Stem Cell legislation passes
Although stem cell research passed, it is not enough to overturn a veto.
I have mentioned this before on this blog and on Daily Kos. Stem Cell may or may not provide the promises that we have all heard of. I don’t understand the objection that some people have to stem cell research. A cluster of cells is not a human life. A blastocyst is about 100 cells. If you say that 100 cells is a human life then 2 cells would be a human life also. What about 1 cell? Then an egg and a sperm must be a human life also. If you remove an ovary are you killing a human life? Finally, if an embryo is going to be destroyed anyway wouldn’t it be better to use the embryo for research?
From NYT:
The Democratic-controlled House Thursday passed a bill bolstering embryonic stem cell research that advocates say shows promise for numerous medical cures.
But the 253-174 vote fell short of the two-thirds margin required to overturn President Bush’s promised veto, despite gains made by supporters in the November elections. Bush vetoed identical legislation last year and the White House on Thursday promised he would veto it again.
The White House said the bill — the third bill of the Democrats’ first 100 hours agenda to pass the House — ”would use federal taxpayer dollars to support and encourage the destruction of human life for research.” (more…)
ECT: “I don’t understand the object that some people have to stem cell research.”
No one objects to stem cell research. The objection is against stem cell research which destroys embryos. We’ve always had support for stem cell research from bone marrow, umbilical cord blood and other sources that don’t involve embryo destruction.
ECT: “A cluster of cells is not a human life.”
Of course a cluster of cells is human life. What are we made of if not clusters of cells? Materially, the embryo, baby and old man are the same.
ECT: “A blastocyst is about 100 cells. If you say that 100 cells is a human life then 2 cells would be a human life also. What about 1 cell?”
Every human life ( I assume you mean a human organism or being) began at the 1 cell stage.
ECT: “If you remove an overy are you killing a human life?”
You are confusing the part with the whole. An ovary in an organ while an embryo is an organism.
ECT: “Finally, if an embryo is going to be destroyed anyway wouldn’t it be better to use the embryo for research?”
Those who object to ESCR believe that this would only encourage more embryo destruction.
We discuss this several months ago. Our disagreement comes from how we answer a very fundamental question. Where does life begin? From your answers, it’s clear that you believe that life begins at conception. I believe that life begins at birth. I’m positive that both of us can make excellent arguments to support our beliefs.
There are some things that we can agree on. We can agree that abortion should not be used as a contraceptive. I think that we can agree that education, abstinence and a variety of contraceptive methods can decrease the rate of abortion.
Is that a reasonable place to start the debate? Because then, we get into religious beliefs. Religious beliefs are just that. They are beliefs. They really cannot be debated. To do so would be a waste of our time and breath.
As usual, I truly appreciate your input.
Just trying to move the discussion beyond rhetoric and talking points.
ECT: “Where does life begin? From your answers, it’s clear that you believe that life begins at conception. I believe that life begins at birth. I’m positive that both of us can make excellent arguments to support our beliefs.”
Interesting. Do you really believe that an inanimate, lifeless object springs to life during a trip down the birth canal? What’s the use of advising pregnant women not to smoke or drink alcohol if nothing is alive? I think most women would agree that that thing playing the bongos on their womb is alive.
I suspect that what you mean by “life” is human dignity or human worth or person hood.
I don’t think the question about what is life or when a new life has begun is a religious question. I don’t think that I quoted any scriptures or alluded to any religious doctrine in my arguments. I do think that clarity about fundamental concepts is important. The differences between organ and organism, part versus whole, degree (small cluster of cells versus large cluster of cells) versus kind (human or none human) are more philosophical and scientific than religious.
ECT: “Is that a reasonable place to start the debate? Because then, we get into religious beliefs. Religious beliefs are just that. They are beliefs. They really cannot be debated. To do so would be a waste of our time and breath.”
The debate over ESCR has not been over when life begins but instead the value of human life, the “personhood” or human dignity debate. Of course when discussing personhood, the debate does shifts from science to philosophy and sometimes religion. Princeton professors, Robert P George and Peter Singer(Chair of Bioethics) best represent the opposing sides on this issue. Neither George nor Singer appeals to any religious authority. George uses natural law reasoning. Singer’s uses utilitarian reasoning. Singer’s approach is true to his utilitarian logic since he advocates the acceptance of infanticide (he doesn’t believe that personhood begins until age 2 or 3).
I think that you are partially correct. The debate is about value but it is also about when live begins. The abortion debate is tied to this debate. If you think it isn’t you are fooling yourself.