Court allows US stem cell funding to continue

Apr 29, 2011
A researcher removes a colony of stem cells from a incubator. A US appeals court ruled that efforts to block federal funding for embryonic stem cell research were unlikely to prevail, overturning a judge's ruling that put funding on hold last year.

A US federal appeals court on Friday ruled that government funding for embryonic stem cell research can go ahead, handing a major victory to President Barack Obama's administration.

The ruling tossed out a ban on federal funds ordered by a judge last year, after a coalition of groups argued that a 1996 law makes it illegal to use taxpayer cash to pay for research that destroys human embryos.

The 2-1 decision said opponents of the research were not likely to win their battle in court, so funding should resume.

"We conclude the plaintiffs are unlikely to prevail," read the decision by the US Court of Appeals in Washington, referring to a coalition of groups that challenged the legality of the research.

"We therefore vacate the preliminary injunction."

The ruling was hailed by both the White House and the National Institutes of Health, which allocated about $40 million to human embryonic stem cell research in 2010 and has set aside $125 million this year -- a tiny fraction of its $31 billion budget.

"Responsible stem cell research has the potential to treat some of our most devastating diseases and conditions and offers hope to families across the country and around the world," said Nick Papas, a White House spokesman.

"Today's ruling is a victory for our scientists and patients around the world who stand to benefit from the groundbreaking medical research they're pursuing."

Obama lifted a ban on federal funding for the research in March 2009. His predecessor George W. Bush had blocked government funding for human embryonic stem cell research on new cell lines, citing religious grounds.

At issue in the latest court fight was a 1996 amendment to a US law called the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, which barred using taxpayer funds in research that destroys embryos.

In August 2010, US District Court Judge Royce Lamberth took seriously a court challenge brought by a coalition of groups that opposed the research and issued an order to ban federal money until the legal battle could be resolved.

A series of court decisions followed that temporarily lifted his ban. Friday's decision vacated the Lamberth ruling and allows funding to go ahead, even if more legal challenges may follow.

"Because Dickey-Wicker is ambiguous and the NIH seems reasonably to have concluded that, although Dickey-Wicker bars funding for the destructive act of deriving an ESC (embryonic stem cell) from an embryo, it does not prohibit funding a research project in which an ESC will be used," read the decision.

Researchers say stem cells, the foundation for all human cells, provide promising avenues for scientists and could lead to cures for paralysis, blindness, diabetes and and other diseases.

"I am delighted and relieved to learn of the decision of the Court of Appeals," said a statement by NIH director Francis Collins.

"This is a momentous day -- not only for science, but for the hopes of thousands of patients and their families who are relying on NIH-funded scientists to pursue life-saving discoveries and therapies that could come from stem cell research."

Columbia Law School associate professor Abbe Gluck pointed out that the two judges who ruled together in the case were appointed by the former Republican administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

"Although stem-cell research generally has been a politically charged issue, this decision was handed down by two Republican-appointed judges," Gluck said.

"The opinion is significant because the contrary result -- an order freezing use of federal funds on research on existing stem cell lines -- could have jeopardized much of the incredibly important research underway."

The first two US trials of human embryonic stem cells to treat paralysis and blindness were launched late last year, both by private companies that did not rely on federal funds.

Explore further: The microbes make the sake brewery

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Appeals court considers ban on stem cell research

Sep 27, 2010

(AP) -- The Obama administration has told an appeals court that a judge's order halting federal funding of stem cell research would result in destruction of valuable biological materials and set back taxpayer-funded work.

Feds appeal order blocking stem cell research

Sep 01, 2010

(AP) -- The Obama administration on Tuesday asked a federal judge to lift a restraining order that it says could undercut federally funded embryonic stem cell research.

Court asked to keep stem cell money flowing

Sep 08, 2010

(AP) -- The Obama administration is asking a federal appeals court to lift an order blocking federal funding for some stem cell research, a day after being turned down by the judge who issued the order.

Recommended for you

The microbes make the sake brewery

Jul 24, 2014

A sake brewery has its own microbial terroir, meaning the microbial populations found on surfaces in the facility resemble those found in the product, creating the final flavor according to research published ahead of print ...

User comments : 60

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Moebius
3.3 / 5 (14) Apr 29, 2011
More importantly the forces of stupidity and evil lost a round.
dogbert
1.3 / 5 (12) Apr 29, 2011
Another instance of activist judges making law. The Dickey-Wicker Act is law. Saying that it does not matter is in fact judges making law.
gorillagardener
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 29, 2011
It's interesting that these judges were Republican appointed. It would seem that their consciences trumped their politics.
dogbert
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 30, 2011
It's interesting that these judges were Republican appointed. It would seem that their consciences trumped their politics.


The point which should be made is that judges are not supposed to make rulings based on politics or conscience. They are supposed to uphold the law.

They have no constitutional right to make law.
frajo
4 / 5 (4) Apr 30, 2011
The Dickey-Wicker Act is law. Saying that it does not matter is in fact judges making law.
I think they are neither acting out of conscience nor in order to make law. Instead, they seem to introduce a new method of overruling older rulings. (I'm not historian nor judicial expert, so this method could, in fact, be quite old.)

The same method was used some years ago by the German Supreme Court to rule that participating in the aggressive NATO war against Yugoslavia was not against the (pseudo) Constitution which explicitly, under threat of penalty, forbids any preparation of an aggression war. The German judges essentially said: "participation does not equal preparation".

The US judges in this case essentially say "using hESC does not equal deriving hESC".

In both cases the judges are indecent tricksters. Although they are verbally correct, they obviously negate the clearly expressed intention of previous and higher law.
They act like ancient sophists: immorally.
tkjtkj
5 / 5 (3) Apr 30, 2011

The point which should be made is that judges are not supposed to make rulings based on politics or conscience. They are supposed to uphold the law.

They have no constitutional right to make law.

That is not quite true. It seems that you equate a judge finding a law to be unconstitutional with 'making' law. It's a convenient and attractive 'game of words' that appeals to the illogical among us.
Judges, from your point of view, do 'make the law' every time the do their job, whether it is upholding a law or rejecting it. "Making the law" is the job of the Congress, yes. That is what they do. A judge "unmaking" the law is not simultaneously 'making' it.

dogbert
1 / 5 (6) Apr 30, 2011
"Making the law" is the job of the Congress, yes. That is what they do. A judge "unmaking" the law is not simultaneously 'making' it.


Illogical.
kaasinees
2.2 / 5 (10) Apr 30, 2011
"Making the law" is the job of the Congress, yes. That is what they do. A judge "unmaking" the law is not simultaneously 'making' it.


Illogical.


Said the troll who believes in a sky fairy.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 30, 2011
More importantly the forces of stupidity and evil lost a round.


Right...because killing an innocent human being in order to save another is so "moral".
FrankHerbert
2.1 / 5 (11) Apr 30, 2011
Embryos are not people.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 30, 2011
Embryos are not people.


Yes they are, fool.

You were an embryo once.
210
1 / 5 (2) Apr 30, 2011
Embryos are not people.


Yes they are, fool.

You were an embryo once.


I think they were trying to tell you how they FELT about themselves, perhaps?
-word-to-ya-muthas-
Moebius
1 / 5 (3) May 01, 2011
More importantly the forces of stupidity and evil lost a round.


Right...because killing an innocent human being in order to save another is so "moral".


Killing all the extra embryos so one can be implanted in some selfish idiot woman's womb is more ethical? At least they are of some use since they're going to be killed anyway. Consider it an organ donation from the dead. Better, a gift that keeps on giving. They couldn't sign the paper but those that would actually have been human would if they could.

Stopping stem cell research now over ethical issues that hold as much water as Trump's birther claims merely delays the knowledge that would be used to save many lives, many more lives than the embryos lost. It's more ethical to sacrifice the lives of living thinking adults?

The issue will go away soon, needing embryonic stem cells is temporary and will inevitably not be necessary. We need the knowledge now to make that happen. It would be immoral to wait.
dogbert
1.6 / 5 (7) May 01, 2011
The issue will go away soon, needing embryonic stem cells is temporary and will inevitably not be necessary. We need the knowledge now to make that happen.


The old "The end justifies the means" argument. The law doesn't matter. Death does not matter. All that matters is knowledge.

It has always been a bankrupt argument and it remains a bankrupt argument.
Moebius
2.3 / 5 (6) May 01, 2011
Death does matter. When in vitro fertilization is used they purposely create many extra embryos. What do you think happens to them? Is it ethical to create these embryos for the express purpose of killing them (and this is done by pro-life christians too)? Is it not more ethical for them to save lives instead of just going to the dumpster? No one is creating embyos for stem cell research.

The end does justify the means sometimes and the law only matters if you happen to agree with it. Did the law matter when it mandated blacks to the back of the bus?

Your arguments are tired, illogical, unethical and come from an ignorant biased point of view. You would be biased the other way if someone you loved could only be saved by stem cell therapy but like most people it has to hit home before you understand.
dogbert
1.7 / 5 (6) May 01, 2011
When in vitro fertilization is used they purposely create many extra embryos. ... Is it ethical to create these embryos for the express purpose of killing them ...


In vitro fertilization raises several concerns including concerns about the health of the embryo and subsequent child.

You would be biased the other way if someone you loved could only be saved by stem cell therapy but like most people it has to hit home before you understand.


I am not opposed to reasonable stem cell research or therapy. Most people are not opposed to adult stem cell research. Since adult stem cell therapy has been medically useful and embryonic stem cell therapy has not, your argument is tired and illogical.
tkjtkj
5 / 5 (1) May 01, 2011
People: an 'embryo' is NOT 'harvested' for any purpose whatsoever: embryo's are NOT harvested at all! Laparoscopic surgery is used to harvest a number of the woman's EGGS, ie, unfertilized haploid egg cells. They are not 'people'. They are not harvested for the purpose of killing them. They are harvested to assure that the entire purpose of the procedure will finally produce a single viable egg, which then will be fertilized in a sterile dish. If extra eggs are obtained and used for other purposes, aND you maintain that this is sinful, it must logically follow that the excess sperm produced at each ejaculation is, likewise, sinful/murderous/etc ..

The folly of that line of reasoning ought to be apparent to the most-cretin-like of us, here.
dogbert
1.7 / 5 (6) May 01, 2011
tkjtkj ,

An embryo is different from an ova or sperm.

There really is a difference.

There is also a difference between a natural process and an artificial process.
tkjtkj
3.5 / 5 (2) May 01, 2011
tkjtkj ,

An embryo is different from an ova or sperm.



That was the point of my comment: Embryo's are NOT harvested: Eggs are .. (and yes , eggs = ova). Please re-read my note .. my 30 yrs practicing medicine did prepare me for knowing the difference. .. but thanks for contributing.
dogbert
1.3 / 5 (6) May 01, 2011
That was the point of my comment: Embryo's are NOT harvested: Eggs are .. (and yes , eggs = ova). Please re-read my note .. my 30 yrs practicing medicine did prepare me for knowing the difference. .. but thanks for contributing.


I might have believed that if you had not finished with this:

If extra eggs are obtained and used for other purposes, aND you maintain that this is sinful, it must logically follow that the excess sperm produced at each ejaculation is, likewise, sinful/murderous/etc ..


That comment is just asinine.
LuckyBrandon
2.7 / 5 (6) May 01, 2011
this is great news. a stem cell transplant saved my sons life when he was battling his 2nd bout with Leukemia. If it weren't for the stem cells, he would've died due to a lack of matching donors (including my other 3 children).
stem cell studies should continue on forever!

and for you neigh sayers, hopefully you'll never have to see this, but watch your 1 yr old get cancer and grow to a 5 yr old who is dying, then watch him get saved by stem cells, then see if you say the same thing....
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) May 01, 2011
Yes they are, fool.

You were an embryo once.
-And the best part of you ran down etc etc.
It's interesting that these judges were Republican appointed. It would seem that their consciences trumped their politics.


The point which should be made is that judges are not supposed to make rulings based on politics or conscience. They are supposed to uphold the law.

They have no constitutional right to make law.
The point should also be made that lawmakers should not be passing ridiculous politically-inspired but obviously unconstitutional laws which only serve to garner them votes while wasting the courts time and the peoples taxes in having to rescind them.

These lawmakers usually know better because most of them are lawyers themselves. And yet they pass illegal laws which do NOTHING but line the pockets of fellow lawyers who get to fight endlessly over the unfair and unwarranted results of them.

Lawyers should NOT be allowed to make laws.
dogbert
1.7 / 5 (6) May 01, 2011
Lawyers should NOT be allowed to make laws.


Good comment. Reasonable.

But why this:

The point should also be made that lawmakers should not be passing ridiculous politically-inspired but obviously unconstitutional laws ...


What is unconstitutional about denying federal funding to embryonic stem cell research? Not even the court which said they did not like the law and would not enforce it did not say it was unconstitutional.
FrankHerbert
0.8 / 5 (50) May 01, 2011
LMAO dogbert's go to insult is "illogical" yet he is a christian. wtf.

Also, yes I was an embryo. I was also inorganic matter at one point too. What's your point? Just because something becomes a person doesn't mean it is one.

And for those that doubt the validity of evolution, have you ever watched the development of an embryo? I'm sure god just threw those tails and gills in there for shits and giggles, right?
tkjtkj
3.7 / 5 (3) May 01, 2011

I might have believed that if you had not finished with this:
..it must logically follow that the excess sperm produced at each ejaculation is, likewise, sinful/murderous/etc ..

That comment is just asinine.

Oh ... i see!! a female's gametes are sacred; male gametes are not. Lotsa luck to you and youR misogynist views! You want to punish women for beign part of wasting gametes, but not men .. Is there any limit to your unbalanced and contradictory views?
dogbert
1.7 / 5 (6) May 01, 2011
tkjtkj ,

You keep confusing sperm and ova with an embryo and then making foolish statements about your misunderstanding. It is not misogynist to note that neither sperm nor ova are embryos.

You said you were a physician?
dogbert
2.4 / 5 (8) May 01, 2011
FrankHerbert,
LMAO dogbert's go to insult is "illogical" yet he is a christian. wtf.


No, I did not seek to insult anyone. An argument which is illogical is illogical. Pointing that out is not an insult.
orsr
not rated yet May 02, 2011
Question to christian opponents of ESC research:
At which point does God breath a soul into the embryo, making it a human being?
Remember, that these embryos were not created the way YHWH planned it, i.e. inside a woman's body, i.e. the whole process leading to ESC is blasphemous.
frajo
1 / 5 (1) May 02, 2011
Lots of low level here.
selfish idiot woman's
Denigration.
The end does justify the means sometimes
Barbaric.
the most-cretin-like
Denigration.
my 30 yrs practicing medicine did prepare me for knowing the difference
Not falsifiable.
asinine
Insult.
a stem cell transplant saved my sons life
Not falsifiable.
misogynist views
Denigration.
christian opponents of ESC research
Imprecise. hESC is different from ESC.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) May 02, 2011
Lots of low level here.
Indeed. Not like the usual marjon and jigga bashing. Funny how perspective affects morality eh?
physyD
2 / 5 (4) May 02, 2011
It's interesting that these judges were Republican appointed. It would seem that their consciences trumped their politics.


The point which should be made is that judges are not supposed to make rulings based on politics or conscience. They are supposed to uphold the law.

They have no constitutional right to make law.


I agree wholeheartedly. Same thing is happening all the time up here in Canada. A law is set up in parliment and stamped by the senate but some judge somewhere strikes it down because he/she thinks it offends someone. They forget that virtually all laws are there to govern behaviour. The people are supposes to choose what is considered acceptable and the judge enforce it. If you follow their logic, then all laws are unconstitutional.
My 2cents.
physyD
2 / 5 (4) May 02, 2011
I should also add that whether the law is moral or immoral is not the point of my statement supporting dogberts comment. The current law defines what a person is, not what a human is. A "person" is arbitrary and changes dependent on current politics while "human or Homo Sapien" is suppose to be scientific. "Human" begins at conception (only possible definition is from DNA. Embryos DNA is different from mother and will be the same till after death, therefore different human) and "person" begins and ends when the courts decide. Embryonic research is a current allowed and enforced behaviour, despite the fact that it is human. Human life is cheap and getting cheaper so expect more allowed behaviour on the horizon.
J-n
3.7 / 5 (3) May 02, 2011
So the excess (sometimes hundreds) embryos that are created during invitro feterlization are usually destroyed.

I guess that in my mind I see all of this waste of potentially useful material being destroyed because they arent allowed to use them for science. We are only allowed to destroy them.

In previous articles on this site I have seen many of the christian faith argue that parents have the right to deny their children lifesaving treatment. Why, then, would parents not be allowed to donate embryos (that are destined to be destroyed) for scientific pourposes?

I also asume that most christians posting here are Pro-Death penalty, right? So you're happy to kill someone who is an adult, but will condem people to die of possibly preventable illnesses because it would involve the use of an embryo that is going to be destroyed anyway.

That is where i see the illogic.

Please let me know where i might be wrong.
dogbert
1.7 / 5 (6) May 02, 2011
J-n,

The common expression for your question is "Do two wrongs make a right?".

Many people would argue that making embryos beyond what is needed is wrong.

Many would argue it is wrong to experiment on human embryos.

Your argument is esentially that two wrongs make a right.

J-n
4 / 5 (4) May 02, 2011
The embryos are made. They are made because they are needed for a procedure that is preformed on and by those who are very religous, christians even. Either the embryos are destroyed or they get used for something good.

As long as in-vitro fertilization happens these embryos will be destroyed. So, as long as the procedure is still preformed, why not have those that are marked for destruction be used in a way that bennifits all of mankind?

I suppouse you are also against the pill too huh?
Are you Pro-Death Penalty?

I guess this all stems from people's unwavering belief in a book that advocates slavery, and the viewing of a slave as a second class citizen? Why should we advocate laws be passed because of what this book says?

dogbert
1.6 / 5 (7) May 02, 2011
J-n,

Why are you attacking me? And no, I am mot against the pill, but I understand that some people find the pill to be offensive.

You asked the question. I just pointed out that your argument is not a good argument because muultiple wrongs never make right.

Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) May 02, 2011
D-W says simply, federal money cannot go to fund abortion, or to fund endeavors in which abortion is a necessity.

The study of embryonic stem cells does not require abortion. Utilizing D-W to prevent this funding is not established in the law. THe judges simply followed the law.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) May 02, 2011
As an aside: why is it always the small government proponents that want to use morality laws to restrain the rest of the populace?
J-n
5 / 5 (1) May 02, 2011
I did not mean to attack you. If you felt that i was attacking you personally please accecpt my apology.

I should have just responded by saying that it is just your individual beliefs that make either of the situations "Wrong" as you put it. According to my beliefs Life does not start at conception.

My point about the pill is that often The egg is fertilized and because of the hormones in the pill the egg cannot implant it's self in the womb and the body expells it. Meaning that a fertilized egg is expelled frm the body and destroyed.

This does not happen all the time but it is what happens sometimes.

Just seems like hyprocrasy.
dogbert
1.7 / 5 (6) May 02, 2011
J-n,

I should have just responded by saying that it is just your individual beliefs that make either of the situations "Wrong" as you put it.


But I did not express my individual beliefs. I merely pointed out that saying "Perhaps creating embryos that we won't be using is wrong, but since we have them, why don't we do [whatever] with them" is a poor argument.

You asked "Please let me know where i might be wrong."

If you understand that people do believe that artificially creating embryos is wrong and understand that people do believe that experimenting on human embryos is wrong, you should be able to make the connection that using these "excess" embryos is not acceptable to those who believe it is wrong, even though they are "excess" and about to be destroyed.

The argument is just a poor argument without regard to the validity of the belief that human embryos are special and should be treated specially.
dogbert
1.6 / 5 (7) May 02, 2011
Skeptic_Heretic
D-W says simply, federal money cannot go to fund abortion, or to fund endeavors in which abortion is a necessity.


Actually, no. The Dickey-Wicker amendment prohibits [the use of federal funds for] the creation of a human embryo of embryos for research purposes or research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death ...

The court did not rule properly. The court just ruled that it was ignoring the law.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) May 02, 2011
Many would argue it is wrong to experiment on human embryos.
You want to prevent embryos from being used in experiments but fail to understand the experimental nature of healthcare, which routinely uses procedures and treatments which have unknown success rates on patients who, because of their illnesses, have the limited will to refuse them.

The profession learns from successes and failures. Failure can mean death. Are you saying that since embryos cannot choose how they die, we cannot do so either?
dogbert
1.7 / 5 (6) May 02, 2011
You want to prevent embryos from being used in experiments but fail to understand the experimental nature of healthcare, which routinely uses procedures and treatments which have unknown success rates on patients who, because of their illnesses, have the limited will to refuse them.


I work in health care, do you?

I understand about informed consent. Do you?

Patients often endure procedures necessary because of their illnesses. I don't suppose an embryo is enduring procedures to treat its illness.
FrankHerbert
0.9 / 5 (52) May 02, 2011
dogbert works in healthcare. Great.
kaasinees
1.6 / 5 (7) May 02, 2011
dogbert, praying to your sky fairy does not entitle to healthcare.
dogbert
1.8 / 5 (5) May 02, 2011
kaasinees,

You proselytize a lot. Do you find that more rewarding than discussing issues?
frajo
3 / 5 (2) May 03, 2011
As an aside: why is it always the small government proponents that want to use morality laws to restrain the rest of the populace?
No, it is not "always" the small governments proponents.
And no, it's not about restraining the rest of the populace.
And no, it's not about morality. It's about ethics instead.

The ethical question being: "Do humans want to be treated like objects one can experiment with and discard them at will?"

Otherwise:
Why not torture (and accept the inevitability of innocent victims)?
Why not eat soylent green?
Why not discard of the terminal ill?
Why not discard of all human beings who "restrain" the rest of the populace by imposing economic burdens?
frajo
3 / 5 (2) May 03, 2011
Whoever is using religion as an argument in this context only shows his incompetence in discussing ethical questions.
In particular the subset of atheists ought to ponder whether they don't confuse religious and humanitarian thinking.

And no, it is _not_ humanitarian to kill one innocent person in order to save another person. It is _not_ humanitarian to kill one innocent person in order to save one million people.
It's time we overcome the epoch of human sacrifice.
dogbert
1 / 5 (5) May 03, 2011
frajo,

Well stated!
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) May 03, 2011
You want to prevent embryos from being used in experiments but fail to understand the experimental nature of healthcare, which routinely uses procedures and treatments which have unknown success rates on patients who, because of their illnesses, have the limited will to refuse them.


I work in health care, do you?
Im guessing homeopathy?

I understand about informed consent. Do you?
Apparently you don't grasp the power of 'no other choice' and 'scared stiff'.

Patients often endure procedures necessary because of their illnesses. I don't suppose an embryo is enduring procedures to treat its illness.
And the accumulated statistics from such procedures further refine the efficacy of treatment. This is the nature of experiment. Hospitals and clinics are akin to labs. Bloodletting did not work very well. We eventually learned that. Embryos are incapable of enduring anything. Either way they are destroyed.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) May 03, 2011
And no, it's not about morality. It's about ethics instead.
"Ethics, also known as moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that addresses questions about moralitythat is, concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice, etc."

I see. Calling morality 'ethics' leaves it open to endless discussion and obfuscation with word spaghetti by academic leeches and overeducated Religionists. It enables ideologues to use inciteful and inflammatory but essentially meaningless catchphrases like:
And no, it is _not_ humanitarian to kill one innocent person in order to save another person. It is _not_ humanitarian to kill one innocent person in order to save one million people.
It's time we overcome the epoch of human sacrifice.
Your diatribe essentially describes EXACTLY how modern healthcare works. And obscenely, it equates a brainless, senseless ball of cells with living, breathing, feeling human beings. Well stated_you_religionist.
COMPJ
1 / 5 (2) May 03, 2011
Imo, furthering medicine with stem cells promising future is a must. On that note, there are convicted child molesters, murderers, death row, and lifetermers sitting eating 3 meals a day that could give back to the community. Just saying :-)
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) May 03, 2011
Whoever is using religion as an argument in this context only shows his incompetence in discussing ethical questions.
Translation: you are not intelligent or schooled enough to know right from wrong. The typical rebuttal of the erudite philosopher. Slap them first and show them their place.

It is morally_right to use embryos to save lives. It is morally_wrong to use 'ethics' to try to prevent this. For instance the phrase 'human sacrifice' equates to nothing relating to this argument. It is obscene in this context and extremely dishonest. Any politician would tell you this if tortured into confession.
dogbert
1.7 / 5 (6) May 03, 2011
TheGhostofOtto1923,

Your statements translate into "I don't care about morals or ethics, nor do I care about any other arguments, I want what I want".

Not a good argument, but you have adequately expressed your position.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) May 03, 2011
As an aside: why is it always the small government proponents that want to use morality laws to restrain the rest of the populace?
No, it is not "always" the small governments proponents.
I'd suggest if you're going to comment on the political system in America, that you subject yourself to it first.
And no, it's not about restraining the rest of the populace. And no, it's not about morality. It's about ethics instead.
It's about reducing the ability to choose to undergo a medical procedure, regardless of the ethics or stance taken by proponents or opponents.
The ethical question being: "Do humans want to be treated like objects one can experiment with and discard them at will?"
Do you think a zygote is a human, frajo?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) May 03, 2011
TheGhostofOtto1923,

Your statements translate into "I don't care about morals or ethics, nor do I care about any other arguments, I want what I want".

Not a good argument, but you have adequately expressed your position.
-And you only conclude these things because you seek to denigrate me in order to further your own religionist agenda, and because you don't think very well. Obviously.
dogbert
1.7 / 5 (6) May 03, 2011
TheGhostofOtto1923,

The "I don't like your religion" argument is a poor argument.

(Everything is not about religion.)
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) May 04, 2011
You misunderstand. I dont like any religion. Your religious beliefs make you think the way you think and say the things you say, which are obviously flawed and inappropriate.

Religion is about everything bad in the world.
dogbert
1 / 5 (4) May 04, 2011
You misunderstand. I dont like any religion.


I do understand that.

I tried to tell you that religion does not have to be the subject of every conversation. Your thoughts and actions are strongly influenced by your dislike of religion.

Everything is not about religion and religious beliefs (or lack thereof) do not have to be associated with every thought and action.

Injecting religion into every argument hinders communication. It tends to cloud issues rather than clarifying them.
J-n
5 / 5 (1) May 05, 2011
It is correct that religion does not need to be in this subject.

I for one will state that I do not believe that an embryo is a human. Therefore there is nothing immoral or unethical by using them as a tool.