New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | August 3, 2005

Ron Bailey suspects that Republicans may be in the embryonic stages of a move toward a more mainstream view on stem cell research.

Comments

Jeff|8.3.05 @ 4:35PM|#

Sure to piss off the evangelicals who still insist they got George into the White House. I continue to predict some anti-Republican backlash from the god gang before '08.

|8.3.05 @ 4:43PM|#

We do not mourn the loss of, nor do we think of trying to rescue, these millions of naturally conceived embryos because we know that, whatever their potential, they are not yet people.

Does that mean that the millions of African children who shit themselves to death every year, unmourned and unnoticed by the "huge majority" of Americans, are not people either?

|8.3.05 @ 4:45PM|#

Or is it rather that we don't mourn them or try to rescue them because we don't even know they exist, and don't have the technology to rescue them anyway?

|8.3.05 @ 4:53PM|#

No, crimethink, I'd say it means that if the argument is that an embryo is so sacred that it should not be sacrificed for research, then the outrage should be at the creation and destruction of the embryos.

|8.3.05 @ 4:57PM|#

Jesus knows when a sparrow falls, but even He didn't give a shit about those African children shitting themselves to death.

|8.3.05 @ 5:06PM|#

Rich Ard,

Well, that's where the outrage is, at least on my part. Hence my vigorous opposition to in vitro fertilization and cloning, current techniques of which require the creation and destruction of myriads of embryos.

|8.3.05 @ 5:06PM|#

Ruthless,

*ouch*

Well, you know, God is the author of evil, so what do you expect? :)

Anyway, we're going to benefit from embryonic stem cell research whether much of it is done in the U.S. or not.

|8.3.05 @ 5:08PM|#

You know, Orrin Hatch never had much of a problem with stem cell research as I recall because Mormonism has a different take on the issue in comparison to the "every sperm is sacred" crowd found in Catholic circles, etc.

|8.3.05 @ 5:13PM|#

Republicans may be in the embryonic stages of a move toward a more mainstream view...

Don't count on it; they have too much to lose in alienating the Bible-thumpers. If there were a constituency out there that believed babies were conceived under cabbage leaves, they'd want that taught in the damn schools...

|8.3.05 @ 5:14PM|#

I'm happy to report that my soulmate will be working with stem cells in a new lab in a month or so.

|8.3.05 @ 5:48PM|#

Hakluyt,

An active homosexual doing ESC research? Man, you are trying to get my blood boiling...

|8.3.05 @ 6:00PM|#

crimethink,

I don't think my wife is gay.

|8.3.05 @ 6:28PM|#

Unless I am mistaken, isn't Bush's objection to embryonic stem cell research restricted to denying federal funding for it? Shouldn't libertarians be opposed to federal funding also? In other words, shouldn't you be agreeing with Bush in this case?

|8.3.05 @ 7:11PM|#

Don Mynack:

Bush has denied federal funding to any entity engaged in ESC research (i.e., even for unrelated work within the same company or university). You might think this so much the better, except there is no libertarian principle whatsoever behind it; there is no direct relation between this ban and the amount of money collected and disbursed by the federal government for scientific research. Furthermore, Bush has urged Congress to outlaw ESC research and has made clear that he would sign into law such a bill, which is most definitely authoritarian.

|8.3.05 @ 7:23PM|#

Sorry Hakluyt, I guess I was addressing the wrong incarnation. But I'm sure it's something you're used to, being the Vishnu of H&R and all.

|8.3.05 @ 7:38PM|#

crimethink,

Just because I used to screw guys before I got married doesn't mean that I screw guys now. Maybe that's hard for you to wrap your limited Catholic head around. But honestly, why are you so interested in who I happen to have sex with?

|8.3.05 @ 7:46PM|#

Hakluyt,

Just because I used to screw guys before I got married doesn't mean that I screw guys now.

So you're admitting that homosexuality is a choice, and you've changed your mind? ;-)

why are you so interested in who I happen to have sex with?

It's kind of disingenuous for you to react like I'm invading your privacy, when you've discussed and referenced your sexual orientation(s) many a time.

|8.3.05 @ 8:03PM|#

crimethink,

So you're admitting that homosexuality is a choice, and you've changed your mind? ;-)

No, I'm not admitting anything like that. No, I haven't changed my mind. If my wife were to die before me and I decided to seek out a new relationship I'd be just as inclined to be with a guy as I would be with a woman. Honestly, just because you commit yourself to someone doesn't mean that you've suddenly become a new creature.

It's kind of disingenuous for you to react like I'm invading your privacy...

Its not a privacy issue. I obviously don't care what you know about this issue. What does amuse me is your efforts to constantly bring it up. It must be exciting for you I guess. Be excited I guess. :)

|8.3.05 @ 9:16PM|#

From what little I know about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, wouldn't they think of embyos merely as gateways for souls to enter earthly existence. It's the souls they're more concerned with, so they have no problems whatsoever. heh heh heh

|8.3.05 @ 9:32PM|#

Ruthless,

Does it say that on those vanished "golden tablets?" :)

Mark Bahner|8.3.05 @ 10:29PM|#

Ron Bailey writes, "Similarly, 3 to 5 day old frozen embryos leftover from in vitro fertilization attempts are not people either."

I certainly agree. I wouldn't give a second thought to killing thousands of 3 to 5 day old embryos.

However, you should admit, Ron, that your statement isn't a statement of science. It's a statement of your values.

You wouldn't tell a devout Hindu, "Cows aren't sacred" would you? (No offense intended to any Hindu people if I got this wrong. I'm just going by what I've heard.)

|8.3.05 @ 11:51PM|#

I have to agree with Don here. If the gov't wasn't in charge of research funding in the first place this wouldn't even be on the radar.

Dominic,
<strawman> Saying that science should be run by the gov't because it would piss Bush off (when clearly the opposite is true) is silly. </strawman>
His motives are irrelevant. As with free markets and all that, it's the end result that counts. Time to get everybody off the taxpayer teat.

|8.4.05 @ 1:05AM|#

Thought this was a Libertarian blog. Seems like a Republican vomitorium... guess I wuz wrong.

|8.4.05 @ 5:45PM|#

WTF,

I thought it was conservatives who couldn't stand hearing opposing points of view.

|8.4.05 @ 5:48PM|#

Mark Bahner,

Worry not about offending Hindus, I'm sure any of them reading the thread are already pissed off that I compared G--I mean Hakluyt-- to Lord Vishnu.

Ken Hagler|8.4.05 @ 9:55PM|#

An article in favor of the Feds funding research? Is Joe ghostwriting for Reason now?