A Return to Scientific Sanity

[Damocles]

But the embryos will be destroyed anyway. If he opposed destroying life he should have passed a law banning fertility clinics from discarding embryos. He didn't do that. He instead attacked embryonic stem cell research. That being the case I think it is quite accurate to describe Bush as being against further development of stem cell research.

They will, but it incentivizes the creation of a "few extra" for this purpose.

He didn't do that because it isn't publicly funded. Get the difference? He did not want people to be forced to pay for what they find morally objectionable.

He didn't "attack" it he simply chose not to federally fund one specific type of stem cell research.

The reality is your opinion is not the only measure of "scientific sanity" and controversial issues that create life to research on it are controversial regardless of Bush.

 

[Bonestorm]

They will, but it incentivizes the creation of a "few extra" for this purpose.

He didn't do that because it isn't publicly funded. Get the difference? He did not want people to be forced to pay for what they find morally objectionable.

He didn't "attack" it he simply chose not to federally fund one specific type of stem cell research.

The reality is your opinion is not the only measure of "scientific sanity" and controversial issues that create life to research on it are controversial regardless of Bush.

But if the objection was to spend money on something he finds morally objectionable why fund any stem cell research at all? The moral objection is still there.

And no one is talking about creating life to research on it. The Clinton policy already prohibited that. Like your "make a few extra" argument. It's fantasy.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

But if the objection was to spend money on something he finds morally objectionable why fund any stem cell research at all? The moral objection is still there.

And no one is talking about creating life to research on it. The Clinton policy already prohibited that. Like your "make a few extra" argument. It's fantasy.

How is the moral objection still there when using adult stem cells?

 

[Bonestorm]

How is the moral objection still there when using adult stem cells?

I wasn't clear. Bush provided funding for embryonic stem cell research notwithstanding the so-called moral objection.

 

[Damocles]

But if the objection was to spend money on something he finds morally objectionable why fund any stem cell research at all? The moral objection is still there.

And no one is talking about creating life to research on it. The Clinton policy already prohibited that. Like your "make a few extra" argument. It's fantasy.

The moral objection is there to the destruction of life, in the lines already created that destruction had already taken place. Those lines he continued to fund and would not allow funding for the creation of new lines in order to ensure he did not incentivize the creation of human life for the sole purpose of its destruction in order to advance science.

It is weak to maintain a black/white stance and ignore any relative controversy in the science. It is 'fun' to dismiss every idea as "scientifically insane" but it certainly doesn't promote the conversation on the subject.

There is no moral objection to adult stem cell research.

 

[Bonestorm]

The moral objection is there to the destruction of life, in the lines already created that destruction had already taken place. Those lines he continued to fund and would not allow funding for the creation of new lines in order to ensure he did not incentivize the creation of human life for the sole purpose of destruction in order to advance science.

There is no moral objection to adult stem cell research.

But then we get back to the fact that the life will be destroyed nevertheless as fertility clinics discard embryos. The destruction will take place anyway. In my view there is nothing morally superior about having that destruction be for naught when stem cell research is a viable option.

 

[Damocles]

But then we get back to the fact that the life will be destroyed nevertheless as fertility clinics discard embryos. The destruction will take place anyway. In my view there is nothing morally superior about having that destruction be for naught when stem cell research is a viable option.

And then you ignore the fact that some incentive would arise to create a few extra for this purpose and that this has already been answered.

The main moral objection that Bush had was the specific creation of life for the purpose to destroy it in order to advance science. He did not want to create an incentive to do this, nor to force people who found it morally objectionable to pay for it.

Those who find it morally objectionable would not be paying fertility clinics to create multiple extra embryos for their destruction to begin with.

 

[Bonestorm]

And then you ignore the fact that some incentive would arise to create a few extra for this purpose and that this has already been answered.

I ignore it because there is nothing to suggest that this would actually happen, particularly where there are many many many embryos that are destroyed already without such an "incentive."

 

[Damocles]

I ignore it because there is nothing to suggest that this would actually happen, particularly where there are many many many embryos that are destroyed already without such an "incentive."

The current incentive was to create the fewest amount of extra, the reality is some would use this as a lower incentive for that.

And it remains that you would be forcing others to pay for what they may find morally objectionable.

It remained his opinion that funding for such controversial studies should be from funds that were not public because he felt that incentives to create life for the purpose of its destruction was something that should be avoided and because he did not wish to force others to pay for what they find morally objectionable. It was a perfectly "sane" policy and it did not "ban" any sort of research.

 

[Bonestorm]

The current incentive was to create the fewest amount of extra, the reality is some would use this as a lower incentive for that.

And it remains that you would be forcing others to pay for what they may find morally objectionable.

It remained his opinion that funding for such controversial studies should be from funds that were not public because he felt that incentives to create life for the purpose of its destruction was something that should be avoided and because he did not wish to force others to pay for what they find morally objectionable. It was a perfectly "sane" policy and it did not "ban" any sort of research.

Do you know how many embryos are currently discarded per year? I haven't the slightest but I imagine it is a quite high number. I just don't see that there is any incentive for the creation of additional embryos (particularly where individuals will be paying for them and where the costs are already very very high).

As far as forcing others to pay for what they find morally objectionable (I still don't see the moral objection) I find that to be a sick joke. I find unprovoked wars that result in tens of thousands of dead people to be morally objectionable.

As a single policy position it may be sane, but Bush's collective assault on science was insane.

 

[Damocles]

Do you know how many embryos are currently discarded per year? I haven't the slightest but I imagine it is a quite high number. I just don't see that there is any incentive for the creation of additional embryos (particularly where individuals will be paying for them and where the costs are already very very high).

As far as forcing others to pay for what they find morally objectionable (I still don't see the moral objection) I find that to be a sick joke. I find unprovoked wars that result in tens of thousands of dead people to be morally objectionable.

As a single policy position it may be sane, but Bush's collective assault on science was insane.

I see no evidence of a "collective assault" on science.

While I fully understand your objection to the war. Even if we were in disagreement I could still see your opinion on that matter. Pretending that you are inherently incapable of understanding such objections and their origins simply shows either a politically motivated and thus created lack of imagination, or a total incapacity to empathize with another human being.

 

[Bonestorm]

I see no evidence of a "collective assault" on science.

While I fully understand your objection to the war. Even if we were in disagreement I could still see your opinion on that matter. Pretending that you are inherently incapable of understanding such objections and their origins simply shows either a politically motivated and thus created lack of imagination, or a total incapacity to empathize with another human being.

1) Do you know the answer to my question? It's kind of at the heart of your objection to the funding. If I were you I would genuinely want to know whether an "incentive" risk exists.

2) On the collective assault, you must not have been looking.

3) You know the difference between my objection to the war and the objection of others to funding for new stem cell lines? (There are several). The people killed in the war weren't going to be killed anyway. The embryos are going to be destroyed whether the funding is there or not.

Also, as I have said repeatedly now, there is no moral objection where the embryos are going to be destroyed anyway. All you have is the "incentive" argument and I think that a look at the number of embryos being destroyed already would probably dispose of that argument pretty quickly.

 

[Damocles]

1) Do you know the answer to my question? It's kind of at the heart of your objection to the funding. If I were you I would genuinely want to know whether an "incentive" risk exists.

2) On the collective assault, you must not have been looking.

3) You know the difference between my objection to the war and the objection of others to funding for new stem cell lines? (There are several). The people killed in the war weren't going to be killed anyway. The embryos are going to be destroyed whether the funding is there or not.

Also, as I have said repeatedly now, there is no moral objection where the embryos are going to be destroyed anyway. All you have is the "incentive" argument and I think that a look at the number of embryos being destroyed already would probably dispose of that argument pretty quickly.

1.) I answered.
2.) Or I have a different perspective.
3.) Yet some supported the war, and some were against it. I understand your objection because I had my own and because I can empathize regardless of whether I see from the same vantage. If Bush believed he was protecting more than he would take I can see him making those decisions even with my objection.


And again, the moral objection remains to force others to pay for something they find morally objectionable and an urge not to incentivize an activity that you find morally wrong, even if you may disagree with their objection. At least you are able to see that it was a consistent view for this one policy. We can go through others as well. The closest thing I can see to an "assault on science" was his insistence that CO2 was not a pollutant.

It was a consistent theme with this particular issue in his administration and pretending you cannot understand that vantage is unimaginative political pretense. I don't believe you are that stupid or unable to empathize in that manner. You clearly can empathize with people in Iraq, and IMO you can empathize with these people even in disagreement.

 

[Bonestorm]

1.) I answered.
2.) Or I have a different perspective.
3.) Yet some supported the war, and some were against it. I understand your objection because I had my own and because I can empathize regardless of whether I see from the same vantage.


And again, the moral objection remains to force others to pay for something they find morally objectionable and an urge not to incentivize an activity that you find morally wrong, even if you may disagree with their objection. At least you are able to see that it was a consistent view for this one policy. We can go through others as well. The closest thing I can see to an "assault on science" was his insistence that CO2 was not a pollutant.

It was a consistent theme with this particular issue in his administration and pretending you cannot understand that vantage is unimaginative political pretense. I don't believe you are that stupid or unable to empathize in that manner. You clearly can empathize with people in Iraq, and IMO you can empathize with these people even in disagreement.

1) You didn't answer. How many? Is there really an incentive?

2) I can empathize with them but their moral argument makes no sense to me. Basically, they don't want their money to make productive use of something that they think is evil that will happen any way. The embryos will be destroyed one way or another. I don't see what the concern is with conducting beneficial research since that is the case.

 

[Damocles]

1) You didn't answer. How many? Is there really an incentive?

Quite a few, but many of the people who paid for these to be created would reject their inclusion into studies, while others would not thus artificially limiting the number of embryos available. I can understand the point of view that such a thing can be something that would happen even while I believe differently.

The idea that some parents may use this path rather than adopt because they would be "furthering science" is also not entirely foreign to me. (My wife and I might see it that way if we had problems getting pregnant.)

2) I can empathize with them but their moral argument makes no sense to me. Basically, they don't want their money to make productive use of something that they think is evil that will happen any way. The embryos will be destroyed one way or another. I don't see what the concern is with conducting beneficial research since that is the case.

Most of the people who object to this would object to the creation of the embryos to begin with. Thankfully that is not publicly funded. There are enough children who need parents that artificial creation of life that you know will be destroyed is not a necessary evil. The goal is to incentivize others to adopt the children that need parents and avoid the creation of human life slated for "destruction".

 

[Kamala Trump]

1) You didn't answer. How many? Is there really an incentive?

2) I can empathize with them but their moral argument makes no sense to me. Basically, they don't want their money to make productive use of something that they think is evil that will happen any way. The embryos will be destroyed one way or another. I don't see what the concern is with conducting beneficial research since that is the case.

These sound like the pro-globalization arguments. Nothing is set in stone. Nothing is inevitable. There is no fate.

 

[NOVA]

Its statements like this...

"but Bush's collective assault on science was insane"

that make it clear thats its a useless exercise to debate this pinhead....
his already closed mind is evident and no amount of logic will allow him to change what has become reality to him....just his continuing to harp on this
"incentive" issue paints him as thick-headed and incapable of logical conclusions....so why continue....
the ethical dilemma that concerned both Clinton and Bush, he perceives as a Bush attack on science...
and to not give embryo "farmers" a reason to plant and harvest embryos for their stem cells seems to just confuse him...
so...give it up Damo....

 

[Canceled2]

Quite a few, but many of the people who paid for these to be created would reject their inclusion into studies, while others would not thus artificially limiting the number of embryos available. I can understand the point of view that such a thing can be something that would happen even while I believe differently.

The idea that some parents may use this path rather than adopt because they would be "furthering science" is also not entirely foreign to me. (My wife and I might see it that way if we had problems getting pregnant.)


Most of the people who object to this would object to the creation of the embryos to begin with. Thankfully that is not publicly funded. There are enough children who need parents that artificial creation of life that you know will be destroyed is not a necessary evil. The goal is to incentivize others to adopt the children that need parents and avoid the creation of human life slated for "destruction".

With the discovery of pluripotent stem cell technology in 2007, Obama's move today was nothing but political grandstanding and very divisive!

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I've often wondered about this silliness. It is a fact that Bush was the first President to fund any form of Stem Cell research from the public trough. It isn't like Bush took any money from previous research, nor did he work to make laws against specific forms of research.

1. Bush never "banned" stem cell research.
2. Bush was the first president to ever fund such research.

Nobody suggests that Clinton was "insane" because he never funded the research at all. The only suggestion of this sort is that Bush didn't go as far as they wanted in the funding therefore he is "insane".

Uhmm Damo, I'm pretty sure stem cells weren't yet considered useful in Clintons term, and when the National Science Foundation or the National Health Institute proposed funding them Bush prevented it. You have to understand how science is funded in America - each little portion isn't divied out by an individual bill in congress or an executive order. Independent councils divy out what funding they're given.

 

[Damocles]

Uhmm Damo, I'm pretty sure stem cells weren't yet considered useful in Clintons term, and when the National Science Foundation or the National Health Institute proposed funding them Bush prevented it. You have to understand how science is funded in America - each little portion isn't divied out by an individual bill in congress or an executive order. Independent councils divy out what funding they're given.

Please, we don't need to re-litigate the little moments. Go back and read the thread, then jump in.