So...if there was a cure just sitting there on the table, they wouldn't use it?  Sounds like making a child suffer to prove a point.

Although Down's Syndrome is chromosomal in origin(an extra one if I recall)...I'm not sure if stem cells would help at all.

~Zoo

An amazing audio of a Hugh Hewitt caller on this topic... http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/MediaPlayer/AudioPlayer.aspx?ContentGuid=f32b86cc-7572-4227-97d5-13b82f659be6 towards the end, Hewitt asks her how she feels about Biden's boneheaded comment

If the Nazi's found a cure for polio by experimenting on Jews, does that now justify their experiments? (and before some one yells Godwin's law - they tried)  To some, yes. "Let's make some good out of the evil".  To others no "it only pushes the ends justify the means".

In the end, you have to decide if you are for human rights, and that using humans as guinea pigs is not justified under any circumstances, or that "if it saves a life, it is worth it".

I would do almost anything to save the life of my child.  I dont think I could take an innocent life under the justification that "the ends justify the means".   And once the precedemt is set, who decides?  The president's child needs it, so he trumps your child?

Like Wopper in War Games, many feel that the only way to win this game is to not play it.  Because once you start on that slippery slope, the next stop is the bottom.

Wow Anthony!

I just listened to it.  Sure makes Biden's comments even more obscene (and cold) when you listen to this caller. 

It's actually starting to really make me angry.  How dare he say a mom like Cheryl or Sarah Palin are uncaring towards their children by NOT following the opinions of the Democrats (in this case for embroyonic stem cells)  who murder children without so much as a blink of the eyelash.  

It sure looks to me like he was using this Down Syndrome baby to make his point for stem cell.  He's treading on very dangerous territory.  How stupid.  I've known many DS children over the years and they have brought nothing but joy to their parents.  They tend to be more loving than most children and very very close to their parents.

Like I said....Biden's standing on sinking ground.  How sad  he believes in such things. 

If you want an answer listen to the caller on the radio show that Anthony put up.

Second of all, a Downs Syndrome baby isn't suffering.  They grow up to live pretty productive lives and are usually quite happy and content.  From my experience DS children bless all those around them.  I look at Sarah's baby and see a very contented, carefree and happy baby. 

We're like antidepressant medication

We say we can work and help out with problems, but no one really knows for sure, and there are quite a few side effects.  We can make people warm and fuzzy because we might be able to fix them or make them feel like complete crap enough to have suicidal tendencies   I constantly feel the damage from being involved with other members of the same party (the yahoos, the extra strong stuff if you will).  Overdose is eminent if the big wigs don't tone it down and just play their message more direct and less vague instead of throwing a temper tantrum over a strange woman and a geezer.

The first rule you have to learn is that people are stupid. Not because they have a low IQ, but because they really don't care enough to read the facts for themselves and decide impartially. My sister is smarter than I am, she topped my grades (which was almost physically impossible) at school, and yet she couldn't tell you one policy difference between Republicans/Democrats or our own native Conservatives/Labour. Why? Because she doesn't care, because nobody else she talks to really cares. So they say "who are you going to vote for?" And it's not 'well they have better social policies, but then these guys have better economic policies' it's 'well None will make a difference to me and Tony Blair was from Labour, he went to war in Iraq'

For the next ten minutes the conversation involves about 5 very intelligent girls who suddenly spout drivel 'ZOMG WMDS ITS ALL A CONSPIRACY BLOOD FOR OIL, BLOOD FOR OIL I TELLS THEE!'

Slight exaggeration, but you get my point

There are so many scientific surveys published at the moment about how your peer-group dictates your behaviour, tastes and trends, even to the extent of who/what you find attractive, and politics is exactly the same. If Have I Got News For You (a British comedy show) or Mock The Week (again, British comedy show) say X is bad, it's all hail Y. Democrats are cool in America therefore unless you live in Alabama or something, if you're a very casual voter you'll vote Democrat. In the UK it's cool to be socialist as opposed to liberal, so you'll vote Labour - except the media has changed it's mind, so swathes of people feel obliged to change their mind too.

Depends if your an Anti-semitic bastard. It's a common theme held in animal-testing circles. Animal testing can't be wrong because they made use of the tests. Well, lets strap humans up and test on them then! Unfortunately the Nazis did, and whether or not results come from testing on humans or animals, the ends never ever justify the means.

I don't believe in sacrificing people for experiments...unless it's of their own free will.  If good is found from something bad, then we might as well use it...but that's no justification to go morally bankrupt in the puruit of such things.

I'm not a mad scientist.

~Zoo

I just shot soda through my nose I laughed so hard at the irony.

     Speaking for myself as a Democrat, I tire of the "moral relativist" accusation typical of Republican campaigning.  I maintain a set of values and beliefs that I live by, and while they may not be consistent with someone else's, they remain mine.  It may also be worth mentioning that posturing behind a claim of "Righteousness" appears to me to be the utter heighth of arrogance - presenting as though one possesses the corner on the "truth" is annoying, disrespectful, and presumptuous.  One of the things I've learned over my 54 years is that change is a constant.  Clinging desperately to old adages and so-called truisms is a lonely, narrow course, and ignoring the right to change one's mind is foolish.

     You "right-wingers" out there wanting to "convert" me to your opinions of what is right and what is wrong?  Please afford me the respect that I afford you.  I don't, nor would I, presume to know the "truth."  Please understand that I know that you possess the right to think that you know what the "truth" might be, you just don't have the right to integrate that opinion into the political theatre.  Our ForeFathers took care of that, and if you are the Americans that you profess to be, please respect the Constitution and the freedom that it stands for.  Also, please, respect the limitations.  The days of King James are long gone. 

Reading the blog about stem cell research, etc.....

     Ultimately, we'll be dealing with the science of Eugenics in the 21st Century.  It will be a fact of life, and the writer asking who would "oversee" this science hit the nail on the head.  I think that the answer would be, "It's up to the individual, provided the 'do no harm' provision of the Hypocratic Oath remained the standard." As a licensed health care provider, this provision is an unshakeable guidepost.  I would also suggest that "HARM" is not a nebulous term; the context of the word leaves no particular room for debate.

     At this point in our development as human beings, Eugenics is a perplexing concept, and perhaps it should be.  If a mission or goal statement for this science were to be offically attempted, I can imagine cries of Aryanism, etc., would scream rampant.  Fear overriding sober pragmatism is probably reason enough to keep Eugenics "on the shelf" until we learn that we are the masters of our technology, not the other way around.  And yes, we need take great care deciding who the "masters" will be.

That whole first paragraph was a riot, there needs to be an ironic comedy catagory.

And that goes on the slippery slope.  Where does it end?  A father kills a man because he is the perfect organ dono r for his daughter (taking care not to damage the organ).  So why waste the organ, right?  You have just stepped into "Some people are more equal" and to get your way, you harvest humans, for another's use (you will be prosecuted, but if your goal is to save your loved one, you dont care).

It may seem like a simple answer "Make some good out of the evil", but that is the trap.  Once you start justifying it that way, what is to stop you from then deciding "President X is more important than person y, so lets just make this one sacrafice - this time".

Except "this time" becomes the norm, and not the exception.

Actually Lesterleon, I could not care less about your opinion, and definitely aren't looking to convert you.  Unlike the author, I no longer beat my head against a brick wall.

This is a forum to express views and opinions.  If you think it is here to "convert" you to something, then by all means protect yourself.  But you may try discussing instead of condemning especially since you appear to be new to not only the forum, but the concept of discussion.  If this one blog is going to convert you to anything, you are looking to be converted.

If you have anything intelligent to add to the discussion, please do.  Otherwise, you can take your talking points back to the daily kos.

Nothing's ever simple when it comes to that...and it really needs to depend on the morality of the people involved.  Is it okay to sacrifice someone for someone else against their will?  Is it okay to sacrifice a few for the good of all?

At any certain point, it's a judgement call...some scenarios are obviously wrong, but some are not so clear.

~Zoo