Cheat Sheet

Scientists should and now will be in charge of science not someones ideology. It is about time too.

"The zygote has no brain, true, but it does have what will grow into a brain, just as an infant does not have speech but he has what will grow into speech. Within the zygote is an already fully programmed individuality, from sex and aging to eye color and aversion to spinach. The personhood of the person is already there, like the tuliphood of the tulip bulb. One must actually be a human being, after all, to grow a human brain."

"Development is gradual - after conception. Conception is the break, the clear dividing line, and the only one. I am the same being from conception on. Otherwise we would not speak of the growth and development and unfolding of that being, of me. I was once an infant. I was born. I was once in my mother's womb. My functioning develops only gradually, but my me has a sudden beginning. Once again, the pro-choice objection confuses being a person with functioning as a person."

Furthermore, if personhood is only a developing, gradual thing, then we are never fully persons, because we continue to grow, at least intellectually and emotionally and spiritually. Albert Schweitzer said, at 70, "I still don't know what I want to do when I grow up." If we are only partial persons, then murder is only partially wrong, and less wrong to kill younger, lesser persons than older ones."
-Peter Kreeft, Ph.D., Prof. of philosophy at Boston College and at the King's College

from "Human Personhood Begins at Conception"
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/personhood.htm

Embryonic stem cell research cheapens human life.

@Redhead5050: This move is all about ideology rather than science.

Science shows that all the promise has been from adult stem cells, from which cures/treatments have been created (see http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm). This has NOT been the case with embryonic stem cells. If you are going to go with "science", that should dictate that if the government should be funding a type of stem cells, it should be the ones that are actually producing results, which are adult - NOT embryonic - stem cells.

What is more, induced pluripotent stem cells carry none of the ethical issues embryonic stem cells have but offer all the same promise in terms of pluripotency.

Furthermore, this isn't even about the morality of types of stem cells. It's about the government taking even more money from taxpayers to fund research that many of said taxpayers have a moral objection to.

Obama is putting his extreme pro-abortion, anti-embryo-as-life ideology above both science and morality here, NOT the other way around.

Also, shame on the Daily Beast for titling this "Stem Cell Funding Ban Lifted."

There was never a ban on "stem cells" - only a ban on using government ban on funding stem cells line that involved destruction of embryos. And even then the funding ban was only on embryonic stem cells that had been created after a certain date.

The Daily Beast title misses a lot of these distinctions, many of which are really important to understanding all this.

This action is so far overdue it's not even funny. If we can all just put the idealogy under the table for a minute, it must be recognized that stem cell research is humanities best bet for being able to construct cures or at least effective treatments of some of our most horrific medical conditions.

The list of possible benefits is so long that nobody could even begin to write them all in a venue such as this.

A nation which permits religious dogma to dictate scientific process is a nation doomed. Thankfully the U.S. appears to be moving forward FINALLY.

It's funny how we, as enlightened 21st. century Americans, scoff at the burning of witches for the unexplained in our history, as being the acts of the ignorant, yet there is a group of people in this Country that would deny this type of scientific progress as being evil. It astounds me to no end.

There are actual people living right now that will reap enormous benefits from this research, not even to mention those who will see life as they know it changed forever in only a few years of uninterrupted clinical research.

If your God will allow many to suffer, only to satisfy the 2000 year old dogma of the minority, then I want no part of your God.

Neither politics, religion nor the ignorant should ever be allowed to interfere with scientific research towards the public good, ever.

I applaud President Obama for this action, for taking the handcuffs of intolerance off of the scientists.

Now if he would only repeal the Patriot act in it's entirety, then this Nation could begin to look forward, progressive, intelligent, for a change.

Johnny-boy,
Killing is killing. It is very simple.

'None so blind as those that won't see.'%u2025A single effort of the will was sufficient to exclude from his view whatever he judged hostile to his immediate purpose.
[1852 E. Fitzgerald Polonius 58]

Johnny-boy:

'None as blind as those that won't see. A single effort of the will was sufficient to exclude from his view whatever he judged hostile to his immediate purpose. - E. Fitzgerald 'Polonius'

Johnny-boy is very dogmatic, himself. According to him:


"Neither politics, religion nor the ignorant should ever be allowed to interfere with scientific research towards the public good, ever."

pricklypear,

If you can tell me why I am wrong, or why it's wrong at all to encourage this research, and if you can do it without quoting scripture to me, then maybe I will listen, but all you've done thus far is re-enofrce my belief, religious dogma inhibits scientific progress.

You're using 2000 year old superstitious belief to negate 21st. century scientific research.

I think perhaps if you had a severed spinal cord, your need to force your religious idealism on others just might change a bit.

I'm not slamming your faith, just your weilding it like a stick to poke science in the eye with. Be as faithful as you like, but do not wish the suffering to continue for those who could benefit from this research to continue.

1st. century superstition does not belong in 21st. century scientific debate, I'm sorry, it just does not.

Meanwhile Obama increases the amount of our country's tax revenue that goes to churches so while he may be promoting science in this case, he is also supporting religious ignorance and bigotry.
Not to mention a blatant violation of the first amendment.
You'd think a constitutional law professor would know better?

"pricklypear: Johnny-boy, Killing is killing. It is very simple."

Are you actively opposed to the death penalty?
What are you doing about civilian casualties in Iraq, Afganistan and Gaza?
Are you a pacifist?
How many are dead and maimed in Iraq? There weren't any weapons - just oil. Your stand on this?

I'd like to know if you are consistent, or a hypocrite.

The gov't grants for stem cell research dried up five or six years ago--I hope they start up again.

Obama Still Doesn't "Get" Adult Stem Cell Research, Congressman Says.

Chris Smith (R-NJ) has criticized human embryo-destroying stem cell research, saying it is unethical, "unworkable and unreliable" and now "demonstrably unnecessary" in light of recent advances. He charged that President Obama and some Congressmen "still don't get it" about the breakthroughs involving adult stem cell research.

Rep. Smith also accused the Obama administration and the Democratic leadership of being "obsessed with killing human embryos for experimentation at taxpayer expense."
more...
http://www.ewtn.com/news/index.asp

Adult stem cell is ethical and pro-choice. They choose not to willfully kill human embryos. That is a good thing for everybody. Embryonic stem cell research "kills Peter to treat Paul". It cheapens human life.