[Kosh]

Will this never end?

WASHINGTON — A U.S. district court issued a preliminary injunction Monday stopping federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research in a slap to the Obama administration's new guidelines on the sensitive issue.

The court ruled in favor of a suit filed in June by researchers who said human embryonic stem cell research involves the destruction of human embryos.

Judge Royce Lamberth granted the injunction after finding that the lawsuit would likely succeed because the guidelines violated law banning the use of federal funds to destroy human embryos.

"(Embryonic stem cell) research is clearly research in which an embryo is destroyed," Lamberth wrote in a 15-page ruling. The Obama administration could appeal his decision or try to rewrite the guidelines to comply with U.S. law.

The unusual suit against the National Institutes of Health, backed by some Christian groups opposed to embryo research, argued that the NIH policy violates U.S. law and takes funds from researchers seeking to work with adult stem cells.

[Scotty]

If (and I say if) this part:

human embryonic stem cell research involves the destruction of human embryos.

is true, this is a valid ruling.

[Turambar]

If (and I say if) this part:

human embryonic stem cell research involves the destruction of human embryos.

is true, this is a valid ruling.

If they are available to be used for research, there's no way they were ever on deck to go on and become people. 

Typical pro-birth.  So concerned with making sure they get out of the womb, you toss out all concern for the people that already exist.

[Flipside]

I think you touched on the real reason there, this isn't about Research, it's about 'Pro-Life' exponents trying to claim that scientists will 'kill babies' for this research, and that it would encourage women to get pregnant and have abortions to sell the foetus to science.

The first claim is, of course ridiculous, the second one, well, it depends on how the system works. I think certainly that the donation of such a thing would have to be entirely voluntary and without payment, like willing your body to science. I'm interested to see how research on adult stem cells progresses, but I can't help thinking that it's a strangely third world philosophy to consider number of children over quality of life, that's the kind of thing done in countries where disease is likely to take a large percentage of your family before they reach maturity, ironically enough.

[Bobboau]

If they are available to be used for research, there's no way they were ever on deck to go on and become people. 

Typical pro-birth.  So concerned with making sure they get out of the womb, you toss out all concern for the people that already exist.

maybe by 'valid' he meant something like 'complies with some set of crazy laws that technically exist', rather than 'is not completely asinine'.

[Scotty]

Indeed.  Whether it conflicts with your worldview or not, that little snippet is law, and until you get it changed, the ruling is valid.

[karajorma]

HEY! RICH PEOPLE. THE COURT JUST DECIDED TO HOLD BACK A TECHNOLOGY THAT MIGHT GIVE YOU ANOTHER FEW HUNDRED YEARS OF LIFE. WHY ARE YOU WASTING YOUR LOBBYING MONEY ON ANYTHING OTHER THAN THIS SUBJECT?

There, that should solve it.

[Flipside]

Come to think of it, Going To War puts unborn foetus' at risk in whatever country is being attacked...

[Dr. Pwnguin]

Eh, this only means that there is no public funding for it. Private funding for this research in the US is, and has been, legal.

[Sushi]

If you're going to get mad, get mad at the people who made the law the way it is, and/or people who refuse to change it. But don't blame the judge for doing his job correctly.

If you're going to criticize the judge, at least point out why you think the legal ruling is invalid...

[Herra Tohtori]

If you're going to get mad, get mad at the people who made the law the way it is, and/or people who refuse to change it. But don't blame the judge for doing his job correctly.

Fertility treatments involve a huge surplus of technically viable embryos.

They are either disposed of as biohazard waste or given over as research material for, as a good example, stem cell research.

Both options end up in surplus embryos being destroyed. Which of the two options produces greater gains for rest of the world?

Do fertility treatments and associated research receive public funding?

If you're going to criticize the judge, at least point out why you think the legal ruling is invalid...

It's invalid because by far the embryos used in stem cell research already exist (as said byproduct of fertility treatments) and aren't specifically made for stem cell research. If they aren't researched, they'll simply be destroyed - they can't all be stored, it would fill the cryo storage spaces in a very short time if all the surplus embryos were preserved because someone thinks a clump of few cells with human DNA must not be destroyed.

And yeah, I'm criticizing the judge for not using common sense and the law makers for creating an absurd law that doesn't hold water with any sort of logic, it just appeases the so-called "pro-life" block.

[Bobboau]

you are not addressing his point, his point is about the law bing stupid and the judge following the law.

[Flipside]

The problem with law, particularly when related to technology, is that the Judge is wholly reliant on the testimony of professionals, and if a Pro-Life representative can paint a gruesome enough picture of pregnant women queueing up outside Abortion centres to sell their unborn foetuses to science, then the Judge will inevitably make the 'safe' call, because he/she has to consider things from a social perspective, and the sort of Drama that will be raised outside the courthouse. The fact is that Government is far more led by public perception than by fact, facts are boring, and require digestion, Drama is immediate and provokes an immediate reaction. Hopefully this will go to appeals, where the problem can be viewed from a more dispassionate angle.

[Bobboau]

appeals are only if there was a procedural error in the case. it would have to go to the supreme court to have the effect you want.

[Sushi]

And yeah, I'm criticizing the judge for not using common sense and the law makers for creating an absurd law that doesn't hold water with any sort of logic, it just appeases the so-called "pro-life" block.

My point is pretty much that the Judiciary's job is to uphold the law, even dumb ones. That's their job.

I'm not as familiar with legal procedures as I would like to be: it's got to be possible to appeal on more than just procedural error, though. Can't you appeal on the basis that a higher law (administered by a higher court) supersedes the ruling?

[Locutus of Borg]

How many of these pro-lifers also support the death penalty?

[Herra Tohtori]

you are not addressing his point, his point is about the law bing stupid and the judge following the law.

The ruling may be legitimate and the judge may be doing his job, but I still don't agree with his ruling.

The ruling says that stem cell research must not receive public funding because it involves destruction of human embryos.

What I'm addressing is the logistical problem and moral duplicity here.

Logistical problem: The embryos used in stem cell research exist with or without stem cell research, and will be destroyed with or without stem cell research. It is not logically sound argument to say that stem cell research is responsible for their destruction.

Which leads us to moral duplicity of turning a blind eye over fertility clinics that produce said surplus of human embryos in the first place.

Is there a ruling that says fertility clinics using in vitro fertilization must not receive public funding?

I would actually support the judge's ruling if he looked underneath the underneath and decreed that if stem cell research can't have public funding, neither can fertility clinics that produce the embryos in the first place.

I would actually love to see what the so-called "Pro Life" block would think of that.

"Okay, I'll ban public funding for stem cell research because embryos are destroyed in the process."
"Whee! Praise the Lord!"
"...of course, by the same standards I'm also going to ban public funding for in vitro fertilization that produces the vast majority of these embryos in the first place. Have fun explaining to childless families why it is bad for them to have children. I guess God doesn't want them to have kids..."
"Gently Caress"

And yeah, I'm criticizing the judge for not using common sense and the law makers for creating an absurd law that doesn't hold water with any sort of logic, it just appeases the so-called "pro-life" block.

My point is pretty much that the Judiciary's job is to uphold the law, even dumb ones. That's their job.

I'm not as familiar with legal procedures as I would like to be: it's got to be possible to appeal on more than just procedural error, though. Can't you appeal on the basis that a higher law (administered by a higher court) supersedes the ruling?

Don't know about the law, but I do know that it's not logically sound to put the blame of the destruction of those embryos on stem cell research.


Can someone find out some actual data whether or not

a. fertility clinics using in vitro fertilization receive public funding

and

b. if there is a ruling that they cannot receive public funding?

[chief1983]

What does supporting the death penalty have to do with being pro-life?  Pro-life comes from the believe that every life should have a chance, and the death penalty is for those that have had their chance and screwed up so badly as to warrant it.  I'm pro-choice by the way, mostly for logistical reasons.

[Flipside]

I'm Pro-choice because of Grammar.

[chief1983]

I'm Pro-choice because of Grammar.