"I bitched about the atheism, the talking points, and the word progressive."

Why bitch about atheism? All an atheist is doing is asking for evidence before s/he believes in a god. You seem to regard that open-mindedness as a positive for liberalism:

"Liberalism is an admission of uncertainty. It's open to self-correction and to the complexity and unpredictability of life. "

I am glad that you acknowledge that embryos are more than just "tissue." In fact, I would say that, by definition, they are human life. Just because they are at such an early stage of human life that they lack capacity for brain function is no reason to assume the right to "stripmine" them. I believe in protecting human life and allowing it the chance to develop into full personhood.

I think liberals are threatened by potential obsolescence of their positions regarding embryonic stem cells. They hate that after all their clamoring against conservatives on this issue, alternatives can be found and the whole problem side-stepped. They should be grateful and hopeful for a way out of the moral dilemma but instead it's like they thrive on the dramatic show-down of scienctific progress vs. ethics.

"Stripmine," eh? You show your bias. You don't address the 400,000 frozen embryos. You don't address population control. You don't address adoption, immigration, labor borders vs capital borders, religious fanaticism, human gullibility, worldwide communication of wealth to the desperately poor.

Progressive? Hell, you ain't even thinking.

Are you replying to my post or to Saletan?

Bobbo, I wondered the same thing...

Regardless, did I detect a lovely strain of that human frailty "bigotry"? I suppose to be "thinking" you must be "thinking" just like B.O.

And, for the record... Newton was right about physics... until the quantum age... I don't know who or what is "right" or "wrong" in all of this... I do know that we need to hold and display tolerance in this discussion... I am confident that time will prove all of us to be less than "absolutely correct."

I was not aware that liberals were upset at the prospect of stem cells being harvested without destroying embryos. Is an argument being made that liberals are opposed to methods for acquiring stem cells that do not destroy embryos?

Believing that embyros are the equivalent of a human life and acting in a manner consistent with that belief are two different things.

How much weight should we give to someone's belief if they do not act consistently with their stated belief?

"Believing that embyros are the equivalent of a human life and acting in a manner consistent with that belief are two different things.

How much weight should we give to someone's belief if they do not act consistently with their stated belief? "

Other than voting, what would you have those who disagree with the harvesting and destruction of embryos do? Are you suggesting a campaign that takes the discussion to the streets?

That's not a tenable option for me. Anyway, that sort of tack is more political than ethical. If I claim, for example, that racism is wrong but do nothing to end it, does that mean it's really OK? Can something be wrong even of no one acts to oppose it? Either due to inability or because to do so would result in even more wrong.

No not quite. Liberals aren't threatend by the potential obsolescence of the science of ESC. There really isn't that much threat here. And if there is, the conservatives - espcially religious conservatives - are the ones who should be in fear of having their political and belief system obsolesced. Because the only way ESC is obsolesced is if you can 'reprogram' differentiated cells into ones that are pluripotent.

and if you can reprogram differntiated cells into pluripotent cells - then going to bed at night and sloughing skin cells is the moral equivilent of abortion (since most fertilizations fail making a fertilized ovum not that different from a cloneable skin cell).

So before you get on your high horse to decry all manner of evil to liberals who ask questions, be careful that you think through the issues carefully.

And if you look at history, invariably when there has been a showdown between religiously driven ethics and scientific progress, at best the religious side sweeps back the tide for a few years. Eppur si muove should be a castigating warning to those who believe differently. I think its increadibly ironic that in a time of much greater relgiousity and ethical enforcement, the height of heresy was heliocentrism, while killing human beings simply becaues they didn't share your brand of religion was considered completely ethical. And today, the definition of whom it is ok to kill willy nilly has changed, but most religious conservatives still really don't have a problem with killing humans - just those humans they consider "innocent".

Oh, Degsme... WAY too funny...

(mostly because you are on point)...

My only question is whether or not you are limiting your category of "religious conservatives" to Christians. The reason I ask is that from where I sit (and I accept this place has a lot of flaws and foibles) "religious conservatives" (regardless of creed or sect) have always been willing (if not comfortable) to kill humans. Unfortunately, at the highest levels of religious institutions, the choice to kill or not is based on the same constructs as in national/political circles... POWER.

So, call it terrorism, call it ethnic cleansing, call it quelling the unrest... call it whatever you like... humans kill more humans than anything else... and, if we consider the book of Genesis a living document (instead of a historical documentary), then we are destroying the "garden" as fast as we can, and the end result can only be one thing... total genocide...

OK, sorry... that isn't so funny is it?

"Liberals aren't threatend by the potential obsolescence of the science of ESC"

Yet every time a new study comes out showing paths around the moral questions of ESC, many prominent liberals can been heard bashing and downplaying the research...and hyping ESC beyond any and all scientific reason (btw, I am a scientist, and know scientific hype when I see it).

"and if you can reprogram differntiated cells into pluripotent cells - then going to bed at night and sloughing skin cells is the moral equivilent of abortion (since most fertilizations fail making a fertilized ovum not that different from a cloneable skin cell). "

You have it wrong. Having a full set of DNA is not what gives a fertlized ovum rights. Skin cells do not have rights because they are not unique and have no reasonable chance at ever becoming sentient. The opposite holds true for a fertlized egg.

My personal standard is the same "reasonable" we use in criminal cases. We could argue about what odds we mean when we say "reasonable doubt", but I think we mean something like "We are 99% sure this person is guilty. Perhaps you would like to argue 97% or 99.9%, but it is something around that ballpark. I hold the same standard for fetuses. If it has greater than a one percent chance of becoming a sentient, intelligent being, then yes it is reasonable to protect its rights. If the chances are less, then no, we can reasonably assume that we are not making a mistake. Fortunately, the quibbling over where this line falls exactly is irrelevant to this particular debate. A fertilized ovum has about a 1/3 chance of surviving (well above the cutoff), while unfertlized eggs, sperms, toe cells, and piles of dirt all have chances much much lower...too low to be called "reasonable".

So before you get on your high horse to decry all manner of evil to liberals who ask questions, be careful that you think through the issues carefully.

" but most religious conservatives still really don't have a problem with killing humans - just those humans they consider "innocent"."

I would like to see some data on this. To what are you refering? Numerous studies have found just the opposite...the more religious you are, the more charitable and kind you are to strangers. Go figure. Btw, I am not religious.

Actually, I think the phenomena you are trying to get at is that while liberals would rather let two people die than kill one and get blood on their hands, conservatives generally have the guts to pull the trigger and kill one in order to save two. I don't think the latter is evidence of being bloodthirsty, but rather evidence of people for whom reason trumps emotion.

Are you serious in your request for data to back up the claim regarding the willingness of religious types to kill? Ok, go get your Sunday paper, and look through the International or World section, and I am willing to bet you can tie at least 75% of all deaths reported to some form of religious zeal. Or look at Iraq. Or anywhere in the middle east. You say you are a scientist, and not religious, both of which seem questionable, but you are definitely reeking of neo-con, which is just another cult promoting ignorance. Oh yeah, love the analogy at the end, shows the open and analytical mind scientists typically have...

If you think 75% of the violent deaths that occur in the world have anything to do with terrorism, you are beyond hopeless when it comes to the facts. Nor does terrorism necessarily imply anything to do with religion, as anyone with a nuanced understanding of the situation would know.

Here is a good test. Read up on East Asian history, particularly that of Japan, Korea, and China. You will find it every bit as bloody as European history...and they generally agreed about religion. Even where religion has some influence on a conflict, it is rarely the primary source. Rather, it is simply one aspect that defines the boundry between two ethnic groups. Blaming religion for the conflict is as silly as blaming language, culture, or rivers.

My creditials scientist and agnotistic are rock solid. If that is too difficult for you to wrap your brain around, so be it. I do not think you even understand what "neo-con" means.

Hitchops shouldn't even have to mention 9/11 and the Inquisition. Then there's the fact that many religious types are pro-capital punishment. I think he/she has the right definition of neo-con...

Sakura:

You said it better than I could have.

Off Topic: What's with the blue check marks?

Does anyone else see them on the main screen? What do they mean? I've been trying to see a pattern among the posts that have them, but I just don't see the connection. About 4 posts have them.

First, there are no alternatives to embryonic stem cells. New ways to derive them may be invented. But embryonic stem cells are useful in a way that adult stem cells are not.

Second, don't assume you have "ethics" on your side versus science. In this case, ethics and science go hand in hand. There are people afflicted with diseases in hospital beds right now that stem cell therapies could help. You will answer to them for why they continue to suffer.