President Bush announced the first veto of his presidency for H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 (Video). From the AP report:
This bill would support the taking of innocent human life of the hope of finding medical benefits for others. It crosses a moral boundary that our society needs to respect, so I vetoed it,” Bush said at a White House event where he was surrounded by 18 families who “adopted” frozen embryos that were not used by other couples, and then used those leftover embryos to have children.
“Each of these children was still adopted while still an embryo and has been blessed with a chance to grow, to grow up in a loving family. These boys and girls are not spare parts,” he said.
An override of the veto is not expected.
Wired magazine notes that in the ethical debate over the science of stem cell research new technology holds much promise. How? By extracting stem cells from placentas…
Interesting Factoid: According to figures cited by Sen. Arlen Specter during the Senate debate on the bill, there have only been 128 of these “snow flake” babies born from “adopted” embryos since 1997.
Doubtful. For comparison, until 2002, we were unable to have a useful Wind Chill measurement because models were based around bottled water, which acts differently than human tissue. Some hypothermia data, such as the crystalization of human blood, wasn’t accurately replicated until the late sixties.
You say doubtful but then offer examples of how it was done ethically. What’s so doubtful?
You are offering to gain potential medical knowledge at the cost of what may or may not be a human life, said medical knowledge requiring more sacrifices of what may or may not be a human life, to discover cures, a majority of which we will be able to replicate in other manners in a decent timeframe.
Well, I’m not convinced that we will be able to replicate this research by other means, at least not entirely. In any case it’s a moot point for me because there is no question in my mind whether it “may or may not be a human life”.
To draw a comparision to tobacco smoke, it was frowned at by religious leaders for centuries before scientists realized smoke wasn’t good for your lungs.
Christian scientists reject modern medicine in favor of “spiritual healing”. The Vatican opposes contraception as a method of disease prevention. Science does take time to arrive at solid, verified conclusions, but religion is far less dependable as it relies on dogma and superstition.
But, no, I’d prefer not to give Washington DC any options about this at all – to err on the side of safety.
Who gets to make the laws then?
Mantis,
Simply try to bring out the assumptions of your opinion.
THe basis of your opinion is simply based on development not on intrinsic difference. For example, a human embryo is intrinsically different from a frog embryo and it is intrinsically different from a sperm as explained above. Development based criteria have been shown to lead to disasters. Even now, people like Singer are advocating that young children (and infants included) are not developed enought to be considered fully human. The same logic in Nazi Germany.
So don’t proclaim about stone-age religionists etc… when you cannot even articulate why Hitler was wrong to hold the opinion that the disabled are not human.
Christian scientists reject modern medicine in favor of “spiritual healing”.
————————————————
Oh, I forgot that Pasteur was a christain scientist. BTW, Newton, Kepler … were all christian scientists. And you didn’t even try to address gattsuru ‘s point. YOu simply want to post your prejudice.
Science does take time to arrive at solid, verified conclusions, but religion is far less dependable as it relies on dogma and superstition.
————————————————–
So it is shown that experimenting on real human beings like prisoners can lead to real progress in medical research and technology. Scientifically they can show the effects of these medical research on real human beings. The atheistic Nazis and communists didn’t want the dogmatic and ignorant religionists to interfere with their scientific experiments. So you don’t have any problem with that kind of worldview or attitude?
You say doubtful but then offer examples of how it was done ethically. What’s so doubtful?
My apologies, I assumed the limitation was “at the same or similar time”. Eventually we’ll have a cure or treatment for every disease – nanotechnological repair and genetic conditioning is pretty much a given, although it’s doubtable either will come withi a normal human lifetime.
In any case it’s a moot point for me because there is no question in my mind whether it “may or may not be a human life”.
Really? The basis for your belief’s is so obsessed with covering it’s arse that you call gravity a theory, but you’re quite sure something isn’t human. Sure, it has the same genetic structure, but I suppose that’s a minor trait. I assume you’ve based off the existance of an EEG or some similar measurement? Doesn’t that become a messy ethical issue (to take Volokh’s reasoning, for example, I think there are many ethical reasonings with killing someone if they have a recoverable condition which leaves them with no EEG readings for a short time)?
Who gets to make the laws then?
When it involves destroying something without a jury? I believe the Constitution says no one can, although that’s arguable since I don’t have the tools available to prove where or if rights are transmitted.
But then again, I’m a minor libertarian – I prefer that laws not be made unless we’re discussing something’s destruction, theft, etc.
VagaBond:
It’s just that our tax dollars will not used.
Our tax dollars will not used? Really? Can I have mine back?
Or perhaps my tax dollars would be better used for another oil war. Is there a popular fund for the production of the next show? Can I join? Surely there must still be some troops we can send somewhere.
Maybe our blessed prez will be enlarged by a revelation on how to fix that Lebanese thing he’s waffling with…
You never know how those deep, religious, fundementalist things will affect Our Big W.
My favorite bumper sticker this week: “W/The President”
You say doubtful but then offer examples of how it was done ethically. What’s so doubtful?
Well, Mantis, how do you know that the kinds of breakthroughs promised with embryonic stem cells can’t be obtained in other ways, too? The fact that we might not know now how to do it doesn’t change the hope that we might in the future.
In that sense the analogy seems quite clear. In the 40s, when the Nazi research was done, it certainly could not have been predicted that some of the results would be duplicatable in the 60s without resorting to human experimentation.
The insistence that embryonic stem cells are the only path to specific medical advances just doesn’t hold up to history—even recent history, which has revealed the potential for pluripotence in cells not extracted from embryos.
astifaga,
I know how those deep, fundamentalist, atheistic thing (as in atheistic communism) would affect people ‘s lives. I regard communism as a strand of fundamentalist atheism.
Seems like an embryo or a fetus is life to me. I have watched quite a few women mourn the loss of their “fetus” when they miscarried after a postive pregnancy test, sometimes before missing a period. If they were not carrying life, what were they mourning?
I personally am glad Bush vetoed these bills. Especially the one on Fetal Farming, which sounded Orwellian to me. You know: all animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.
Who decides about the equality? Evidentally, for now, Mr. Bush does.
gattsuru,
Really? The basis for your belief’s is so obsessed with covering it’s arse that you call gravity a theory, but you’re quite sure something isn’t human.
From that statement I can only presume that you have bought the religious right’s “it’s only a theory” argument. There’s nothing wrong with theories, the reason gravity is called a theory is because that’s what it is. It happens to be a very well supported theory, but it’s still a theory. Science doesn’t deal in facts, they deal in theories. Facts are for historians.
Sure, it has the same genetic structure, but I suppose that’s a minor trait. I assume you’ve based off the existance of an EEG or some similar measurement?
I’ve looked at those, but no. As I stated before, I don’t believe anything that can’t possibly survive outside the womb has rights. That’s my threshold. When you’re talking about something that is not even inside the womb, but rather a clump of cells frozen in a lab, there’s no question as far as I’m concerned.
Doesn’t that become a messy ethical issue
Not for me. Why is it messy?
When it involves destroying something without a jury? I believe the Constitution says no one can, although that’s arguable since I don’t have the tools available to prove where or if rights are transmitted.
We destroy things all the time without juries.
But then again, I’m a minor libertarian – I prefer that laws not be made unless we’re discussing something’s destruction, theft, etc.
So you believe that nothing should be federally funded?
I have watched quite a few women mourn the loss of their “fetus” when they miscarried after a postive pregnancy test, sometimes before missing a period. If they were not carrying life, what were they mourning?
I have watched children mourn the loss of a misplaced doll, or an imaginary friend who was imagined to have left. What were they mourning if not loss of life? Possibly a product of their own minds?
Well, Mantis, how do you know that the kinds of breakthroughs promised with embryonic stem cells can’t be obtained in other ways, too? The fact that we might not know now how to do it doesn’t change the hope that we might in the future.
Agreed. I just don’t see any problem with using hESCs.
Mantis,
if you are totally incapable of surviving by any means whatsoever because you haven’t developed enough you are not a human being.
————————————————
For clarification, let me apply Mantis ‘s own criteria here. His sperms are totally incapable of surving by any means, so sperms are not human being. However, embryos can survive with the help of an adopting womb of a mother. So it should be considered a human being.
Mantis later added the qualification of surviving outside of the womb! In other words, he is trying to justify his preconceived conclusion. Before, premature babies cannot survive outside of the womb, so they are not human. But now technology allows even 4-5 month babies to survive outside of the womb, so they are humans. If the technology can allow the embryos to develop outside of the womb, the mantis will have to find another reason to consider the embryo not human.
Mantis
Doesn’t that become a messy ethical issue
Not for me. Why is it messy?
————————————————-
So the same question: why is it messy for the Nazis to consider the disbabled as not human? It is not messy for Hitler, so it should be OK, right?
mantis,
But then again, I’m a minor libertarian – I prefer that laws not be made unless we’re discussing something’s destruction, theft, etc.
So you believe that nothing should be federally funded?
————————————————–
So you think that scientific experiments on prisoners should be federally funded?
As I stated before, I don’t believe anything that can’t possibly survive outside the womb has rights. That’s my threshold. When you’re talking about something that is not even inside the womb, but rather a clump of cells frozen in a lab, there’s no question as far as I’m concerned…
Not for me. Why is it messy?
You seem reasonably well read. What happens when A Brave New World and its bottles to be decanted come around? The technology is possible. If an artificial lifesupport system could ‘bring an embryo to term’, how would you treat stem cell research?
Does something go from ethically fine to despicable just because of an unrelated invention?
So you believe that nothing should be federally funded?
Not quite an anarchist, Mantis. The federal government is legally required to provide for the common defense, for example. Prison systems provide a better tiering of offenses, for another. There are good things to be done with federal funds.
As I stated before, I don’t believe anything that can’t possibly survive outside the womb has rights. That’s my threshold. When you’re talking about something that is not even inside the womb, but rather a clump of cells frozen in a lab, there’s no question as far as I’m concerned…
Not for me. Why is it messy?
What happens when A Brave New World and its bottles to be decanted come around? The technology is possible. If an artificial lifesupport system could ‘bring an embryo to term’, how would you treat stem cell research?
Does something go from ethically fine to despicable just because of an unrelated invention?
Well stated question. I am looking forward to the answer.
Mantis, equating an adult woman’s mourning the loss of her child to a miscarriage to a child’s mourning the loss of an toy is disgusting. A pregnancy test is positive because the developing baby creates hormones in the mother’s system. In other words, there is an factual, observable response in the woman’s body to the new life developing in her.
Mantis, Lee or Wee which ever. Those of you who think stem cell research is such a good idea. Fund it yourselves and make a fortune. I have a hole in my back yard that has the potential of being the richest goldmine in the world. Send dollars or stock. Idiots.
What’s particularly striking is that so-called “pro-life” conservatives care more about frozen embryos (that will almost invariably get thrown out anyway) than about living, breathing human beings.
Another fat load of bull dung from the left. Keep building and burning those straw men, guys.
Agreed. I just don’t see any problem with using hESCs.
Fair enough. Unfortunately for you, not everyone agrees.
Furthermore, it’s really not correct to say that you have science on your side. Science tells us that a distinct human being is created at conception—or, arguably, after the period where twinning can occur is completed. What science cannot tell us is at what point that human being becomes a person under the law, worthy of the same protections as a human living outside of the womb.
So the decision is not an objective on that can therefore be removed from the democratic process. We’re not talking about holding a vote as to whether or not the earth is flat.
Certainly, the law currently is on the side that an embryo is not deserving of full rights, given the 14th Amendment, Roe v. Wade, and abortion law. But that really is not the question at hand; after all, this legislation does not change the legal state of an embryo. It is instead about funding.
There are many sensible pro-abortion types who respect other people’s moral framework and therefore do not feel it justified to force federal tax dollars to pay for them. Likewise, sensible pro-ESC types ought to have similar respect for the differering moral views of their fellow citizens on this issue.
Jay said:
Well hell…or your version of utopia. You and Karl Marx.
I’d like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony
Gad. Sounds like you’ve got some kind of religion-One World?
Politics is nothing more than applying will and NOTHING less. There is no subtracting out “morality” because politics is all encompassing to think you can abstract “morality” out of governance is wishful thinking-at best. Any politician that claims to keep “morality” out of it is an amoral L-I-A-R. Where the heck are you getting this stuff?
And to those who claim that denying federal funding is tantamount to a ban: I’m afraid Arnold Schwarzenegger is working hard to prove you wrong… We’ll know in 2007, I believe, if he succeeds.
Mantis
“If you are totally incapable of survivng by any means whatsoever because you havent developed enough you are not a human being”
Are you talking about liberals in general or all the 3rd world starving and suffering peoples? or the mentally handicapped or very ill? please clarify??
Mantis, equating an adult woman’s mourning the loss of her child to a miscarriage to a child’s mourning the loss of an toy is disgusting. A pregnancy test is positive because the developing baby creates hormones in the mother’s system. In other words, there is an factual, observable response in the woman’s body to the new life developing in her.
Agreed. Mantis, that’s a little over the line. A miscariage, is certainly not the same as losing a doll. The little girl losing the doll doesn’t go through severe cramping, fever, bleeding and hormone imbalance…mom just goes to the store and gets a replacement. Try to find a better analogy next time.
For the rest, I’m not opining on this subject, since I know very little about it. I prefer to watch the reasoned debate, esp from gattsuru, who seems to be well-versed on this topic. I’m enjoying your discussion. Thanks for the enlightenment.
And Lee, just shut up on this one and let the adults hash this one out.
Thatisall.
I think we Democrats finally found our own wedge issue. Outside of the Deep South and Idaho, just about everyone in the country thinks this veto was dumb.
I’m sure we can find some way to screw it up though.
Lint
“Just about everyone in the country thinks this veto was dumb.”
Was that a snap poll? cause the results sure were lightning quick?
Was that a snap poll? cause the results sure were lightning quick?
Probably a Zogby poll.
FLASH!!!! To all those with BDS–Bush will be YOUR president for 2 more years. Then after that there will another president that thinks like him. If you that have BDS would like to know, there is a cure for it. Is called-“get over it”.
A great campaigning slogan for 08 jhow66?
Way better then:) Dont stop thinking about tommorrow!
You seem reasonably well read. What happens when A Brave New World and its bottles to be decanted come around? The technology is possible. If an artificial lifesupport system could ‘bring an embryo to term’, how would you treat stem cell research?
Well, now we’re getting down to it. At the risk of being labelled a goalpost mover, I’ll tell you what my opinion would/will be once we can maintain a human gestation by artificial means. I would fall back to my definition of conscious life, meaning having higher brain function. Brain activity does not become sustained in fetuses until about 22 weeks of gestation. So if we are eventually able to artificially support gestation to birth, that is where I would draw the line dilineating humans with rights and clumps of tissue. This is in fact my true definition, but it seems irrelevant unless the fetus could survive outside the womb, so until the technology reaches that of BNW’s “bottles”, that’s where I’ll stand.
Does something go from ethically fine to despicable just because of an unrelated invention?
I think the ethics of it are considered in the brain wave definition, and the survivability definition is just pragmatic. If you want to throw abortion into the mix I do think it’s wrong to abort fetuses after 22 weeks, at the onset of sustained brain function.
The federal government is legally required to provide for the common defense, for example. Prison systems provide a better tiering of offenses, for another. There are good things to be done with federal funds.
I was probably too broad with that question. Anyway you certainly are a libertarian. I can understand that position, as I’m libertarian on a number of issues.
Agreed. Mantis, that’s a little over the line. A miscariage, is certainly not the same as losing a doll. The little girl losing the doll doesn’t go through severe cramping, fever, bleeding and hormone imbalance…mom just goes to the store and gets a replacement. Try to find a better analogy next time.
Ok, the analogy was a bit rough, I’ll admit. But my point was that just because someone has a particular emotion about something doesn’t define that thing. Our brains do a lot of funny things. And adding the physical pain part doesn’t make it any more convincing. If someone were to have a leg amputated, he/she would experience a good deal of physical pain and probably experience feelings of loss. That doesn’t mean his/her leg was a person. There I go making analogies again. In any case I don’t mean to demean the loss that some women who have miscarriages feel (although they certainly don’t all have the same reaction, further supporting my point), as I am sure it can be quite heartbreaking.
I would fall back to my definition of conscious life, meaning having higher brain function. Brain activity does not become sustained in fetuses until about 22 weeks of gestation.
That’s a better goalpost, but I think it’s far from good enough to use. Not only is it attempting to measure something we don’t understand (the only unique and measurable attribute about the 22nd-23rd week of gestation is that control of bodily functions begins to develop, but the fetus has had a heartbeat and basic reflexes for over a week and formed organs for several weeks, but won’t have a significantly active EEG for another month), but it also can be abused.
For example, if we take the concept of ‘higher brain function’ to indicate Life, well, if we hypothesize a situation where an individual loses higher brain function but is expected to recover in a few months (brainstem injury, cryostasis, hypothetical-situationitis). If the state could be inflicted or administered, could it count as mrder? Is it acceptable to destroy an individual in such a state?
Not only is it attempting to measure something we don’t understand
Well, we can only make decisions based on our current understanding, so it’ll have to do for now.
(the only unique and measurable attribute about the 22nd-23rd week of gestation is that control of bodily functions begins to develop, but the fetus has had a heartbeat and basic reflexes for over a week and formed organs for several weeks, but won’t have a significantly active EEG for another month)
Right, I’m playing it safe in terms of what brain activity means. I doubt consciousness is developed until later, but I believe it is impossible without sustained brain function, so anything before that is fair game.
but it also can be abused.
Maybe, I think that can be avoided.
For example, if we take the concept of ‘higher brain function’ to indicate Life, well, if we hypothesize a situation where an individual loses higher brain function but is expected to recover in a few months (brainstem injury, cryostasis, hypothetical-situationitis).
I figure once you are born, unless your higher brain functions are irreparably impaired to the point where you are PVS or brain dead, once again irreparably, then you maintain your rights as a human of self-determination.
If the state could be inflicted or administered, could it count as mrder?
I would say so, but I’ll bet it will remain “attempted” murder as far as the law is concerned.
Is it acceptable to destroy an individual in such a state?
Once again, if irreparably damaged to the point where higher brain functions cease, I believe so, and if I’m not mistaken (Schiavo anyone), that is also the current law. If it is temporary, as in your hypothetical, then I don’t think it would be acceptable.
I doubt consciousness is developed until later, but I believe it is impossible without sustained brain function, so anything before that is fair game.
If we really wanted to be careful, we really should go to when the basis of the neural tube is formed, but I don’t think six to eight weeks is really acceptable to the pro-abortion crowd, nor would it solve the basic problem of science trying to answer an ethical question : that science can only answer a question, not tell you if it’s the right one.
I figure once you are born, unless your higher brain functions are irreparably impaired to the point where you are PVS or brain dead, once again irreparably, then you maintain your rights as a human of self-determination.
But if you go braindead before you are born, even temporarily, even days before delivery (long after a fetus could survive with modern technology), and yet not retain self-determination?
Grr… The following :
But if you go braindead before you are born, even temporarily, even days before delivery
Should read as :
But if you flatline an EEG before you are born, even temporarily, even days before delivery.
Sorry, was typing too fast.
Sorry, I should have written
I figure once you have reached the brain function threshold
rather than:
I figure once you are born,
Btw I like Huxley a great deal, and I do see BNW as a warning of what relying on technology to create utopia at the expense of our humanity can do to civilization. But I also believe if we are open to new ideas, open to debate, and maintain a functioning democracy we can prevent this from happening. In any case for the moment I’m more worried about us destroying ourselves with our technology rather than dehumanizing ourselves through so-called “negative utopia”. We’ve got a long way to go before we have to confront that problem.
Ah, all right, that’s pretty internally consistent if questionable from a policy standpoint.
As to Huxley as opposed to self-destruction… I suppose it’s a matter of different viewpoints. I’ve seen a good many people spread banned books. It’s rare for someone to successful encourage reading. Individual humans seem to desire to spread information, even when it against their own personal benefit, but . I’ve seen many, many people fall into their own negative utopia, to the point where many think Brave New World is meant to constrast the evils of religion against successful society. Not many insist on an Orwellian world, or a world where we destroy ourselves with technology. Even the religious nuts tend to have that little bit of hesistation that prevents them. Meanwhile, meaningless action is cheap, fast, and fun.
Still, after all this, what W did yesterday does not stop embryonic stem cell research in the USA. All it did was take away federal funding.
If all the people who are upset that we are not using tax dollars and really believe that it’s going to lead to something then they should do the noble thing and donate to the embryonic stem cell reseach fund.
Wow, how pathetic must your argument be when the very TITLE of the post is a strawman ? Please point to those that claim the “earth would stop spinning” if Bush vetoed the stem cell bill.
It is essentially indefensible, hence, the ridiculous strawman.
LoveAmerica Immigrant
I know how those deep, fundamentalist, atheistic thing (as in atheistic communism) would affect people ‘s lives. I regard communism as a strand of fundamentalist atheism.
Gee, that’s nice. And so interesting.
astigafa,
Thanks. Just like to complement your thought on fundamentalism. Atheism is a simply a godless religion. Fundamentalist Atheism when given a chance has proven the most bloody in history so far.
Mantis,
Thanks for being honest about moving goal post. The brain wave is a common criteria people have used to justify abortion. As gattsaru pointed out, this is a murky criterion to use. So you should be comfortable when people use a more precise scientific definition of human life when a unique genetic structure is formed. This happened at conception and we can demonstrate it scientifically. This is quite a reasonable criterion for public policy scientifically. So I don’t understand why people like you would object so vehemently.
Fundamentalist Atheism is NOT ‘most bloody’. Crazy leaders and religeon are. Find me an atheist society without it being forced by an insane dictator that kills people by the millions. Religeon itself, no matter which god, is one of history’s leading causes of war and death.
Anyway, I would like to collect a group of votes of people who support Bush’s veto and are either paralyzed, have a horrible disease ( Like parkinson’s) or have a friend or family member in this position.
To me it’s pretty simple and it’s been mentioned before. They are going in the trash. Millions of people are paralyzed. Try to help them. Despite some claims, most the articles I’ve read have stated that embryonic stem cells hold great promise and have even allowed mice with injured spines to move their legs. So much effort to save a non breathing entity so already breathing people must continue to suffer. I do understand the conservative position, but I think this is one more thing that is helping to weaken the conservative grasp.
As far as what America thinks, here are some links I found just in 10 seconds. I’m sure I’ll be accused of getting ‘liberal’ polls, so please, present more polls so everyone here can get a general idea of what Americans think. I’m at work and haven’t had the time to get every poll I can find.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/poll010626.html
http://www.nccbuscc.org/comm/archives/2006/06-109.shtml
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/19/AR2006071900216.html
http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm
http://www.missouricures.com/documents/WSJHarris%20Poll060705.pdf
Quite simply because it would be considered an unacceptable limitation of the mother’s rights. Whatever we do here is considered an abstract limitation. Even conception (0 weeks) or implantation (2 weeks) is an abstract point – not everyone or even a majority of people will agree when or if a ‘soul’ or ‘awareness’ exists. This is a matter of politics driving science.
That’s not a bad thing. As I noted before, science can not answer legal or ethical questions. There’s no working ethicometer, and a majority of scientists aren’t established legal experts, either.
There are problems with the EEG measurement, just like any stimuli measurement. It can be manipulated : for example, deep anesthetic states will result in a null EEGs, and determining what is awareness and what is just reflex spikes on an EEG is more an art than a science. An unethically motivated scientist could easily manipulate or simply misread a target as not having an EEG even late into pregnancy.
But I doubt any of the possible digital systems (having discrete states) would be acceptable to stem cell and abortion proponents, regardless of the flaws in the analog possibilities.
“Find me an atheist society without it being forced by an insane dictator that kills people by the millions.”
It’s not bad enough that a majority of insane dictators have been atheist? That’s kinda a bad criteria, anyway, since any society that kills people by the millions is going to be determined as insane.
“Religeon itself, no matter which god, is one of history’s leading causes of war and death.”
Not quite. Compared to totalitarian dictatorship (156,000,000 just in the 1900-1986 years), religion and religiously motivated wars are fairly weak at this stuff. Christianity and Islam, for example, are rated at a little under a million each.
Despite some claims, most the articles I’ve read have stated that embryonic stem cells hold great promise and have even allowed mice with injured spines to move their legs.
If you head back around a decade, you can find a lot of publications on how cold fusion would allow humanity to end reliance on fossil fuels.
As far as what America thinks, here are some links I found just in 10 seconds.
Yes, a majority of Americans find stem cell research acceptable. A majority also think that, other than the first few dozen IVF-trashaways, we don’t need to destroy anything else. A majority think that stem cell research is just days away from providing a cure for every disease on the planet.
I’ll avoid invoking Godwin’s law, but a majority of those in China think that experimentation on prisoners is acceptable.
Just because it’s popular doesn’t make it right or even acceptable.
I’ll avoid invoking Godwin’s law, but a majority of those in China think that experimentation on prisoners is acceptable.
I’m pretty sure you’re making this up.
I’m pretty sure you’re making this up.
Yep, completely off the top of my head. I doubt there’d be any evidence to the contrary, though, what with the whole “no freedom of speech” part.
Sorry, I usually prefer to stick with verifiable facts, but invoking either the WWII-era German and Japanese experiments would be a bit close to Godwin’s law for my tastes, and the Holmesburg (and other prison) scandals from the late 40s to the mid-70s aren’t well enough known to get a worthwhile reaction.
Ok then.
It’s just that China is one of my specialties, so to speak. I speak Mandarin and have spent a good deal of time there, and considering the way that news is controlled there (the internet notwithstanding) it would surprise me greatly if the majority of Chinese even knew about the medical experiments on prisoners, much less approved.
For that matter I would be surprised if many German or Japanese civilians during WWII knew about a lot of the disgusting things being done in the camps and Manchuria. Such things were not exactly featured in the propaganda.
suh,
Let us use the same standard here. You are quite willing to blame religion in a broad stroke. I have been careful to delineate between three great experiments we have in the modern history below. If you are free to blame fundamentalist religion on Bush and America. Then we should use the same standard for atheism, shouldn’t we? Communism is an openly atheistic gov system. It has killed hundreds of millions of people. It is fundamentalist in the sense that it want to impose atheism on the people at gun-point. It enslaved more than a billion people. That ‘s just a fact.
Communism is fundamentalist in its belief and enforcement of atheism. So the term fundamentalist atheism is quite appropriate here. I see the same fundamentalist atheistic tendency in organizations like the ACLU in America.
(1) American constitutional democracy based on the founding principle of “inalienable rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness as endowed by the creator” that no gov can take away. The key concept here there is a higher power than the gov of man (the creator). I don’t see how that can come from non-religion.
(2) The atheistic utopia in Nazi Germany and Communist Soviet Union.
(3) The Islamic theocracies like Iran, Taliban
For that matter I would be surprised if many German or Japanese civilians during WWII knew about a lot of the disgusting things being done in the camps and Manchuria. Such things were not exactly featured in the propaganda.
—————————————————
Mantis,
Experimenting on prisoners is disgusting and ethically despicable. So we shouldn’t propagate the propaganda about Embryonic stem-cell research in the same deceptive spirit. You should be disgusted as well.