I have diabetes and I have to be concerned with whether or not a particular treatment was created with the murder of others. I'd rather continue the injections than to know that people were destroyed that I might have comfort.

So Mark, if I understand your argument for being against stem cell research, you are totally against killing ANY innocent human beings. At least that is what you mean when you say;

"I'll take ten times the pain in my legs, complete blindness and a massive heart attack in preference to killing even one innocent human being in order to investigate cures for my ills."

I would just like for you to define in more detail what constitutes an "innocent life." Do you just argue for sparing the "life" of an embryo or does "innocent life" encompass others who are currently born and living? It's apparent this is a very sensitive issue for you but I am confused as to where you stand for preserving all "innocent life."

Mark, this is a subject that has interested me for several years. I have a grandson who was born with defective kidneys and, before his second birthday, received a transplant of one of my son-in-law's kidneys. My grandson will be 6 in February, and is pretty normal in every way except for the anti-rejection drugs he takes and will take for the rest of his life unless medical science figures out a way for him to grow his own replacement kidney. Enter stem cell research.

I've done a pretty fair amount of reading and research on this subject over the last 2 or 3 years, and I've generally shared your point of view. The fact that ESCR has yet to offer the first success while ASCR has achieved many successes has made it relatively easy, IMO, to deal with the moral controversy surrounding ESCR. Nevertheless, the one area that still confuses me is the religious/moral opposition to using surplus embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics that will be destroyed anyway.

This site offers one of the best and most balanced looks at both sides of this issue that I've come across. That said, I still believe that, ESCR, at some point is going to have to come up with significant and positive results or lose all credibility. But at this point I have no objection to some of my tax dollars going to this research, and I certainly have no objection to using embryos, with approval of the donors, that are otherwise going to be flushed down a sink or thrown in the trash.

I realize there are multiple moral and ethical slippery slopes involved in this issue, but how do you rationalize throwing an embryo in the trash but not using it for research? I know you've said in the past that you also oppose in vitro fertilization, but it exists, and the first baby produced by this method is now around 25 years old.

Mark, this is entirely a moral equivalency argument. If people don't take an embryo as the moral equivalent of a breathing, post-natal person, then your entire argument is mute.

The fact of the matter is, the moral status of an embryo, even a fetus, is a complex ontological and philisophical question. If you want to argue that a zygote or an embryo is the exact moral equivalent of a post-natal child, and you can do so rationally and logically, more power to you... but that doesn't mean that it is necessarily true.

Noone answered my question on the last post about fertility clinics... so here it is again; let's see if any of you pro-lifers will actually be able to answer it.

Why do you support fertility clinics when they involve the artificial creation of human life which results in extra embryos which are almost always thrown away?

I would love to hear it...

Mark, one other thing that I meant to include in my previous comment: you had a post a while back that dealt with a particular ESCR effort that was close to progressing to human trials. Am I remembering that correctly? I couldn't find it in your archives. Could you do an update on that post?

This site offers one of the best and most balanced looks at both sides of this issue that I've come across. That said, I still believe that, ESCR, at some point is going to have to come up with significant and positive results or lose all credibility. But at this point I have no objection to some of my tax dollars going to this research, and I certainly have no objection to using embryos, with approval of the donors, that are otherwise going to be flushed down a sink or thrown in the trash.

spook, i might add (with total respect for your position) that, while science should always be results-oriented (particularly in the realm of medicinal science) we should never back away from embarking on the path of research simply because we lack the ability to forecast the lifespan of the efforts required to achieve a desired goal. science and technology are ever-changing and research methodolgies are adapting to take advantage of new developments as they arise.

so it's ok to continue to discard unused fertility clinic embyros?

I musta missed the big religious right upheval over these fertility clinic embyros...u know, like the picketing, moralizing, & funerals.

ridiculous ideologue crap like this is why I'm now a registered independent.

the party of reagan is dead...& in 2 election cycles, so is your majority.

So, lefties think there is not an equivalent moral worth of an embryo huh. Well, then is a 2 year old much closer to being a non-entity than say a 40 year old? Notice is a lot of thinking 'embryonic' research is not differentiated from the original term of 'stem cell' research. No one is against that...and it has produced 72 treatments and cures, whereas, after all the lefty funding advantages and operations has produced NONE. Also, there are new methods of research available recently whereas the embryos need not be destroyed. But the ilk of pity continues to promote their ideology with the main objective of 'cloning'. Thats the last thing we need....can you imagine a clone of each of the pathetic lefties on here!!

Once upon a time, the proper thing to do was set aside the self in times of crisis.

This from the party of tax cuts during wartime.

In general, I support Adult Stem Cell Research, and Adult Stem Cells are staring to provide cures, even Parkinson's. The medical community has made great advances with Adult Stem Cells, and their research is getting a lot of the private funding.

Embryonic stem cells have failed to provide one cure, and now they are wanting us to except killing babies in order to provide cures. Also, I have read, there are problems with rejection of Embryonic stem cells, and the only way around that is to take an embryo, and make a clone of yourself in order to create "Spare parts" for you body.

Most of the Embryonic Stem cells researchers are biologist, not medical doctors, and they are having problems with getting private funding for the unethical, un-moral, and wild promised of cures that Adult Stem Cell researchers are currently cureing.

Simply, this unethical practice is not needed.

OA, if you reread my comment, nowhere did I say that, at some point, the research should stop. But, at some point, absent ANY progress, it will become more difficult to (1) attract private capital, and (2) run for office on a pro-ESCR platform.

BTW, it's nice to have a topic on which those who disagree can have a civil debate.

I musta missed the big religious right upheval over these fertility clinic embyros...u know, like the picketing, moralizing, & funerals.

Ohio, (you are correct) from the site I linked to above:

To some pro-life supporters, creating 24 human beings, and then murdering 21 of them in order to produce one newborn is much too high a price to pay. It is mass murder. (I believe Mark has said he subscribes to this view) One would expect that pro-life groups would actively picket and demonstrate at IVF clinics. However, we have never seen an account in the media of this actually happening.

As noted above, in addition to the hundreds of thousands of embryos that have been deep-frozen in fertility clinics, there is speculation that hundreds of thousands of additional unused embryos have been actively destroyed. But very few of pro-life demonstrations are directed at the labs that have killed these massive numbers of embryos. Attention has been concentrated on the few dozen embryos whose stem cells were removed and used to create cultures in medical research labs.

We are at a loss to understand why pro-lifer leaders in the U.S. have concentrated on the few dozen embryos used in stem cell research, while almost ignoring the hundreds of thousands of embryos who have died in other ways in IVF clinics.

ridiculous ideologue crap like this is why I'm now a registered independent.

So which "Independents" are you going to vote for?

the party of Reagan is dead...

So is the party of FDR and JFK. Absent a viable third party, the current Republican Party is still a better bet for Conservatives than the Party of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

So we just throw away unused fertility clinic embyros and thats OK? You republicans should shut them down, and see who votes for you then!!!

Mark,

Your comment was excellent and I thank you.

I am an epileptic. My condition is somewhat controlled by medication, but not quite.

Nevertheless, I've learned how to deal with this condition and adjust my life around it.

Yes - I love life. And I respect life.

I personally find some of the comments on this page reprehensible.

Whether an embyo, a fetus, or a two year old child - whose life is less important than mine?

I prefer to live with my seizures than to eliminate the life of a human being.

...then your entire argument is mute.

I believe you meant "moot," Frawg.

Hey, this whole debate was revived because Michael J. Fox-Sheehan either knowingly or unknowingly participated in a campaign ad in Missouri that was misleading. And the DBM is doing what it does best--lying about the way it was covered by Rush Limbaugh.

As a dittohead, I listen to ALL three hours of Rush, every day. I miss little to none of the show every day at work. Hell, even my boss rarely bothers me from noon-3pm. Rush has been taken out of context by the likes of Dianne Sawyer, Whoopsie Goldberg, Jane Hall, and others. On my way home today, I heard, on the ABC News, Mike Fox-Sheehan whining and lying about Rush. And I'm sure all the lemming trolls here have listened to their favourite DBM indocrinators, who themselves probably got their "facts" from MMFA.

If I had any doubts about the bias of the DBM prior to this week, my doubts would have disappeared. I had none, however, and this week has cemented my belief.

Democrats lie to sick people. Rush's quote, and I agree...

keefer, could you provide details about the Limbaugh coverage? Specifically, in what sense do you feel he was accurate, and in what sense do you feel his coverage has been misconstrued?

Art Patscheck: "I'd rather continue the injections than to know that people were destroyed that I might have comfort."

Let me posit a hypothetical situation that I think illustrates the stark reality of the way things are... say you are handed a tray containing a number of little vials, each containing a frozen human embryo. Let's further say that it is your choice and yours alone (which would never be, but let's assume it is) to decide whether to (a) throw them in the trash or (b) contribute them to medical research which may contribute in a very small way to the possibility that you may eliminate the need of daily injections. Either way you will be destroying them. Which would you choose?

Secondly, would you condemn anyone who chose differently than you?

By the way Mark, if you feel compelled to answer the question I asked of Art, feel free to jump in.

Hey H8Lib:
--Listening to Rush 3 hours a day or even for 5 min a day, will lead to brain damage. It will turn you into a Knuckleheaded Bush Republican.
--The proof is in the puddin'

#1: There is currently no therapeudic use for embryonic stem cells. None. With 10-15 years reearch we MIGHT find a way to use these. Meanwhile non-embryonic stem cells are being used for a number of therapies and more uses are being found every day.

So what is the problem? All those frozen embryos "going to waste"? They're going to waste ANYWAY, because embryonic stem cells are useless. A better question is, "Why don't we develop better fertility techniques that reduce/eliminate the need for extra embryos?" You can spend 10-15 years on a wild goose chase to use the extra embryos, or you can spend 5-10 years research so you stop needing them. That seems like a more sensible use of dollars to me.

What's happening, of course, is that major drug companies are always looking for ways to tap into Federal research dollars. If you look at out research dollars are spent only some of the money goes towards the actual research itself (the scientists and equipment used), a goodly portion goes into "overhead". Overhead dollars are supposed to support the research but actually disappear into a murky accounting world where the money is "arguably" used for the project but probably is used for other purposes, too.

If you have a high-risk project in mind (no current benefit, stockholders don't understand it or see immediate returns on their money) you try to get Uncle Suger to fund it. That way even if you never sell one potion or pill you still get the "overhead" money to can skim off for other purposes - and your accountants are expert skimmers. This is why - if you dig deep enough - you find that almost all the lobbying for embryonic stem cell research is by the drug companies.

Annoy a leftwinger in favor of embryonic stem cell research - point out he's actually shilling for the military/industrial complex, not the little guy.

Mr. Noonan, thank you. The fundamental point is clear, and that's my only concern right now. The particular questions being asked about research and treatments must stem from engagement with your position, not ignorance of it, and that's the key.

leftie,

Precisely that - I will not participate in the deliberate ending of an innocent life. I believe in the value of each human life, and thus I cannot take such life without some immediately pressing reason - briefly, what that means is that I can only take life when it is done to prevent the imminent or very likely loss of innocent life (ie, I can kill a man who is attempting to kill someone else, and I can kill those who are plotting murder, if there is no other way to stop their plans).

Ricorun,

I would do neither, because to do either would be my ending of an innocent life - it is a terrible tragedy, easily foreseen early on - that in vitro fertilization would have such a result...but I'm not about to compound the evil, thanks very much.

Dorothy,

For me, the really painful thing would be if there were some sort of cure possible for my brother's autism...but as much as I'd like him not to suffer from it, I can't see the justice in killing someone else just so my brother can have a better life.

Moderate,

Ah, but the tax cuts - no matter how much you on the left try to say otherwise - were for everyone and for the benefit of all.

keefer, could you provide details about the Limbaugh coverage?

I'll get back to you, Rico--I have to work this morning. I will say one thing: Rush never, ever, attacked Mike FoxSheehan, as was claimed by Sawyer, Whoopie, Jane Hall, and ABC News Radio. He said, and I quote, "Fox is either acting or off his meds." Well, it turns out that Fox was over-medicated, and also that Fox sometimes doesn't take his meds when doing public appearances on behalf of his disease. You k now what? Rush actually condoned this. The only problem Rush had was the substance of the ad. The Missouri constitutional amendment is about making cloning constitutional, and it's being disguised as an embryonic stem cell initiative.

He did not attack Fox-Sheehan, and now Fox-Sheehan will be on Sunday propaganda shows whining about "Rush attacking him."

If you get your information about Rush from the DBM and Media Matters for America, as most lefites do, you don't get the full story. As I stated earlier, if I had any doubt that the DBM was biased, I no longer have such doubts.

Canuckgay, your response deserves no reply--go on back to bed. CO and axass are lonely...

...

Apparently the gremlins are back.

Rico,

I don't get to listen to all 3 hours of Rush every day like keefer, but it is the only talk radio I listen to at all, and I usually catch bits and pieces of it almost every day. Although I think Rush's initial comment about Fox either acting or being off his meds was somewhat ill-conceived, he apologized almost immediately, and then reiterated over and over again, over the course of a couple days, that the overriding issue was the fact that the Amendment 2 ballot initiative in Missouri is dishonest and grossly misleading, and that Fox was either lied to or was complicit in furthering a lie. Having heard many of Rush's comments first hand, as well as much of the media coverage of his comments, I'd have to say that his comments were largely distorted (as usual), even on FNC.

Scaramonga lives in Missouri and had some interesting comments about this issue, plus some good video clips here and here

hullo???

WTF...

I would like to respond, but...

everytime I try to with more than one line...

The text of the MISSOURI STEM CELL RESEARCH AND CURES INITIATIVE can be found here: http://www.missouricures.com/initiative.php

Basically, it stipulates that research and treatments allowed by federal law should also be allowed in MO, WITH CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS.

So to suggest that the initiative guarantees anything beyond that which is permitted by federal law is a fallacy. Read the law, then read and listen to the ads and commentaries, and decide for yourself which of them are misleading.

By the way, does anyone know where Talent stands on these issues? That seems to be increasingly hard to figure. But it seems to be a central issue. Rather than us speculate back and forth, maybe we should let him speak out.

Darn, this is annoying.

I apologize if there are piles of duplicate messages ultimately appearing.

10-4 for now.

Rico,

I think the parts of the Amendment 2 ballot initiative that are causing the controversy are these:

(1) “Blastocyst” means a small mass of cells that results from cell division, caused either by fertilization or somatic cell nuclear transfer, that has not been implanted in a uterus. (emphasis - mine)

From Wikipedia:

Main article: stem cell controversy Blastocyst. See also: Blastocyst in utero

Proposals to use Nucleus Transfer techniques in human stem cell research raise a set of concerns beyond the moral status of any created embryo. These have led to some individuals and organizations who are also opposed to human embryonic stem cell research to be concerned about, or opposed to, SCNT research.

One concern is that blastula creation in human stem cell research will lead to the reproductive cloning of humans. Both processes use the same first step: the creation of a nuclear transferred embryo, most likely via SCNT. Those who hold this concern often advocate for strong regulation of SCNT to preclude implantation of any derived products for the intention of human reproduction. [11], or its prohibition.[12]

A second concern is the appropriate sourcing of the eggs that are needed. SCNT requires human eggs, which can only be obtained from women. The most common source of these eggs today are eggs that are produced and in excess of the clinical need during IVF treatment. This is a minimally invasive procedure, but it does carry some health risks, such as ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, and in very rare instances even death.

Unless I'm reading it wrong, the Missouri ballot initiative appears to ban only in-utero implantation of blastocysts. You probably know the federal laws regarding this better than I do, but I can see why there is such an uproar about this whole issue.

What the hell is going on??? Why can't I speak???

Bane,
First of all, what ever happened to the Rev anyway? At least he stuck to the issues, and I rather enjoyed kicking his ass (heck, that comment alone might pull him out of hiding, lol!)

Second, it is important to understand that the proposed MO ammendment specifically requires that any research or therapeutic activity in MO must abide by federal law. If whatever you're doing is not allowed by federal law, it's not allowed in MO. Period.

Third, there are certain things that are not allowed in MO EVEN IF somehow they ever become legal under federal law. Check the web site I specified earlier for details.

Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, the proposed amendment limiits further restrictions to changes in federal law. Period. Why would they do that? Well, for one thing, not doing so would create havoc in trying to maintain some sort of stable environment for medical research. Most people probably don't know this, but MO is home to the second largest privately funded medical research institutions in the US. If this amendment doesn't pass, they may relocate because pouring money into an unstable environment is, well... stupid.

So, Spook, with those things

In fact, it specifically stipulates that it will not. Its intent is only to RESTRICT federal law, as it pertains to activities within MO, in the ways it stipulates. However, in so doing, it also intends to restrict future state-wide restrictions to whatever restrictions are imposed by federal law. That may sound complicated, but I think it's an accurate portrayal.

Before addressing anything else, let me ask... are you addressing the issues you raise in the context of the proposed MO guidelines or in the context of the existing federal guidelines? And are we talking about what should happen in just MO or in the nation as a whole?

So Spook... what's your question again?

Woah!! It worked!!

Sorry Spook, I called you Bane. Lol!!

Oh lord, I apologize for the mess. But I tried.

Should I re-try?

Rico,

Well, I'm not sure who is more confused at this point -- probably me since you seem to have a better handle on this issue. A biologist I'm not.

The links I provided above were to the Rev's blog. You might bounce a few of your ideas off him. He lives in Missouri, and has done quite a bit of research on the ballot initiative.

Rico,

From you comments, you appear to be having trouble posting. Perhaps the wildfire has partially melted your landlines, heh, heh.

I apologize for the mess. I've been having a very hard time posting on this site for several days now. I never considered the possibility that the wildfires were the issue. On the one hand, it does smell like a campground around here. On the other hand, it's been much worse. And the symptoms are very odd. But what do I know about packets? Anyway, I hope the problems are past tense now. So, I will try one more time to post something that is as comprehensible as I am capable...

Spook,
First of all, what ever happened to the Rev anyway? At least he stuck to the issues, and I rather enjoyed kicking his ass. I'm only kidding, but heck, that comment alone might pull him out of hiding, lol!

Second, it is important to understand that the proposed MO ammendment specifically requires that any research or therapeutic activity in MO must abide by federal law. If whatever you're doing is not allowed by federal law, it's not allowed in MO. Period. In other words, the proposed amendment is only restrictive with respect to federal law, not expansive. But it does seek to restrict activities in MO even more than those which may be allowed by federal law. The basic question presented to Missourians is are the restrictions restrictive enough? Read on.

Third, there are certain things that are not allowed in MO EVEN IF somehow they ever become legal under federal law. Check the web site I specified earlier for details.

Fourth, and perhaps most importantly for the most dedicated right wingers among us, the proposed amendment limiits further restrictions to changes in federal law. Period. Why would they do that? Well, not doing so would create havoc in trying to maintain some sort of stable environment for medical research. If Scaramonga was honest, he would verify that MO has been subject to various initiatives which have attempted to curtail medical research over and above what is allowed by federal law. He might also mention that MO is home to the second largest privately funded medical research institution in the US. If this amendment doesn't pass, they may relocate, because pouring money into an unstable environment is, well... stupid. Many here have claimed that though they support the ban on federal funding of human ESC research, they're fine with private funding for the same endeavor. The fact is, though, the laws in many states are as at least unstable as they are in MO. And that is one more reason why private funding is suppressed. Who's going to offer private funds to institutions in states which may flip in their support at any time? At least MO is potentially willing to establish some bench-marks. If they don't, they may lose big time. Maybe you're fine with that, maybe you're not. But that's the way it is.

So Spook, with that in mind, let me answer your question...

"Unless I'm reading it wrong, the Missouri ballot initiative appears to ban only in-utero implantation of blastocysts. You probably know the federal laws regarding this better than I do, but I can see why there is such an uproar about this whole issue.

Well, the proposed MO amendment bans other things as well. But with specific reference to your question, federal law already bans in-utero implantation of SCNT-derived blastocysts. But the MO initiative would ban it EVEN IF federal law changes to permit it. Again, the proposed MO Amendment 2 is only restrictive vis a vis federal law. But it is restrictively restrictive. Either you're fine with that or you're not. At least that's the way it seems to me. It's funny, ya know -- at this point I probably know more about MO politics and (for different reasons) CT politics than I do about CA politics. Here in CA (at least in my section of it) it's pretty much a collection of foregone conclusions. Except for Arnie. Go Arnie!

Mark: "I would do neither, because to do either would be my ending of an innocent life - it is a terrible tragedy, easily foreseen early on - that in vitro fertilization would have such a result...but I'm not about to compound the evil, thanks very much."

Likewise, thank you very much for lacking the courage of any conviction. Freeze on dude.

Ricorun,

Tell me this, Why do you have to comment in such a smart ellicy way to Mark?

I guarantee you one thing, and I know it now for a fact, you are a Hypocrite to the core, and by all standards are not the Christian person that you claim yourself so emphatically, hypocrite. Why don't try Daily Kos? They enjoy your type!!

Jeremiah

Ricorun,

This is from the other Fox/Stem cell thread:

"for some reason I can't post anything worth posting."

Since I feel merciful tonight, I'm not even going to touch that one.

Ricorun,

The problem is that most, if not all, Missouri voters won't take the time you did to research the facts. On the surface, Mr. Fox seems to be saying that Senator Talent opposes all types of stem cell research, which he doesn't. We don't even know if he opposes embryonic stem cell research, or just the use of federal funds to support the research. And it appears he is saying that Senator Talent is trying to criminalize all "science that gives us the chance for hope", which is not true.

As for somatocellular nuclear transfer, I Googled it and the term doesn't exist. I Googled "somatocellular", and got only one response. It seems as if you meant "Somatic cell nuclear transfer", also known as cloning. If Senator Talent does, in fact, oppose human cloning, or useing federal funds for human cloning experimentation, Mr. Fox should have been more specific. He left the viewers with a distorted impression, which, I'm sure, is what the producers of the ad intended.

As for Senator Talent "co-sponsor(ed) a bill that would outlaw somatocellular nuclear transfer", I checked the entire list of bills Seantor Talent has either sponsored or co-sponsored during his career in the Senate and nothing even resembling somatocellular nuclear transfer, Somatic cell nuclear transfer, or cloning appeared. Perhaps you have a secret list that the Official US Senate site doesn't know about.

Ricorun,

I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you are attempting to say to me - please clarify.

Mark, what I'm saying is that in the end there is no way not to choose. Hundreds of thousands of embryos are already frozen, and the vast majority will ultimately be destroyed. Except for a handful of "snowflake babies" (which is a great thing, but even now, after 25 years of invitro fertilization, they number less than 100) the options I provided are the only realistic options available. And by choosing not to choose you have, in effect decided that their demise will occur by freezer burn.

And calm down Jeremiah, that's the way Mark and I talk to each other. He's pointed with me and I'm pointed back.

Off the subject, Mark, but while I have your attention... most of the posts I attempt have not been getting through for several days now. Usually I get the message that I'm not registered through typekey (although I am) and I should be patient. But they never show up -- or they show up chopped (although to tell you the truth, that might be no one's fault but mine, lol!). We do have some big wildfires out here, but I doubt that's the reason. Are you guys having problems with the server again?

I'll give it one more attempt to respond to you, A-10. This time I'll try parsing it up...

A-10, the bill in question is this one. Talent withdrew his co-sponsorship in Feb. 2006.

And from what I've read, the whole stem cell issue has been a central issue in MO all year. Talent and McCaskill have been discussing it repeatedly for months. And one big reason for that is that MO has an amendment initiative on the ballot called the MISSOURI STEM CELL RESEARCH AND CURES INITIATIVE. The text of the initiative can be found here. Basically, what it attempts to do is to ensure that any research or treatment that is permitted by federal law is also permitted in MO, with certain exceptions. And apparently, the reason they brought forth this initiative is because there have been numerous initiatives in the past seeking to curtail various research and/or treatment activities that are otherwise allowed by federal law.

What you or I think about any or all of these things is irrelevant to the question of whether the Fox ad was an accurate portrayal of Talent's stand on the issues. You initially contended that Fox was blatantly dishonest. But I have presented to you evidence to support both his statements. Okay, so if he wasn't blatantly dishonest, maybe he was misleading. Well, given the milieu in MO as I understand it (which is outlined above), that seems unlikely as well. Could he have been more specific? Sure. But it's a 30 sec ad. You can't get real specific in a 30 sec ad. My guess is that most people in MO knew exactly what he was talking about. And if they didn't well... let me ask you: how do you respond to a 30 sec ad on an issue you know nothing about?

I wasn't going to bring up Talent, but since you did let me address your statement about him, "We don't even know if he opposes embryonic stem cell research..." That's true. Apparently, his own constituents are having a hard time figuring out where he stands, too. I've read a couple of transcripts of debates he has been in where he discussed the issue, and I still don't know where he stands with any kind of detail. He's definitely in favor of ASC research, but as far as ESC research, or even somatic cell nuclear transfer, aka therapeutic cloning, it's hard to say.

The end. Lol!

Rico, Interesting game. Put up 2 negatives and ask Mark to choose one full well knowing that the question is simply a trap to try to hold him accountable to something that is not of his doing and further use it to show a contradiction to his stance.

Let’s play again but this time let me pose the question. Rico, suppose you have a gun with one bullet, who would you shoot – your wife or your daughter (I mean if you had a wife and daughter)? Don’t wimp out now, you have to choose. See the question presupposes conditions that are both negatives and both are against what you’d really choose. But then you go on and try to insult Marks answer by using statements like:

“Likewise, thank you very much for lacking the courage of any conviction.”

“Mark, what I'm saying is that in the end there is no way not to choose.”

“And by choosing not to choose you have, in effect decided that their demise will occur by freezer burn.”

I could use your own statements against you with the question I posed only changing the last statement to say “And by choosing not to choose you have, in effect decided that their demise will occur by old age”.

I’ve no doubt that either you won’t see the correlation or you’ll say it’s totally different and therefore not relevant but your question is really no more valid than mine.

A number of people have said that embryonic stem cells don't have the promis of adult stem cells because no applications have been found for them yet.

The reason for this is that embryonic stem research has been going on for less than ten years while adult stem cell research has been going on since the early 1960's. Thirty years from now the story may be very different.

Mark,

If destroying human life to save other humans is not acceptable, why do you support the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? By your logic it would be better to let Islamic terrorists kill us than to sacrifice the lives of innocent American soldiers and innocent civilians to save lives by fighting terrorists.

Why is it wrong to destroy an embryonic stem cell to do research that could save many lives but it is okay to destroy lives to fight a war that in the long run may or many not save many lives?

Brian,

Its all wrapped up in the intent - innocent people die in war, which is the largest reason why it is such a horrible thing; but when our troops go in to battle, our intent isn't to kill the innocent. What we are trying to do by battle is to prevent men who deliberately target the innocent from carrying out their plans. This is an entirely different species of action from that of deliberately killing the innocent on the off chance that you might do something good for someone else.

Part of the problem you have here, I think, is a mistaken belief that Jesus preached pacifism. He didn't - there is not one word prohibiting serving in the military, nor anything about nonresistence to oppression...Jesus said that if someone were to strike Him on the cheek, He would turn to him the other...but there is no injunction in that preventing me from stopping someone from strking you on the cheek.

I will not fight in my own defense - if I, personally, am ever under the gun then my fate is entirely in God's hands; He will have me spared, or killed, as best suits His purposes. I will, on the other hand, fight in defense of others - I will do this because I cannot, if I can prevent it, allow wicked me to do evil deeds unchecked. One of the many evil deeds I would see checked is the growing concept that human life is contingent upon subjective human judgement - our right to life is absolute, and whether or not to end it is something of the gravest import and only after very careful consideration should we even consider killing the guilty; as for killing the innocent, there is no conceivable set of circumstances which would justify the deliberate killing of the innocent.

“A number of people have said that embryonic stem cells don't have the promis of adult stem cells because no applications have been found for them yet.”
Are you really this ignorant? No applications have been found yet? In the case of stem cell research you don’t get a product and then try to find an application. You start with the problem and then try to create a product that solves that problem. In this case the problems are; diseases & illnesses, birth defects, ageing issues, etc… These are the same problems that are being researched with ASC and USC. You think ESC researches are looking for something different?

And then this repeated barf.

“If destroying human life to save other humans is not acceptable, why do you support the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?”

I guess it can be stated as many times as you as you ask the question but it sure gets tiring. Indiscriminant destruction of I-N-N-O-C-E-N-T lives is wrong. In war we fight against terrorist who desire is to either kill you or subjugate you (by you I’m referring to anyone other then the terrorist themselves). Terrorist are an evil group and should NEVER be considered innocent by any measuring stick. The fact that you (the left) repeated lack the skills to understand these simple concepts makes me wonder... Oh I won't go there.