Bush holds veto pen over stem cell bill

[SamSpade]

I can tell you right now that I wouldn't have a child to use for spare parts. The very thought of that is revolting to me.

Didn't I see a movie or TV show where they did that? Have another child solely to grow parts for the existing child?

 

[vraiblonde]

Bone marrow transplants are reportedly very painful. And isn't that your child, too, or just the kid you already have? What would they have done with the rest of the baby once they got the bone marrow they wanted?

I just find this attitude so callous toward life. I'm sorry that people lose loved ones and die themselves. I just don't think more killing is the answer.

 

[cattitude]

Bone marrow transplants are reportedly very painful. And isn't that your child, too, or just the kid you already have? What would they have done with the rest of the baby once they got the bone marrow they wanted?

I just find this attitude so callous toward life. I'm sorry that people lose loved ones and die themselves. I just don't think more killing is the answer.

It's not too painful for the marrow donor, really. They would have loved the baby.

I dunno.... it's a hard call...one I pray I never have to make.

 

[Toxick]

I just don't think until you are actually in that situation you can really say what you would do.

I disagree with this statement.

I've seen this sentence - or variations of it - used a million times, in a million different situations, and although I don't find out outright insulting, it skates a fine line.



The above sentence says to me: "You're opinion is baseless, and ill thought out"

OR

"You are a weak-willed indivdual, and you will change your opinion when it becomes convenient for you to do so."


My opinions, especially opinions on or issues touching on morality or ethics - are formed, not in the heat of the moment, but after appropriate deliberation and looking at various sides of the issue. And I am not such a gutless wankface that I would change that opinion or ethical values, merely because it would be come expedient or beneficial for me do so.

 

[Toxick]

Didn't I see a movie or TV show where they did that? Have another child solely to grow parts for the existing child?

It was an episode of CSI.

The eldest son had leukemia and would die without bone marrow transplants, so his parents had a daughter for the explicit purpose of having a marrow source. The minute she was physically capable of handling operations, they began harvesting her marrow.


The eldest son ended up murdering his sister, setting off a chain of events that would lead to his own death, so that his parents would stop 'torturing' her.


Good episode.

 

[citysherry]

It's not too painful for the marrow donor, really. They would have loved the baby.

I dunno.... it's a hard call...one I pray I never have to make.

Of all the reasons people have children and most people have a baby without thinking about why, I think this is one of the better ones - to save a life.

 

[cattitude]

I disagree with this statement.

I've seen this sentence - or variations of it - used a million times, in a million different situations, and although I don't find out outright insulting, it skates a fine line.



The above sentence says to me: "You're opinion is baseless, and ill thought out"

OR

"You are a weak-willed indivdual, and you will change your opinion when it becomes convenient for you to do so."


My opinions, especially opinions on or issues touching on morality or ethics - are formed, not in the heat of the moment, but after appropriate deliberation and looking at various sides of the issue. And I am not such a gutless wankface that I would change that opinion or ethical values, merely because it would be come expedient or beneficial for me do so.

Well, maybe that's what that statement says to you, it certainly is not my intent. Faced with a dying loved-one, especially my child, I honestly cannot say what I'd do. And I am anything but weak-willed.

 

[SamSpade]

The above sentence says to me: "You're opinion is baseless, and ill thought out".

Have to say - don't agree, but I see your point. It can be used to be dismissive of other people's opinions.

On the other hand -

I wasn't sympathetic to people who experienced depression - until it happened to me. When I was ON medication, I wanted to die, and absolutely NOTHING would alleviate that feeling. Not sleep, not time. It - just - wouldn't - go - away.

I wasn't, similarly, sympathetic to those addicted to pain killers - until I had some of the most amazing back pain you can imagine. Up until then, I thought pain killers were for wimps. After that, I can imagine losing my mind hoping for relief.

Last year, the Terry Schiavo ordeal had us all wondering how we'd feel if we were her husband in the same situation. It's easy to call the shots from the cheap seats - but it gets harder on the stage.

I see what you're saying - but - a lot of people bravely bray their bravado on principle - but change their tune when reality hits.

 

[Kerad]

Bone marrow transplants are reportedly very painful. And isn't that your child, too, or just the kid you already have? What would they have done with the rest of the baby once they got the bone marrow they wanted?

I just find this attitude so callous toward life. I'm sorry that people lose loved ones and die themselves. I just don't think more killing is the answer.

Nothing is being killed. That point has been made many times. Cells in a petri dish are already being destroyed. The cells that are left over after all other options have been closed down. Contrary to what Bush was lying....errr..."talking" about yesterday: "This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others," There is no "life" being taken. These are cells that would never have become a living thing at all. But...it's easier for Bush to just say "We are saving innocent lives"...because certain poeple will think: "Uhhhh...life good! Yay Bush!" without understanding the truth.

Those kids that were adopted embryos...the ones he was using for political points? Guess what...they'd still be there even with federal funding for stem cells. It's the cells that aren't used for their original purpose...and after aren't adopted...those are the ones that would be used. That photo op belongs on the wall next to his "Mission Accomplished" moment.

I notice Bush didn't have any Alzheimer patients, or paralyzed people around for the photo op. Nancy Reagan wasn't there to represent the families who have to deal with caring for the poeple stem-cell research could someday cure. Didn't have bags of petri dishes that were tossed out in the background.

Ugh...k....I'm done.

 

[Toxick]

Well, maybe that's what that statement says to you, it certainly is not my intent.

I'm sure it wasn't, and I didn't intend for my rant to be so specifically directed at you.

In many debates, particularly those involving abortion or capital punishment, I'll voice my opinion that I'm opposed to it, and invariably someone will come along and say, "If it was your daughter who was pregnant at 14 - you would change your mind then!" or "If it was your wife or kids who got murdered you'd change your tune!"

I get an attitude about that, because neither my opinion on abortion nor my opinion on capital punishment were formed in a knee-jerk fashion, they weren't formed so that I could be contrary or to be a killjoy. They weren't formed out of emotionalism, or as a reaction to anything. And I've never changed an opinion on a subject because the going got rough.

Faced with a dying loved-one, especially my child, I honestly cannot say what I'd do. And I am anything but weak-willed.

Well, I don't know what I would do either, but I do know that I wouldn't have another child to harvest their parts.

 

[Toxick]

Nothing is being killed. That point has been made many times.

While I agree that nothing is being killed, the point has most definitely not been made many times.


The point has been brought up many times, but this point is, in fact, still the source of contention around which the entire debate is formed.


I completely disagree with Bush on this issue (and a great many issues) - HOWEVER: I do not think that he vetoed the bill to be a jerk. He didn't veto it because he's evil, or because he enjoys watching people squirm, or because he's veto-happy. He didn't veto the bill because he's mean.

He didn't veto the bill for any other reason than because he believes signing the bill is condoning and authorizing the murder of babies.

So, we disagree with that.

Like I said, I don't believe that any human beings are being destroyed here, however, a complete dismissal of opposing viewpoints by referring to an unfounded authoritative declaration is pointless and counterproductive.

 

[SamSpade]

Nothing is being killed. That point has been made many times. Cells in a petri dish are already being destroyed. The cells that are left over after all other options have been closed down. Contrary to what Bush was lying....errr..."talking" about yesterday: "This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others," There is no "life" being taken. These are cells that would never have become a living thing at all. But...it's easier for Bush to just say "We are saving innocent lives"...because certain poeple will think: "Uhhhh...life good! Yay Bush!" without understanding the truth.

A minor nit with your statement. They *are* living. What is at issue here is whether or not it is a HUMAN life that is ended. Some say they are; others disagree.

If those cells and tissue were not alive, we wouldn't be discussing this.

 

[Kerad]

A minor nit with your statement. They *are* living. What is at issue here is whether or not it is a HUMAN life that is ended. Some say they are; others disagree.

If those cells and tissue were not alive, we wouldn't be discussing this.

Well, yeah...of course the cells themselves are alive. Wouldn't be of any use for the research if they were dead. Sorry if the wording seemed contradictory with the rest of my posts.

 

[sugarmama]

If you define life as "something that is alive" , then life begins at conception. End of story.

Is it dead? No. Is it inanimate? No. Then guess what? It's alive, and therefore "life".

Exactly. But the cells in the petri dish are NOT "alive". Once they are implanted into the mother, then they are "alive."

You mentioned in an earlier post something about "embryo farms." Now THAT is barbaric. ABsolutely ridiculously insane. But, if a woman choose to abort her baby, I don't see why those already-dead stem cells can't be used to help someone else? Or, if the cells in the petri dish are never implanted into a mother, why trash them when they can be put to good use? :shrug:

To me, it's similar to being an organ donor. It's simply STUPID to birth babies with the sole intention to have them give up their "parts" and organs. But, if they die (whether a baby or a grown person), why shouldn't they donate their organs, if they're not going to use them? Those donated organs can help SO MANY PEOPLE LIVE!!!!

I honestly don't even get half of what people are arguing about. It's SO simple to me (like most things that people try to complicate--the answer is usually the simplest one). Don't purposely "manufacture" embryos for the purpose of killing them for the stem cells... just as you wouldn't (hopefully) have a baby just to kill it and take it's organs and other parts. But, if a mother has already chosen to abort her baby, why not use (with the "mother"'s permission of course) the stem cells? :shrug:

 

[sugarmama]

A minor nit with your statement. They *are* living. What is at issue here is whether or not it is a HUMAN life that is ended. Some say they are; others disagree.

If those cells and tissue were not alive, we wouldn't be discussing this.

I don't agree with this. Those cells cannot LIVE unless they are inserted into the woman. They will sit there for FOREVER in a petri dish. If they were living, wouldn't they grow and thrive in the petri dish? They don't. Someone mentioned in a previous post that they are simply "ingredients" for what they CAN make when placed in a woman.

 

[sugarmama]

I don't agree with this. Those cells cannot LIVE unless they are inserted into the woman. They will sit there for FOREVER in a petri dish. If they were living, wouldn't they grow and thrive in the petri dish? They don't. Someone mentioned in a previous post that they are simply "ingredients" for what they CAN make when placed in a woman.

OK, I re-read this and realized it sounded stupid. Obviously, cells are living things. But, there's a difference b/w an embryo and what's sitting in that petri dish.

 

[Bruzilla]

I agree with Bush but for a different reason. Right now, as has been pointed out, there are hundreds if not thousands of embryos that are currently destroyed if they are not implanted. While it may make perfect sense to many that it would be better to harvest stem cells and destroy these embryos rather than just destroy them outright, what I think is missing from the argument is what will happen to those embryos once a vast flood of Federal research dollars is poured into the mix.

The embryos are destroyed right now because they have no use or value, and cost money to store. They have no use of value because there is only private research going on, and many limits on what stem cell lines can be used. But what happens when those restrictions are lifted? What'll happen is those embryos will no longer be useless or valueless... instead they will be a commodity. Research firms will now be able to go to fertility clinics with specific requests for embryos with specific genetic qualities, and fertility clinics will begin trying to fill those requests as a great deal of profit will be found here. And what happens when the normal flow of invitro fertilization "surplus" embryos isn't meeting the demands? How long will it be before clinics start actively seeking out couples to create embryos that meet specific genetic requirements? How long will it be before fertility clinics start telling their patients that they need to submit 10 embryos instead of five, and offer a discount on the cost of their services if couples will provide extra embryos?

There's just no surer way to screw this whole process up than by pouring in millions and millions of Federal dollars into it. Once we've convinced ourselves that a embryo really isn't a life, then there'll be no limits on what some people will do with them, or to get them, to make money.

 

[Toxick]

OK, I re-read this and realized it sounded stupid. Obviously, cells are living things. But, there's a difference b/w an embryo and what's sitting in that petri dish.

I think the distiction you're trying to make is that they are, in fact, living human cells. But that does not make them a living Human Being.




If I chop my finger off, the human cells at the tip of the finger are still alive, and will remain alive for quite some time - However, that does not mean the severed finger could be considered a living human being, by anyone's standards. It's just a finger.


The problem with stem cells, and why some people see them as human beings is because, although a finger is just a finger, embryonic stem cells, left to their own devices, will very easily turn into a human being - that is, in fact, their defined purpose. Therefore any distinction between "embryonic stem cells" and "human fetus" becomes moot (to those people).

 

[sugarmama]

I think the distiction you're trying to make is that they are, in fact, living human cells. But that does not make them a living Human Being.

EXACTLY! Thank you for helping me to spit that one out.

The problem with stem cells, and why some people see them as human beings is because, although a finger is just a finger, embryonic stem cells, left to their own devices, will very easily turn into a human being - that is, in fact, their defined purpose. Therefore any distinction between "embryonic stem cells" and "human fetus" becomes moot (to those people).

I get this, but I don't. They will not, in fact, turn into a human being if left in a petri dish for forever. Why not use those instead of trash them? :shrug:
As I said in an earlier post, I don't agree with "farming" embryonic stem cells just to use them as stem cells. But, if they're already there and ever going to be used, I don't see what the big deal is? :shrug:

 

[vraiblonde]

As I said in an earlier post, I don't agree with "farming" embryonic stem cells just to use them as stem cells.

But that's exactly what will happen. Bruzilla said it best above. I have nothing to add to that.