"Ok. So. Whee. Big boobs for everyone. Could the same time and money maybe have gone into researching how to prevent those incidences of breast cancer and reducing the need for mastectomies? How much you want to bet that there will be a stem cell waiver from the folks who have utterly opposed it on religious grounds — a sort of “compassionate use” (or as I’ll be referring to it, the Dolly Exemption)."Bridgett, like many casual observers (or culture war bombthrowers) apparently misunderstands the difference between adult stem cells and those stem cells belonging to embryonic humans.
By the way, (and not that anyone on the other side of the debate cares about this fact) the competition between medical breakthroughs from embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells is embarrassingly lopsided.
15 comments:
You're right -- I don't know the difference and would appreciate the opportunity to learn a little more. Could you suggest a good source that explains the difference between embryo and adult-harvested stem cells and the differences in their proposed uses?
Sorry that I have to use the anonymous post thing. My Blogger account no longer works and I'm loathe to pick up another.
-- Bridgett
Since you brought up sanctity of life and religious conservatism, I'd just thought I'd mention that, unless you're catholic, your form of Christianity is false.
Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul have asserted this truth: "Christ 'established here on earth' only one church. The other communities cannot be called 'churches' in the proper sense because they do not have apostolic succession - the ability to trace their bishops back to Christ's original apostles."
The Pope is the successor to St. Peter, whom Christ named as his first vicar on Earth. Papal primacy was divinely willed.
"There exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him."
Sorry, but I thought you'd like to know.
Gee, thanks for clearing that up "Anonymous."
Bridgett,
I appreciate your candor (and attitude), and I realize that you're not alone in your understanding of the issue. I probably was a little snarky because I didn't realize how common the misunderstanding is.
Just from doing a quick google myself, I thought this was an interesting link because it is done in an interview format (on PBS). Here's a more advocative site. Frankly, Bridgett, the debate on this issue is so slanted and filled with euphemisms that it isn't easy to hear my side of the debate without really looking hard.
Thanks for the help. All human knowledge is a tangled skein. It's best to be curious, humble, and willing to follow the strings where they lead. I might still wind up disagreeing with you, but I'll be able to understand your p.o.v. and that can't help but contribute to a more respectful, calm, and deliberative discussion of an important subject.
-- Bridgett
Amen to that. Thanks for visiting, Bridgett.
By the way, (and not that anyone on the other side of the debate cares about this fact) the competition between medical breakthroughs from embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells is embarrassingly lopsided.
Could that possibly be because most real medical breakthroughs are done at medical universities, where most much of their funding comes from Federal Grants, and in order to research embryonic stem cells they would have to create large, redundant facilities that are free from so much as a federally funded light bulb?
Sean,
Hmm, I don't know, but that would be good spin (unless you are more than asking a rhetorical question). But I think that if it was as promising as your side lets on, private companies would be eager to take the gamble.
And again, my view isn't utilitarian on the subject, so this line of argument is peripheral. I've always perceived that you aren't doctrinaire on this issue, but I'd say that many on your side of this debate take the position they do simply because they refuse to let what they would characterize as a fanatically-pro-life premise to in any way dictate the policy on this issue.
I don't know if I'm doctrinaire, but I am 100% pro-embryonic stem cell research (even if I'm not 100% pro-choice).
I think that the Right vastly overestimates the amount of medical research done entirely on the private level. The private industry is good at making blood pressure lower and raising other things (wink, wink). Cures and medical treatments, not so much, at least not without medical research university data as a base for their own research.
Sean,
You may be right, but it sounds like speculation, and I don't recall hearing that argument previously. Maybe your cohorts will pull out that argument once their focus groups show they're not going to be able to rely on the old arguments.
From what I've seen with elitist/academia-disfavored policy positions (such as the one in question--funding of research which involves human embryo harvesting), I doubt it is impossible to accomplish what you think is possible without making taxpayers foot the bill.
But regarding the wink-wink, I pretty much know that you doubt Republicans believe anything they say; however, I guess you don't think it is a reasonable policy position to at least limit tax-payer funding of controversial research--will you even acknowledge that it's controversial?
Ned,
I don't care if they limit tax payer funding on embryonic stem cell research...I don't care if they eliminate it. What I don't like is the ban on federal funding, which means that no federal dollars can touch embryonic stem cell research. Requiring all new facilities which are redundant and extremely costly. If 1/10th of a centrifuge was paid with via federal funds, than that centrifuge can't be used for embryonic stem cell research.
That is what I have a problem with, and that is what the issue at hand is.
Sean, am I missing something? Do you not see the difference between "taxpayer funding" and "federal funding"?
And I guess you're less trusting of the free market than I am.
And I guess you're more trusting of gov't's ability to regulate such things. Though frankly I hope federal funds aren't being used for human embryo-destroying research, I doubt that universities and CDC auditors are hamstrung over the current regulatory scheme. A good example is Planned Parenthood's ability to fund its non-abortion/profit-making operations with state funds. Thus, the state's taxpayers aren't underwriting abortions--"wink-wink."
So the federal funding is the moral issue, not the research itself?
Re. what the "moral issue" is . . . I'm not sure I used the term "moral," actually, but no; the Federal funding is only a "moral issue" inasmuch as the action being funded is a moral one.
Ironically, I am less moralistic than some folks who believe that the power of gov't should be harnessed to prohibit any and every "bad" thing and mandate "good" things.
No Ned, I'm not simply saying that there is a difference between earmarking new funds for Embryonic stem cell research, and banning funds for embryonic stem cell research.
Is there currently funding--at any level, of not-previously-destroyed embryonic stem cell lines in the federal budget?
Post a Comment