>> ^BillOreilly:
good job Obama, let more millions of innocents die, that's the liberal way


Yes, lets do everything we can to protect the sanctity of life of a collection of undifferentiated cells, yet start needless wars which costs the lives of millions of innocents. Because Jesus forgives us when we murder Muslims, but not when it's Christian embryos. That's the conservative way.

Zebrafish embryos? What will they think of next... research on fruit flies?!

The problem with that stratagem is that it misleads the public in the long run -- builds consensus upon the illusory downside because not even the more liberal candidate is willing to deny it.

Politics can be a race to the center. But like sumo wrestling, you can use your opponent's strength against him as he charges towards you dodge out of the way.

How many more people are going to be against emergency contraception as a consequence of both parties' feigning belief in the sanctity of 3 day old microscopic embryos in their respective propaganda campaigns?

There's no political advantage to getting any more liberal than "it's OK until they find a way to do it without destroying embryos". Already at that state, you've won the vote of everyone more liberal than you on the issue, and you minimize alienating some fence-sitters with more divisive language. Deep down, I bet a lot more of them agree with you than not.

Very well said, and I agree with you on many points. However, I don't believe that simple abortion is the answer. I think most people agree that fewer abortions in this country would be a good thing. I would have liked Palin's answer much more if she had said something more like my opinion, which is:

Yes, I do believe that abortion in the case of rape or incest is wrong and I would counsel a woman in that situation to go through with the pregnancy. It is, of course, a great sacrifice for her both emotionally and physically, and that is why I believe that it ought to be her choice. Her agency was taken from her by the man who impregnated her, and if she believe that her "life" (lifestyle) would be irreparably destroyed by the pregnancy, than she should be free to decide whether her life or the embryo's life is more human.

The answer to reducing abortions in general is not to make all abortions legal. There are steps that we must take in order to reduce abortion rates including providing healthcare and adoption programs for unwanted pregnancies, better and earlier sex education (with full consent of the parents), and free access to contraception. Abortion should be illegal for pregnancies more advanced than 24 weeks because when higher brain functioning and pain receptors are developed, there can be almost no doubt that the child ought to have human rights.

But pragmatics should never be a reason for a moral decision. That is why we ought NEVER to torture prisoners. Sure, we might save some American lives by torturing terrorists for information, but torture is something we do not (or should not) do as a matter of principle.

>> ^SDGundamX:
Two years ago, if you had asked me my position on abortion I would have told you I was pro-choice all the way. Then I saw an actual abortion performed and had everything I believed turned upside down. Seeing the doctor wash little dismembered body-parts--arms, legs, parts of a skull--and count everything up to make sure he got it all... that pretty much convinced me I needed to re-examine my beliefs. I have tried since that time to be open to all positions on the matter and to form my own opinion based on reason and logic. The conclusion I came to is very similar to swampgirl's--abortion is morally wrong but is also a necessary evil.
I'm an atheist, so I don't oppose abortion on any religious grounds. No, like swampgirl said earlier, I just think we should stop beating around the bush. We're taking human lives here. Granted, we're doing it as mercifully as we can (i.e. before the nervous and pain response systems are fully developed) and for ostensibly good reasons. But I think too many people try to gloss over the fact that a human life is ended in the process. I think people are uncomfortable with the idea and that's why we quibble over when a human is an officially recognized "person" or when certain rights should be ascribed.
However, although I oppose abortion on moral grounds, I do not agree with making abortions illegal. That probably seems paradoxical to most people, but it stems from the fact that I am pragmatic. There are serious problems with making abortion illegal: backroom abortions and their associated risks; a suddenly skyrocketing number of babies that need adoption placement in a system that is already burgeoning under the weight of unwanted or neglected children; massive population expansion at a time when resources such as clean water are becoming scarce; and so on. In an ideal world, we could make abortions illegal and provide superior care and support for all women who must carry unwanted babies and place all of those unwanted babies with caring, loving, families. But I've seen enough of the world to know that it is anything but ideal.
And so I believe that as horrible as it is, legal abortions are necessary in the world. It kind of depresses me a little bit that I can find something immoral and yet still condone it. I think maybe it's a sign that I'm getting old that I'm willing to compromise my morals for pragmatic concerns.

To argue whether life begins at conception is ridiculous. Of course it does. The word itself is the definition of fertilization and implantation of an embryo.

The question rather is does it have it's own right to live? Or does the woman have the right to her child's life while her body gestates it.

When does a child have human rights? There is a duality in this country on this. A woman can have an abortion in her 3rd trimester, yet a person can be charged with 2 counts of murder for killing a pregnant woman.

>> ^jwray:
Life doesn't start at conception, it's a continuous process that started 3 billion years ago. Only sentient life forms have the moral status of persons. A fertilized egg is not sentient.


Okay, finally a defined point at which life begins! I believe science puts sentience at about 6 months after conception. If you want to say life begins when the embryo can feel pain, I say, well, at least you put life somewhere. But you must realize that the consequence of that logic means that the babies who are born before this (up to a month) and live are not human until some time later. In that case, it would be okay for the mother to change her mind at any time during that month and flush the thing.

I'll respond to chilaxe first:

You've changed your argument. Your original argument was that a blastocyst doesn't "possesses human qualities" and the human qualities you referred to in your post were clearly biological in nature (lack of nerve cells). I countered that argument (successfully, I think). Now you're saying that you were really talking about rights not qualities. Okay, fair enough.

I see your point. Attributing most rights is purely arbitrary. We attribute people 21-years old and over the right to drink. We attribute 18-year olds the right to vote and "die on some godforsaken isle" for the glory of their country. The numbers could easily be different(and of course are different depending on which country you live in).

But we're not talking about buying alcohol or registering to vote here. We're talking about life itself. As far as I know, the law here in the U.S. simply assumes all humans have a right to life. You have to present very compelling evidence in a court of law to deprive someone of their right to life--for example, evidence showing that the person poses a mortal danger to society. In other words, the right to life is not assigned, it is assumed by virtue of being human.

Which brings us back to the original question, when are developing embryos considered humans? You seem to be saying it is when they have achieved a certain level of "consciousness"--that we somehow earn rights based on our level of consciousness. That definition seems odd to me though. Wouldn't you agree that an adult ape is more conscious than a newborn infant? An adult ape interacts far more with its environment and shows far greater problem solving abilities than a newborn. Does that mean then that a newborn infant has less rights than an adult ape? We kill adult apes for research and (illegal) sport. Imagine,then, if newborns had less rights than adult apes. Surely that's not what you're suggesting. I only bring it up because I can't see how you're determining when a human is "human." Or maybe I'm still not understanding what you mean by "quality."

Considering that the Morning After Pill does not actually "kill" an embryo, it's hard to make a case against it as post-coital contraceptive regardless of when you think life begins.

I was only referring to an extreme example to make a point. Naturally, they are not comparable in extremity. As much as people say you can't legislate morality. They do it all the time. I personally have beliefs that prevent me from supporting ESC line development by the methods that are now unsupported by the gov't. When I said generating life for it to be destroyed, I was referring to the generation of viable embryos in vitro in order to use them purely for research. That rubs me the wrong way. I don't know if the research should be outlawed, but I don't want my taxes paying for it. I think the promise of adult-derived lines is where we should be concentrating on our efforts. That eliminates all controversy entirely. The papers I've read on the topic show great promise. Forgive my exaggeration. I couldn't think of many other gross abuses of humanity in scientific research.

Personally, I'd rather the embryos were never made (to be ultimately incinerated) in the first place. Once they are however, I have few qualms with their use.
In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
Wow, closest to a Godwin's Law response I've had on the sift... not that your example was inappropriate.

haha. McCain is 72, so he's been chasing women 30 years younger since he was 32? He really likes those embryos.

>> ^joedirt:
I saw this on digg:
"for 40 years, John McCain has been chasing women 30 years younger than he is. Clearly, John McCain is incapable of change."

As soon as the song "Echoes" is played and the "Jupiter And Beyond The Infinite" title card pops up, a ping will sound. This pinging sound will ring once every few seconds for the first 1:20 or so. The music will slowly start to fade in after ten seconds or so. It is very eerie-sounding - as synthesizers slowly build, and eventually a mellow, slow guitar riff comes into play.

As all this psychedellic, mellow music builds up the images on the screen are of the monolith floating around in space while the outstanding special effects show the planets in the background. The sense of limitless space is evident, and the music only enhances that feeling.

LYRICS/IMAGES/INTERPRETATIONS:

The lyrics begin at 2:57. Here is a line-by-line breakdown and my own personal interpretations.

LYRICS: "Overhead the albatross hangs motionless upon the air" IMAGE: The camera pans across the vast space background. INTERPRETATION: Obviously the albatross represents the monolith - which is, as the song says, hanging motionless.

LYRICS: "And deep beneath the rolling waves/In labyrinths of coral caves/The echo of a distant time/Comes willowing across the sand" IMAGES: The monolith continues to float around in space as the camera pans towards the Discovery ship. INTERPRETATION: The references to the ocean might be a comparison of the vastness of the ocean and the even more vastness of space. "The echo of a distant time" might refer to the monolith - as we know the monoliths have been appearing to Earthlings since evolutionary times. "Willowing across the sand" seems to symbolize the tiny little spaceship slithering across the vastness of space like a worm through sand.

LYRICS: "And Everything is green and submarine" IMAGE: The Discovery. INTERPRETATION: "submarine" is obviously the spaceship Discovery - as a submarine explores the water, this machine explores space.

LYRICS: "And no one showed us to the land/And no on knows the where or whys" IMAGE: images of the monolith and Bowman's pod heading for it. INTERPRETATION: The lines might be something that the humans who discovered the monolith might say - "whoever put these monoliths here didn't tell us why, but we're figuring it out."

LYRICS: "But something stirs and something tries/And starts to climb towards the light" IMAGES: The monolith flying upward while the camera pans over to the Discovery. INTERPRETATION: Could mean two things simultaneously: 1) The monolith (not sure what it is, which is why it is referred to as "something") begins to gain momentum and moves from the bottom of the screen to top, and continues to move. The light it's moving to might be the light show that soon occurs. 2)Symbolic of how insignificant Bowman and his pod is (just "something"), and it is heading towards the monolith - as a subject might approach its savior and/or like a moth to a lightbulb.

LYRICS: "Strangers passing in the street/By chance two seperate glances meet/And I am you and what I see is me" IMAGE: Bowman's pod heading straight towards the camera. INTERPRETATION: The monolith and Bowman might be the two strangers who have just happened to run into each other. There's so many people in the world that the huge population and all the individual traits each person has might be compared with the vastness of space. "And I am you..." - I'm positive this is a reference to the later section of the film in which Bowman sees himself as an old man in the "hotel room," however, I believe that somehow this second verse was switched with the fifth verse. The "Through the window... a million bright ambassadors" lines would seem more appropriate at this time. Either way, this still is a thoughful, poetic line.

LYRICS: "And do I take you by the hand/And lead you through the land/And help me understand the best I can" IMAGE: The monolith disappears. INTERPRETATION: "Take you by the hand" - what the monolith might be saying to Bowman - to take him on a tour of the monolith's home land. "And help me understand...." what both the monolith and Bowman might say to each other - to learn more about each other. As Bowman was sent to study the monolith, the monolith is a tool to study Earth and its people.

LYRICS: "And no one calls us to move on/And no one forces down our eyes/And no one speaks and no one tries/And no one flies around the sun" IMAGE: The camera pans up and the light show begins just as the last word of the last line is sung. INTERPRETATION: "no one calls us to move on... forces down our eyes" - sounds like something two children might say who are so excitied about something and can't stop doing what they're doing (as Bowman and the monolith are about to embark on a fantastic journey). "no one tries.... no one flies around the sun" - open to interpretation, could mean just about anything.

Singing ends for the time being as the music becomes more mellow as the light show continues. The sound of the music seems to perfectly match the mood the lightshow induces - exactly like any other movie uses a pop song during any kind of montage.

At the 7 minute point the music changes and becomes driven by organs and drums, just as the light show becomes a series of starry images - the swirling galaxies, the images that look like embryos, the dancing diamonds. The music continues to match the images and mood on-screen until....

At the 10:30 point the music fades out and an extremely eerie, freaky sequence of sound effects is faded in. This transition occurrs as the transitition on the screen is made from the starry images to the ultraviolet images of the alien planet. The sound is no longer rock, but strictly psychedellic, much like the "eeeee"- choir-sung sound on the film's actual soundtrack. Some of the background sounds on the CD seem to synch with the images on screen such as wind, waves crashing, and seagulls as we are shown what looks like the alien planet's ocean.

The eerie sonic sequence lasts until 14:20 when Bowman finds himself in the bizarre "hotel room." The music starts to fade out as synthesizers slowly start to build in the background. It is at this time that Bowman begins to slowly walk around and try to figure out where he is. The sound and music continues to build and the eerie sequence fades out. The pinging noise also occurs. The music comes to a climax around 17:06 when Bowman sees himself in the other room as an old man eating.

At 18:00 Bowman gets out of the chair and looks around. At 18:14 the guitars kick back in as he turns around and returns to the table.

At 19:11 the lyrics come back.

LYRICS: "Cloudless everyday you fall upon my waking eyes/Inviting and inciting me to rise" IMAGE: Bowman walks from the door to the table. INTERPRETATION: This might be something Bowman, as an old man, might be thinking. Perhaps he has been stuck in that room for decades as the aliens' guinea pig?

LYRICS: "And through the window in the wall/Come streaming in on sunlight wings/A million bright ambassadors of morning" IMAGE: Bowman sits down at the table. INTERPRETATION: I believe all three lines refer to the rays of light which brough Bowman from our reality to the reality he is in now. It is possible this entire verse was switched with the second verse.

LYRICS: "And no one sings me lullabies/And no one makes me close my eyes/And so I throw the windows wide/And call to you across the sky" IMAGE: Bowman eats his meal. INTERPRETATION: "lullabies" and "close my eyes" might be something Bowman would say since it seems he has been alone for years in just a few seconds. The latter two lines might refer to the monolith - calling to it to do something.

Music continues much like it did during the light show sequence. At 21:18 the music quickly fades out just as the old, dying Bowman points to the monolith in front of him. The music at this point is keyboard-driven, very mellow - as if someone was trying to put somene to sleep (i.e. Bowman dying).

At 22:10 a strange sound, like a jet engine in the distant, starts to fade in, along with the pinging sound again. The image on screen is of the embryonic Bowman. Eventually the music fades out to just the eerie sound effects as the "Star Child" looks at the camera.

Both the song and the movie then end AT THE EXACT SAME TIME.

Credits/Thanks:
Chad Polenz

Doc_M: I don't know anybody who wishes their parents used a condom, either. Early abortion is morally indistinguishable from contraception. Damaging the embryo so that it would be born without arms would be very bad, but there's nothing wrong with destroying an embryo. Its rights are moot until it develops into a sentient being. The brain of a flea has 200,000 cells, while the embryos involved in stem cell research have less than 200 cells.

Every time you swat a fly, that is worse than taking the morning-after "abortion pill".

SDGundamX, I don't argue the problems with defining that line in the slightest. At exactly what point do they become a "living breathing person"? It's a debate I've had before and I don't see a clear line which is why I do have some sympathy for those uncomfortable with the subject and little tolerance for those who write off any concerns to religious motivations. In real terms though it's easy enough to say that an hours or days old embryo is hardly up there with the holocaust victim and the comparison deeply flawed since they are already being destroyed and have been for as long as the clinics have been producing extras. Decades. Making use of them for research instead doesn't cost a single life, potential or realized. It just offers the potential to save some. If they want to debate what the clinics themselves have been doing and for years now or if that should be changed that's another issue entirely.

As technology and society changes over time we've moved lots of moral lines based on race, sex, or our medical ability and this one has and probably will move again as well. Past that some aren't even comfortable with transplants yet, it's more of a cringe factor than religious, and those same types of issues could carry into this as well I'd guess. I'm sure psychologists would have lots of interesting theories on what motivates it but for me it's enough to just recognize that it's there.

That's why I like the fertility clinic argument in particular. It skips those issues entirely and just deals with things as they are today. If things weren't already like that I'm not sure where I'd stand but given the rate at which embryos are being destroyed already it makes absolutely no sense to just waste them when we could learn to save lives with them instead. We don't even need to keep taking them, once you have a productive stem cell line you can just reproduce that and leave the rest be if we come to a solution later.

If someone has solutions which would solve the excess embryo problem I'm all ears and I've asked for options in the past but so far there don't seem to be realistic solutions offered which don't leave us with those embryos, they seem to want us to trash them instead of use them if they object at all and that gets hard to defend. It's the single solution I've found which both the stem cell advocates and those who are uncomfortable with the issue can come the closest to agreement on. If we're to end up with productive lines in the US I can't think of a better/less controversial source offhand.

Sorry if I came off a bit strong yesterday, been reading and debating too much politics on another board recently and that hasn't been good for any of us this time around I don't think.

edit to add this... and reedit to remove it We'll get into that later if need be, this is long enough already.

Drattus, I don't think it's a false premise at all (and it wasn't my argument, by the way, it was a doctor on the President's council who proposed it). Both the Jewish prisoners and the embryos are sentenced to death. They would not die "naturally." But even if they were going to die naturally (terminally ill patients for instance) it would still be unthinkable to justify killing them prematurely in the name of science research.

The issue of what to do with left over embryos actually came up during the President's council discussions (see the links I posted above). The council briefly discussed whether it was ethical or not to destroy unused embryos but ultimately came to no conclusion since it was out of their hands: the embryos are in the care of private fertilization clinics which are currently not doing research on them. The council decided therefore it was beyond the scope of its jurisdiction since it was only focused on the ethical concerns of stem cell research.

"Living breathing person" is the term you used to describe humanity and the definition of humanity is precisely what's causing the problem here. Of course you know that an an unborn child is not breathing--it doesn't use its lungs for the first time until after birth. We can't possibly use breathing as a measure of humanity because there are those out there on artificial ventilation (iron lungs and such) that can't breath for themselves. They are in no way less human because of it, nor is a person who stops breathing temporarily due to drowning or choking.

To respond to your comment about applying the argument across the spectrum, I think it actually already is. The furor over the Terry Schiavo incident shows that there is still a very real debate about what constitutes life or death. The recent waking up of a woman who had been brain dead for 17 hours (http://www.newkerala.com/one.php?action=fullnews&id=65389) further shows the need for debate about defining where life begins and ends. It seems we can't even use brain activity as a test for where humanity begins or ends.

I haven't really expressed my personal views here yet, so I'll do so now. I'm a bit of a pragmatist and somewhat in agreement with chilaxe. If our country doesn't do the research others with perhaps less than good intentions will and that could be very bad. Ethically, though, I don't think you can get around the fact that we are killing humans. The only difference between an embryo and a fully adult human is time (given all the time in the world, a clump of cancer cells will never develop into a human and thus I think we can dismiss the comparison that often gets made between embryos and cancer). But I think for now embryonic stem cell research is a necessary evil. Maybe someday adult stem cell research will become more viable, but right now embryonic research has better potential. I like to debate about issues like this because I would love for someone to be able to convince me that from an ethical standpoint stem cell research is okay. Haven't found anyone to make a convincing argument yet, though.