Smith: No embryonic stem cells

NJ.Com ^ | June 10, 2004 | TOM HESTER JR.

[MadIvan]

The nation should honor President Reagan by committing itself to finding a cure for Alzheimer's disease, Rep. Chris Smith said yesterday, but not by using embryos for stem cell research.

Smith, R-Washington Township, who was first elected with Reagan in 1980, yesterday blasted those who have used Reagan's death on Saturday after a decade-long bout with Alzheimer's to advocate embryonic stem cell research.

[tpaine]

I think I finally see why you keep raising the false connection between human being and constitutional definitions:

In your insistence that abortion -- [or killing an embryo], is murder, YOU raise the 'personhood' legal question.

your obsession regarding the defense of abortion on demand prevents you from comprehending

My only 'obsession' is in defending our Constitution.

the 'other vagaries' of the human dilemma; science can and is conceiving individual human beings outside of a woman's body and now implanting these alive embryonic beings into artificial womb environs. If the embryos are completely disenfranchised, then the fate of these alive individual human beings is completely discretionary for the holders of these beings and their demise is completely arbitrary based on the utilitarian purposes of the holders at any age in the gestational process.

Embryos are not yet persons/human beings.

If the embryonic individuals are however perceived as human beings worthy of protection, your ardent assertions

Big 'if', -- and, -- I am not "ardent". You are the one nearly out of control here again.

as to the complete disenfranchisement of womb bound (in a woman's body) alive individual human beings in favor of only the woman's rights regarding her bodily integrity (though the alive unborn are their not by any effort on their part and except in cases of rape, there at the invitation of the woman) begins to collapse upon its own mis-characterizations of the ones being disenfranchised so that they may be dealt with by the serial killing abortionists.

I've made no mis-characterizations. -- Calm yourself.

[MHGinTN]

You asserted, "In your insistence that abortion -- [or killing an embryo], is murder, YOU raise the 'personhood' legal question." I have made no such assertion that I'm aware of, so this too is a mis-characterization. And you will notice that I do not rely on comments from other posters to try and sway thread readers, so your smarmy advice to 'calm' is absurd on the face of it. Your prattle and incessant repetition of strawman specters, on the other hand, is taking on more and more the appearance of hysteria, so you can have the thread to yourself now ... unless you can succeed in finding someone to feed your ego. Have a nice Sunday afternoon.

[cpforlife.org]

Important PING, and two related.

Ronald Reagan, father of the pro-life movement

Rep. Chris Smith, R-NJ – Pro-Life Hero

[tpaine]

Whatever.

[hocndoc]

First, the result of your line by line posts which contain quotes from several posters and no notation as to who is speaking may be part of the source of your misunderstanding. Your posts also could appear to make some of us say what we have not said - affecting your credibility. If you must copy so much, please be more clear as to who you are quoting. At the very least, only quote one of us at a time. However, your understanding might be improved if you look at entire paragraphs rather than sentences and phrases.


Again, you are mixing 2 separate circumstances and sets of laws *as I said and you quoted*:
" You are mixing two concepts - citizenship and the fact of being human. The species of an individual or an organism is not a Constitutional matter."

[hocndoc]

You did not comment on the NJSC quote. Tell me again how asserting a right to life for embryos created in the lab is either religious-based or unConstitutional?

[hocndoc]

None so far.

I'm listening to the Audible.com version of "Enough: Setting Limits on Human Genetic Technology" by Bill McKibben. The author asserts what I have come to believe: that embryonic stem cell research is all aimed at cloning and that cloning is aimed at genetic engineering.
http://www.audible.com/adbl/store/product.jsp?BV_SessionID=@@@@0675592364.1087154700@@@@&BV_EngineID=ccciadclkeheefkcefecegedfhfdfok.0&uniqueKey=1087154771785&pageType=preliminaryResults&productID=BK_AREN_000286

[hocndoc]

You need to re-read the R v W decision and Casey. The point on which abortion rests is the *State's interest,* not the necessarily the age of the unborn child. R v W is poorly presented and poor logic and law, but the later arguments support what later SC's believed were the defendable elements, particularly the conundrum/penundrum of privacy of a woman in contrast to the State's interest in the unborn.

[F.J. Mitchell]

No zarf, what is criminal is the source of the embryos, the ghouls are salivating over.

[tpaine]

Fine, argue the debate on your concept of morality. But to demand that laws be codified/enacted based on your religious convictions goes against our constitutional principles, imo.
-tpaine-

I agree with you, I never suggested that, however the moral argument is a legitimate one, though not necessarily one I agree with.
-jackson-

Thanks.. -- Its rare to arrive at ~any~ point of agreement on this type of thread. Too bad it doesn't happen more often.
Anyone here care to comment on why we can't agree on at least the constitutional principles involved, as above?
-tpaine-

-- [whereupon you replied] --

You are mixing two concepts - citizenship and the fact of being human. The species of an individual or an organism is not a Constitutional matter.

The legal point when 'personhood' begins becomes a constitutional matter when an abortion is charged as being murder.
-tpaine-

You are also making a false dilemma by asserting that the status of the human embryo as having the right to life is a Judeo-Christian moral and that, as such, it "goes against our constitutional principles."
-hocndoc-

It IS MADE a dilemma by attempting to make an abortion an act of murder.
193 tpaine

- [Now you reply] -

First, the result of your line by line posts which contain quotes from several posters and no notation as to who is speaking may be part of the source of your misunderstanding.

I have no 'misunderstandings'. -- Post 193 above, was directed to you. You had replied to Jackson & I on our agreement, which I included as a reference.
-- Your remarks are italicized, mine are plain. - This is the conventional format at FR.

Your posts also could appear to make some of us say what we have not said - affecting your credibility.

You seem to be unable to respond to some of my points. Your claim that my posting 'style' makes you somehow appear to make you say 'what you have not said', is getting really weird, imo.

If you must copy so much, please be more clear as to who you are quoting. At the very least, only quote one of us at a time.

Jackson's quote above was clearly labeled in #193. You are the one dissembling here, not me.

However, your understanding might be improved if you look at entire paragraphs rather than sentences and phrases.

When my opponents mix different arguments in one paragraph, answers must be made at appropriate points.

Again, you are mixing 2 separate circumstances and sets of laws *as I said and you quoted*:
" You are mixing two concepts - citizenship and the fact of being human. The species of an individual or an organism is not a Constitutional matter."

[You may think you've made a clear point in that quote. I don't. -- so I answered: -- ]

The legal point when 'personhood' begins becomes a constitutional matter when an abortion is charged as being murder.

You don't understand that answer? Then you have to either try harder, -- or, --- redefine your question.

[supercat]

Bob Dole guilty of VERY bad taste to say the least. Last evening he opinied to Brokejaw that if 'they' really wanted to honor Reagan 'they' should allow stem cell research.

Perhaps my distrust of him in 1996 was well-founded?

[tpaine]

You did not comment on the NJSC quote. Tell me again how asserting a right to life for embryos created in the lab is either religious-based or unConstitutional? 206 hocndoc

If/when a lab were stupid enough to allow the embryo's to grow to be viable human beings/persons, they would then have rights, -- and, -- the lab would have parental responsibilities.
[Not to mention ~enormous~ civil liabilities to the owners of the embryos]
An insistence that the state outlaw/prohibit lab work on embryos is an unconstitutional restriction on medical research, imo.

You need to re-read the R v W decision and Casey. The point on which abortion rests is the *State's interest,* not the necessarily the age of the unborn child. R v W is poorly presented and poor logic and law, but the later arguments support what later SC's believed were the defendable elements, particularly the conundrum/penundrum of privacy of a woman in contrast to the State's interest in the unborn.

No, I don't 'need' to read all that, because my point is made without all the mumbo jumbo.

[supercat]

And saying embryonic stem cell have not shown "any promise" is a BS statement.

Please explain any basis for a reasonable belief, not contradicted by experimental results to date, that embryonic stem cells are superior to those obtained from a live-birth umbilical cord or from other sources.

The evidence I'm aware of suggests that while embryonic stem cells are more 'malleable' than other types, this malleability comes at the expense of instability. To use a crude analogy, which is a more workable material: Jello® that's freshly mixed, or Jello® that's had a chance to gel for awhile?

I would be curious to read non-discredited arguments for believing that there is any purpose for which embryonic stem cells, and no other type, are suited (other than the obvious purpose of contributing to the developemtn and life of a new baby, of course).

[OldFriend]

Every now and then Dole does or says the right thing. But for the most part he ought to just shut his mouth.

[supercat]

Science has been unable to discern any later or earlier point at which a human life might begin. Roe v. Wade, for example, took kind of a guess at fertilization plus 3 months. If the real answer is 2 1/2 months, then lots of human beings are being killed. But there is no proof that 2 1/2 months is right, or that 3 months is right. Indeed, as science develops, we see all the indications of humanity as early as 1 month into the pregnancy, yet still we have no proof that 1 month is not too late a point in time.

There are two approaches to the abortion issue:

1. Go for a one-shot victory, and get recognition that everything from zygote on is a human life worthy of protection.
2. Focus on getting recognition that a 39-week fetus is a baby worthy of protection; once that's achieved, focus on such recognition for 36-week fetuses, etc.

I personally believe that approach #2 has a much greater likelihood of success. If personhood were currently recognized at all forms of gestation, I would not conceed the non-personhood of a newly-fertilized zygote, but since it isn't, I see no harm in simply 'agreeing to disagree' for now on the issue of earlier-term embryos/fetuses while building concensus to protect later-term ones.

[supercat]

Also, according to your theory, if science ever figures out how to replace the mother with an artificial womb, the resultant creatures born from these wombs wouldn't be human, because human existence would never have commenced. But I suppose that's the way you want it. If they're not human, then they have no rights, and their "manufacturer" owns them fully.

The theory Lysander postulates would seem reasonable. When the gametes of an oak tree are joined, the product that forms is not generally called a "tree" until such time as it has taken root and started to grow. Until that time, it would be called an "acorn".

BTW, perhaps a biologist can answer for me a question: does a pre-implantation zygote metabolize sugar or some other energy source from its environment, or is all of the energy required for pre-implantation growth contained within the original zygote?

[hocndoc]

Thank you for changing your posting style. It is rare on these types of threads to see such adaptibility and a shame we don't see more of it.

We disagree on the relevancy of the status of human embryos in utero and in vitro under the law, as well as whether the recognition of either is "a Judeo-Christian moral" or "goes against our constitutional principles."

There is not a direct correlation between the laws that allow a woman to empty her uterus and those which affect the embryo created by design in the laboratory. There is a direct correlation between the species of each and that is a matter of scientific fact. Thinking humans may recognize that there should be a correlation between the legal status and protection of each, i.e., whether each is a person or not. However, the status of women in Iran does not affect my personhood and the status of unwanted humans in utero does not affect the status of wanted humans in vitro.

As to the "Judeo-Christian" and "Constitutionality" arguments, they are refuted by the the NJSC in the Quinlan opinion. The basis of the Constitution is an inalienable right to life.

[hocndoc]

The acorn is an oak acorn. It is the species of it's parents, although it does not demostrate all the characteristics of the seedling, sapling or full grown tree stages of development of the oak. It is not necessary for members of the species to demonstrate all of the characteristics of the species at any one time or even at any time in the life span in order to qualify as a member of the species. For most purposes it is only necessary to be of the species by parentage (usually sufficeint for classification) and/or to demonstrate the appropriate characteristics of that stage.

The embryo utilizes nutrients from the environment in the fallopian tube and in the uterus, even before gastrulation and implantation. (The zygote is appropriate nomenclature only at the one cell stage of the embryo.)

[betty boop]

It IS MADE a dilemma by attempting to make an abortion an act of murder.

Is this really how you see the issue, tpaine? Gosh, but I just don't see it that way.

The way I see it is: If it's alive, and it's human, and it lives in America, then it is entitled to the equal protection of the Constitution of its right to life and liberty.

The woman's "right" to "control her body" becomes a secondary issue. For life is the preeminent right protected by the Constitution. All other rights flow from just that one right. This isn't a narrowly "religious" question per se. It is a Constitutional question. And given what the Constitution requires, there is only one valid answer: And it must be in favor of life.

I may be a "simple-minded" person; but this question is actually starkly simple. If you wish to argue that somehow a person has a constitutional right to induce the death of any other (innocent) human being, then I am all ears.

[tpaine]

It IS MADE a dilemma by attempting to make an abortion an act of murder.

Is this really how you see the issue, tpaine? Gosh, but I just don't see it that way. The way I see it is:
If it's alive, and it's human,

Eggs & sperm are alive, - as are embryos, -- but they are not persons yet, thus their deaths are not murder.

and it lives in America, then it is entitled to the equal protection of the Constitution of its right to life and liberty.

Persons are entitled to protection, not unformed, unviable beginnings of persons.

The woman's "right" to "control her body" becomes a secondary issue.

Not for the the woman.

For life is the preeminent right protected by the Constitution.

Many people would rather be dead than be a slave, Betty - Perhaps even a slave for nine months. - Liberty may be our preeminent right.

All other rights flow from just that one right. This isn't a narrowly "religious" question per se. It is a Constitutional question. And given what the Constitution requires, there is only one valid answer: And it must be in favor of life.

And our Constitution definitely favors the existing life of the mother, over the possibility of one for an embryo.

I may be a "simple-minded" person; but this question is actually starkly simple. If you wish to argue that somehow a person has a constitutional right to induce the death of any other (innocent) human being, then I am all ears.

I don't want to argue.
Too bad you can't 'hear' that embryos are not persons, --- in the eyes of our constitutional rule of law.