http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cells

Every single thing I’ve posted in this thread rests on that distinction. The “Bush” thing wasn’t a real argument — it was an attempt to point out, by analogy, that the reasoning that you’re engaging in is specious when based upon a false or unsupported premise. Slippery slope argument isn’t per se wrong, but it is when the original premise is flat-out false.

I posted a similar set of comments last night, which were deleted, and I haven’t been able to post any comments since–anything I try to post disappears into the ether, leading me to conclude that I’ve been banned.

As I replied to you in email: Your comments did not show up last night to anyone but you. That is what typically happens when comments fall into the moderation que. You post something, it looks like it shows up but if you refresh the page you won’t see them. So they were deleted in error (as I explained in my update to this post), but they did NOT show up on the blog last night. –ST

I generally find that people who argue that there is no such thing as a slippery slope or who say or imply that the ‘odds of the slippery slope happening are slim’ are generally people who don’t want to think about the long term consequences of what they advocate. It’s all about NOW with no thought whatsoever for tomorrow. Ignorance is bliss, I guess.

As for this story about selling babies for stem cells, if true, it just points out the consequences of thwarting reputable research using tissue that is scheduled for destruction anyway.

There hasn’t been a “single incident” of any embryonic stem cell supporter calling for the death of born children either. Of course, that’s what makes my argument right, and your slippery slope argument WRONG.

Yes, there are bad liberals like you in life. I do my best to keep you out of my life.

In any case, things are not simple: history, personal choices, economic situations and systems, religion, personal morality and more — create shades of grey and an atmosphere that make it difficult for moral absolutists to function without scapegoats and “boogey-men.” Life, in the Ukraine has always been cheap. Blaming being pro-choice (we are NOT pro-abortion — why must you be so myopic about that?), liberals and/or stem cell research for atrocities there is, well, is just plain silly.

In any case, it is silly for us to keep arguing with people who claim to be “logical” and “rational” but who are mostly intellectually and morally simplistic, who see the world without much knowledge of culture and history and who have a view that is black and white.

Regaring “slippery slope” arguments, it’s not that they NEVER occur. It’s that they are logically meaningless. IN that form of argument, cause A does NOT necessarily lead to result B.

Gay marriage MIGHT lead to legalization of beastiality. Losing in Vietnam MIGHT lead to all of Asia going Communist. Etc.

It’s an argument form that plays on emotions and fears, rather than actually relying on logic.

You also said:

“It’s true that if we don’t do the research we will never know Scott, but the research is being done and is not illegal. It’s a matter of funding more than anything, and personally, believing in less government, I don’t think it’s the taxpayers responsibility to fund research that offers such a small probability of success. The whole argument has become less about the science or technology, and more about a cover, or proxy, battle of ideology, between the pro/anti abortion groups and between the government should do everything and the limited government folks.”

Which I can fully, 100% understand and support while still disagreeing with you on the ultimate conclusion you reach. It’s the best argument against public funding of stem cell research I’ve seen someone make in various postings.

I think the primary point where we differ is on the probability of success question.

Anyhow, I am going to let this thread die from my part. Take care all, and enjoy the holidays.

I would like to know where Stem Cell Research is “illegal” please. I am unaware of any state that has made it illegal. Please provide proof of the above statement erving. – Lorica
Comment by Lorica @ 12/13/2006 – 5:59 pm

Apparently Erving is to busy to answer my question or like so many others just wants to throw out the accusations. It is moronic statements like the this that really are not conducive to a quality debate. – Lorica

So, if no one would ever think of killing babies for research, how can it be that a living baby shot to death by it’s mother was not considered a crime merely due to the fact that it hadn’t popped it’s head out yet? That’s as close to killing a newborn as it’s possible to get, and anyone, such as the judge, who says otherwise is splitting hairs with a laser.

I will never underestimate the ability of people to rationalize the most heinous of things.

No it’s not, considering the slippery slope the we’ve been headed down for years WRT to right to life issues.

“I mean, I have to admit that I believe that some of the more radical elements of the the Bush Administration will one day find a way to justify locking up and torturing liberals in the name of ‘national security’, etc, but that doesn’t make it true, or worth posting on the internet!”

You’re right, it doesn’t make it true because it isn’t true, and it’s not worth posting on the Internet (unless you were at a lefty blog that would lap it up), because you have no basis for your statement – there hasn’t been a single incident in the Bush administration where the admin has been accused of ‘locking up liberals in the name of national security.’ Nice try, though.

Well, that’s about the just ridiculous. I mean, I have to admit that I believe that some of the more radical elements of the the Bush Administration will one day find a way to justify locking up and torturing liberals in the name of ‘national security’, etc, but that doesn’t make it true, or worth posting on the internet!

As for doing the research, 39 million dollars went into ESC research in the last year. Granted over 500 million went to adult stem cells, but 39 million is not an insignificant amount of money. You can do a lot of research for that kind of change, so it’s not like it’s not being pursued at all. And one of the reasons for the large disparity in funding, other than the obvious issues we’ve been discussing, is that the research on adult stem cells has moved beyond basic research, and the dollar amount reflects the fact that money is being put into actual development of specific treatments for testing and marketing. Spending always ramps up as you start getting ready to actually produce a product.

I am not willing to outlaw ESC research, but I’m also not willing to force the taxpayer to pay for it, particularly as it is a subject of questionable morality.

Anyway, have enjoyed the discussion, and hope you enjoy the movie.

I won’t apologize for believing that life begins with conception. I figure if a group of cells in a plant can feel pain, it is a good assumption that any given cells can feel pain.

Also the whole mountain and grain of sand discussion isn’t right either. The basic premise is that a grain of sand will never be a mountain, but that doesn’t hold true for a human embryo, it can develop into a person.

Lastly I do stand corrected about the “hint of a promise” comment. Thank you for the link. – Lorica