funding is almost as relevant to the success and security of our country as funding the military. Do yourself a favor and move on to another topic.

This seems like a simple enough debate that doesn't really require a lot of deep thought.

Wrong and unintentionally hilarious.

And btw, I don't think that "I have time" to read any response that you may have, so take that under advisement.

wide open research that reveals either fundamental scientific truths or almost nothing at all. You want them to forecast out business models with 30 year timelines and an 80%+ failure rate

The rewards would be well worth the risk, if the proponents of this research are in even a small way correct. You are asking that every American take the risk for them while the health machinery takes all the profits.

I would trust businesses with a 30 year plan much more the our Government. Though the bit about 80% failure rate DOES sound a lot like a Government program. Hmmm...

The rewards would be well worth the risk, if the proponents of this research are in even a small way correct. You are asking that every American take the risk for them while the health machinery takes all the profits.

More grumpy, strictly reactionary conservative bs. I'm asking that Americans take the risk so that we ALL benefit. Because this is one of the only ways that such advances happen.

Scientific inquiry is sometimes akin to gambling. This gambling BY GOVERNMENT has led to some of the greatest technological advances that this country has achieved.

Businesses by and large do not gamble; they simply want to take estimable risks to make money.

And science would suck if every move that academic researchers made needed to result in selling something for a profit. Is that what you want? More made-up diseases and corresponding "cures" like acid reflux, just so that pharmaceutical companies can sell you something?

Why is this so hard to acknowledge? Some markets are imperfect, not all government spending is bad. Other things besides the military are essential to maintaining status as a first-world superpower. Private funding does not always drive the best scientific inquiry. Your world is dissolving, not everything fits into a square little political template.

It's like banging my head against a wall; I keep addressing these points with logic and sourcing (like funding percentages), and I get back the very same small government soundbites, over and over and over again. "Why should our precious tax dollars take the risk, HMMMMMMM?!"

Well, why should your precious tax dollars take the risk on the F-22 Raptor? While I support a strong military, the real threat from the Chinese is very likely to be economic, and it's our advantage to lose in biotech at the moment (and we are losing it).

Dear Sir:
How can someone justify =Federal subsidies for the biotech industry? Simple compare it to defense. Hello? Exactly what are you saying. Are you advocating private firms establish mercenaries for the government to hire?

Government research has a miserable record of failure. One need only look at the Airbus and other failed ventures like the Concord. Our government financed Langley who failed miserably while two bicycle makers succeeded.

Watch the money trail. This will enrich the few at the expense of the taxpayer. Anyone who believes the government is better at research than the private sector also believes "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you." Yah, sure.

Are you advocating private firms establish mercenaries for the government to hire?

No, that's the military equivalent of what YOU and your ilk are advocating for our scientific community - private pharmaceutical companies doing all of our medical research.

And I hope you like this internet you're using, developed by your tax dollars. Your comments about government funded failures are ignorant and non-contextual, and two aren't even American, nor even research projects - those were government run businesses, quite different from the academic research - run by scientists funded via grants - that I'm talking about.

In short, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

You may be interested in some breaking news which was posted in Newsmax regarding adult stem cells. Recent breakthroughs in Australia should make embryonic research unnecessary. I have posted the Newsmax link and a link to the university at my website
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/category/uncategorized/stem-cell-debate/
I am hoping bloggers will get this incredible news out since the MSM seems unable or unwilling to do it. Give credit where it is due: Newsmax for the find and the researchers for their great work.

Thanks, AJStrata

Yes, I'm familiar with the potential breakthrough. If it pans out, great stuff.

FAQ on research funding:

http://www.answers.com/topic/research-funding

Government funding for medical research amounts to approximately 36% in the U.S. The government funding proportion in certain industries is higher, and it dominates research in social science and humanities. Similarly, with some exceptions (eg biotechnology) government provides the bulk of the funds for basic scientific research. In commercial research and development, all but the most research-oriented corporations focus more heavily on near-term commercialisation possibilities than "blue-sky" ideas or technologies (such as nuclear fusion).

The government plays a critical role in maintaining our scientific advantage, especially via the proxies of academic researchers.

"Tell me, would you like to disband the Army, too? Let some private companies take care of our defense?"

This is a stupid question Bill. For one thing the one thing the federal government is constitutionally mandated to do, is provide for the common defense of the nation.

I don't remember reading anywhere in the constitution that the federal government is mandated to fund scientific research.

I think what bother's me about this issue right now is that there are basically two sides-the pro funders (group A) and the pro embryos (group B)-both have a myriad of reasons to believe their position is the right one-although for most in the second camp the moral reasons are probably the most common.

Well currently the federal government has reached a pretty good compromise plan. Group A gets its funding for existing stem cell lines, and they are not banned from seaking private donations to fund research on new lines. There is also not a prohibition on a State or other government agency choosing to fund the research, but the Federal government has opted to only pay for research that doesn't require the destruction of embryos.

Well apparantly, group A thinks that either they do not have to compromise, or that group B's objections have no worth, and their position should have no bearing on the issue. They essentially think the federal government should poo poo the concerns of group B, and fund new lines anyway.

There is a problem here.

Exactly where/when should the concerns of those who believe the embryo is a life that shouldn't be destroyed to be played out here?

I think what is scary about this debate, is that one side seems to think that the moral objections should have no place in the debate, which makes the slippery slope the pro embryo side is afraid of even more likely. The more you poo poo the position of the moralist, the easier it becomes to poo poo it the next time a question like this comes up, and the issue of theraputic cloning is just around the corner-and there are those advocating "science" on this one too.

Just Me -

Some clarifications -

This is a stupid question Bill. For one thing the one thing the federal government is constitutionally mandated to do, is provide for the common defense of the nation.

That's exactly why I brought it up. Small government folks believe that the defense of the nation is a fundamental and necessary sector of government spending that sits outside of the whims of the market. And my opinion (and the opinion of others) is that technological development and intellectual infrastructure, while not as literally necessary as a standing Army, is almost as vital to the continued eminence of the United States. Especially considering the fact that the relationship between govt and private sector spending in science has largely worked for the past 60 years.

I don't remember reading anywhere in the constitution that the federal government is mandated to fund scientific research.

And I don't remember seeing anything in the news about serious standing citizen militias organized outside of the auspices of the military, or the necessity to advise against quarterung troops, to name a couple of examples. Shall we get more specific about the requirement for a Navy's inclusion, and its period necessity for protecting fishery rights and riverine trade routes? And why don't these sections carry the same relevance? Times change. Societies change and certain things (like economies and the balance of power) become more complex.

Trying to merely apply Constitutional literalism for 21st Century paradigms of what represents our national security is a joke. The biotechnology revolution, flattening hierachies, the potential end of massive nation state war and the potential for small groups of people to destroy the Earth are all here or will be here in the next 100 years; should the founders have anticipated all of these things and written them in?

My "stupid question" had a non-stupid purpose.

As for the moral objections, I tend to value them much more as an angle than the small govt objections that think that Pfizer is going to take care of all of our medical research funding. BUT ...

Well currently the federal government has reached a pretty good compromise plan. Group A gets its funding for existing stem cell lines, and they are not banned from seaking private donations to fund research on new lines.

In this case, I don't think that it's a good compromise. considering the govt's unique role in research at this stage, and in light of the situation where ...

* hundreds of thousands of excess embryos will be destroyed or sit in storage forever anyway, never becoming human beings

* the current stem cell lines legally allowed to be used in funded research are polluted with mouse DNA, tainting their research applications

So, there is compromise and rationale between the position that I've identified and someone that completely shirks the moral component.

Bill,
I am sorry we disagree, but resorting to name calling is not going to change my, or anyone elses, mind.

If this were not controversial and/or didn't inflame a large minority of the citizenry, I would agree with you, as I ment to say in my previous statement. It is offensive to me and many like me, so I ask "should the government take money from my pocket to fund something that I feel is a crime"?

Resorting to namecalling? Oh please.

Please highlight exactly where I called you a "name."

More grumpy, strictly reactionary conservative bs

That's my opinion of your points, not you. And it is. "Don't take my money!" without any context or evidence that your money isn't being used for a vital, successful public sector investment is just gut politicization of an issue that you don't like. Given reality, opining that private industry, in its current form, could or should take over all of our medical research is either ignorant or intentional demagoguery; it exists in a fantastical context. Sorry, that's the truth.

And you didn't say this:

"should the government take money from my pocket to fund something that I feel is a crime"?

... rather, you merely complained about govt taking money from you in that comment (I'll wait while you go back and reread). While I disagree with the moral angle specifically applied to this bill (which utilizes embryos headed for destruction anyway), I have more respect for it as a position than what amounts to misunderstood criticism of the timeline for scientific benefits, as well how this country has funded itself to be the leader in science and technology for the past 60+ years.

Don't worry, Hillary will lift the ban when she's elected in 08, with substantial help from the Religious Right. Arlen Specter - the Joe Lieberman of the Republican Party - is the only sort of Republican who could beat her, but the primaries will go to a Santorum or Delay

"Just as I also understand the ethical consistency of pacifists that say that killing another human being - in war, self-defense, capital punishment, as unfortunate collateral damage in an otherwise noble endeavor - is always wrong. Always."

I think this is a false analogy Bill. The point that I would make in terms of pacifism —one that pacifists always overlook— is that human life is not an absolute value and to posit it as such is to debase humanity itself to the level of animality...that is merely to the life instinct.

Now, I don't see any contradiction between this assertion and my conviction that life begins at conception. To say that I believe that there are things worth dying for and things worth killing for does not entail my support for killing and exploiting innocent human beings simply for the benefit they might provide to others. These are two very different principles.

1) Would I condemn an abortion that would save the life of the mother? Not at all. Would I condemn an abortion that would save the mother from inconvenience? You bet.

2) Would I condemn killing in self-defense or in warfare? Of course not. Would I condemn killing in a life and death situation —say of someone injured of feeble— to improve the survival chances of the rest of those involved? Yes I would.

Do you see the distinction here Bill? I am neither positing life as an absolute value that can NEVER be transgressed, nor am I disregarding life in favor of a utilitarian calculus that measure and legitimizes the (intentional) killing of some in terms of the value their deaths will provide to others.

To my mind that is what the stem cell debate is all about: if we were lost at sea in a raft I wouldn't resort to murder in order to save my own life; nor would I wish to extend my own life in some modicum through the killing of innocents.

What is you objection to this?

Bill,

I'm not sure exactly what your undererlying problem is. You seem incapable of carrying on a reasonable discussion without resorting to insults, which is doubly sad because you are obviously intelligent enough to add substantively to the general debate.

You may have a leg to stand on in your position on this debate, but it is negated by your willingness to defend every single weak assertion you make with by putting words in in other's mouths "...ansking me... to guarantee you results.", and by making ever more obfuscating remarks replete with facts and figures you leave unsupported by links, and then you call the rest of us ignorant when we ask for your evidence.

I actually know quite a bit more about the pharmaceutical industry than you assume, having done my fair share of due-dilligence when making investment choices. I am familiar with a lot of the raw R&D many companies are doing, sans any gov't funding whatsoever. your assertion that all beneficial R&D springs from government coffers is ridiculous, and I really suspect you know this but are too indulgent of your own ego to acknowledge you have lost this point.

You really need to get over yourself my friend, accept that you are not infallible, and craft reasoned debate that you are more than capable of.

Yes, I will move on Bill. Not from this topic as you so snidely suggest, but from attempting anything like a reasonable debate with you. Enjoy your traffic in ever more unreasonable commenters.

Not without one parting shot however, just to indulge my own ego, and since you opened the door to such lowbrow response.

I said: "This seems like a simple enough debate that doesn't really
require a lot of deep thought."

To which you replied:

Wrong and unintentionally hilarious.

The fact that you consider a simple cost-benefit analysis on the virtues of taxpayer funded research (in a science that has run into a dead end so far) to be a deep and complex issue speaks far more of your own lack of comprehension than mine.

I'm not sure exactly what your undererlying problem is. You seem incapable of carrying on a reasonable discussion without resorting to insults

Resorting to insults?

1. It ticks me off when someone tells me that they are too lazy to scroll down and read my reiterated points. That's insulting.

2. Your assertion that this is "pharmaceutical research" is inaccurate. Wrong. It displays a fundamental misunderstanding of an issue, a "CBA," that you label "simple," when in reality, analyzing benefit of basic med research is pretty complex, with time horizons that are often decades to practical application. If me calling you on that mischaracterization, on your error that this is "pharmaceutical research," is an out-of-line insult, then you shouldn't assert false information aggressively.

your assertion that all beneficial R&D springs from government coffers is ridiculous

It is not my assertion that "ALL beneficial R&D springs from govt," as anyone actually reading my comments would know. ABout 36% of all medical research funding is public sector, and a disproportionate number of basic concepts spring from public sector funding of academics. This is a fact, backed up by at least two cites that I've dropped.

The fact that you consider a simple cost-benefit analysis on the virtues of taxpayer funded research (in a science that has run into a dead end so far) to be a deep and complex issue speaks far more of your own lack of comprehension than mine.

No, my friend. I have given several reasons why:

A. It is unreasonable to expect a "benefit" in a CBA of ESR at this stage of research.

B. Why ESR research (and thus "benefit") has been held up by some of the paradigms that I criticize. And in any event, that CBA has little to do with the moral issue holding up investment.

The fact is, krakatoa, you made assertions and characterizations that were inaccurate and displayed a fundamental ignorance on the issue, and you asserted them aggressively ("splitting hairs"). In addition, it takes a real jerk to bust out that "I don't have time to read the other threads, so repeat yourself for my benefit" line.

I've dropped links to buttress my arguments, citing public sector research as a percentage of total research. How many cites did you drop for your "pulled out of thin air" CBA? None. I've explained why it is unreasonable to expect a benefit in nascent research like ESR, and why private industry is skittish about investment in blue sky research. (with a cite as well)

What logical assertion have you presented to make your claim that the CBA doesn't hold up? Nothing. It isn't rolling out cures? Ridiculous.

I can only indulge debating with someone that makes false assertions and demagogic points about govt spending, with no references, aggressively, for so long.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Jason -

Do you see the distinction here Bill? I am neither positing life as an absolute value that can NEVER be transgressed, nor am I disregarding life in favor of a utilitarian calculus that measure and legitimizes the (intentional) killing of some in terms of the value their deaths will provide to others.

Your point is largely logical and morally consistent, but my point is that assigning an "absolute value" to embryos that are either already being destroyed or placed in storage ad infinitum - that will never grow into walking, talking, thinking, feeling human beings - is a postion very similar to the absolutist , non-practical or non-adaptible flaw that you (and I) point out in absolute pacifism.

The problem with this response, Bill, is that it assumes a premise, which is that they would never be discarded anyway.

One would hope that someone with Jason's position would, while focusing on the current fight to prevent embryo research, would be looking forward to a broader fight to an overall policy on embryo storage and/or destruction consistent with his moral views. That could even include outlawing the destruction of embryos, the future creation of excess embryos, and the formation of a publically-funded storage program for those currently frozen in anticipation of their eventual adoption.

Even if the practical reality is that they will be destroyed---because the political climate will currently not allow such dramatic change---no life-upholding position can permit further wrong being done to them.

I know I have been arguing the life position here without explicitly adopting it. That is because I am, quite frankly, still grappling with it. And in this thread at least, I find your (Bill's) arguments far less compelling than Jason's. I do wonder if I would find others more persuasive.

"Your point is largely logical and morally consistent, but my point is that assigning an "absolute value" to embryos that are either already being destroyed or placed in storage ad infinitum - that will never grow into walking, talking, thinking, feeling human beings - is a postion very similar to the absolutist , non-practical or non-adaptible flaw that you (and I) point out in absolute pacifism."

I'm not assigning "absolute value" to embryos in cryonic storage. The human body makes and discards embryos all the time...that's the way nature goes. So given that, I'm not going to be a fanatic and say that IV fertilization is morally wrong prima facie because it de facto entails the destruction of some embryos. However, what I am concerned about is the "slippery-slope" —may God have mercy on me for using such an argument— that I see as following from the decision to take these embryos, use them in scientific experiments, and rationalize such usage by appealing to their inevitable destruction. To my mind that is not an excuse for exploitation Bill. We all face inevitable destruction as it is. I’m sure you wouldn’t condone harvesting organs from a terminal patient without their consent, and yet you would defend doing much the same thing, ethically anyway, to embryos. If you are going to commit yourself to the principle that embryos are fully human —which you seem to assent to— then I don’t see how you can avoid contradiction here.

Moreover, I don't for a minute believe that such experiments will end with only embryos bound for the dumpster...these things tend to start of small in scale and then grow...just like the embryos themselves.

However, what I am concerned about is the "slippery-slope" —may God have mercy on me for using such an argument— that I see as following from the decision to take these embryos, use them in scientific experiments, and rationalize such usage by appealing to their inevitable destruction. To my mind that is not an excuse for exploitation Bill.

Well, I totally disagree.

We all face inevitable destruction as it is. I’m sure you wouldn’t condone harvesting organs from a terminal patient without their consent, and yet you would defend doing much the same thing, ethically anyway, to embryos.

Yet organs are harvested from patients via consent all the time. I do not accept the premise that embryos that will never grow, and thus never be actually sentient, are babies that are being exploited for evil purposes. I don't. And your refusal to halt IV Fertilization, as mcg's comments suggest, makes your position kind of confusing.

I don't know what to tell you. I do not assign equal value to an inert embryo and a human baby. If that makes me a Mengele (not putting words in your mouth), then the vast majority of the country and I will be in numerous company.

And I can hold this position without worry about sliding down the "slippery slope" of exploitive evil.

"Well, I totally disagree."

Why? How do you feel about theraputic cloning? Is that ethical? YOu seem to be arguing that the destruction of the embryos for research is ethical, because the embryos are going to be destroyed anyway.

There are a lot of people out there who are in favor of theraputic cloning.

So do you think it is ethical to create human life specifically for research?

further ethical questions,

"Yet organs are harvested from patients via consent all the time."

Um, you missed the important word in his question "without their consent."

"I don't know what to tell you. I do not assign equal value to an inert embryo and a human baby."

That is fine, and it is your opinion, but there are a large number of people who do assign value to the embryo, and it seems like the problem in this debate is that the people with your position don't seem to think the people with the other position should have any of their considerations introduced into this debate. Essentially you have taken the "I'm right, their wrong, and their concerns don't matter" position. This really troubles, me because you don't even see the slipper slope that is there.

So tell me what you think of theraputic cloning?

Why?

The answer to that question is found in one of the paragraphs in my preceding response.

Yes, I might agree with therapeutic cloning, though many individuals misunderstand what that is. That is a separate issue from this bill. The destruction of embryos via researh, that are slated for destruction anyway is ethical, without a doubt, IMO. With regards to this bill, the consistent positions are that either you support it, or you don't on moral grounds and also want to end fertilization treatments. Or you have a super secret third way to make sure that all those hundreds of thousands of embryos find a womb, are carried to term, and are adopted.

I do my best to show respect for people that have different ethical framework than I do, but the fact is that I ascribe different values to different stages of life, as most people do. I believe that mankind is on the cusp of creating a vastly better quality of life for itself, and I support these technologies. And finally, I place greater value on walking, talking, sentient human beings struck with horrible disease than microscopic, non-sentient organisms. If that repels you or anyone else, I'm not sure what to tell you.

And to be honest, is any of this really surprising, given the fact that I've repeatedly stated that I'm pro-choice? Hopefully, we'll be able to skip these ethical disputes with a therapy that works-around the trickier issues. But right now, it's wide open.

"[Life] ...certainly doesn't start in a laboratory dish," Specter replied.

The faction that is trying to destroy Biblical values just can't stay consistent.

I'm confused. I thought the Darwinists/Humanists are trying to say that life came up from a primordial ooze (a lot like a labratory dish in practice)? Now we learn from Mr. Specter that life doesn't start in that sort of environment after all. If life can only start from another human, I guess either the Raeliens or Christians are right.

It's hard to keep your story right when it isn't accurate.

I believe that mankind is on the cusp of creating a vastly better quality of life for itself,

Well yes, but the way you're talking about this issue it's as if it all rests on the shoulders of embryos. And it just doesn't. The vast majority of medical progress is being made without the use of stem cells at all. Furthermore, adult stem cells currently have significantly more success for therapeutic purposes---and progress continues in turning adult stem cells into the kind of pluripotent cells that currently we think we can only get from embryos.

So the point is that the pro-life side is drawing a line in the sand, but it's hardly a line that ends scientific progress as we know it.

Well yes, but the way you're talking about this issue it's as if it all rests on the shoulders of embryos.

No, I'm not. Or, I don't mean to. We're having a conditional ethical discussion on this issue, and if the advances that I am talking about wind up relying on blastocysts, then I'm stating a position.

Hans -

I know what you mean - how can those evolutionists deny that in the beginning there was only a watery void with a male god of fresh water (Apsu) and a female god of salt water (Tiamat)?

And that in time, a younger god of lightning and thunder (Marduk) killed Tiamat and split her body in two to form the heavens and earth, eventually creating man? (after the fish-men and the sea serpents, of course)

I mean, if we're being accurate.

We're having a conditional ethical discussion on this issue, and if the advances that I am talking about wind up relying on blastocysts, then I'm stating a position.

Fair enough. But that "if" is the real problem here. We have to make the ethical decisions now, without knowing what the benefits will eventually be. All we have now is potential, possibilities, theories, about what ESC will do---and a bunch of facts about the significant technical hurdles that have to be overcome, too. If, ten years from now, we realize that ESC research is not going to get us anything unique---that is, anything that alternative, ethically unencumbered technolgoies cannot---then it's a bit too late to call takebacks. And yet, the promise of, say, adult stem cell research is at least as bright if not more so, and is completely free from controversy.

"I don't know what to tell you. I do not assign equal value to an inert embryo and a human baby."

Well then when I said this: "If you are going to commit yourself to the principle that embryos are fully human —which you seem to assent to— then I don’t see how you can avoid contradiction here." I was mistaken on your position.

You however confuse the matter Bill by arguing from multiple grounds that are logically incompatible or irrelevant. If you do not view embryos as fully human then there really is no need to appeal to their inevitable destruction as a justification for killing them now is there? I do not justify myself in this way when I eat meat; rather I simply make a distinction between a cow and a person.

So then, please do explain to me in what way the ethical status of an embryo differs from a baby and how this status develops chronologically? For example, is it solely at birth at personhood is realized? If I kick a woman 8 1/2 months pregnant in the stomach and cause here to miscarry, should I only be charged with assault? No? Then at what point in her pregnancy should the delineation between manslaughter and simple assault be made? And based on what?

To my mind the only answers that can be provided here are either meaningless, arbitrary, and often agenda driven...OR one can posit the moment of conception, the moment when two independent cells with no individual human potentiality fuse into one entity, a moment that seems to me quite non-arbitrary. If this is the definition for the beginning of humanity one ascribes to then one cannot make a lazy distinction between embryos in cryonic storage and a giggling newborn simply on the basis that the one is some much cuter and looks so much more like us than the other. Humanity comes in but one flavor Bill and I have no intention of opening the Pandora's Box that comes with distinguishing between more and less human.

Many individuals have the capacity to make ethical judgments on a continuum with no clearly defined, minutely specific line of demarcation. I eat cows, but I don't eat veal. This is not "logically incompatible or irrelevant," as you scoff.

But since you have such a longing for the concept - in the case of an inert embryo, never being implanted in a womb - and thus never beginning the untrammeled process of cellular division and growth leading to feelings or sentience - there's a BIG RED demarcation line that one might be able to get behind.

Happy now?

You can continue to berate me all that you'd like, but I've shown respect for your positionn (that I don't agree with), now show respect for mine; agree that we disagree. I undersatnd how your moral calculus is more logically consistent and clearly defined with easy ground rules - I just don't agree with it. I'm not alone. And we're not all monsters.

Now Bill, given the snarkiness with which you attack the anti-ESC position in the body of your blog posts, you are the last to demand that we "respect" yours. I seriously doubt you intend to alter your style, do you?

And yet you do demand that those who oppose ESC research on moral grounds suck it up and forward their tax dollars to the nearest lab. I submit that perhaps they are entitled to a few mumbles and grumbles for their trouble.

given the snarkiness with which you attack the anti-ESC position in the body of your blog posts

I have no quarrel with anything that you've done to challenge my position.

But berating me repeatedly about my semantical position ("fully human, are embryos human" - one can get into a whole subdiscussion about the meaning behind those descriptors that's necessary for appropriate context), after we've already established that it's a larger point of subjective disagreement, may stray into the realm of the pointless.

Also notice that it can be frustrating to be in a "take on all comers" cage match on every issue that doesn't toe the conservative line, especially on issues where 2/3 to 70% of the rest of the population agrees with me. It seems that writing about what a jerk Dan Rather is attracts only a limited set of viewpoints on all other issues. I'm somewhat tired of it.

It's time consuming arguing these points by myself. And if I give ground and offer compromise in the realm of subjectivity, I don't think that should be seen as an incentive to press the attack. If you'd like me to be less respectful, here's an example - I think that Jason's non-objection to fertility treatments that lead to the destruction of embryos, in light of his objection to ESR, is a hopelessly inconsistent moral position. One might even say "logically incompatible or irrelevant," which would make him hypocritical for using that terminology with me.

You guys can mumble and grumble all you want - use my comments, even start a blog. But pressing an attack after I've already established my contrary position and acknowledged the merit of yours - on a purely subjective judgment - loses resonance/my patience after about the third round, so don't expect much more response. Just speaking practically, not emotionally. It's been a good debate.

Otherwise, you want to bust out some statistics on public health sector investment? Have at it.

Bill, that was ridiculous.

This is funny: http://vaconservative.com/archives/2005/05/31/why-actors-should-keep-their-mouths-shut/

It was not only ridiculous, but it totally dodged my statement. It did not respond substantively.

Well, I guess the problem is that to a pro-life position, all the arguments about public funding of health, potential health benefits derived from the research, etc. are irrelevant. If the embryo is entitled to the protections of personhood, then it really doesn't matter what the positive impact of disregarding that personhood might be.

It may seem like that limits debate, but I don't see any way around it, because otherwies you're asking a pro-lifer to assume the rejection of his fundamental premise.

It was not only ridiculous, but it totally dodged my statement. It did not respond substantively.

Your statement was not substantive on several levels. For one, you have no idea what Arlen Specter thinks about evolution. And even if he's a serious evolutionist, his views on the beginning of life do not represent all views of those that may happen to share his views on evolution. See how that works?

You used a non sequitur from the outer reaches of the galaxy.

And you have not addressed the truth of Apsu and Tiamat.

mcg -

I'm not asking any such thing of a pro-lifer, really. The only other BIG RED LINES, as mentioned above, are the implantation in the womb (to start growth), and the fact that the embryos are slated for destruction anyway. Otherwise, I expect no less from a strident pro-lifer to stake out an immutable position. That I understand, yet don't agree with.

I understand "his views on the beginning of life do not represent all views of those that may happen to share his views on evolution", you don't have to get sarcastic on me. I was pointing out the difficulty on keeping one's story straight and not contradicting oneself when one starts trying to contradict the Bible. It's awfully difficult.

Was that life that "came up from the primordial ooze" or not? Is that fertilized embryo life or not? You can't have it both ways.

You see here two big popular modern anti-Christian ideologies clashing with their "facts" in an effort to justify themselves.

"I eat cows, but I don't eat veal."

Same for me, but that is merely a personal preference based on my discomfort and eating infant animals. There is no moral content in that decision what so ever. As such I don't condemn those who eat veal as committing some kind of wrong.

"But since you have such a longing for the concept - in the case of an inert embryo, never being implanted in a womb - and thus never beginning the untrammeled process of cellular division and growth leading to feelings or sentience - there's a BIG RED demarcation line that one might be able to get behind."

So implantation in the womb's membrane is the beginning of human life? What allows you this definition other than your desire to legitimize stem cell research? Many people seek to legitimize abortion all the way up until the moment of birth and develop all sorts of different arbitrary definitions concerning the beginning of humanity and human status to support their agenda. How is yours any different?

"You can continue to berate me all that you'd like, but I've shown respect for your position (that I don't agree with), now show respect for mine; agree that we disagree. I understand how your moral calculus is more logically consistent and clearly defined with easy ground rules - I just don't agree with it."

How is my engaging you in a debate tantamount to berating you? I don't respect positions Bill, that's meaningless, I respect the people who formulate them. To agree that we disagree would be simply to accept the obvious. I'm trying to demonstrate to you that your reasoning it wrong...that is what open debate is all about. To just give up under the rubric of "agree to disagree" is to keep friends through an appeal to ignorance.

Of course none of that should matter since reasonable adults should be able to engage in honest debate without resentment and animosity because they are more interested in discerning the truth than being shown right or winning the contest. Unfortunately, your irritability speaks otherwise...but since most bloggers never bother to comment in their own blog I suppose I'll ignore it. I doubt I would be any different.

"I'm not alone. And we're not all monsters."

Yes and that is exactly the judgment I was making of you. And you deride Andrew Sullivan as a histrionic.

Then again I suppose I should blame you for being irritable when someone opens the comments with: "Out of curiousity, would you have supported using Terry Schiavo for medical experiments?".

Jason -

I don't have time to answer all points in your latest comment. But for one thing, I noted previously that comments like "not monsters," mengeles" were not intended to put words in YOUR mouth. This is why I'm sick of debating you, because while I'm indulging your position and treating you rather fairly, stated that I respect the position that you've taken, you're just being a jerk (comparing me to sullivan? C'mon, piss off).

. I'm trying to demonstrate to you that your reasoning it wrong

My reasoning is NOT "wrong." I have stated several times that I think that embryos are "life," yet I value them less than a human child. Our frames of reference about what I mean by the term "life" is the sticking point in the chain of logic, and I dont feel like writing an essay on it. there is no inconsistency in this position, yet you keep insisting that there is. This is a subjective opinion on a scale of ethical determination.

You don't even avoid veal for the same reason that I do, ferchrissakes.

I wasn't that "irritable" with you; I was actually "irritable" with the folks that made false assertions about public vs. private research. I've given you due respect, I just don't have the time to continue to debate subjective semantics in 9 paragraph long comments, when our positions are not reconcilable, and I've explained the fundamental difference already. And you insist on labeling subjective moral determinations "wrong" or "right" reasoning. This is especially ironic considering the fact that I've pointed out how your distinction between embryos destroyed during fertilization and those destroyed during research is an inconsistent position. Which amounts to "wrong" reasoning in your book.

You have your opinion, I don't agree because I assign less intrinsic value to an inert embryo than a birthed human being or an embryo in a womb, and that's that.

And NOW I'm irritable with you. And done commenting.

I am heartily tired of those who call for ever larger subsidies to private industry in the name of the public good. Its amazing that you mischaracterize the internet's development. The government did not set out to do anything other than develop an emergency communications alternative in the event of a nuclear attack. Your argument, as did your mercenary one, demonstrate both the shallowness of your arguement but the degree to which you will spin it in order to foist yet another big government spending program on the texpayer. Pathetic.