The whole point of free speech is not to make ideas exempt from criticism but to expose them to it.

Monday, September 21, 2009

An invitation...

Here we go again. Beep. Beep. Back to the land of Wiley Zygote. There is a new stem cell/cloning bill in the works and I'm sure the debate on most blogs will be about as clear as mud, as usual. So I've decided this time to limit my participation in the discussion mostly to my newfound digs on the Forum (thanks for the platform, Michael.)

Here's my proposal. I'd like to discuss this issue with "lexrex" and "Carl LaFong" here on the forum. I'd also specifically like to see "Denature" join us. That's the skeleton crew. Medical and legal experts are of course more than welcome.

So if you're up for it people, let me know, and I'll open up a series of topics over the next few days.



denature said...

Ug. I don't understand this persistence of magical thinking that somehow a DNA genome present in two copies means scientific proof that human life starts at conception.

Michael Sanborn said...

Embryonic stem cell research will most likely find cures or at least treatments for scourges like diabetes, cystic fibrosis, spinal cord injuries and a host of genetic disorders.

Anyone who opposes this research could hardly consider themselves to be "pro life."

But there will be opposition to the retrieval of stem cells from in-vitro fertilized embryos, even if the stem cells can be successfully retrieved without damaging the host embryo.

It is the same mentality that fought Terry Schiavo's husband's right to allow his wife to die in peace.

The time for this important research has long passed.

Steve Sibson said...


Killing humans is pro-life?

Michael Sanborn said...


It is pointless for me to argue with you. I won't change your mind. And, in my mind you are wrong. You will find it equally impossible to convince me that an embryo that could save thousands of lives and was "conceived" in a petri dish, and would never reach a womb, somehow trumps the lives it could save. It's simple, Steve. You and I have completely different definitions of life.

Steve Sibson said...


Actually you are making a decision that one life is more important than another. That is a very dangerous road. For the sake of civility, I will stop at that.

Bill Fleming said...

Steve, let me make this as absolutely simple for you as I possibly can.

Suppose instead of one Sibby sitting there typing there were 100 Sibbys all wrapped up in a big ball.

And suppose if you gave up one or two of those Sibbys, you could help save millions of lives in the future?

Would you do it?

Would you give up one of your Sibbys?

Even following your own logic (which I would dispute in another context, but in this case it's not even necessary) that is exactly what's happing inside a blastocyst. About 100 teenie weenie Sibbys (totipotent stem cells) all wrapped up in a ball.

Now remember:
"John 15:12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. 13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

... especially if you have 100 of them... sitting right there... doing nothing.

Steve Sibson said...

"Would you give up one of your Sibbys?"

It is notmy life to give. You would have to ask the Sibby. The correct Biblical application is Thou Shall not murder. You can only apply the John passage to yourself, not to others.

Bill Fleming said...

Ok, good answer, Sibby. Now, since single celled Sibbys can't speak, how 'bout we ask their creator?

Steve Sibson said...


To answer, I will refer you back to John, and the same chapter 15. Verse 10:

"If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love."

The Creator has spoken for all, "Thou shall not murder".