Bush holds veto pen over stem cell bill

[Kerad]

If it were up to me, these embryos wouldn't even exist.

What kills me about this debate is that the people who say that the fetus isn't human and is merely a blood blob are the same ones now wanting to harvest their all-too-human stem cells.

So which is it? Is it a human or isn't it? If it's no more than clipping your fingernails, why can't you get stem cells out of fingernail clippings?

The embyos are left-overs from in-vitro fertilization treatments. (Pro-lifers should love in-vitro....because of it there's much more life to be "pro" about.) I understand that you don't like fact that there are "extras"...but it's been that way for a very long time. At least now we can do something productive with 'em...instead of throwing 'em out. I consider that much more disagreeable than using them to help others. Similar to organ donations.

The embryos (I think) are actually still in the blastocyst stage. I may be wrong...but it is still in the "cells in a petri dish" stage, no doubt. Anyone running around thinking that we're talking about a fetus is misinformed.

Embryonic cells are the most valuable, as they haven't been "hard-wired" as anything yet. Early enough that you can use them to form whatever cells you need...nerve, muscle, flesh, etc.. Adult stem cells are (for the most part) already set...not flexible enough to be used for many different applications.

Here's a good FAQ for anybody who is not spun up. It's from those whackjob liberals at the National Institue of Health ...so take it for what it's worth.

 

[BuddyLee]

Polls have consistently shown that more than 60 per cent of Americans support federal funding for expanded stem cell research.

...and a majority in Congress as well.

Government working for or hearing the people? Ha!

 

[Kerad]

This is gonna sound dumb at first so bear with me.

I used to work in a restaurant where we cooked precisely to order. It was restaurant policy to throw away all food that was "left over". If we cooked too much filet mignon - it was to be thrown out - and not "put to good use" feeding the staff.

About ten years ago, a software lead decided to give cash awards to programmers for every software bug they were able to find, correct and document. For some inexplicable reason, the staff was able to detect an unprecedented amount of bugs and corrected them with astonishing swiftness - a feat never achieved before (or since, since the manager who created the idea was swiftly canned and the idea scrapped).

Now, why are these ideas relevant? Why would the restaurant manager tell staff "throw out leftover Alaskan crab legs"? Obvious answer, of course - incentive for them NOT to *deliberately* overcook, so that the overage could "be put to good use". Why was the software idea stupid? Because the staff could CREATE errors and receive cash for it. There was actually an incentive there to be dishonest in both cases - in both cases, staff was unintentionally being REWARDED for dishonesty.

Do you think that if a firm gets compensation for embryos that "will be destroyed anyway" that there's any reason whatsover for them not to CREATE embryos? Is there any reason to believe people will stay honest in this area, when it benefits them greatly to be barbaric and dishonest?

I understand the restaurant reference....I used to be a cook/kitchen manager a couple lifetimes ago. Your concern makes sense.

I don't know the actual numbers...obviously, but I understand that for every successful in-vitro fertilization (one where the couple successfuly had a baby), there are dozens (if not over a hundred) of these cells sitting in their "bank" afterwards. The ones that are not adopted (very few ever are) are then destroyed and tossed.

Not being all up on in-vitro, I understand that there will always be a surplus. Either the couple succeeds...or gives up after several unsuccessful attempts. Is it possible that evil scientists could "make extra" for resarch? Of course it is. There are ethics questions with everything, and (hopefully) safeguards in place to prevent abuse of the system. Even so....we're talking about something that is never going to become a human being...one way or another.

Finally...If we could possibly save human lives with left over Alaskan crab legs...I'm all for that too!

 

[SamSpade]

And if federal funding were allowed on embryonic stem cell research the possibility exists that cures would happen that much faster. Also, one big problem with private stem cell research is ownership of the technology. Do you think that if a private firm gets compensation for being able to cure your child’s tumor, paralysis, autism, etc., with their stem cell technology that there’s any reason whatsoever for them not to only take those that can afford to pay? Is there any reason to believe private firms will stay honest in this area, when it benefits them greatly to take the highest bidder.

Are we to assume that somehow, prohibiting federal funding only - in the United States only - for research on (embryonic only) stem cell research - is the primary impediment to a flash flood of cures to virtually every disease under the sun? Isn't it more likely that opponents of Bush are just trying to make political gains in the name of "saving lives"?

Why would I make such a remark?

Because the original ban on stem cell research was made in 1999 by Bill Clinton. Bush actually allowed funding on existing stem cell lines where previous there was none. No one is really yielding all the facts on either side, but trying to make impassioned and sensational articles and soundbites full of fantasy and imagery but bearing little of the facts.

Federal funding? Heck it was PRIVATE funding that discovered human stem cells in the first place.

I'm still a little amused, however by the premise that if embryonic stem cell research is not fully funded by the United States government, there's no chance for cures to all these diseases.

I still think stem cells are the flavor of the month - whatever happened to all the good oat bran was supposed to do for us?

 

[dck4shrt]

I am also with Bush on this one.

Embryonic Stem Cell research has been ongoing for a number of years now. It is my understanding that nothing has come of it - just a vague promise that "we think with more embryoinic stem cell lines, we will accomplish more".

However, adult stem cells are also being utilized and that they are proving to be more adaptable then first thought.

I'm sure 'nothing' came out of the research programs for polio and smallpox vaccines for a number of years, either, that didn't mean we pulled the plug on research into those areas. Maybe we should pull the plug on research to find a cure to cancer and heart disease, too, because obviously people are still dying from those diseases despite 'research ongoing for a number of years now'.

The moral argument being used here is based on faith, and since science as a whole does not contend with faith, it is impossible to argue on behalf of science that this research should or shouldn't be allowed. Science is defined as knowledge gained through experience and evidence. Faith is defined as a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. The two do not overlap, they are not in the same realm, so that one's faith should not infringe upon science, and science should not infringe upon one's faith.

 

[Toxick]

The moral argument being used here is based on faith,

The way I understood it, the moral argument being used was, "Those aren't cells - they're babies".

And I don't think that I'm being presumptuous by saying that the wholesale slaughter of children is morally wrong, even if you're not a person of faith.


Perhaps science should try to define "When Life Begins", and then they can hammer it out with the religious people once they know what it is they're arguing.






Ironically enough, the Biblical definition of "Life" doesn't include embryonic stem cells. Life is defined as the blood in the flesh - of which embroyos have none.

 

[SamSpade]

I'm sure 'nothing' came out of the research programs for polio and smallpox vaccines for a number of years, either, that didn't mean we pulled the plug on research into those areas. Maybe we should pull the plug on research to find a cure to cancer and heart disease, too, because obviously people are still dying from those diseases despite 'research ongoing for a number of years now'.

A cure for smallpox was discovered around the time of Jefferson and Washington and federal funding really wasn't relevant.

When I was a kid, finding out you had cancer was a death notice - people did NOT survive cancer. Today, because of cancer research, most cancers are survivable if caught early enough. It is probably IMPOSSIBLE to cure, since nothing definitive 'causes' it.

If however, some small part of say, polioresearch was deemed necessary for
the population required the DEATHS of a few children by using an attenuated virus - well, that would good for the rest of us, right (actually happened).

The moral argument being used here is based on faith, and since science as a whole does not contend with faith, it is impossible to argue on behalf of science that this research should or shouldn't be allowed. Science is defined as knowledge gained through experience and evidence. Faith is defined as a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. The two do not overlap, they are not in the same realm, so that one's faith should not infringe upon science, and science should not infringe upon one's faith.

Why is it that a "moral argument" is some pile of crap based on superstition (faith) when it comes from a religious person, but reverts to being a human rights issue when it doesn't? You know, a religious person says "this is wrong" the reaction is "we don't like your religion crap" but when the non-religious person makes a stand for ethics and morality and says "this is unjust! this is barbaric and wrong!" we're all supposed to follow suit?

I don't care about the whole pro-life aspect of it - I don't want to see embryo farms out there where embryos are MADE to be harvested. I don't want to see human clones grown and chopped up for spare parts. Maybe the human race is going that way, but it's barbaric. Embryonic stem cell research has yet to prove its great need, and it's but a fraction of the total picture. Other nations have no such ban - amazingly, they haven't found the cures either. Maybe it's all a pile of baloney.

 

[vraiblonde]

(Pro-lifers should love in-vitro....because of it there's much more life to be "pro" about.)

I'm not pro-life - I'm blatantly pro-abortion. I don't even hide behind the term "pro-choice".

But human experimentation is disgusting and gives me the creeps. It's like those freaks during the Holocaust. I'm against it and don't want my tax dollars paying for it, I don't care how many potential lives it may save.

 

[Kerad]

I'm still a little amused, however by the premise that if embryonic stem cell research is not fully funded by the United States government, there's no chance for cures to all these diseases.
QUOTE]

I don't think anyone's arguing that the only way the research can be successful is with U.S. government funding. I know I'm not, at least. My postion is that the research would be greatly improved and brought along much more rapidly with federal funding. The U.S. funds research into "all" of the other medical research...why not this? Especially this...as stem cell research could potentially be used for so much. It really could be revolutionary...even more so then heart surgery/transplants, etc.

 

[MMDad]

He just vetoed it.

 

[dck4shrt]

Why is it that a "moral argument" is some pile of crap based on superstition (faith) when it comes from a religious person, but reverts to being a human rights issue when it doesn't? You know, a religious person says "this is wrong" the reaction is "we don't like your religion crap" but when the non-religious person makes a stand for ethics and morality and says "this is unjust! this is barbaric and wrong!" we're all supposed to follow suit?

I think that the non-religious person (a philosopher) bases their moral arguments on logic and reason, and not faith, belief, or superstition. If Bush were to lay out a well-reasoned, logical argument as to why its wrong and shouldn't be funded as opposed to just saying that he is a man of faith and believes that it's wrong, he would have some ground to stand on when it comes to denying funding for science research.

I don't care about the whole pro-life aspect of it - I don't want to see embryo farms out there where embryos are MADE to be harvested. I don't want to see human clones grown and chopped up for spare parts. Maybe the human race is going that way, but it's barbaric. Embryonic stem cell research has yet to prove its great need, and it's but a fraction of the total picture. Other nations have no such ban - amazingly, they haven't found the cures either. Maybe it's all a pile of baloney.

Maybe it's all a pile of baloney, but we won't know that until we try. This is not about whether or not it will work. It's about whether or not it's worth it.

 

[Kerad]

I'm not pro-life - I'm blatantly pro-abortion. I don't even hide behind the term "pro-choice".

But human experimentation is disgusting and gives me the creeps. It's like those freaks during the Holocaust. I'm against it and don't want my tax dollars paying for it, I don't care how many potential lives it may save.

I didn't mean to imply you were one of the pro-lifers...sorry.

I personally don't see this as human experimentation. There is no way I connect this in any part to the horrific Mengele experiments. He was doing those things to actual living human beings.

I don't see the cells in the dish as a human being. In my opinion, they are "ingredients" that have the potential to someday become a living human, if the proper steps are applied and nothing goes wrong. If that doesn't occur...they're just cells in a dish. At this point...they can either be used as the raw materials to make a cure for something...or they can be discarded. I prefer the former.

None of this will change the opinions of those who believe that these cells are actually a human being. If they believe that, then I fully understand why they would be against stem cell research. I wouldnt agree...but that's fine.

Let me ask you this: Are you outraged that so many of these embryos get destroyed? Even though the process that created these "extras" may have allowed a couple to have a baby, where as they could not have before? Would you like to see the whole process of in-vitro fertilization abolished in order to prevent the destruction of the exta embryos the process creates?

 

[SamSpade]

I don't think anyone's arguing that the only way the research can be successful is with U.S. government funding..

I just find it embarassing when I discuss this on forums where the majority are not Americans. They get a little ticked off when it's suggested that if Americans don't find the cure, the world is screwed. Like, they don't do anything themselves. We don't realize how we view the whole world as just ourselves, and that we're the only answer.

I know I'm not, at least. My postion is that the research would be greatly improved and brought along much more rapidly with federal funding. The U.S. funds research into "all" of the other medical research...why not this? Especially this...as stem cell research could potentially be used for so much. It really could be revolutionary...even more so then heart surgery/transplants, etc.

They keeps SAYING that, don't they? But there's been little proof thus far, and that's in light of other nations that do NOT restrict it. See how the two arguments are related? Our "restriction" is but a drop in the bucket worldwide impairing research. It's like having a 1 billion dollars - or having 1.1 billion dollars. The little extra bit doesn't seem to affect whether or not there's a worldwide breakthrough. If the worldwide budget is cut just a little bit - but with no breakthrough - doesn't say much, does it?

I'm convinced by this time that stem cell research is just another cold fusion blind alley. I think it's overhyped.

 

[residentofcre]

Done Deal

I just got an email from the Washington Post. The veto is a fact!

 

[Coaster]

Follow the money with stem-cell research. The only 'cells' being regenerated by the research are in the portfolio spreadsheets of scientists and owners of engineering companies. What a crock.
I gotta agree with Vrai- this is creepy stuff, sounds like a horror movie from the early 70's, when you watched it you said "Spooky, but that could never happen".
California has spent plenty of state money on this, just look it up and follow the money.

 

[SamSpade]

I think that the non-religious person (a philosopher) bases their moral arguments on logic and reason, and not faith, belief, or superstition. If Bush were to lay out a well-reasoned, logical argument as to why its wrong and shouldn't be funded as opposed to just saying that he is a man of faith and believes that it's wrong, he would have some ground to stand on when it comes to denying funding for science research.

Absurd. You can't make a case for right or wrong based on logic or reason. Logic and reason makes Swift's "A Modest Proposal" perfectly acceptable; it makes Hitler's eugenics sensible. "Logic" would tell us it's ok to kill a hundred to save a thousand. But they're barbaric. Moral arguments are not based on logic. They're based on your own innate understanding of right and wrong. Call it 'God', call it "ethics" - when you appeal to morality in people, you can't spell it out with reason. Logic tells me that killing babies is perfectly acceptable if the results are good. This is the very argument where people are opposed to this research - you can't kill a life to advance your science. You might as well grab the homeless off the streets and harvest them for organs. THAT would be logical, if not immoral.

What I've also observed, however, is this: it doesn't matter how logical a case is made if it COMES FROM a man known to be a person of faith. Although Einstein was rather ambiguous about his beliefs in God, he was often ridiculed for his references to him, and you probably couldn't find a smarter man around at the time.

When people are opposed to religion, they hold any moral argument the religious person suspect no matter what the stated rationale is.

 

[dck4shrt]

The way I understood it, the moral argument being used was, "Those aren't cells - they're babies".

And I don't think that I'm being presumptuous by saying that the wholesale slaughter of children is morally wrong, even if you're not a person of faith.


Perhaps science should try to define "When Life Begins", and then they can hammer it out with the religious people once they know what it is they're arguing.

Ironically enough, the Biblical definition of "Life" doesn't include embryonic stem cells. Life is defined as the blood in the flesh - of which embroyos have none.

Science can't define the beginning of life because this is open to individual recognition and perception. You will perceive life beginning differently than someone else because of what your recognize life to be. That is we think that life should reproduce, but what about mules, they are obviously alive, but do not reproduce. Alternatively, a fire can reproduce. Other characteristics of life include growth, energy utilization, and ability to develop based on information contained in DNA.

At any rate, science can research and potentially describe what happens during sperm and egg development, during fertilization, during development through to birth, and throughout the life cycle of an organism, but it cannot label the 'moment' of life beginning because it is a process and not an event.

 

[vraiblonde]

Let me ask you this: Are you outraged that so many of these embryos get destroyed? Even though the process that created these "extras" may have allowed a couple to have a baby, where as they could not have before? Would you like to see the whole process of in-vitro fertilization abolished in order to prevent the destruction of the exta embryos the process creates?

I do find it creepy that a couple is so desperate to have a baby that they'll basically abort however many more in the process, yes.

But destroying embryonic humans is one thing. Experimenting with them is something else entirely. If a woman has a miscarriage, that's too bad and a shame. If she takes the miscarried fetus to the lab to be parted out, that's just gruesome.

 

[Toxick]

I just find it embarassing when I discuss this on forums where the majority are not Americans. They get a little ticked off when it's suggested that if Americans don't find the cure, the world is screwed. Like, they don't do anything themselves. We don't realize how we view the whole world as just ourselves, and that we're the only answer.

Apropos of nothing:

What you just said reminds me when the movie "Independence Day" came out, starring Will Smith, Jeff Goldblum and Bill Pullman.

During that period in my life, I spent a great deal of my time on Usenet. When I wasn't downloading ... artistic images ... I would discuss news at length with people around the world.

So this movie comes out - and almost every non-american I talked to about it hated it. They called it a bunch of flag-waving American jingoistic self-flaggelation. This came as a shock to me, because it seemed neutral on the patriotic side to me.


But there was apparently one small little tiny 10 second interplay that every foreigner couldn't get past. (Forgive the quote mangling)

"Sir, it's the Americans! They have a plan for dealing with the Aliens"
"It's about bloody time! What do they want to do?"


That's it.

Everyone I talked to assumed that meant Americans believe that the world sits idly by until the US finally does something, and that all other nations are completely helpless without Uncle Sam leading the charge.



Anyway, i just thought that reinforced your point.

 

[Kerad]

I'm convinced by this time that stem cell research is just another cold fusion blind alley. I think it's overhyped.

There's some rats at Johns Hopkins who may disagree with that.

"For the first time, researchers have enticed transplants of embryonic stem cell-derived motor neurons in the spinal cord to connect with muscles and partially restore function in paralyzed animals. The study suggests that similar techniques may be useful for treating such disorders as spinal cord injury, transverse myelitis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), and spinal muscular atrophy."

Of course the rats are probably not very grateful...seeing that the researchers also were the ones that paralyzed them to begin with.