The government funds all sorts of things I think are stupid and horrible. How come the Sacred Spermers get a break and I don’t?

Because society is still overwhelmingly influenced by people with Christian morality and murder is a concept that we don’t want to take lightly?

How about: Laws exist to prevent federal funding for abortion AND invasive embryonic research. One of those laws bans any research that would create a human embryo for the purpose of research or any research which would destroy a human embryo. It was passed by congress in 1995 and can’t be overturned by presidential fiat. If you don’t like that law, ask your congressman to have it repealed. Until then, it is the law.

Or, you can continue to insult everyone who believes differently than you and hope that they feel sheepish enough to just change their minds and ignore their morality.

The government funds all sorts of things I think are stupid and horrible. How come the Sacred Spermers get a break and I don’t?

@Dave: So if I don’t like someplace I should leave it, eh?

I know. Telling someone “so leave!” is such a trite thing to say. Some people put down roots, or maybe a location has other benefits (e.g. early spring-like weather in December) so we’[d like to see things get better rather than just abandon ship. When you are older and with a career you can’t “just leave” in many cases.

@Dave: So if I don’t like someplace I should leave it, eh? What if I was born here? Am I allowed, pretty please, to take part in the civic process or is that only for people who cosplay?

How does using discarded tissue equal murder?

Quiet Desperation is quite correct that some people believe every embryo is a potential human. The “every sperm is sacred” satire is funny, but doesn’t really address the central reasons why they believe that. For most who believe that every embryo is a human, it comes from a religious standpoint. For the Catholic Church, life begins at conception, and in the case of embryos, before implantation. For other faiths, there are somewhat different interpretations, but the majority believe conception to be the moment life begins.

The counter-question is “Why should we have to abide their religious beliefs?” The answer to that no one is forcing you to do so. On the other hand, government funding of stem cell research is the moral equivalent of forcing the religious to support what they believe to be the murder of innocents. The grounds for all lawsuits and political posturing against stem cell research has been against the federal funding of research, not against the research itself.

How is using cells that are going to be discarded anyway a moral quandary? I don’t see a difference between this and harvesting whole organs from a full-grown corpse. We don’t consider them to be murdered by the doctors, they’re already dead.

This is two part, and the second is easier. The difference between stem cell harvesting and organ harvesting is that, in most cases, the full-grown individual had a choice in the issue. The embryonic life that was terminated early did not. On the first part it is just as much a moral quandary in allowing the embryos to be discarded. The moral evil of letting these embryos be discarded can not be rectified by letting them be used as a salve for ailing bodies.

Look at it this way, you ever watch Soylent Green? How about read Swift’s “A Modest Proposal”? If you first accept that embryos are people, as those who believe such think to be true, then there is no difference between harvesting people to feed the masses and harvesting people to heal the masses. It is disgusting to those who believe in that interpretation of the Bible. Worse, in the eyes of the religious, it seems to be just the sort of evil that people “without God” lead themselves into.

Enjoy. NSFW.

There’s just people who think every embryo is a potential human.

See “Every Sperm Is Sacred” by Monty Python. Actually, it’s quite an accurate satire.

If I were in charge, there’d be vast government embryo farms that sell them for research at a profit.

When the Republican climate deniers (Boehner and cohorts) say “dismantle the House select committee on global warming,” they are really meaning “we’ll leave the escalating environmental problems for future generations to contend with, because we’re too busy living our lives and won’t be bothered with it all.” What a selfish, self-defeating, and failed philosophy of leadership in Washington that is. I will bet hyper-emotional Boehner won’t bother shedding a tear about it, either.

“Why do people like poster #12 (Dave) make dumb, irresponsible statements, generalize complicated issues, and pretend like they’re speaking about things they’re knowledgeable about, yet they haven’t done a damn bit of research beyond what they heard on fox news?”

Looks like you made a dumb, irresponsible statement that generalizes me.

“Unfortunately, I work for the TSA, ”

No surprise.

“I’ve realized that people on all sides of politics… …will believe what they want to believe as long as their political leaders tell them to believe it, regardless of how much evidence is there to support it. They’ll believe things in spite of loads of evidence showing them they’re wrong.”

Looks like you made another dumb, irresponsible statement that generalizes everyone.

“There is one truth in all of this, and that is the facts. Science and logic are our best bets at discovering the truth and it’s a shame politics will take that away from us too.”

You need a bottle of Hater Aid.

How does using discarded tissue equal murder?

This is an honest question. I’ve never understood this stance. No one is making or urging people to have sex and abort anything. No one is mixing eggs and sperm for the express purpose of making embryos to slice up. (I could understand the argument from those standpoints. Not agree with it, but I would understand.) How is using cells that are going to be discarded anyway a moral quandary? I don’t see a difference between this and harvesting whole organs from a full-grown corpse. We don’t consider them to be murdered by the doctors, they’re already dead.

If given the option, and if that is an accurate picture, I think I’d prefer the Republican model. Its the difference between the freedom to be an idiot or a savant. I prefer freedom everytime. I think its up to the individual to educate themselves, though it is up to society to make that education available. Government funding to pay for better college science programs and investment in scientific research projects is more important than any program to help people know the difference between Copernicus and Tycho Brahe. The breadth of scientific knowledge in society does little to probe the outer reaches of human knowledge; it is the tip of the spear that pierces the veil. The most important thing that we can have is a willingness to make better spears.