Man of steel (Bush must share the blame for Reeve not standing on his 50th birthday)

The Guardian (U.K.) ^ | 09/17/2002 | Oliver Burkeman

[semaj]

"The whole idea that cloning from stem cells is 'evil' is like the old mud-hut attitude that taking a photograph steals one's soul."

So, in your world an honest person's desire to protect the unborn is equivalent to primitive superstition? It amazes me the disdain for human life that is displayed by such sentiments.

[jlogajan]

It's a scientific FACT that life begins at conception

That's not a "scientific" fact at all. Life began over 3 billion years ago. The "egg" is alive and so is the sperm prior to their joining.

Either all men are created equal or they are not.

One, two, a hundred, a thousand, a million cells are not a human. It is not DNA or potential that makes a human -- for many eggs and sperm with "potential" are routinely discarded in normal human choices that no one objects to.

There is but one thing and one thing alone that makes man unique from the animal world -- the human mind - the capacity for abstract thought.

Where there is no human mind there is no human, just flesh -- UNLESS you suggest there is a soul -- but that is the RELIGIOUS aspect I was talking about.

[willyone]

Not much of use in blazes head. Mostly empty space and crossed connections. It won't be long before they start wacking the old timers. Not economically viable you know.

[daler]

Perhaps you'd like to donate some of your own spinal cord tissue for the cause of medical progress?

If not, that's fine, can't begrudge you for that.

At least you're in a position to decline the opportunity.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

Ping. This article is a bunch of crap.

[sarasmom]

I do not agree that the stem cell research debate is strictly a bastion of religious constraint. I do not view it as a particularly "religious" bastion of debate.

I see it as ethics based. I also see that those who approach it from a religious standpoint are not automatically wrong, just because of their starting point.

I do think we are not even close to a general agreement among thoughtfull people as to the basic ethics of this research.

That is not a religious belief on my part.That it is, on many other peoples part, in no way negates the underlying questions regarding this type of research.IMHO it only adds weight to the severity of dispute as to the ethical aspects.

It is a mistake to completely ignore religion when considering ethics.IMHO that is like ignoring gravity.Religion does not drive this debate, but none should be afraid of it "weighing in" on this topic. Ethics has never been an enemy of religion. Religion has never been an enemy of ethics.

To exclude either in medical and/or scientific research is ignorant and inexcusable.

[exit82]

The Man of Steel shows himself to be a Superass.

[Xenalyte]

For years after the accident, Christopher Reeve's eyes would snap open at six and, in the morning stillness, with Dana Morosini, his wife, still asleep at his side, he'd have to run through it all again in his head.

I am SOOOO tired of women who won't take their husband's name. If you're Oprah, I can see it; if you're Barbra, I can see it (although frankly I'd rather not); if you're Madonna and are finally willing to cop to a last name, I can see it.

Sort of.

[cva66snipe]

Reeves needs to realize medical fact and probabilities. The golden 6 months is over. He is recieving far more therapy, equipment, medical attention, and such than most any quadriplegic in this nation. Spinal cord disorders and injuries do not care about your politics. Politics didn't put him in the chair an accident did. That is life. Life has adversity. No where in any Christian theology are we promised this will not or can not happen.

Facts are his feet likely have dropped, muscles even with therapy are becoming atrophic, and muscle strenght deminished somewhat. Most of this is not reversable. Not even so called regeneration could repair this damage.

He got his miracle and he doesn't have the wisdom to see it. I look at him. Then I look at someone like Joni Erickson Tada. Joni's condition not quite as severe but a high quad never the less. Is she blaming the POTUS or anyone else? She's been in a wheelchair since Nixon was POTUS. She realizes her miracle. She would not have been who she is without facing her adversity for what it is.

[sarasmom]

Hey, dont include Hank Williams Junior songs on this thread!

Unless you add a smile when you say that. ;^)

[jlogajan]

I see it as ethics based.

You'll have to define your usage of "ethics" then, since it's become a centerpiece of your position. The word means different things to different people, so we should get a clear definition so we aren't using the term differently. For instance, why should the government be able to enforce "ethics." I know professional organizations have "ethics" they follow, and if you don't follow them you are kicked out of the organization. But they can't arrest you or do anything to you except say you can't come to their parties anymore.

When government gets involved in "ethics" they start using fines and imprisonment. Where'd they get that moral authority???

I do think we are not even close to a general agreement among thoughtfull people as to the basic ethics of this research.

Now that's the dilemma, isn't it. There'll never be a "general agreement" when there is a fundamental religious opposition. The question is then, what should the default position be.

Here's where individual liberty comes into play. Since there isn't a way to chose a default position when the sides never come to a general agreement -- it has to be up to each individual to decide.

By the way, there is a REAL general agreement -- abortion is legal in the US and the US is a democracy -- so the "general agreement" is already out there. To suggest it is not and to suggest that the default position should favor the minority view is simply a stalling tactic and is not intellectually defensible.

[carenot]

From the article:

"If we'd had full government support, full government funding for aggressive research using embryonic stem cells from the moment they were first isolated, at the University of Wisconsin in the winter of 1998 - I don't think it unreasonable to speculate that we might be in human trials by now."

I reckon he don't know about what happened when they used fetal stem-cells on some patients. They got much worse and the doctors couldn't do anything about it.

They have had good responses from adult stem-cells. And more from umbilical cord stem-cells.

[general_re]

To all appearances, he looks like any other law-abiding citizen.

[Clinging Bitterly]

>> He was the star attraction at the Democratic National Convention...

I remember.
It's hard to not lose sight of some good causes when some of these people allow themselves to become the poster boy at a political event. I know people who have suffered a SCI, I know people with AIDS, etc., and a lot of them are unable to provide for themselves. I try to be as generous as I can to those in need, but being taxed is not the same thing as being generous.

Dave in Eugene

[Askel5]

That's not a "scientific" fact at all. Life began over 3 billion years ago. The "egg" is alive and so is the sperm prior to their joining.

Neither an egg nor a sperm alone a human being make. Do you know nothing about biology? I can't believe you would expose yourself with such a rank absurdity masquerading as logic or fact.

I'm also a bit confused by your "life began over 3 billion years ago." Can it be you are a collectivist of some sort who believes each of us -- these Grand Minds you respect -- are somehow part and parcel of the ecosystem and only appear to be individuals with a beginning and an end, a conception and death?

I am talking about Human Beings, jlogajan. Each of whom began as a single cell possessed of the complete package of genetic material necessary to CONTINUE developing unto a natural death.

(Barring the gamut of violence and force necessary either to Suspend that life or End it, of course.)

One, two, a hundred, a thousand, a million cells are not a human. It is not DNA or potential that makes a human -- for many eggs and sperm with "potential" are routinely discarded in normal human choices that no one objects to.

Here again with the equating of egg, sperm and zygote. I never took you for such a simpleton. Public schools?

There is but one thing and one thing alone that makes man unique from the animal world -- the human mind - the capacity for abstract thought.

I'm not sure you're ready for abstract though, jlogajan, if you can't yet tell the difference between a sperm, an egg and a zygote.

Where there is no human mind there is no human, just flesh -- UNLESS you suggest there is a soul -- but that is the RELIGIOUS aspect I was talking about.

Sentience is your yardstick, then.

Have you anything in the way of scientific fact to back up your faithbased opinion by which -- clearly -- some human beings are "more human" than others?

And on what objective basis do you determine a person has a mind sufficient to call them a "human being" as opposed to a "living human carcass" suitable for destructive research or culling?

At least my faith is objective and consistent.

I think what confuses and frightens a materialist like you is the use of the word "soul". Perhaps I can help.

Any living human being -- unborn or born, asleep or awake, comatase or chatting, useful or lame, black or white, smart or stupid, male or female -- has a soul. You may think of a "soul" as that bit of Life which animates and personalizes both body AND mind ... each of which has its own advent, potential for perfection and process of development.

It is passing strange you believe that each human must arrive fully formed and speaking a language when you know for a fact that each human being has its own "Big Bang" wherein the sperm fertilizes the egg and conceives a new life.

You might as well argue that the universe is not fully formed until "Minds" appeared ... as if -- until reason evolved in a beast courtesy of the same "Life Force" that rusts iron and ripens corn -- the Universe was a big fat Zero and didn't exist.

You have reason. Use it. Quit clinging to whatever superstitions give you comfort about the illogical, immoral and UNFAIR treatment of others you wish to condone.

[carenot]

I gotta agree with Reeve, medical progess should not be interfered with by religious agendas using state power.

Do you have to be religious to think murder is wrong?

[Mike Darancette]

He spends £270,000 on treatment each year.....

What a giant footprint this man is leaving on the environment of the earth. How many Africans will have to be denied electricity and clean water to sustain Mr. Reeves?

[gcruse]

I gotta agree with Reeve, medical progess should
not be interfered with by religious agendas using state power.

It's amazing that it should be even a matter of discussion.

[MissAmericanPie]

France might be the place for Reeves. Alec Baldwin can drive him around to clinics and go egg hunting. Just fertilize them, create a life, then murder the individual and cannibilize away. Kinda of like a remake of that Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, movie about vampires, only for real.

[deport]

No way in hell the GOP would have let Clinton get away with capitalizing on "Excess" human lives thus.

No way hell or heaven is correct... They'd have called in that Klayman feller and let him sue until Clinton hollered 'calf rope'...... Yep I think you have it nailed....