Attack of the Clones

Why the methane created by several thousand Green Bay fan clones filled up with brats-n-beer could physically endanger the northern tier of states with a large cloud of explosive green noxiousness.

(Seriously, though, we’re doing this to try to keep other countries from developing the next “big” economic thing: bio-engineering. The Christian fascists running this country can’t get their invisible “buddy in the sky” to give us the thumbs-up, so we want to piss on other countries’ fires.)

We keep hearing how embryonic stem cell research is going to cure our ills. Rather than pursuing this doubtful course, it seems we rather ought to more heavily adopt adult stem cell researchin the applicable areas. Adult stem cell research has none of the moral problems associated with embryonic stem cell research and has actually delivered on some of the claims made about it.

The problem with the Bush administration is that their actions are so obviously immoral in some respects that when they put forward a claim that they are attending to some urgent moral problem, the first obvious question that comes to mind is, “What about all the other sinful things you’ve done?”.

Before I get blasted for having no morals, let me say that I’m not in favor of killing babies to get stem cells…that’s where I draw the line!

I just happen think it’s very immoral to let potential cures for real diseases swirl down the fertility lab drain because of superstition.

What?!? I can’t believe you people! Don’t you realize the incredible danger in cloning? I mean, Senator Palpatine bin Laden could jeopardize the Trade Federation, of which Halliburton is a major contributor. It would have major ramifications for both Baghdad and Coruscant. Dolly and C.C. are planning an attack on Naboo as we speak! Clearly, this is all tied to Lucas’ push to fund the “Star Wars” defense initiative.

Now, I see why Bush is against cloning, but, I have no idea what his midachlorian count is. Or, wait, isn’t Cheney the Phantom Menace? Er, I am so confused, now…

I always love it when people say “You can’t do that because then you are acting like God”. As far as I’m concerned, any one forcing someone to do, or not do something, is the one acting like God. When Bush tells the world that they shouldn’t permit cloning because it is against God’s will, what the world hears is “God tells you, to do what I, George Bush, say”. And he wonders why the world hates him.

Our stupid laws restricting research only insures that other countries, not hamstrung by religeous zealots, will get our scientists and research dollars.

I would willingly sit in a hut of blood during my time of the month because, man oh man, am I a Bitchmaster Extraordinaire that shouldn’t be inflicted on the general public. I can be classified as a weapon of mass destruction and bitchery and crying, to be sure.

At least I realize this about myself and willingly bow out of the human race for five to seven days instead of getting all Mommy Dearest on the bagger at the grocery store.

Don’t worry, in 2112 the Elder Race will return to remove the cloned Bush Administration priests from power in the Temples of Syrinx, solving both our carbon dioxide problem and its associated low IQ problem (among said priests).

If they have time after that, they might be able to finally establish stable governments in Baghdad & Kabul, then find Saddam’s WMD.

Ras_Nesta,

Thanks for your response. In regards to the points you mention, I would respond this way:

We do not have a separation of church and state. What we do have is a prohibition against state religion–and by extension, state favoritism of particular religious beliefs over others. The distinction is subtle but important. In particular, I do try to phrase my arguments for public policy in terms of reason, utility, etc. where possible.

I would definitely agree that throwing away embryos is a terrible waste. I would, however, argue that the right solution is to not be harvesting embryos in the first place.

As to your specific point about why not use the embryos to alleviate human suffering, I would suggest that the medical research community has tried and failed. Despite the less-flexible nature of adult stem cells, adult stem cells and not embryonic stem cells have yielded beneficial theraputic results already and embryonic stem cells have failed to do so. (That was as of the last time I had checked, if any of you have evidence to the contrary, I would love some urls. I am not a biologist or similar so I do not keep up with all the work done on that front.)

Thanks for listening.

Will, believe it or not, some of us don’t follow any religion.

So by forcing any notion of “God” into matters related to our mandatory governmental participation, paying taxes, you are “playing favorites”.

I don’t care if you wallpaper your house in bible pages, give your entire income to the “700 Club”, and have every square inch of your body covered with Psalm tattoos, in the political commons keep your religion to yourself and I’ll keep my atheism to myself. After all, my tax dollars are as green as yours.

As for the absolutely moronic notion that embryonic stem cell therapies “have been tried and failed”, where did you get your information, the Catholic Church, or Republican National Committee “Blast Faxes”? Here’s a simple synopsis of the issue from the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.

For anything else you want to know about stem cells, there’s the Stem Cell Network. There’s a very disgusting story there right now, “The Stem Cell Refugee”, reprinted from Wired, about a top US cell researcher who has exiled herself to Britain because “They haven’t made such a political football out of stem cells.”.

All thanks to the idiotic, insecure “Christians” who run this country’s pathological need to use governmental power to institute their religion on all of us. What a waste.

Certain things everyone agrees with. Stealing is wrong. Murder is wrong. Not accelerating past 20 mph on the entrance ramp in front of me is wrong.

However there are areas where honest, intelligent people, cannot agree. One of which is when does live start. At conception? At implantation of fertilized egg? (Medical definition of pregnancy), at the start of the heart beating? At the start if brain waves? At birth? Everyone had his own idea and there is no way to determine which is right. We all agree that killing or subjecting a human to suffering or research is wrong. But at this age, what is a human? Because of this ambiguity any procedure or research that follows is either condemned or condoned by followers of each idea.

Here is why I think that religion and state should stay separated. If your religion says that life starts at conception, then you have every right to not have abortions and not let your extra fertilized eggs be used for research. If you believe that life starts at first brain waves (as I do) then you should not be prevented from doing or funding research on embryos younger than 10 weeks. Each group should do what they believe is right and not impose their beliefs on the others.

But here is the rub. It is the fundamentalists who wish to impose their beliefs on all. So they take their brand of morality and turn it into law. Any law that imposes one religion’s morality on the rest of us is favoring that religion over the rest, and is institutionalizing that religion, exactly what the first amendment prohibits.

my goodness, adam, as a satirist you must be a little disappointed with these comments.

my goodness, adam, as a satirist you must be a little disappointed with these comments.

Nah, not so much. Cloning’s definitely a hot-button issue for a lot of people, and the discussion here has been pretty respectful and intelligent.

But yeah, my real point was about the Bush administration’s gall in trying to cram this pet issue down the world’s throat while ignoring the much larger worldwide consensus on global warming. And the world’s feelings about the Iraq invasion. Etc.

And I think that probably came across to most of my readers. But there’re only so many ways that you can say “Heh heh, good point,” and I’d choose Comment Content over Comment Compliments any day.

[Assuming that I’d just have to choose ONE, of course…]

adam, i will say that as far as debate goes, this has been pretty respectful (considering the subject matter)and thoughtful. i think my surprise came more from the digression to stereotypical arguable topics. maybe it’s just me.

and murray, i think you went a little too wayward sarcastic for the satirist sect.

i will preface this by saying one fact remains constant throught the centuries: some women seek to end a pregnancy for reasons unknown to the rest of us. That is their choice, whether or not we agree with it. It isn’t a new thing, it’s been happening for centuries; it is just the fact that now we have places that accomodate that reality, rather than the back-alley abortions that many times killed the mother as well as the embryo. We aren’t asking people to “get pregnant and then come have an abortion this weekend”. This isn’t the red-cross embryo drive. We are simply trying to take advantage of a resource at hand, (that will be there whether we use it or not). A resource that may one day lead to the cure for many diseases.

Why does the argument “when does life begin” even factor into this? if a woman aborts an embryo, it is dead. the deed is done. You can’t go back and unabort like changing your mind about whether or not to buy a pair of shoes. There does not exist a “customer service return counter” anywhere in the female plumbing. Therefore, if there is some good to be salvaged out of a sad situation why not use it? We use eyes and hearts and kidneys and livers and corneas and god knows what else from a body that becomes an organ-donor. We have national campaigns to PROMOTE the harvesting of body parts from a body that we keep medically “alive” until we finish harvesting. Where is the difference? We have, over time and with much medical research on human bodies both dead and alive, developed the ability to use the organs that one human no longer needs to extend and improve the lives of people who are ill. An embryo, once aborted, has no need of it’s stem cells (or any other part for that matter). Why is it so good and right to use parts of the bodyat one end of the life spectrum, and so wrong to use it at the other end of the life spectrum? Whether it is an embryo weeks old, a stillborn babe, a teenager killed in a car wreck, or someone who has lived a long life; the body once dead, is of no purpose. All would decompose and fade away (if we didn’t embalm them with so many chemicals) over time. The body (in whatever form) is merely a shell, it is the spirit and essence of a person we know, love, and mourn when gone. We don’t sit in a cemetary and think, “oh, if only I could see Uncle Frank’s kidney right now….” we miss the traits and emotions and actions of a person, and all of those things are not housed in a physical group of cells, whether it is an embryo or a fully grown person.

Maybe we could look to the Organ Donor program for the answer…. we need to get stem cells a new spin-doctor, get a huge awareness campaign going, and add “Embryo Donor” to the list of check boxes on the driver’s license…..

Ya know, Tom, if you’re going to troll Adam’s site, you could at least come up with an original comment for each post.

Come to think of it, Tom’s posts sound like they came out of an automatic comment generator rather than from a real person. This would explain much.

Nope, I was right the first time. It IS spam. Go check out all the comments sections, y’all.

Huzzah!