Obama Administration lifts stem cell ban.

[Serafine666]

You are judging the potential of a line of research with very scarce data and no particular competence in analysing it. The fact that you have only a superficial understanding of the matter at hand makes you basically unable to speak relevantly on the subject; for example, did you know that loss of differentiation in adult cells is a typical marker of neoplastic growth? Using stem cells from embryos would sidestep a lot of safety issues in delivering actual treatment to humans, in many cases.

I'm also conceding that I was incorrect to initially oppose funding ESC research. But I am actually very aware of both the virtues and safety issues associated with ESCs although I lack a biochemical education beyond a community college level course in the associated laboratory science; this isn't my first argument on this issue.

[Serafine666]

If he really considered the destruction of a day-old embryo equivalent to destroying human life, he should've also placed a ban on in vitro fertilization (which also results in the deaths of countless embryos). Of course, he didn't, because his position isn't consistent, because it's just political pandering.

Yes, his position was governed by a degree of political pandering but it wasn't completely devoid of an ethical or scientific basis.

[Melchior]

I'm also conceding that I was incorrect to initially oppose funding ESC research. But I am actually very aware of both the virtues and safety issues associated with ESCs although I lack a biochemical education beyond a community college level course in the associated laboratory science; this isn't my first argument on this issue.

Well, then I don't see why you don't welcome the reversal of the Bush policy; it does not mean that all funds will go to embyo stem cell research, just that the criteria used in allocation will stop having an arbitrary blind spot.

If he really considered the destruction of a day-old embryo equivalent to destroying human life, he should've also placed a ban on in vitro fertilization (which also results in the deaths of countless embryos). Of course, he didn't, because his position isn't consistent, because it's just political pandering.

Yes, his position was governed by a degree of political pandering but it wasn't completely devoid of an ethical or scientific basis.

I'm having trouble seeing any semblance of a rational ethical basis.

[Serafine666]

So what are you saying? Never bother throwing money on things that may work one day?
-snip-
Your argument boils down to it's not part of every day life therefore we shouldn't bother researching it. If that logic is followed we would still be walking around clubbing each other over the head with sticks rather than having nukes pointed at each other.

I hope I don't come off sounding snarky or anything, ArmorPierce, but throughout this discussion, people have raised exactly your points and I've conceded that I was wrong to have suggested that we should cut off funding for ESC research. I also am aware of the importance of animal trials (ASCs have also undergone them) and the fact that the US is a major, albeit not sole, leader in biochemical research. I actually have no intention of trying to defend Bush except to say that his position does not seem to be the blinkered ignorant reactionary religiously-obsessed view that is attributed to him. However, all that said, I appreciate your polite tone.

[Serafine666]

Well, then I don't see why you don't welcome the reversal of the Bush policy; it does not mean that all funds will go to embyo stem cell research, just that the criteria used in allocation will stop having an arbitrary blind spot.

I do welcome it to a degree although I regard it as motivated more by playing to his supporters (who regarded the old position as an anti-science crusade by a mentally regarded Christian reactionary) than an honest belief that he's bringing the Enlightenment to the Dark Ages.

I'm having trouble seeing any semblance of a rational ethical basis.

The thing about ethics, as with morality, is that it isn't always strictly rational or logical since "right" and "wrong" are subjective judgments. Bush said that he regarded destroying embryos to research ESCs to be ethically unacceptable and thus limited research to the ESC lines that had already been derived.. and encouraged the research into other medicinally-useful stem cells.

[ArmorPierce]

I hope I don't come off sounding snarky or anything, ArmorPierce, but throughout this discussion, people have raised exactly your points and I've conceded that I was wrong to have suggested that we should cut off funding for ESC research. I also am aware of the importance of animal trials (ASCs have also undergone them) and the fact that the US is a major, albeit not sole, leader in biochemical research. I actually have no intention of trying to defend Bush except to say that his position does not seem to be the blinkered ignorant reactionary religiously-obsessed view that is attributed to him. However, all that said, I appreciate your polite tone.

I wasn't going to make an additional post since others had already brought up the points but I felt compelled since it might look like I ditched the thread. And thank you for your appreciation. I try to be polite usually but it's hard to be on this board and recent years I have found myself becoming less so.

[ArmorPierce]

Double post delete if you'd like

[Melchior]

The thing about ethics, as with morality, is that it isn't always strictly rational or logical since "right" and "wrong" are subjective judgments. Bush said that he regarded destroying embryos to research ESCs to be ethically unacceptable and thus limited research to the ESC lines that had already been derived.. and encouraged the research into other medicinally-useful stem cells.

But then why he had no qualms in destroying other embryos? Destroying embryos is acceptable only if your motive is regressist?

[wolveraptor]

Yes, his position was governed by a degree of political pandering but it wasn't completely devoid of an ethical or scientific basis.

Holy shit, yes it is. That's the entire point, it's a position governed by irrational superstition and religious dogma. Or in his case, appeasing voters who are governed by irrational superstition and religious dogma.

I'm not saying Obama's decision to reverse the ban couldn't have had anything to do with politics; but look at the circumstances. He quietly slipped this through while the nation was focusing on the healthcare debate - he didn't milk it, he didn't publicize it. It's questionable whether he gained anything from this at all. And, his position is ethically consistent, and rooted in logic rather than reactionary bullshit.

[Serafine666]

But then why he had no qualms in destroying other embryos? Destroying embryos is acceptable only if your motive is regressist?

I have no idea how he justified destroying one set and not the other because I haven't found any occasion when the question was posed to him. So... uh... what's "regressist"?

[Melchior]

I have no idea how he justified destroying one set and not the other because I haven't found any occasion when the question was posed to him. So... uh... what's "regressist"?

In context, something that's closer to middle-ages mentality.

[Serafine666]

Holy shit, yes it is. That's the entire point, it's a position governed by irrational superstition and religious dogma. Or in his case, appeasing voters who are governed by irrational superstition and religious dogma.

You seem remarkably sure of that. I don't suppose you've found the copies of Bush's veto messages that have eluded my Google searching?

I'm not saying Obama's decision to reverse the ban couldn't have had anything to do with politics; but look at the circumstances. He quietly slipped this through while the nation was focusing on the healthcare debate - he didn't milk it, he didn't publicize it. It's questionable whether he gained anything from this at all. And, his position is ethically consistent, and rooted in logic rather than reactionary bullshit.

Technically, that only proves that Obama is significantly more politically adept than Bush... and also that his approach is not controversial to a majority of those that report such things. Bush got all that press because his stance was regarded as a major controversy by those who report the news so they chose to focus on it over something else that may have attracted their attention. It is entirely up to reporters (or, rather, their producers) to decide what to feature and what to low-key.

[Serafine666]

In context, something that's closer to middle-ages mentality.

Oh! You must have meant "regressive" as the opposite of "progressive". I'm still not sure how to answer your question because I don't know what qualifies as a "regressive" motive. One of the problems, of course, is that "progressive" has been generally used as synonymous with any position that may otherwise be called "liberal" so it sort of loses its impact without specificity.

[Melchior]

In context, something that's closer to middle-ages mentality.

Oh! You must have meant "regressive" as the opposite of "progressive". I'm still not sure how to answer your question because I don't know what qualifies as a "regressive" motive. One of the problems, of course, is that "progressive" has been generally used as synonymous with any position that may otherwise be called "liberal" so it sort of loses its impact without specificity.

In context, a good guideline is to check if the policy will permit enforcement of arbitrary religious dogma or not.

[Serafine666]

In context, a good guideline is to check if the policy will permit enforcement of arbitrary religious dogma or not.

Yanno, that's a pretty good ruler to use and by it, Bush's policy fails the test. I may not agree that Bush's decision was regressive but I'm willing to concede the point if only because the logical force and simplicity of your guideline appeals to me.