"Ethical" Solution to Stem Cell Debate

[Battlehymn Republic]

Slightly Old Article

What do you think about it? Could this be a compromise? Have stem cell traditionalists greatly exaggerated their claims?

[Lord of the Abyss]

Elizabeth Moon wrote a short story call A Delicate Adjustment involving the same sort of thing; human embryos altered to be nonviable were used in experiments. Frankly, I think it's hairsplitting; a blob of flesh is a blob of flesh, viable or not.

As far as the compromise idea goes, no. First, these people are fundamentally intolerant and irrational and will never accept a compromise long term. Second, science is good ( usually ) and religion is bad ( almost always ); one should never compromise with religion, it's like compromising with the AIDS virus.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

It depends on what you mean by religion is bad. It really depends on the religion and what it does.

[felineki]

It depends on what you mean by religion is bad. It really depends on the religion and what it does.

It also depends greatly on its followers. For all the fundamentalists who demand that the entire world plays by their rules, there are also many who treat their religion as a personal belief and nothing more.

[Nephtys]

It depends on what you mean by religion is bad. It really depends on the religion and what it does.

Religion drowns out reason. That's one of it's main and most important qualities. People can exist with both reason and religion, but you'll take note that these people also tend to be a bit more in tune with reality, and not screaming fundies.

Two examples.
A reasonable person.. say... me or you... goes. "Oh my. We shouldn't pollute too much, because that may hurt the future of our race."
A non-reasonable person... say, Ronald Reagan's old secretary of the itnerior says... "Oh, we don't need to worry about destroying the Earth. The Rapture is at hand any day now, and God won't mind."

[Battlehymn Republic]

Well, have you actually read the article? Some religious leaders actually said that it might be acceptable. And the article states that scientists are more opposed to the idea than fundies.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Well, have you actually read the article? Some religious leaders actually said that it might be acceptable. And the article states that scientists are more opposed to the idea than fundies.

I did read the article. First, the religions of the world are, by nature the enemies of science; it's usually a bad idea to cooperate with enemies.

Second, it's a complicated, difficult solution to a delusional problem. Unless you are foolish enough to believe in a soul, a blob of flesh is a blob of flesh; there are no ethical problems in doing whatever you want to it.

And if you do believe in the soul, so what ? If a mindless blob of flesh has a soul, then a soul has no value and should be ignored.

[His Divine Shadow]

The solution is to tell the opponets to fuck off and die and just go ahead.

[Nephtys]

Well, have you actually read the article? Some religious leaders actually said that it might be acceptable. And the article states that scientists are more opposed to the idea than fundies.

Because well. Scientists want ways to make solutions. If you have to make a process more difficult than it has to be, or more complex, you're adding a new set of variables. If you consider an embryo something sacred, even making them incapable of becoming humans (or more incapable, I should say), then that's still murder in your book.

Scientists are against this, because it's more deadweight slowing them down. Religious leaders should honestly have very say in the matter, really. It's a battle of opinions, and nobody wins, but people with diseases lose.

[mr friendly guy]

Lets see

taking selected quotes

Hurlbut advocates genetically altering cloned embryos so, like a teratoma, they wouldn't have the DNA necessary to become viable humans

The issue religious issue raise with using embryos is because its a "potential human" and we deny this "potential human" the chance to be human. Now isn't this doing the same thing? Yet religious people are throwing their support behind this? Do they even maintain a consistency with their teachings, or do the jump ship when something has shown overwhelming evidence that they are wrong. But I guess this quote is more telling about their line of thinking.

By the end, the council wasn't convinced, but most agreed that Hurlbut's idea should be carefully tested on animals. This is where most of the priests in Rome ended up as well. They support Hurlbut's concept, but only because they feel they have no other option. "If Brave New World weren't already here, I wouldn't go near this," said Father Berg, who witnessed the drama from the audience. "But because Brave New World is here, maybe this is a way out."

Moving on

Hurlbut has sided with pro-life theologians ever since finding faith in his twenties. (He describes himself as a "generic Christian" who goes to church at a variety of services.) "This idea that an embryo becomes a person only at day 14 is truly pseudoscientific," he says. "It's completely arbitrary."

But the idea that a soul enters the embryo at conception isn't. Gotcha.

and further on

Hurlbut's supporters throw these bricks right back at the critics. They accuse stem cell research traditionalists of hoodwinking the public by promising cures they cannot deliver. "I've never been so disgusted in my profession as in the last five years," says Maureen Condic, a specialist in adult stem cells at the University of Utah. "They're saying, 'We're going to cure all these diseases; we're going to stop Michael J. Fox from shaking; Christopher Reeve was going to walk again. It's all lies."

Typically attack the opposition without addressing their points, ie it would cost effort and resources to do it this so called ethically viable way just to please some irrational religious nutters. One wonders if stem cell research isn't predicted / suspected of leading to some medical advances, why the hell do they champion Hurlbut's method of stem cell research? If stem cell research isn't going to lead to it, it doesn't fucking matter whether you do it this new way, or use embryos.

In short this uses a "golden mean" type solution which will

a) cost resources to research

b) even with a working technique it still requires more work (having to 1 alter embryos so they don't develop into humans and 2 re-alter them so they do develop once we harvest stem cells).

and the gain from all this

a) please the religious right so that they won't bother stem cell research with their "ethical concerns" which have no rational backing behind them in the first place.

[Zero]

If there aren't any scientific reasons why this compromise would be harmfull, and it will make the religious nuts of the world stop fighting against it, then I would say that it's immensely practical to do so. Some here have claimed that religion and science are enemies. Even if this were so, it isn't actually ever bad to cooperate with your enemy. That's how you stop your enemies from actually being enemies, and with such a compromise, the harm inflicted by them will be much less. This comrpomise will cost money, but gain public support.

[Nephtys]

If there aren't any scientific reasons why this compromise would be harmfull, and it will make the religious nuts of the world stop fighting against it, then I would say that it's immensely practical to do so. Some here have claimed that religion and science are enemies. Even if this were so, it isn't actually ever bad to cooperate with your enemy. That's how you stop your enemies from actually being enemies, and with such a compromise, the harm inflicted by them will be much less. This comrpomise will cost money, but gain public support.

But there is no REASON to need to compromise. Relgious leaders (should) hold no power over scientific or political organizations. They shouldn't hold any power at all, except on personal levels with their own people. Compromise is only a valid technique if both sides have something to gain or lose. In this case, well. There's a gain and loss on the part of the scientists, but religion is so diverse, and quite frankly often very, very wrong in any field relating to science... that said leaders don't lose much.

[Lord of the Abyss]

If there aren't any scientific reasons why this compromise would be harmfull, and it will make the religious nuts of the world stop fighting against it, then I would say that it's immensely practical to do so. Some here have claimed that religion and science are enemies. Even if this were so, it isn't actually ever bad to cooperate with your enemy. That's how you stop your enemies from actually being enemies, and with such a compromise, the harm inflicted by them will be much less. This comrpomise will cost money, but gain public support.

First, it is harmful because it slows research, costs money and promotes religion. Second, relgious nuts are "give them an inch, they'll take a mile" types. Compromise with them will simply make things worse.

And finally, we cannot stop them from being our enemies; religious nuts are by nature the enemies of everybody, including each other. If you look at any place or time they gain power, you will see that all they do is inflict suffering and oppression on everyone within reach. Under no circumstances shiould we compromise with an evil like that. I don't want a new Dark Age in America.

[Zero]

I don't want a new dark age in the US either, which is why I believe compromise is necessary. Whether it should be this way or not, religious fucktards end up having a lot of power here. Simply saying that we'll just do shit irreguardless of what these ass holes want causes many problems in and of itself.

In the US, lacking some kind of compromise may lead to us simply never doing the research, and that's worse then higher costs and more time. You don't promote religion by making a compromise, anyways.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Appeasment with tyrants and would-be tyrants has a history of failure. The Democrats have constantly backed down and compromised, with the result that the Republicans control the country. Compromise with these people simply does not work.

[Lord Zentei]

Appeasment with tyrants and would-be tyrants has a history of failure. The Democrats have constantly backed down and compromised, with the result that the Republicans control the country. Compromise with these people simply does not work.

If this compromise will make it more likely that polypotent stem cells will become available to medicine, then it is inherently a good idea. If this paranoid "OMFG! Republicans are teh EVil!!11 No compromise!!" attitude makes the availability of polypotent stem cells less likely, it is inherently destructive, foolish and with little point.

[Nephtys]

Appeasment with tyrants and would-be tyrants has a history of failure. The Democrats have constantly backed down and compromised, with the result that the Republicans control the country. Compromise with these people simply does not work.

If this compromise will make it more likely that polypotent stem cells will become available to medicine, then it is inherently a good idea. If this paranoid "OMFG! Republicans are teh EVil!!11 No compromise!!" attitude makes the availability of polypotent stem cells less likely, it is inherently destructive, foolish and with little point.

Again, this is mostly reliant on how scientifically viable these cells would be driving the argument.

[Lord of the Abyss]

If this compromise will make it more likely that polypotent stem cells will become available to medicine, then it is inherently a good idea. If this paranoid "OMFG! Republicans are teh EVil!!11 No compromise!!" attitude makes the availability of polypotent stem cells less likely, it is inherently destructive, foolish and with little point.

I wasn't being paranoid; it's simply an obvious fact of recent history. The Republicans see a compromise as an opening wedge, not a viable solution. The Democrats has repeated tried that strategy and failed, I see no reason to believe the GOP is suddenly more reasonable.

[Lord Zentei]

If this compromise will make it more likely that polypotent stem cells will become available to medicine, then it is inherently a good idea. If this paranoid "OMFG! Republicans are teh EVil!!11 No compromise!!" attitude makes the availability of polypotent stem cells less likely, it is inherently destructive, foolish and with little point.

I wasn't being paranoid; it's simply an obvious fact of recent history. The Republicans see a compromise as an opening wedge, not a viable solution. The Democrats has repeated tried that strategy and failed, I see no reason to believe the GOP is suddenly more reasonable.

And in case if a sufficient number of the GOP can accept the use of modified embryos then how is this compromise bad? Or if they refuse, how can they use it as an "opening wedge" to make matters worse?

[Lord of the Abyss]

And in case if a sufficient number of the GOP can accept the use of modified embryos then how is this compromise bad? Or if they refuse, how can they use it as an "opening wedge" to make matters worse?

Well for one thing, it amounts to a claim that unmodded embryos are people. They'll say "See, even scientists now admit abortion is murder !!" . I suspect that may even be the real point of all this.

[Lord Zentei]

And in case if a sufficient number of the GOP can accept the use of modified embryos then how is this compromise bad? Or if they refuse, how can they use it as an "opening wedge" to make matters worse?

Well for one thing, it amounts to a claim that unmodded embryos are people. They'll say "See, even scientists now admit abortion is murder !!" . I suspect that may even be the real point of all this.

Depends on how it is handled. A few strategic queries as to people's position on the modified embryos without granting anything on the regular oned could test how they might react. I'm mainly looking at the moderates and neocons whose alliance with the fundies is one of convenience only. In any case the RC theologicians in that article seemed posetive, and if a sufficient number of religious denominations arrive onboard without overt prodding this may very well be doable.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Depends on how it is handled. A few strategic queries as to people's position on the modified embryos without granting anything on the regular oned could test how they might react. I'm mainly looking at the moderates and neocons whose alliance with the fundies is one of convenience only. In any case the RC theologicians in that article seemed posetive, and if a sufficient number of religious denominations arrive onboard without overt prodding this may very well be doable.

Frankly, I think you're a wild eyed optimist. Making a deal with these people is like making a deal with the Devil; in the end, the result is always a disaster.

[Lord Zentei]

Sorry, didn't see you there.

If this compromise will make it more likely that polypotent stem cells will become available to medicine, then it is inherently a good idea. If this paranoid "OMFG! Republicans are teh EVil!!11 No compromise!!" attitude makes the availability of polypotent stem cells less likely, it is inherently destructive, foolish and with little point.

Again, this is mostly reliant on how scientifically viable these cells would be driving the argument.[/quote]

Well, of course. Here's hoping that they will prove useful (and acceptable to the pro-lifers). In any case, they are worth looking into, as are studies into the possibility of somehow making adult stem cells polypotent (though I'm not very hopeful on that).

[Lord Zentei]

Depends on how it is handled. A few strategic queries as to people's position on the modified embryos without granting anything on the regular oned could test how they might react. I'm mainly looking at the moderates and neocons whose alliance with the fundies is one of convenience only. In any case the RC theologicians in that article seemed posetive, and if a sufficient number of religious denominations arrive onboard without overt prodding this may very well be doable.

Frankly, I think you're a wild eyed optimist. Making a deal with these people is like making a deal with the Devil; in the end, the result is always a disaster.

Or perhaps you are a wild-eyed pessimist. Your casting of "these people" meaning all Republicans as evil incarnate strikes me as being a tad simplistic. In any case you haven't shown that these compromise attempts would inevitably lead to disaster, while given the current situation, a fundie acceptance of embryonic stem cell use is unthinkable, so treading the same road we're on now will lead nowhere.

[Zero]

Abyss, if this compromise would further stem-cell research so that it could actually be done here in the US, I see that as a good thing. You don't because of your apparent extreme hatred for religion, even though it's been shown that the upsides (actually being able to do the research) beat out the downside/other upside (religious people are happy). What's going to be lost here?