SCOTUSblog has this interesting post about the cases that remain to be decided in the current Supreme Court term.
Of particular note is that it seems almost certain that Justice Stevens and Justice Souter are writing the majority opinions in Miller-El (a death penalty case involving a claim of racial discrimination in jury selection) and Raich (a case challenging the federal government’s right to prohibit the personal use of marijuana for medicinal purposes). There’s no way of knowing which is them is writing which opinion, but it hardly matters – I’d guess that both of their views on both cases are the same. I’d say the chances are about 90% that Mr. Miller-El (the defendant) will win his case and it will once again be sent back to the lower courts for further proceedings (the lower courts really screwed this one up), and that federal authority over the personal use of marijuana, including for medical purposes, will be upheld. I predicted months ago that Raich would be decided 8-1 (Thomas dissenting) in favor of the government, and I’ll stand by that prediction. We should know soon.
You said it your self in the article.” In contrast, because a “surplus” embryo from an in vitro clinic is the result of a sperm cell fertilizing an egg cell, the DNA of that embryo is unique and does not match anyone. ” The courts accept Unique DNA as the most irrefutable evidence of an individuals identity in criminal cases. If unique DNA proves a human beings identity in court then logicaly it has to prove that each “Embryo” is a unique human being. That being true each embryo is therefore entitled to all of the rights granted any other human being under the Constitution,not the least of which is the right to Life. Would you advocate killing those of us registered as organ donors to harvest our organs when we come up as a match to somone that is deemed more important than we are, or for medical research? Wheres the difference between killing humans when they are embyos or adults their dna proves that they are still individual human beings just at different ages.
President Bush HAS TO TAKE A STRONG POSITION.Stem Cell Issue is a MORAL ISSUE.Without a strong stance regarding the sanctity of ” Human Life ” We must Never resort to Human Life in any form in support any scientific perspective, whatsoever…no matter what the positive gain. Everyone is watching the US stance within this delicate issue. Those Countries without morally based ethic…Respect For human Life, have no regard for the individual humanbeing. For The United States To Use Human life to save human Life, is to open the door to Human Cloning. This is Not A Religious Issue. The Issue Deals with A basic regard For The Sanctity of Human Life. The End.
Bob: An embryo isn’t a human yet — that’s the difference.As for the “surplus” embryo discussion… what happens to them now? Are they kept on ice forever, or are they eventually destroyed somehow. If they are being destroyed anyway, why not use ’em for science? It appeals to the ideal of not being wasteful.My point is that if the “surplus” embryos are being destroyed, perhaps that is the policy that folks with the Bush perspective should be aggresively seeking to remedy.
If unique DNA proves a human beings identity in court then logicaly it has to prove that each “Embryo” is a unique human being. That isn’t true. If we take your analogy completely, courts also allow fingerprinting as valid unique identifiers of humans. Therefore, human fingers, even if severed from a human, are to be given the same status as people, since they contain fingerprints.I’m not for funding of stem cell research, just like i’m not for funding by the government of any sort of scientific of medical research, but I had to point out the flaw in your reasoning.
Bob: my point is precisely that “surplus” embryos do have a stronger claim to being unique human beings than do cells created via SCNT, so to that extent I agree with you (I think). As to whether “surplus” embryos are humans beings or not, I think we might differ there, but I agree with stomv that those who believe that surplus embryos are humans with the full rights available to humans ought to be much more worried about current practices at fertility clinics than about stem cell research.
This is Not A Religious Issue. The Issue Deals with A basic regard For The Sanctity of Human Life.Sarah, respectfully, you are begging the question. Before we can argue about whether embryonic stem cell research implicates “the sanctity of human life,” we have to decide what “human life” is. And there is no easy answer to that question – some find their answer in religious principles, others find it in their own moral and ethical precepts, others believe that science defines it in one way or another, but there is no general agreement on it. I do not believe in killing one human to save another. But I also do not believe that a cell created via SCNT is a human being. You may believe differently, but that is because you and I differ on how to decide that question.
I disagree with David’s original post. Romney and HR810 make a valid distinction between surplus and SCNT (or clonal)blastocysts (which is a more accurate term for BOTH sources) – although I disagree with their policy recommendations.SCNT blastocysts are more problematic than surplus ones because (1) they are created using cloning technology and – however much we’d like to trust all scientists – this opens the door to abuse, and (2) they are human blastocysts created for the purpose of being destroyed for research, and some moral frameworks may draw the line there. Right now several policies (banning reproductive cloning, funding stem cell research) are stalemated over these issues. Castle-DeGette makes a big step towards breaking that statemate.