Bush holds veto pen over stem cell bill

[vraiblonde]

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.

And that ties into the rest of your argument. Other countries are happy to fund embryonic research - so let them. If they can't get anything beneficial out of it, what makes us think we can?

Yet these are the same people who think the US is such a terrible place and not NEARLY as wonderful as France or even Outer Mongolia.

I don't get it.

 

[SamSpade]

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.

Understood - but many I know face this situation, and Bluejay and I still think about it. To be honest, it's really numbers and dollars coming into play; we're adopting because at the end of the day, a child is a certainty. It's expensive but 100%.

However, we have known people who face the situation where they've gone through ICSI, and some embryos look good, some don't, and only a few can be allowed to proceed to be born. The weird thing is, this kind of dog eat dog brutality goes on all the time silently inside women's wombs all the time without their knowledge - some die and others live. The doctors are just making the choices to ensure a live birth rather than letting it occur randomly. He's not much different from a field medic choosing who should be allowed to die and is beyond help, and focussing on the ones who will live.

I'm not crazy about those options, but - well, money and certainty are making those choices for me.

 

[Toxick]

Science can't define the beginning of life because this is open to individual recognition and perception.

So why do you get irritated if someone uses other means (i.e. religion) to individually recognize and perceive when life begins.

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.

I beg to differ.
At one point you have not-life and at another you have life.


At SOME POINT not-life became life.

Even if you want to define it as a process: [ not-life; protolife; half-life; sorta-life; almost-life; LIFE ], there has to be a point somewhere that a blob of cells is no longer a blob of cells, it's a human being.



And on that note, to reinforce my point above: If scientists are unwilling to commit to WHEN that point is and say it's open to interpretation, then they shouldn't get irritated if someone uses other means to interpret it.

 

[residentofcre]

Understood - but many I know face this situation, and Bluejay and I still think about it. To be honest, it's really numbers and dollars coming into play; we're adopting because at the end of the day, a child is a certainty. It's expensive but 100%.

However, we have known people who face the situation where they've gone through ICSI, and some embryos look good, some don't, and only a few can be allowed to proceed to be born. The weird thing is, this kind of dog eat dog brutality goes on all the time silently inside women's wombs all the time without their knowledge - some die and others live. The doctors are just making the choices to ensure a live birth rather than letting it occur randomly. He's not much different from a field medic choosing who should be allowed to die and is beyond help, and focussing on the ones who will live.

I'm not crazy about those options, but - well, money and certainty are making those choices for me.

So you're considering adoption? Or are you considering a snowflake baby?

 

[Kerad]

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.

Well...yeah...that is a bit gruesome. That's not exactly what we're talking about here....but...isn't that at least a bit like organ donation? When I punch out, all my parts (the ones still worth anything) will be snatched up and given to someone who needs the part. I don't need it anymore, and I think it would be unreasonably selfish of me to prevent someone from being cured of something.

Once again, I see that we see this differently...which is fine. I don't consider the cells aborted, as they were never brought far enough along in the process to have to "stop" (abort) another step from taking place. They are not in the process of evolving. They're just...there.

Oh well...doesn't really matter. Bushie vetoed the bill...which was fully expected. At least I don't have to update my scoreboard.

Things Bushie has done that I agree with: 2
Things Bushie has done that I dont agree with: All the rest.

He is consistent...gotta give him that!

 

[vraiblonde]

Everyone I talked to assumed that meant Americans believe that the world sits idly by until the US finally does something

Well, it's the truth. When was the last time France or Germany did anything about terrorism besides funnel money to dictators who fund it?

Where are they with this Israel/Arab business?

And this is just right now - we won't even go into Europe's brave stand against Hitler.

 

[SamSpade]

So you're considering adoption? Or are you considering a snowflake baby?

We've been at for almost a year now.

What the heck is a snowflake baby?

 

[vraiblonde]

When I punch out, all my parts (the ones still worth anything) will be snatched up and given to someone who needs the part.

What if some doctor killed you to get your parts?

I don't consider the cells aborted, as they were never brought far enough along in the process to have to "stop" (abort) another step from taking place. They are not in the process of evolving. They're just...there.

Maybe I don't understand. I thought we were talking about embryos - fertilized human eggs? Once an egg has been fertilized, the natural progression takes it to becoming a functioning human (unless it's defective). It would have to be "stopped" at some point.

Or do I not understand?

 

[dck4shrt]

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.

Moral arguments are based on your own innate understanding of what's right and wrong? The premise there is that we have an innate understanding of anything to begin with? Throw a baby in a cave, and it will come out 18 years later with an understanding of right and wrong? Society's foundation, community, education, parenting, religion, all contribute to our understanding of what is right and wrong. The evidence for this is what happens when some of those contributors fail. You end of up with murderers, criminals, anarchists, and terrorists.

Logic might say it's ok to kill a hundred to save a thousand, but this is not a practical argument because you cannot guarantee with absolute certainty that outcome. Drug companies and the FDA do this all of the time. A potential cancer drug is in trials. The FDA says, ok, give it a go on the patients with the worst prognosis, those that are about to die. If it extends their life by a few weeks, then we'll move on to the next less-worse scenario. To test this, we will deny the drug to some patients so that we can detect a difference if it does exist. I haven't seen Bush try to stop funding for these trials although it is compromising life.

This non-religious person does not hold any moral argument suspect that the religious person puts forth if it is accompanied with a well reasoned argument as to why I should agree. Just as I would with any moral argument coming from any source. Bush (and anyone else) can't just say I'm a man of faith and I don't believe in it. I won't buy that as an excuse. Besides, if he thinks it's so wrong why doesn't he do his damnest to push for a law banning it all together?

 

[Toxick]

Bush (and anyone else) can't just say I'm a man of faith and I don't believe in it. I won't buy that as an excuse.

What if Bush were to say, I'm a man of faith, and therefore I believe that Life Begins at Conception, and therefore I view this to be the slaughter of innocent bebe's, rather than scientific research.




What difference does it make WHY he believes as he does? You, yourself, just said that life is not currently scientifically quatifiable, and it's open for interpretation and perception - but then in your next breath, you dismiss Dubya's interpretation out of hand because it's based in faith.



It seems like you'll accept any moral reason - so long as it's not based on religion.

 

[Pete]

I am in awe. This is the most well argued, eloquent, civil discourse I think I have EVER seen on these boards. A fascinating read! Bravo to each and every one of you!

 

[dck4shrt]

What if Bush were to say, I'm a man of faith, and therefore I believe that Life Begins at Conception, and therefore I view this to be the slaughter of innocent bebe's, rather than scientific research.

What difference does it make WHY he believes as he does? You, yourself, just said that life is not currently scientifically quatifiable, and it's open for interpretation and perception - but then in your next breath, you dismiss Dubya's interpretation out of hand because it's based in faith.

It seems like you'll accept any moral reason - so long as it's not based on religion.

He would need to provide some reasoning as to why he thinks life begins at conception, not simply that he believes that it does. Him stating his belief does not make him an authority on the subject.

I think it is wrong to deny funding for this research simply on the grounds that an individual believes that it's wrong without a bit of evidence to back up his claim.

 

[citysherry]

We've been at for almost a year now.

What the heck is a snowflake baby?

I'm not sure what a snowflake baby is but if I had to guess, I'd say caucasian.

I’ve gone - IVF with ICIS, embryo adoption and finally, traditional adoption. If you every have any questions or just want to know my opinion/experience with any of the foregoing, feel free to ask.

 

[Kerad]

What if some doctor killed you to get your parts?

Then I'd haunt that murderer and make his/her life a living hell!

Seriously though...that doesn't come into play here...the doctors are not removing a healthy embryo from inside the mother in order to get stem cells. These embyos were never inside the mother to begin with.

Maybe I don't understand. I thought we were talking about embryos - fertilized human eggs? Once an egg has been fertilized, the natural progression takes it to becoming a functioning human (unless it's defective). It would have to be "stopped" at some point.

Or do I not understand?

Yes...in the natural process, an embryo inside the mother could well turn into a baby. Assuming there is no medical condition with the mother (or father) that prevents it from taking place perfectly.

Once again...I'm no expert on the specifics of in-vitro. But...the cells we've been discussing are cells in a fertilization clinc...for example. The fact that they are there at all implies that something isn't working naturally to enable the mother to become prgenant. That's why she's there...at the clinic. The doctors take the necessary ingredients form the man and woman, and do something to the cells to hopefully assist the initiation of the pregnency. ( I think.)

The process never involves stopping a normal embyo from normal, natural development.

At some point, the woman ceases treatment, and the remaining embryos no longer needed are remain at the clinic. This is where the question is....what to do with these leftover embyos.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about any of this...didn't do alot of background research with the in-vitro part.

Gotta run!

 

[vraiblonde]

Or are you considering a snowflake baby?

How cool!

http://www.thevillagenews.com/story.asp?story_ID=6140

I didn't know what it was, either, so I did a search. It's when you adopt an IVF embryo that would other be destroyed (or experimented on )

 

[BuddyLee]

How cool!

http://www.thevillagenews.com/story.asp?story_ID=6140

I didn't know what it was, either, so I did a search. It's when you adopt an IVF embryo that would other be destroyed (or experimented on )

That would be cool to raise a snowflake baby.

 

[citysherry]

Maybe I don't understand. I thought we were talking about embryos - fertilized human eggs? Once an egg has been fertilized, the natural progression takes it to becoming a functioning human (unless it's defective). It would have to be "stopped" at some point.

Or do I not understand?

Actually, we've been using the term embryo rather loosely, we should refer to them as blastocyst. This is where the egg and sperm have been in the petri-dish for 96 hours and should have divided 4 times. At this point, they are either returned to the woman's uterus and hopefully implant or must be cryo-preserved.

 

[crabcake]

And that ties into the rest of your argument. Other countries are happy to fund embryonic research - so let them. If they can't get anything beneficial out of it, what makes us think we can?

HELLO! Cuz we're better/smarter/prettier/wealthier than everyone else!

 

[crabcake]

Well, it can be argued that the lives being sacrificed in the name of freedom, were given willingly by those who are killed. Nobody was forced to go into the military - they're all volunteers to the man - and (hopefully) their lives are not given in vain. They're certainly not given up in the name of 'research'.

Secondly, what kind of embryos are we talking about here? Are we talking a few nonviable cells, or are we talking semi-developed fetus. Because I believe there is a vast difference.







Really - how about the enforcement of murder laws?

Because that's what it boils down to. If someone believes that life starts at conception, then you're talking to someone who sees the destruction of that life as no less than murder. Since murder is typically considered bad-form, it is an outrage to them that this particular kind of murder is being endorsed by many people - simply because it might benefit them personally.

This is the same old argument that pro-lifers and pro-choicers have daily. You have the pro-choicers saying that "Pro-Lifers are EVIL because they want to restrict my freedoms and tell me what to do with my own body". While a pro-lifer would say, "Pro-choicers are EVIL because they endorse legalized murder for the sake of convenience."

1) I'm not even boiling it down to the military members themselves; I'm talking about Bush -- he vetoes; he directs the military. His stance on this is based on his faith and that he'd be destroying a life form. But where's that same concern for lives when he's sending troops to war, or orders a middle of the night bombing of a terrorist hide-out. The point is that deaths occur ... and isn't a Christian's stance that it's not his/her job to decide one's fate; rather, that's in God's hands? So, using that logic, how is it Bush's job to decide that Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Ladin should die? :shrug: Yea, we all know they're evil and should die, but who is Bush, as a Christian, to decide that fate for them if he shouldn't be deciding it for some cells in a petrie dish?

And make no mistake here, I'm a middle of the road-er/registered republican. I'm not anti-war or anti-Bush; I just want to see some consistency applied to decision making here. Either you resort to your faith for decision-making or you don't ... none of this weeble-wobble . I personally think that politicians should put their personal principles/beliefs/faith aside when it comes to making decisions for the country. Decisions should be based on what is best for mankind in our country and future generations; not a specific group of mankind (i.e., Christians).

2) Let me state up-front that I am pro-choice WHEN it's an issue of someone's health being compromised, or the fetus has significant defects that would render its life unbearable (I don't have an example here; but I know I wouldn't want to live a life as a vegetable in a wheel chair from birth, so I would not want to remove that choice from a potential parent in that position). I do not condone the aborting of a fetus simply b/c you'll be inconvenienced, or you find out it's a girl and you wanted a boy.

That said, IF a non-viable fetus is miscarried/aborted, yet the stem cells would prove beneficial for research, I do not see an issue with doctors harvesting them IF the parents provide their authorization to do so. As someone else mentioned in here, I don't see it any different than organ donation. Granted, not EVERYONE is in agreement, but there are some who are, so why not let THEM decide what's right for their situation, and you decide (should you be in that boat) what's right for you. It's not like they're going to drag the parents or public into the room and make them watch the procedure of harvesting the cells, just like they wouldn't make you watch your loved one being carved up to donate a heart, corneas, etc. I see it more an issue of selflessness than creepiness.

I don't see laws pertaining to murder changing based on this. It'd take some kind of :kennedy: to equate the two. As for "when life begins" ... I don't see much "life" happening in a petrie dish cryogenically frozen in a laboratory. :shrug: But that's a whole other debate ... Besides, we already endorse "murder" when it's to the betterment of society; it's called the death penalty, and if you ask me, it's not used often enough.

 

[cattitude]

Crabby, I'm with ya. Great post, you must have been reading my mind.