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.

A section of our population is bent on killing embryos?

Solid science proves that an embryo is a human. You must have a human to grow a human.

I am more than a robot that can be impregnated to make more robots. Please, let's not start down that road. It is time to STOP.

I am do not have to be an atheist, agnostic, religious to know right from wrong. It is right to value all human life from conception to natural death.

I do not have to be religious to know it is wrong to:
murder
make up lies about you.
steal or plagiarize your work.
sleep with your spouse
abandon my elderly parents
yell at your children
mistreat my employees

pricklypear: please answer my post. I'd like to know if you are consistent, or a hypocrite.

Perkins and his coterie are troglodytes.

Johnny-boy:

Thanks for asking.

Please read a paper by Peter Kreeft, Ph.D, Professor of Philosophy, Boston College and Kings College, NYC:

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/personhood.htm

Human Personhood Begins at Conception, an excerpt:

"Please turn to yourself for one moment and ask yourself this one question: Am I reading this paper because I want to be the servant of truth or because I want truth to be my servant? Do I want to win an argument or win a truth? Am I willing, even eager, to admit I was wrong if reason proves me wrong?

If Freud is right, we have no hope of being honest, for all our reasoning is rationalization. If that were true, it would be self-eliminating, for that belief too would be only rationalization. If we believe that objective truth does not exist or cannot be known, we shall cease to fight for it with words and begin to fight for domination over each other, replacing reason and justice and morality with power.."

If we need to kill a couple hundred embryos to change thousands of lives for the better through research, why not? If people stuck to religous principles that interfered with science, We'd stiil say our planet is the center of the universe, or that everything here was put here by some divine person. Get past your problem and see that in the future, it will be a foot note that some people were against stem cells because it interfered with their baseless beliefs.

life is life--taking it in most cases is wrong-- but it is not just black and white. The most unfortunate thing about debating this issue is that the majority of pro -lifers (which I consider myself to be) are bible thumping zealots that don't use common sense in their discusssions.(re: prickly pear above). If you truly want aetheists, agnostics, and other non-Christians to hear your arguments you must learn to use rationale and logic not fairy tales!

monkeyman:

"The fact that some people controvert a position does not in itself make that position intrinsically controversial. People argued for both sides about slavery, racism and genocide too, but that did not make them complex and difficult issues. Moral issues are always terribly complex, said Chesterton-for someone without principles. " - Peter Kreeft

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/personhood.htm

Monkeyman:

Go ahead and denigrate me just because I am bold enough to stand up for what I think is right and moral and ethical and scientific and sensible. Just because you say I do not use rationale does not make it so. It just means you do not have a solid argument. I think you and wickedsmart are cowardly in your style of discussing this subject.

How presumptuous of you to claim that aetheists, agnostics, and other non-Christian aren't willing to hear other people's arguments.
I am all for Adult stem cell research. Solid science backs me up on that. Solid science also informs us that a human embryos is a human. Willfully or killing a human embryo is not ethical. You must have a human to grow a human.
If that means I'm a ''bible thumping zealot of which you are one" then so be it. No shame in thumping the bible or my daughter's Advanced Placement Biology text book. I have an inquisitive mind. And if you want to also, read for your self.

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/personhood.htm

monkeyman:
"life is life--taking it in most cases is wrong-- but it is not just black and white. The most unfortunate thing about debating this issue is that the majority of pro -lifers (which I consider myself to be) are bible thumping zealots that don't use common sense in their discusssions."
--------------
To which I quote a learned man, Peter Kreeft, Ph.D.

"The fact that some people controvert a position does not in itself make that position intrinsically controversial. People argued for both sides about slavery, racism and genocide too, but that did not make them complex and difficult issues. Moral issues are always terribly complex, said Chesterton-for someone without principles. "

It's about time we decide to help those already alive.
I'm surprised at how many of you don't realize stem cells go out with the trash if not used.
For the most part this is a religious issue.