Stem Cell Research Breakthrough

[Herculosis]

Reprogramming apparently has been shown to be viable.

http://tinyurl.com/23sfz3

I've always believed that stem cells held great promise in our future for treating and/or curing lots of things. But, I also saw the ethical problems with the embryonic approach.

This new approach sounds better than anything I've ever heard before, and completely moots all ethical questions.

This is truly phenomenal news! Assuming it doesn't turn out to be another \"cold fusion\", everyone WILL jump on this bandwagon. Hopefully, then research will get the real funding it needs to move things along more quickly.

[roid]

the only difference between a Pluripotent stem cell and an Embyronic stem cell is that the Pluripotent cell can't make extra-embryonic cells like the placenta. But it can still make the embryo/fetus, just not the placenta surrounding to connect it to the mother.

That's pretty trivial if you ask me, the placenta is rather simple - and we don't even consider it \"human\" (it is discarded, we don't hold a burial for it and cry lol).

If you ask me, it'd be simple to create a viable embryo (ie: along with placenta or a functional equivalent) from a Pluripotent Stem Cell.

And then you're back to the whole \"oh lordy we are wasting embryonic cells that could have turned into babies!\" ignorant quagmire of a moral debate. - As if skin cells should be treated ethically any different to Egg and Sperm Cells.

[Herculosis]

I have no interest in arguing your \"points\", but it seems as though you missed mine.

The main point is that skirting the ethical question entirely should allow SC research to go forward full-speed, likely with federal support and funding. It gets us past the impasse, and what WERE two opposing sides on the issue should now BOTH be on the same side. That's a RARE thing these days, and we should welcome and applaud it.

Yes, there will STILL be an argument over over the ethical aspects of using embryonic stem cells, but mostly by those that just want to fight. Anyone that's more interested in seeing the resulting medical advancements come to fruition will see this as a blessing. And again, that's all assuming that it really works.

[roid]

heh, well yeah that kinda goes without saying.

[Bet51987]

I just can't wait until President Bush leaves office. I can only hope one of my presidential choices wins so we can join the other countries that are already far ahead in stem-cell research. This president is an education failure.

Bee

[TIGERassault]

I could never quite understand what people had against stem-cell research. It's not like anyone's gonna go get pregnant and have an abortion just because it helps for some expleriments.

[Behemoth]

I wholeheartedly agree on stem cell research, And Herc you have a good point..
Without the ethical issues arising on such a moot area we can now get moving further along with this promising news.

[Bet51987]

I wholeheartedly agree on stem cell research...

Do you? If this method doesn't work, would you support the old method that destroys some embrionic cells? I'm just curious.

But the head of Geron Corp., a California biotech drug developer that has spent $100 million on human embryonic stem cell research, said the (new) technique wasn't likely "to bear any fruit."

Bettina

[Behemoth]

Placental stem cells, I don't disagree on embryonic
sources but they would not be my first resort.

[Firewheel]

The new method is far easier and probably less expensive in comparison to embryonic stem cells. Basically, everybody wins, but I'm sure that even if it's the discovery of the century, there will still be people whining about it.

[Foil]

If this method doesn't work, would you support the old method that destroys some embrionic cells?

I know this was directed to Behe, but I'd like to answer if it's okay.

It may well be that this new method isn't workable, just because it's being hyped so much in Christian circles (which in my experience tends to be more a sign of wishful thinking than good science). If that's the case, then I would have to return to my previous stance on sources of stem cells:

The ethical issue for me is not whether they come from embryos, as this encompasses a huge range of research, but whether those embryonic lives are being created solely for the purpose of being destroyed/used as a material source.

It's not so much a religious thing (actually, it's not real clear to me whether scripture says much about the technicalities of this issue); I simply think it's dangerous to begin treating human life as a resource, even if right now it seems like a far cry from the evil of human exploitation.

I know most probably don't agree with me, out of a sense of pragmatism in moving the research forward. Honestly, I want to see stem cell research get the chance to develop whatever it can, too.

Personally, I don't like the fact that human ethics and this promising research are so counter to each other in some cases, so I sincerely hope this new method works out, even if I'm somewhat dubious.

[Kilarin]

I know most probably don't agree with me, out of a sense of pragmatism in moving the research forward.

What disturbs me most about the entire stem cell issue is how frequently BOTH SIDES of the debate focus on whether or not stem cell treatments would work.

Whether or not the process works has NOTHING, nothing at ALL to do with whether the process is unethical.

For example, China is being accused of executing prisoners in order to sell off their organs for transplant <linky>.
Whether organ transplants work or not has NOTHING TO DO with the ethical debate about whether selling a prisoners organs is right or wrong.

Embryonic stem cell harvesting could be a panacea that will save millions of lives, and still be something that was wrong to do.

Embryonic stem cell harvesting could turn out to be a medical joke, absolutely useless, and it still not be unethical to collect the cells.

The efficacy of the treatment is unrelated to the morality of the collection method.

[Jeff250]

The efficacy of the treatment is unrelated to the morality of the collection method.

Yes, but so what? Why restrict the ethical discussion to the morality of the collection method? When we ask a question like, "Should we perform stem cell treatments?" there are going to be a lot more ethical factors at play than just whether or not the collection method is moral.

[Kilarin]

Why restrict the ethical discussion to the morality of the collection method?

I wouldn't. BUT, I do think that if is going to be an "ethical discussion" we should actually be discussing ethical questions.

When we ask a question like, "Should we perform stem cell treatments?" there are going to be a lot more ethical factors at play than just whether or not the collection method is moral.

But the question "Is it effective" is not an ethical one. It's a very interesting question in a medical debate. It has no place in an ethical debate. On either side. The attempts by the conservatives to show that stem cell treatments don't work well are just as pointless to the ethical debate as the arguments on the other side that stem cell treatments will revolutionize medicine.

Whether using stem cells is efficacious is an independent question from whether using stem cells is ethical.

Growing clones to full maturity in order to harvest their organs for transplanting into rich individuals is unethical, whether the treatment would work or not.

Acupuncture is not inherently unethical, whether it works or not.

The only time the efficacy of the treatment is an ethical question is when someone is making false claim about a treatment. And that is a VERY different question from whether or not the treatment is inherently unethical to perform.

[roid]

Leonardo da Vinci was accused of Necromancy when he \"desecrated\" dead human bodys. Yet now we have modern medicine, and organ transplants. Organ transplants would have been unthinkable until we realised they worked. \"cutting up a dead body? putting pieces of it into another body?! LOLWUT?!\". BURN YOU AT THE STAKE

It may sound nice to say that the ends have nothing to do with the means. But it generally takes some social-pariah trailblazer to go out on a limb and shake things up, before we entertain the idea that she was right - retroactively.

It takes someone to break the rules before we can question the rules. Like gay marriage

[Behemoth]

There are no rules concerning this though roid.

Only someone looking to pick a religion/science would question ethics on this matter.

Foil's point was well thought out, As long as it's not babies being created for the sole purpose of extraction it's a fine idea.

But the thing's people will do for money these day's doesn't make me wonder if it's not already planned out sometime in the near future.

[Jeff250]

But the question "Is it effective" is not an ethical one. It's a very interesting question in a medical debate. It has no place in an ethical debate. On either side. The attempts by the conservatives to show that stem cell treatments don't work well are just as pointless to the ethical debate as the arguments on the other side that stem cell treatments will revolutionize medicine.

Whether using stem cells is efficacious is an independent question from whether using stem cells is ethical.

What do you mean? Whether or not the treatments are effective is directly related to whether or not they will save human lives and cure debilitating diseases. Surely these things have something to do with ethics?

[Palzon]

Kilarin is absolutely correct. In fact, his first post is one of the most concise and cogent I've ever read on this board. Refreshing really.

If it is unethical then it is wrong to procede regardless of the efficacy. Perhaps this is not the place to argue whether or not it is ethical. But the point must be recognized that if stem cell work is unethical it shouldn't be practiced. If it is not unethical then the decision to procede does not hinge on the prospect of success.

I would add that there are no free lunches in science any more than in ethics. This is implied in Kilarin's post but I wanted to make it explicit: Science advances by testing theories that seem promising. But our greatest advances come by learning from our mistakes. By not pursuing an ethical course of research - we would lose the opportunity to be pointed in some new and even more fruitful direction.

I want to mention that all Judeo-Christian-Islamic beliefs are based on a Deontological system of ethics versus a Consequentialist system. You do what ought to be done for the sole reason that it is what ought to be done. Consequences plays no role. In the theistic tradition - God's will and what ought to be done are synonymous. It's a trivial point really.

However, I'm surprised no one has yet asked - don't you think there will be resistance to this even if reprogramming has no human embryos involved? With all due respect, I think a case could be made that those against the research aren't always the most rational bunch. So why should we expect them to recognize that this is unobjectionable? Would they not simply claim that it wasn't merely the involvement of embryos to which they object - but also to the notion that such manipulation of life is sinful dabbling in creation?

Lastly, regarding the article - the author more than once refers to the \"paradox\" that scientists who formerly supported embryonic research are all too ready to abandon it completely in favor of reprogramming. On the contrary, it is wholly unparadoxical that scientists should shift their thinking based on new information. What would be paradoxical is if the fundamentialists were capable of same.

[roid]

There are no rules concerning this though roid.

Only someone looking to pick a religion/science would question ethics on this matter.

Foil's point was well thought out, As long as it's not babies being created for the sole purpose of extraction it's a fine idea.

But the thing's people will do for money these day's doesn't make me wonder if it's not already planned out sometime in the near future.

from what i can tell the rules are "fertilised eggs are sacred, either they turn into babys or they are aborted naturally and you should feel bad (if you ever knew about it)."

the rules used to be "humans die, you bury them. Don't cut them up & look at them, that's weird and i'll burn you".
hell, even before that the rules used to be "if you touch a woman who's on the rag you are unclean for the rest of the day".

see, rules, enforced by the ignorant no less.
Rules change when situations demand it. There are no Vegetarians in Ethiopia, if you get what i mean.


I wonder if we would have got to this stage with reprogramming cells back into Pluripotent-stem-cells if it wasn't for the embryonic-stem-cells research trailblazers.

[Kilarin]

If it is unethical then it is wrong to procede regardless of the efficacy.

Thanks, that sums it up.

Rules change when situations demand it.

And sometimes we are RIGHT to change, sometimes we are wrong to do so.

As Palzon pointed out:

Judeo-Christian-Islamic beliefs are based on a Deontological system of ethics versus a Consequentialist system. You do what ought to be done for the sole reason that it is what ought to be done. Consequences plays no role.

If the Germans cutting up Jews for scientific research was wrong, then it was wrong whether it helped advanced medicine or not. They shouldn't have done it, even if it was "For the good of all of us, except the ones who are dead..."

Humans, of course, do NOT always get the "rules" right. This makes it ENTIRELY valid to discuss whether the rules are right or wrong, and whether they should change. But whether they will work or not is not part of that debate.

[DCrazy]

Kilarin, there are plenty of people who subscribe to a far more utilitarian viewpoint than you. For them, the gruesome death of the few may be very much worth it for the benefit of the many. Your ethics are not universal.

[Foil]

...a far more utilitarian viewpoint... the gruesome death of the few may be very much worth it for the benefit of the many.

Note that there are also degrees of utilitarianism here.

Very few people would support the idea that the Nazis doing human experiments was 'worth it', despite the medical advances made.

However, it seems that many people support the idea that using embryonic lives is 'worth it', because of the promising research.

I know I may be in the minority as far as my sense of ethics, but I'm with Kilarin on this. If the method is wrong, it's wrong no matter how effective the research is.

[Kilarin]

Your ethics are not universal.

Say rather that they may not be accepted or applied universally, and I will agree with you!

Note that there are also degrees of utilitarianism here.

a very valid point. Most folks hit a "that's wrong no matter WHAT" point somewhere.

[TIGERassault]

The thing I don't like about ethics is that they're always entirely made up.

Whether or not the process works has NOTHING, nothing at ALL to do with whether the process is unethical.

It's generally considered a 'do a wrong to make a right' kinda thing. Dissecting pre-babies' bodies to help heal people is generally going to do more right than wrong.

[Foil]

The thing I don't like about ethics is that they're always entirely made up.

It's generally considered a 'do a wrong to make a right' kinda thing. Dissecting pre-babies' bodies to help heal people is generally going to do more right than wrong.

As DCrazy pointed out, ethics in these situations aren't universally held.

Some folks (like myself) believe there are some ethical 'absolutes', so they see some situations as good or evil independently of other things ("some things are right/wrong no matter what").

Other folks (like yourself) believe ethics is situational, so they see things as a matter of relative right/wrong ("the good outweighing the bad").

We could diverge into yet another discussion of fundamental ethics, but we already have a number of threads on that topic.

[Jeff250]

If it is unethical then it is wrong to procede regardless of the efficacy. Perhaps this is not the place to argue whether or not it is ethical. But the point must be recognized that if stem cell work is unethical it shouldn't be practiced. If it is not unethical then the decision to procede does not hinge on the prospect of success.

I don't think anyone is saying that we should perform stem cell treatments even if they are unethical. That would be a contradiction.

What many people reject though is that the treatments' efficacy cannot play a part in determining if it actually is ethical.

I know I may be in the minority as far as my sense of ethics, but I'm with Kilarin on this. If the method is wrong, it's wrong no matter how effective the research is.

Like I said above, if it's wrong, then it's wrong. But the question is whether or not the consequences of an action actually have any role in determining if it actually is wrong.

[Jeff250]

You don't even have to think that ethics is somehow born out of consequences a la the utilitarians to think that whether or not stem cell treatments work has something to do with whether they are ethical. Kilarin, I was surprised a while back in an earlier thread when you made a remark about how you proselytize to people even though you know they don't want you to and justified it with something like that saving them from hell is too important. Now, we all know that bugging people when they don't want you to is ordinarily wrong, but one might say that you identified the positive consequences of bugging them to be so great that that makes it ethical.

Of course, you probably wouldn't identify the goodness as coming out of the consequences themselves. You'd probably just say there's another divine rule that says that bugging people is not wrong if the consequences of bugging them fall into some particular category of goodness. But surely you can't deny that evaluating the consequences of bugging someone has something to do with evaluating whether or not it is ethical?

To take it to the extreme, Mill defends utilitarianism in general as not being ungodly by saying that a God would want as many of his creatures to be happy as possible. We can imagine God decreeing a rule that good actions are those that have the best consequences. But I don't think you have to think that he did to recognize that evaluating consequences can play a role in evaluating the good of an action in other rule-based ethical theories.

[Kilarin]

if it's wrong, then it's wrong. But the question is whether or not the consequences of an action actually have any role in determining if it actually is wrong.

There are some circumstances in which you must weigh to wrongs against each other. But only in certain limited circumstances.

To use an extreme example, suppose it was discovered that grinding up the brains of 2 year old babies produced a substance that would reverse aging. For this fantasy example we will assume that the child has to reach normal development of two, and that there is no way to synthesize this substance. Countless good could be done. Elderly people currently lying in puddles of their own urine in nursing homes could be healthy and productive citizens again.

If one baby brain would produce enough serum to restore youth to one person, would it be wrong to kill the baby? What if one baby brain would save ten people? A hundred? A thousand? At what point does it become RIGHT to murder the healthy 2 year old child in order to benefit the masses?

I'm not a situationalist. I believe that it would be wrong to murder the 2 year old kid no matter HOW many adult lives could be improved or saved.

The question of whether using embryonic stem cells is murdering a child is certainly debatable. But if it is, then it's wrong. Whether it is effective as a medical treatment or not. If its not murdering a child, if it's just cells, then there is nothing wrong with scientist experimenting with them, whether it works or not.

Kilarin, I was surprised a while back in an earlier thread when you made a remark about how you proselytize to people even though you know they don't want you to and justified it with something like that saving them from hell is too important. Now, we all know that bugging people when they don't want you to is ordinarily wrong, but one might say that you identified the positive consequences of bugging them to be so great that that makes it ethical.

An important clarification here. What I was defending at the time was the concept of making an approach. NOT of continuing to pester someone who has asked to be left alone. The example was a new friend asking you to church. ONCE. I don't see that as bugging someone if it is done politely. It would be no worse than asking a new friend if they wanted to join your health club or would like to visit a football game with you. Or, for a better example, offering to help a friend who is smoking to stop. If someone wasn't concerned about your smoking, I would think that indicated they didn't really care much about you. If they keep pestering you after the offer has been rejected, THEN they are "bugging" you.

But surely you can't deny that evaluating the consequences of bugging someone has something to do with evaluating whether or not it is ethical?

I don't really approve of proselytizing people who have requested that you not do so. But I think I can come up with a better example of a case where the consequences matter:

Restricting someone's freedom is certainly wrong. But we have quarantine laws in order to protect the rest of us from harm when someone has an infectious disease. In this case, clearly the consequences matter in the debate.

But note the important difference between the quarantine issue and stem cells. Quarantine is a case of trying to balance rights. You have a right to freedom of movement, but if you have an infectious disease, then your freedom of movement endangers someone else. IF the embryo has rights as a person, then it was in no way endangering those whom it is being sacrificed to save.

One is a case of restricting rights in order to try to prevent harm. The other is a case of hurting one person with the only purpose being to benefit someone else.

[Foil]

J250, you make a good point about how we can't completely separate the ethics of an action from it's consequences. I tend to agree, to an extent.

I think the consequences of an action factor into its value, but as someone who belives in ethical absolutes, I can't accept that any given set of good consequences can ever 'outweigh' an inherently evil action.

Or another way I think about it: Consider an inherently good action (e.g. helping an old lady across the street), but which has bad consequences (e.g. it causes a traffic accident). Before the accident, no one would argue that it was not a good action; however, after the fact, some might argue otherwise. This really doesn't make sense to me - downstream effects don't change the action, so why should it change our perception of it in hindsight?

*Personally, I think the value of an action has much more to do with intent than consequences.*

If I intended to help the old lady across the street, but unintentionally caused the accident, I still think the action was inherently good.

If I intended to steal the old lady's purse while helping her cross, but ended up only accidentally saving her from being run over, I still think the action was inherently bad.

[Dakatsu]

We could diverge into yet another discussion of fundamental ethics, but we already have a number of threads on that topic.

I could be wrong, but isn't that why this board is called Ethics and Commentary

[Jeff250]

Or another way I think about it: Consider an inherently good action (e.g. helping an old lady across the street), but which has bad consequences (e.g. it causes a traffic accident). Before the accident, no one would argue that it was not a good action; however, after the fact, some might argue otherwise. This really doesn't make sense to me - downstream effects don't change the action, so why should it change our perception of it in hindsight?

I'm not sure I'm following you here. We aren't really talking about any kind of unpredicted consequences here. The situation is, suppose we knew that stem cell treatments were capable of effectively healing all kinds of people. I think that if a person knew that doing something you call inherently good--helping an old person across the street--would cause a traffic accident, then helping that person across the street would be evil. Now, it might be by virtue of the bad consequences that it's evil or it might be because of some greater rule like, "Don't be responsible for personal injury," but knowing the consequences aids us in ethical evaluation.

One is a case of restricting rights in order to try to prevent harm. The other is a case of hurting one person with the only purpose being to benefit someone else

So you're saying that the key component is that the person who is quarantined would actually be the agent of the harm that is being prevented by his quarantine? If so, my initial response is, so what? Why feel justified in restricting somebody for, by no fault of his own, catching an infectious disease but not for other reasons in order to serve the greater good? It seems like an arbitrary distinction.

IF the embryo has rights as a person, then it was in no way endangering those whom it is being sacrificed to save.

Maybe it doesn't have human rights. Maybe it has something akin to animal rights for its stage of development. Harming animals is wrong, but we still eat them.

[Duper]

just a quick interjection for some clarification. \"harming\" an animal is not the same as killing them for fude. Causing them extended pain via experiments or just someone's personality is wrong.

If so, why?

[DCrazy]

I think the mainstream position is that harming animals for pleasure is wrong. PETA seem to believe that harming animals for our advantage (in any situation) is wrong.

[Kilarin]

isn't that why this board is called Ethics and Commentary

Well, Yes. But Foil wasn't saying we have other forums on Ethics, he was saying that we have (several) other threads within the Ethics and Commentary section on the the basis of ethics. Heck, I've got another unfinished thread that's skirting the topic right now that I've got to get back to when I have some more time.

Why feel justified in restricting somebody for, by no fault of his own, catching an infectious disease but not for other reasons in order to serve the greater good? It seems like an arbitrary distinction.

Then answer two simple questions:

1: Do you approve of Quarantine laws? (I'm assuming yes)
2: In my above mentioned fantasy scenario, is there any level of "benefit" at which you would feel it was justified to sacrifice the innocent normal 2 year old kid in order to grant restored youth to others? (I'm HOPING no)

Maybe it has something akin to animal rights for its stage of development.

A valid point and one I wasn't considering. Not that I agree that embryo's should have "animal rights", but that it would certainly be a possible position to take and argue within the debate.

[Jeff250]

1: Do you approve of Quarantine laws? (I'm assuming yes)
2: In my above mentioned fantasy scenario, is there any level of "benefit" at which you would feel it was justified to sacrifice the innocent normal 2 year old kid in order to grant restored youth to others? (I'm HOPING no)

1: Yes. 2: No. Now I am forced to conclude something?

A valid point and one I wasn't considering. Not that I agree that embryo's should have "animal rights", but that it would certainly be a possible position to take and argue within the debate.

I probably shouldn't use the term "animal rights," but it does serve as a commonly recognized example of rights that are often trumped for human convenience.

In general though, I think that most people recognize two competing tensions:
1) An embryo is human because it has human DNA, and it was spawned from others humans.
2) An embryo isn't a human because it doesn't have any of the properties that we say are special to humans, like emotion, rationality, and so on.

In the context of ethics, (2) seems especially compelling because these are the qualities that we typically say give us rights. We wouldn't say we have rights because we have such and such DNA or because our parents were human. But (1) seems compelling because, it just does. A newborn infant doesn't possess most of the kinds of qualities in (2), but surely infants have human rights for (1) (at least (1) gives the best reasons I can imagine).

With all of this tension, I don't think that it's unreasonable to think that there might be some middle ground when it comes to embryos and how we treat them.

[Kilarin]

Now I am forced to conclude something?

What is the reason for the difference? Why yes to quarantine laws but no to chopping up the kids brain, no matter how many people it helps?

I don't think that it's unreasonable to think that there might be some middle ground when it comes to embryos and how we treat them.

I agree that this position would certainly need to be part of the debate. And that if you give embryos some level of rights below that of a person, but above that of a clump of skin cells, then the efficacy of the treatment would become meaningful.

[Jeff250]

What is the reason for the difference? Why yes to quarantine laws but no to chopping up the kids brain, no matter how many people it helps?

I don't think that murder is ever justified for restoring any amount of youth. It does get blurry though if you open it up to murder for anything. Would you murder an innocent person to save a million lives? It becomes unclear at this point what the right answer is. It would be an ethical dilemma in the truest sense of the word.

This reminds me of the episode of Star Trek TNG where Picard is discussing if he should have sacrificed a sentient Borg by sending him back to the Collective with a computer virus. He didn't, but, if he had, he would have defeated the Borg Collective once and for all, saving countless species, and so on. He remarks, "It may turn out that the moral thing to do was not the right thing to do." What does this mean? I thought that the moral thing and the right thing were the same thing? It recognizes that there are two conflicting ethical intuitions here and that maybe not all ethical dilemmas are reconcilable.

[Foil]

...
2) An embryo isn't a human because it doesn't have any of the properties that we say are special to humans, like emotion, rationality, and so on.

In the context of ethics, (2) seems especially compelling because these are the qualities that we typically say give us rights.

It's treading on some dangerous ground to say that human rights are partly derived from properties like rationality. It would imply that the mentally handicapped or those with Alzheimer's aren't due the same human rights as the rest of us.
(I know this isn't what you're saying, but I just wanted to point out that that particular piece of the argument by itself can be easily taken to very questionable territory.)

With all of this tension, I don't think that it's unreasonable to think that there might be some middle ground when it comes to embryos and how we treat them.

Depends on what is meant by "middle ground", I think. I'd venture to guess that my own definitions for a reasonable compromise that still protects against exploitation wouldn't necessarily match others.

[Bet51987]

I'd venture to guess that my own definitions for a reasonable compromise that still protects against exploitation wouldn't necessarily match others.

Foil, no offense and with all due respect, you have shown in the abortion thread that you had no middle ground and were incapable of supporting a reasonable compromise. I would be surprised if your views in this thread would be any different.

Thankfully, the entire world isn't as religiously wrapped as president Bush so stem-cell research will continue in other countries. Then, some day, Americans can go overseas to get the treatment that will save them. I can only hope the next elected president won't be as backward thinking, in almost every area, as this one.

Bettina

[Dakatsu]

I'd venture to guess that my own definitions for a reasonable compromise that still protects against exploitation wouldn't necessarily match others.

Foil, no offense and with all due respect, you have shown in the abortion thread that you had no middle ground and were incapable of supporting a reasonable compromise. I would be surprised if your views in this thread would be any different.

Thankfully, the entire world isn't as religiously wrapped as president Bush so stem-cell research will continue in other countries. Then, some day, Americans can go overseas to get the treatment that will save them. I can only hope the next elected president won't be as backward thinking, in almost every area, as this one.

Bettina

Why would we have to go overseas? Surely Mexico has good coverage

Dakatsu Corporation: Bringing joy and sillyness to the Ethics and Commentary board!