Life is the only "resource" the Left wants to give away to businesses (well, probably just to the Government) to exploit without aby real debate as to its true cost. Now, were it that last part per billion of arsenic...

After another close to 300 K payroll report, I am not sure outsourcing will resonate much. Bring on the smelling salts for Krugman.

Can't the same research be done with adult stem cells? I understand that it is more difficult than embryonic stem cells, but isn't the extra trouble worth to avoid crossing over a moral threshhold? I think much of the politics has to do with admitting that the line exists.

Robert -

The answer appears to be that a quite a bit, but not all, of this research can be done using adult stem cells. The politization of science rarely admitted -- the one from the Left -- has kept a lot of this sotto voce, let's people begin to ask questions and demand that their leaders do not "sell the rights to life, actual or potential" for nothing and without debate.

The scientists/polemicists who react with umbrage about being asked to "cool off" before continuing to push the envelope on many of these issues remind me of the Simpson's character (the oil man from Texas) who asks his congressman (without a second thought) for a bill to allow him to drill for oil on Teddy Roosevelt's head...

OJ: The religious objections of atheists and libertoids notwithstanding, an embryo is as human -- and ergo as much a person -- as you or I. (All of the pro-Darwin asides around here smack just a bit of hypocrisy, considering how many of the sneering ones tend to think that human DNA doesn't mean what it self-evidently does.) I recognize the tongue-in-cheek aspect of your closing, but for the record: Kill a baby American or foreigner for profit or fun, walk to prison or the chair.

I am 180 off you on this one OJ. I beleive that the use of stem cells harvested from human blastospheres obtained, with the consent of the donors, from surplus blastospheres created for IVF procedures, is right and proper, and consistent with what I know of ">Jewish Law.

Robert -- The problem is that in a race to the bottom (like the Left loves to say, when the resources being regulated are emissions or taxes) your proposal does not even come close to being as generous as what the Koreans are doing, or likely will do. What's your next offer? And when do we say enough?

MG: Are you a TC, TD, TF, A or B?

I did not know I was enganged in a bidding war with anybody. Although anybody who wants to live in Korea within range of Komrade Kim's artillery is free to do so.

I was trying to clarify my position as a religious non christian conservative. If anybody were to agree with me it might be a first time in world history.

Robert -- What do the codes stand for? I understand your position, and all I am trying to say is that at some point it could be you and your position that will be criticized for not going far enough to satisfy the assembly line -- but put in far more melodramatically and conspiratiorially. I am also not suggesting that at that point you will fail to draw the line as your views would require.

MG: The TC, TD, TF, A and B were model designations of the late lamented British sports car manufacturer MG (Morris Garage) The marque is still around under different ownership after many corporate machinations, but the cars no longer have that certain, we'll beat the jerries with spit and bailing wire, panache and are not imported.

As I said my position on stem cells is my position. It is not a hard ass position, but this is a subject that i believe requires line drawing more or less:

From the above refernced article:

The Rabbis often create protective edicts (gezerot ) to prevent the desecration of Torah law. Additionally, the Rabbis may promulgate decrees intended to protect Torah values by preventing untoward behavior that is not already prohibited by the Torah itself. For example, more than 1000 years ago, Rabbenu Gershon enacted gezerot banning polygamy and opening the mail of others, despite the absence of actual Torah prohibitions for either of these two actions.

The protection of life is a strongly held Torah ideal. While the destruction of pre-embryos in the course of fertility treatments or to prevent disease may be permitted, this does not mean that pre-embryos may be destroyed without compunction. To avoid the proverbial "slippery slope," should we ban stem cell research on embryonic stem cells as a dangerous encroachment on the sanctity of life? That is, even if pre-embryos may be destroyed, should we enact preventative laws barring stem cell research that requires the destruction of potential lives to avoid cheapening life by treating the process of creating humans as another scientific process, stripped of its miraculous underpinnings? In his testimony, Rabbi Tendler summed up the issue of protective enactments as follows:

Jewish law consists of biblical and rabbinic legislation. A good deal of rabbinic law consists of erecting fences to protect biblical law. Surely our tradition respects the effort of the Vatican and fundamentalist Christian faiths to erect fences that will protect the biblical prohibition against abortion. But a fence that prevents the cure of fatal diseases must not be erected, for then the loss is greater than the benefit. In the Judeo-biblical legislative tradition, a fence that causes pain and suffering is dismantled. Even biblical law is superseded by the duty to save lives, except for the three cardinal sins of adultery, idolatry, and murder. . . Life saving abortion is a categorical imperative in Jewish biblical law. Mastery of nature for the benefit of those suffering from vital organ failure is an obligation. Human embryonic stem cell research holds that promise. . ..

Chris, you can leave me out. You've come in since the last time I stated my position, which I regard as purely darwinian, about when life begins.

Either at the formation of the zygote, or at latest, the blastomere stage.

Except in petri dish conceptions, that potential distinction doesn't matter.

I tend to reject Robert's take, though he's stated it in a new way that I'm going to have to think about.

My previous position was that, once the zygote forms, it's a human life.

I don't have any particular problem with leaving that zygote in the liquid nitrogen forever, or defrosting it.

Things happen in wombs, too.

But at first glance, I'd say that releasing the zygote (or blastomere) for development is releasing it for development, and it then matters what kind of development.

Making a baby seems the only allowable kind.