Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Bill

[Quicklet]

Wow, Quicklet, so bitter. And so wrong.

As I am the only one who mentioned vote #s, I can only assume you meant me.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/19/ ... index.html

Y HALO TO U Accurate vote #s.

Now go back into your woodwork.

I mentioned this bill (which is not the one he vetoed) to illustrate that there is a line which every one agrees should not be crossed. There is a point where yeah, there are immoral ways to try to get Stem Cells.

But using a frozen Embryo that is slated for destruction? At that point it's trying to salvage the best of a resource to benefit the living.

Please check your facts before telling others to check theirs.

Actually, now that you're bringing this up it makes me think you know even less what you're talking about. Let's see what you said in your original post.

Unanimous votes, vetoed because one guy can't pull his ass off of his head long enough to see the light.

So basically you said that this bill was the same bill that was vetoed, but now you're saying it's not the same bill.

On Tuesday evening, the House approved the "fetal farming" bill 425-0
"Fetal farming" -- passed the Senate in 100-0 votes.

This makes it sound like Congress approved a bill supporting fetal farming, when actually it was a ban on fetal farming, which has absolutely nothing to do with the argument you were trying to make in that post.

If you randomly pull facts out of your ass (your ass being a single cnn.com online article in this case) and spew it as jibberjabber with no coherence, don't expect people to understand what you're trying to say, but I suppose we're all supposed to telepathically understand what everybody means in their posts via the internet no matter how badly it's written.

It's nice to know that you think of human embryos as a "resource" though, we really need to get those embryo factories running full throttle so we aren't dependent on foreign embryos and have to start a war on spurious evidence to prop up the domestic embryo market. God knows I'm gonna need some of them rejuvenation therapies when I'm older so I can live to be 150.

[Raivyn]

Is that a good reason for us to invade Iraq?



Meh, I dont understand how Bush won the second term. I voted for Al Gore both time. At least Al Gore is concentrating on dormestic issue and global warming rather than making countless of stupid mistakes.


If Hillary Clinton runs for president, i will vote for her. Bill Clinton was a good president.


I am totally disappointed when i heard Bush vetoed the bill. Totally...

If being a good president means letting every aspect of American society atrophy while you get a blowjob from a pudgy intern then sure, he was a good president.

Id consider my self pretty far right on the conservative side, and even i am obliged to say that clinton was a good president. May not have made the best decisions in what i would call "home", but defining his presidency solely on that is stripping him of a lot. You'd hafta be naive to think however, that he was the only president to engage in such activities. I wouldnt say that you could vote for hillary strictly on bill's run in ofice though. If it ends up, by some miracle, that it's Clinton vs Rice, id vote libratarian.

Honestly I don't give a shit about the blowjob other than the fact that he lied about it; that's between him and his wife. I have major problems with the way he handled foreign policy, our military and it's funding, and military engagements. Not to mention I have problems with how he handled the economy. He did a horrible job with foreign relations and events - and did a horrible job here at home with our economy.

And yeah I'd vote lib too

[Raivyn]

Kinda couple pages ago, but there was the ever ending arguement about why iraq? And people mentioned Korea and China. But I'm surprised that still Darfur is never mentioned in any of these types of threads.

His some info on what's been going on in Afirca (that some said has nothnig major going on).

http://www.savedarfur.org/situation/history


Now I'm not saying we should "mother country" the world. But I want a good answer that if we feel we should go to Iraq then why not Darfur? Only answer I can find is oil, but I'd like the bush fans to give me some other reason because this is just plain stupid that we're letting this go on.

From page 3;

Actually, Iraq has a surplus in many things that Africa doesn't. Things like oil, terrorist connections, WMD capability and intent, islamic fundamentalism. But hey let's just forget about all those other things. They're obviously not a factor in any decision making process at all.

Not to mention that Saddam's Regime was responsible for the deaths of far more people than the conflict in darfur.

Your quote was partially what I was referring to since you made it sound like Africa has nothing going on when it does. And are you suggesting we should just simply wait till the dethtoll reaches a specific number (to sadaam's killings) inorder for us to finally do something about it?

Oh come on that's just ridiculous. There is a lot going on in Africa, and I never said anything to the contrary. Perhaps you are a little bit over-sensitive.

What I'm suggesting is that you seem so gung ho about the situation in Darfur, but so against the situation in Iraq. It seems to not bother you that we're there partly to help liberate an oppressed people because 'it was all for oil'. Once again - are your gas prices going up or down? You are aware that that oil belongs to Iraq, right? We still have to buy it.

But regardless - where's your bleeding heart for those who died in Iraq before we stepped in? Do you just want to do something altruistic, instead of something productive in more ways than one? And yes, in terms of cold hard numbers - Iraq > Darfur. More people were dying. It's called prioritization.

And also - last I checked everyone had their panties in a bunch because they thought we should just have left Iraq alone and let them do their own thing. Now the same people are screaming about Darfur. Bottom line - people will never make up their minds. They want this, they want that. They want the U.S. to help, but they don't want the U.S. to help. Come on, spare me. We're doing good things for people in Iraq. We're also providing aid to almost every single African country. I say 'we' meaning 'the U.S.' - which sends it's money to Africa through the U.N. (we contribute over 75% of all facets of the U.N.'s budget - including peacekeepers, aid, payroll, etc.

But whatever. Save Darfur. How about saving these people?

In 1996, 17,126 people were killed in the United States as a result of alcohol-related traffic crashes -- an average of one every 32 minutes. These deaths constituted approximately 41 percent of the 41,097 total number of traffic fatalities which occurred in 1996. (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (1997). Fatal Accident Reporting System. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation.)

The following states or territories had traffic fatalities in which 50 percent or more of all traffic fatalities were alcohol-related: Alaska, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Tennessee, and Washington. (Ibid.)

In 1997, 20 percent (184) of children under age 5 killed in traffic fatalities were killed in alcohol-related fatalities; 16.7 percent (134) children age 5-9; 23.3 percent (248) children age 10-14; and 34 percent (1,771) adolescents age 15-19 were killed in alcohol-related fatalities. (Ibid.)

In addition, in 1997, 55.4 percent (2,890) of persons age 20-24 killed in traffic fatalities were killed in alcohol-related fatalities; 57.8 percent (2,329) of persons age 25-29; 58.4 percent (2,088) of persons age 30-34; and 55.6 percent (1,959) of persons age 35-39 were killed in alcohol-related fatalities. Over age 40, drunk driving-related fatalities steadily decrease from 51.3 percent of all traffic fatalities (1,533) for persons age 40-44 to 11.9 percent (461) for persons 75 years and older. (Ibid.)

It is estimated that 1,058,990 people were injured in alcohol-related crashes in 1995. On an average, one person is injured as a

result of alcohol impaired driving every 30 seconds. (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (1996). Fatal Accident Reporting System. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation.)

About two in every five Americans will be involved in an alcohol-related crash at some time in their lives. (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (1995). Fatal Accident Reporting System. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation.)

The highest number of traffic fatalities to occur in 1995 on a "single" day holiday was on Saint Patrick's Day (68.1 percent). (Ibid.)

Drunk driving is the nation's most frequently committed violent crime. (Summary of Statistics: The Impaired Driving Problem. (1996). Irving, TX: Mothers Against Drunk Driving National Office.)

Direct costs of alcohol-related crashes are estimated at $45 billion yearly. It is also estimated that an additional $70.5 billion is lost in quality of life due to alcohol-related crashes. (Miller T. R. & Blincoe, L. J. (1994). "Incidence and Cost of Alcohol-involved Crashes," pp. 583-59. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol 26, Number 5.)

Every weekday night from 10 p.m. to

1 a.m., one in 13 drivers is drunk (BAC of .08 or more). Between 1 a.m. and 6 a.m., on weekend mornings, one in seven drivers is drunk. (Ibid., 1996 update)

Traffic crashes are the greatest single cause of death for every age from six through 28. Almost half of these crashes are alcohol-related. (Ibid.)

Note: OVC makes no representation concerning the accuracy of data from non-Department of Justice sources.

These numbers are higher now, by the by. Estimated 3 million injuries and $150 billion cost to the nation for recent years.

But the problem with things like this, and darfur, is that neither of them are going to result in infidel-hating jihadists trying to kill us.

Tbh I say all or nothing. If we want to help then we help not wait for a specific number. If we don't want to help then don't and let the countries defend for themselves. Which would I prefer? hmm probably I'd say isolation and let the individual people take a stand if they feel they want to help, but that's not what Bush claims this country is. So if we're to "stop all terrorists" then yes I say we'd need to step into Darfur too. OR we need to admit it was over oil and just leave and let other countries figure out their own problems.

We'll get to it if people largely give enough of a damn. Currently though, they don't, really.

Personally, yes we should be doing something about Darfur. And we are, incidentally. But comparing Darfur and Iraq... just wtf.

[Nirokun!]

The faster things go to shit, the faster the species dies out and the world can try again.

The reverence for life and all it's 'unfinished business' is just people's lack of acceptance of an end. I can start playing a videogame, and understand that if i stop forever with said videogame, its nto a big deal. Even though my interests in said videogame continues, im able to live on. I dunno, its really hard to explain, but i just think most people dont have an acceptance for death until they understand and feel how personal death occurs, and what happens to them, and the people/world around them. I dont think most people consider the feelings they have about dying, their own death, and other's understanding of their death. I think when you have that, you can live peacefully, and without fear of death.

What does this have to do with Bush? In your lifetime, you will have seen a great many things, as far as you understand. But in the grand scheme of all time and space, you mean nothing, Bush means nothing, oil means nothing, this argument means nothing. Even what i say means nothing, and thus this post comes full circle. Have a nice day (*'-')

[Mekami]

The faster things go to shit, the faster the species dies out and the world can try again.

The reverence for life and all it's 'unfinished business' is just people's lack of acceptance of an end. I can start playing a videogame, and understand that if i stop forever with said videogame, its nto a big deal. Even though my interests in said videogame continues, im able to live on. I dunno, its really hard to explain, but i just think most people dont have an acceptance for death until they understand and feel how personal death occurs, and what happens to them, and the people/world around them. I dont think most people consider the feelings they have about dying, their own death, and other's understanding of their death. I think when you have that, you can live peacefully, and without fear of death.

What does this have to do with Bush? In your lifetime, you will have seen a great many things, as far as you understand. But in the grand scheme of all time and space, you mean nothing, Bush means nothing, oil means nothing, this argument means nothing. Even what i say means nothing, and thus this post comes full circle. Have a nice day (*'-')

This post deserves an award for the longest post that says nothing.

[JoOeetheplatypuS]

The faster things go to shit, the faster the species dies out and the world can try again.

The reverence for life and all it's 'unfinished business' is just people's lack of acceptance of an end. I can start playing a videogame, and understand that if i stop forever with said videogame, its nto a big deal. Even though my interests in said videogame continues, im able to live on. I dunno, its really hard to explain, but i just think most people dont have an acceptance for death until they understand and feel how personal death occurs, and what happens to them, and the people/world around them. I dont think most people consider the feelings they have about dying, their own death, and other's understanding of their death. I think when you have that, you can live peacefully, and without fear of death.

What does this have to do with Bush? In your lifetime, you will have seen a great many things, as far as you understand. But in the grand scheme of all time and space, you mean nothing, Bush means nothing, oil means nothing, this argument means nothing. Even what i say means nothing, and thus this post comes full circle. Have a nice day (*'-')

This post deserves an award for the longest post that says nothing.

You deserve an award for shittiest 109 posts since Maxxthepenguin.

[Mekami]

The faster things go to shit, the faster the species dies out and the world can try again.

The reverence for life and all it's 'unfinished business' is just people's lack of acceptance of an end. I can start playing a videogame, and understand that if i stop forever with said videogame, its nto a big deal. Even though my interests in said videogame continues, im able to live on. I dunno, its really hard to explain, but i just think most people dont have an acceptance for death until they understand and feel how personal death occurs, and what happens to them, and the people/world around them. I dont think most people consider the feelings they have about dying, their own death, and other's understanding of their death. I think when you have that, you can live peacefully, and without fear of death.

What does this have to do with Bush? In your lifetime, you will have seen a great many things, as far as you understand. But in the grand scheme of all time and space, you mean nothing, Bush means nothing, oil means nothing, this argument means nothing. Even what i say means nothing, and thus this post comes full circle. Have a nice day (*'-')

This post deserves an award for the longest post that says nothing.

You deserve an award for shittiest 109 posts since Maxxthepenguin.

They're obviously enough to keep you interested if you've read each of the 109.

Thanks.

[JoOeetheplatypuS]

The faster things go to shit, the faster the species dies out and the world can try again.

The reverence for life and all it's 'unfinished business' is just people's lack of acceptance of an end. I can start playing a videogame, and understand that if i stop forever with said videogame, its nto a big deal. Even though my interests in said videogame continues, im able to live on. I dunno, its really hard to explain, but i just think most people dont have an acceptance for death until they understand and feel how personal death occurs, and what happens to them, and the people/world around them. I dont think most people consider the feelings they have about dying, their own death, and other's understanding of their death. I think when you have that, you can live peacefully, and without fear of death.

What does this have to do with Bush? In your lifetime, you will have seen a great many things, as far as you understand. But in the grand scheme of all time and space, you mean nothing, Bush means nothing, oil means nothing, this argument means nothing. Even what i say means nothing, and thus this post comes full circle. Have a nice day (*'-')

This post deserves an award for the longest post that says nothing.

You deserve an award for shittiest 109 posts since Maxxthepenguin.

They're obviously enough to keep you interested if you've read each of the 109.

Thanks.

I've only seen the ones about believing everything conservatives say. I'm guessing the other 10 were shitty too.

[Nirokun!]

The faster things go to shit, the faster the species dies out and the world can try again.

The reverence for life and all it's 'unfinished business' is just people's lack of acceptance of an end. I can start playing a videogame, and understand that if i stop forever with said videogame, its nto a big deal. Even though my interests in said videogame continues, im able to live on. I dunno, its really hard to explain, but i just think most people dont have an acceptance for death until they understand and feel how personal death occurs, and what happens to them, and the people/world around them. I dont think most people consider the feelings they have about dying, their own death, and other's understanding of their death. I think when you have that, you can live peacefully, and without fear of death.

What does this have to do with Bush? In your lifetime, you will have seen a great many things, as far as you understand. But in the grand scheme of all time and space, you mean nothing, Bush means nothing, oil means nothing, this argument means nothing. Even what i say means nothing, and thus this post comes full circle. Have a nice day (*'-')

This post deserves an award for the longest post that says nothing.

and thus the effect is complete

if you can grasp what i mean, please try

[Zoolander]

Eh, next generation or so of politicians and middle/upper middle classes will have little to no religious ties. I can only think of 5 people out of the many, many that I know that actually believe religion is a good thing and isnt at the root of nearly every single dispute in the history of man. So hopfully this constant garbage about religion and honestly pointless rambling about morals, gay marriage, and all the other trivial things that have no business taking up so much political discussions will finally dissapear with the next, next, or maybe next changng of the guard.

So heres to the next douchebag that gets elected, hopefully he'll be less of a tool than Bush. Hes not as bad as people make him out to be, but try to think of somthing that hes done that has really done any good for the U.S in the last 6ish years. Pretty short list no matter what your political views are.

Shame about the stem cell research veto, I'm a diabetic and its applications really excited me for myself as well as the prospects for alot of the other horrible afflictions. Can't really say I'm suprised by his decision though.

[Mekami]

The faster things go to shit, the faster the species dies out and the world can try again.

The reverence for life and all it's 'unfinished business' is just people's lack of acceptance of an end. I can start playing a videogame, and understand that if i stop forever with said videogame, its nto a big deal. Even though my interests in said videogame continues, im able to live on. I dunno, its really hard to explain, but i just think most people dont have an acceptance for death until they understand and feel how personal death occurs, and what happens to them, and the people/world around them. I dont think most people consider the feelings they have about dying, their own death, and other's understanding of their death. I think when you have that, you can live peacefully, and without fear of death.

What does this have to do with Bush? In your lifetime, you will have seen a great many things, as far as you understand. But in the grand scheme of all time and space, you mean nothing, Bush means nothing, oil means nothing, this argument means nothing. Even what i say means nothing, and thus this post comes full circle. Have a nice day (*'-')

This post deserves an award for the longest post that says nothing.

You deserve an award for shittiest 109 posts since Maxxthepenguin.

They're obviously enough to keep you interested if you've read each of the 109.

Thanks.

I've only seen the ones about believing everything conservatives say. I'm guessing the other 10 were shitty too.

I'm glad you're ignorant or we wouldn't have anyone to make fun of ^^

I haven't agreed or disagreed with anyone here, only read, made a few comments. You however, should take the dick out of your ass and stop jumping on people's cases ^^

Hm. Out for the evening. I'll read what you guys post in the morning ^^

[Ksandra]

Oh come on that's just ridiculous. There is a lot going on in Africa, and I never said anything to the contrary. Perhaps you are a little bit over-sensitive.

What I'm suggesting is that you seem so gung ho about the situation in Darfur, but so against the situation in Iraq. It seems to not bother you that we're there partly to help liberate an oppressed people because 'it was all for oil'. Once again - are your gas prices going up or down? You are aware that that oil belongs to Iraq, right? We still have to buy it.

But regardless - where's your bleeding heart for those who died in Iraq before we stepped in? Do you just want to do something altruistic, instead of something productive in more ways than one? And yes, in terms of cold hard numbers - Iraq > Darfur. More people were dying. It's called prioritization.

And also - last I checked everyone had their panties in a bunch because they thought we should just have left Iraq alone and let them do their own thing. Now the same people are screaming about Darfur. Bottom line - people will never make up their minds. They want this, they want that. They want the U.S. to help, but they don't want the U.S. to help. Come on, spare me. We're doing good things for people in Iraq. We're also providing aid to almost every single African country. I say 'we' meaning 'the U.S.' - which sends it's money to Africa through the U.N. (we contribute over 75% of all facets of the U.N.'s budget - including peacekeepers, aid, payroll, etc.

Actually read my part in my last post where I said where my personal feelings were. If I had my way we as a nation wouldn't have gone to iraq OR darfur. If say people in the US wanted to help out then they should be more than welcomed to do fundings and go out and help whoever they feel the need (sorta what missionaries do but without the religious intent)


My posting about darfur was nothing more than an attempt to prove that the war in Iraq has more to do about oil then saving people. I am NOT trying to say we should stop fighting in Iraq and go to Africa.

Vietnam is enough evidence for me to know that the situation in Iraq will more or less go back to the way it was once we leave (if we ever leave), and I can assume that's what would happen in Darfur as well. So I say we go into isolation and try to fix our own coutnries problems first.

[macbain24]

I'm glad you're ignorant or we wouldn't have anyone to make fun of ^^

I haven't agreed or disagreed with anyone here, only read, made a few comments. You however, should take the dick out of your ass and stop jumping on people's cases ^^

Hm. Out for the evening. I'll read what you guys post in the morning ^^

Why do people add ^^ when trying to insult someone? Just makes you look like a pompous asshole.

[Elcura]

They have to close their eyes and imagine that people actually think they are witty.

[Raivyn]

They have to close their eyes and imagine that people actually think they are witty.

Like that episode of southpark with the hybrid cars.

[Bwelch]

Well I typed all this out from a great book I read a year ago and I hope you all find it very interesting. If you don't have the attention span to read this much text then I suggest you at least try.

End of Faith Religion Terror and the Future of Reason

The God of Medicine (West of Eden; Page 165)

While there is surly and opposition between reason and faith, we will see that there is none between reason and love or reason and spirituality. The basis for this claim is simple. Every experience that a human being can have admits of rational discussion about its causes and consequences (or about our ignorance thereof). Although this leaves considerable room for exotic, it leaves none at all for faith. There may yet be good reasons to believe in psychic phenomena, alien life, the doctrine of rebirth, the healing power of prayer, or anything else – but our credulity must scale with the evidence. The doctrine of faith denies this. From the perspective of faith, it is better to ape the behavior of one’s ancestors than to find creative ways to uncover new truths in the present.

There are sources of irrationality other than religious faith, of course, but none of them are celebrated for their role in the habit of praising our nation for its reliance upon astrology, or for its wealth of UFO sightings, or for exemplifying the various reasoning biases they psychologist have found to be more or less endemic to our species. Only mainstream religious dogmatism receives the unqualified support of government. And yet, religious faith obscures uncertainty where uncertainty manifestly exists, allowing the unknown, the implausible, and the patently false to achieve primacy over the facts.

Consider the present debate over research on human embryonic stem cells. The problem with this research, from the religious point of view, is simple: it entails the destruction of human embryos. The embryos in question will have been cultured in vitro (not removed from a woman’s body) and permitted to grow for three to five days. At this stage of development, an embryo is called a blastocyst and consists of about 150 cells arranged in a microscopic sphere. Interior to the blastocyst is a small group of about 30 embryonic stem cells. These cells have two properties that make them of such abiding interest to scientists: as stem cells, they can remain in a unspecialized sate, reproducing themselves through cell division for long periods of time (a population of such cells living in culture is known as a cell line); stem cells are also pluripotent, which means they have the potential to become any specialized cell in the human body – neurons of the brain and spinal cord, insulin-producing cells of the pancreas, muscle cells of the heat, and so forth.

Here is what we know. We know that much can be learned from research on embryonic stem cells in particular, such research may give us further insight into the process of cell division and cell differentiation. This would almost certainly shed new light on those medical conditions, like cancer and birth defects, which seem to be merely a matter of these processes gone awry. We also know that research on embryonic stem cells requires the destruction of human embryos at the 150-cell stage. There is not the slightest reason to believe, however, that such embryos have the capacity to sense pain, to suffer, or to experience the loss of life in any way at all. What is indisputable is that there are millions of human beings who do have the capacities, and who currently suffer from traumatic injuries to the brain and spinal cord. Millions more suffer from stroke and heart disease, from burns, from diabetes, from rheumatoid arthritis, from Purkinje cell degeneration, from Duchenne muscular dystrophy, and from vision and hearing loss. We know that embryonic stem cells promise to be a renewable source of tissues and organs that might alleviate such suffering in the not to distant future.

Enter faith: we now find ourselves living in a world in which college-educated politicians will hurl impediments in the way of such research because they are concerned about the fate of single cells. Their concern is not merely that a collection of 150 cells may suffer its destruction. Rather, they believe that even a human zygote (a fertilized egg) should be accorded all the protections of a fully developed human being. Such a cell, after all, has the potential to become a fully developed human being. But given our recent advances in the biology of cloning, as much can be said of almost every cell in the human body. By the measure of a cell’s potential, whenever the president scratches his nose he is now engaged in a diabolical culling of souls.

Our of deference to some rather poorly specified tenet of Christian doctrine (after all, nothing in the bible suggest that killing human embryos, or even human fetuses, the equivalent of killing a human being), the U.S. House of Representatives voted effectively to ban embryonic stem-cell research on February 27, 2003.

No rational approach to ethics would have led us to such an impasse. Our present policy on human stem cells has been shaped by beliefs that are divorced from every reasonable intuition we might form about the possible experience of living systems. In neurological terms, we surely visit more suffering upon this earth by killing fa fly than by killing a blastocyst, to say nothing of a human zygote (flies, after all, have 100,000 cells in there brains alone). Of course, the point at which we fully acquire our humanity, and our capacity to suffer, remains an open question. But anyone who would dogmatically insist that there traits must arise condiment with the moment of conception has nothing to contribute, apart from his ignorance, to this debate. Those opposed to therapeutic stem-cell research on religious grounds constitute the biological and ethical equivalent of a flat-earth society. Our discourse on the subject should reflect this. In this area of public policy alone, the accommodations that we have made to faith will do nothing but enshrine a perfect immensity of human suffering of decades to come.

Faith drives a wedge between ethics and suffering. Where certain actions cause no suffering at all, religious dogmatists still maintain that they are evil and worthy of punishment (sodomy, marijuana use, homosexuality, the killing of blastocysts, ect. And yet, where suffering and death are found in abundance their causes are often deemed to be good (withholding funds for family planning in the third world, prosecuting nonviolent drug offenders, preventing stem-cell research, ect). This inversion of priorities not only victimizes innocent people and squanders scarce resources; it completely falsifies our ethics. It is time we found a more reasonable approach to answering questions of right and wrong.

The End of Faith Religion Terror and the Future of Reason
Author; Sam Harris

[Andarvi]

Well I typed all this out from a great book I read a year ago and I hope you all find it very interesting. If you don't have the attention span to read this much text then I suggest you at least try.

End of Faith Religion Terror and the Future of Reason

The God of Medicine (West of Eden; Page 165)

While there is surly and opposition between reason and faith, we will see that there is none between reason and love or reason and spirituality. The basis for this claim is simple. Every experience that a human being can have admits of rational discussion about its causes and consequences (or about our ignorance thereof). Although this leaves considerable room for exotic, it leaves none at all for faith. There may yet be good reasons to believe in psychic phenomena, alien life, the doctrine of rebirth, the healing power of prayer, or anything else – but our credulity must scale with the evidence. The doctrine of faith denies this. From the perspective of faith, it is better to ape the behavior of one’s ancestors than to find creative ways to uncover new truths in the present.

There are sources of irrationality other than religious faith, of course, but none of them are celebrated for their role in the habit of praising our nation for its reliance upon astrology, or for its wealth of UFO sightings, or for exemplifying the various reasoning biases they psychologist have found to be more or less endemic to our species. Only mainstream religious dogmatism receives the unqualified support of government. And yet, religious faith obscures uncertainty where uncertainty manifestly exists, allowing the unknown, the implausible, and the patently false to achieve primacy over the facts.

Consider the present debate over research on human embryonic stem cells. The problem with this research, from the religious point of view, is simple: it entails the destruction of human embryos. The embryos in question will have been cultured in vitro (not removed from a woman’s body) and permitted to grow for three to five days. At this stage of development, an embryo is called a blastocyst and consists of about 150 cells arranged in a microscopic sphere. Interior to the blastocyst is a small group of about 30 embryonic stem cells. These cells have two properties that make them of such abiding interest to scientists: as stem cells, they can remain in a unspecialized sate, reproducing themselves through cell division for long periods of time (a population of such cells living in culture is known as a cell line); stem cells are also pluripotent, which means they have the potential to become any specialized cell in the human body – neurons of the brain and spinal cord, insulin-producing cells of the pancreas, muscle cells of the heat, and so forth.

Here is what we know. We know that much can be learned from research on embryonic stem cells in particular, such research may give us further insight into the process of cell division and cell differentiation. This would almost certainly shed new light on those medical conditions, like cancer and birth defects, which seem to be merely a matter of these processes gone awry. We also know that research on embryonic stem cells requires the destruction of human embryos at the 150-cell stage. There is not the slightest reason to believe, however, that such embryos have the capacity to sense pain, to suffer, or to experience the loss of life in any way at all. What is indisputable is that there are millions of human beings who do have the capacities, and who currently suffer from traumatic injuries to the brain and spinal cord. Millions more suffer from stroke and heart disease, from burns, from diabetes, from rheumatoid arthritis, from Purkinje cell degeneration, from Duchenne muscular dystrophy, and from vision and hearing loss. We know that embryonic stem cells promise to be a renewable source of tissues and organs that might alleviate such suffering in the not to distant future.

Enter faith: we now find ourselves living in a world in which college-educated politicians will hurl impediments in the way of such research because they are concerned about the fate of single cells. Their concern is not merely that a collection of 150 cells may suffer its destruction. Rather, they believe that even a human zygote (a fertilized egg) should be accorded all the protections of a fully developed human being. Such a cell, after all, has the potential to become a fully developed human being. But given our recent advances in the biology of cloning, as much can be said of almost every cell in the human body. By the measure of a cell’s potential, whenever the president scratches his nose he is now engaged in a diabolical culling of souls.

Our of deference to some rather poorly specified tenet of Christian doctrine (after all, nothing in the bible suggest that killing human embryos, or even human fetuses, the equivalent of killing a human being), the U.S. House of Representatives voted effectively to ban embryonic stem-cell research on February 27, 2003.

No rational approach to ethics would have led us to such an impasse. Our present policy on human stem cells has been shaped by beliefs that are divorced from every reasonable intuition we might form about the possible experience of living systems. In neurological terms, we surely visit more suffering upon this earth by killing fa fly than by killing a blastocyst, to say nothing of a human zygote (flies, after all, have 100,000 cells in there brains alone). Of course, the point at which we fully acquire our humanity, and our capacity to suffer, remains an open question. But anyone who would dogmatically insist that there traits must arise condiment with the moment of conception has nothing to contribute, apart from his ignorance, to this debate. Those opposed to therapeutic stem-cell research on religious grounds constitute the biological and ethical equivalent of a flat-earth society. Our discourse on the subject should reflect this. In this area of public policy alone, the accommodations that we have made to faith will do nothing but enshrine a perfect immensity of human suffering of decades to come.

Faith drives a wedge between ethics and suffering. Where certain actions cause no suffering at all, religious dogmatists still maintain that they are evil and worthy of punishment (sodomy, marijuana use, homosexuality, the killing of blastocysts, ect. And yet, where suffering and death are found in abundance their causes are often deemed to be good (withholding funds for family planning in the third world, prosecuting nonviolent drug offenders, preventing stem-cell research, ect). This inversion of priorities not only victimizes innocent people and squanders scarce resources; it completely falsifies our ethics. It is time we found a more reasonable approach to answering questions of right and wrong.

The End of Faith Religion Terror and the Future of Reason
Author; Sam Harris

good read.

[macbain24]

Jon Stewart interviewed the author of that book a little while ago, it should be on YouTube.

edit: It might have been Stephen Colbert now that I think about it...
edit2: Yea, it was Stephen Colbert. I don't really like the interviews on his show, but here's the link anyways.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=vxvJs3ln8...20Sam%20Harris

[Bwelch]

Jon Stewart interviewed the author of that book a little while ago, it should be on YouTube.

edit: It might have been Stephen Colbert now that I think about it...
edit2: Yea, it was Stephen Colbert. I don't really like the interviews on his show, but here's the link anyways.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=vxvJs3ln8...20Sam%20Harris

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... Sam+harris

[Aurin]

Didnt think Sam Harris fans where present on BG :D

Yeah, Sam Harris owns. I've read his book and saw that vid a while back.