This was brought up in an open thread yesterday, but I think it deserves its own.
It is being reported Bush will veto a bill authorizing expanded federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.  A couple interesting thoughts from the Foxnews story:
Although many in the religious right are passionately opposed to stem cell research, most Americans support it, and Bush risks alienating that majority in the critical midterm year.
"Their opposition to stem cell research is outside the American mainstream, so they want to give themselves political cover by voting for two meaningless bills," said Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "It's a playbook straight from the Republican Orwellian world of politics."
The press (yes, even Foxnews aided by AP in this story) and the Dems continue to use "stem cell" as a synonym for "embryonic stem cell" - they blurr the argument with this sloppy use of language.
I applaud Bush for this veto (assuming he will really do it), and am disappointed in the GOP Congress for passing it. Harry Reid very well may be right - and that pains me to say.
A veto? *gasp*
A veto of a SPENDING bill? *faint*
More seriously though, the federal government definitely chucks an impressive wad of cash at some of these pet projects that should ideally be left to the private industry to invest in, or by States who see it as a good investment to make their State a leader in such technology for jobs and such.
If this research actually had something to do with the federal government's enumerated powers, military research, taxation research, etc then I might be able to justify it under the necessary and proper clause... but this seems a bit silly, especially in deficit-land.
God/godless... babies/cell-blobs... all the right/wrong etc on this issue seems to be a bit irrelevant to whether this should actually be a federal chore or not, when it seems, at least legally/Constitutionally not to be.
If this was on a State level initiative to fund this research... let the debate commence! But on the federal level, just seems silly, unless someone can find some actual federal power and interest in doing so. But hey, it's also an election year and many dems and repubs up there will have a grand ol' time painting each side as immoral and wrong. They don't care about Supreman! They don't care that'll encourage more baby killing!
Ugh.
Why would Bush have to veto anything when his party has control of both houses of Congress? If he vetos this, surely it could not be over-rided by a 2/3ths majority of a Republican Congress. Right?
Reid's theory is that this was essentially pre-arranged. Bush pledged a veto, so all the GOP Congressmen under pressure to support this funding could vote for it (for cover) with no risk that it could ever actually get passed.
Glock - I agree, this is definately outside the Constitutional authority of the federal gov't, but we thru those limits out about 100 years ago. Sad really.
lv,
it just missed the 2/3 in the senate. I believe it got 63, and needed 4 more for 2/3
RSW... indeed... we gave the feds nearly unlimited taxing power in 1913... which made it possible for future gov't to grow massively and possible for the feds to tax so much that State/local gov'ts unable to tax enough on the remains to even fund their own gov't.
With FDR's clown court starting all sorts of new precedents on federal regulatory power (to "save" us)... they opened the door for future gov't to regulate almost all activities and possessions... and made it possible for massive federal gov't backed industries that State and local gov'ts either have to obey or risk being financially starved to death.
I just have a hard time understanding people who in one breath decry an overbearing and dangerously powerful federal gov't and in the next breath demand more federal taxation and idolize FDR.
FDR is great. Bush is bad. FDR helped destroy limits on federal power with his SCotUS appointments. Bush appoints guys that want to limit federal power. FDR had internment camps for citizens. Bush has gitmo for terrorists... it all makes perfect sense.
*cough*
ABC radio (on WDWS) just chimed in with Bush to veto "money for stem cell research"
It really gets tedious - are they really that dumb/ignorant/apathetic, or is it intentional?
It's another example of the hapless status quo defenders at work.
This research could benefit any number of people, but yet it's being cast away as some sort of terrible idea.
Way to go, SQDs! Just keep on rubbing your little rabbit's feet while you play partisan politics and hope all the problems will "just go away." Maybe the NCAA will cave, and you can watch the Chief dance around for the next 20 years. And maybe you can find a way to enact a loophole in the smoking "ban" that will exclude all areas enclosed by four walls! Viva, Lung Resistance!
Who do those selfish quadriplegics and Alzheimer's victims think they are? Where do they get off asking us microscopic embryos to sacrifice ourselves to ease the suffering of real human beings? Just because we're frozen and going to be pitched anyway? No, sir. God's law is eternal and unchanging, and God has decreed that some boys and girls just don't deserve a chance to ever walk. We embryos are so grateful to have a man of faith in the White House.
I knew you'd be back, Embryo, thanks for chiming in. Nothing like a little sarcastic ridicule of the position that values all human life to put the debate into perspective.
The embryonic stem cells that would be utilized for this research will instead be thrown in the garbage if Bush vetoes the bill. What a waste. The only upside I can find in this veto is that it will make it that much easier for Democrats to get elected in the fall and '08. But then, that's true of almost anything Bush does anymore, so nothing new there.
Redstatewannabe:
Saying this position values all life is ridiculous. I guess the people with untreatable diseases just deserve to die. Complete nonsense.
But then, that thought is brought to you by the same people who embrace Big Medicine and the flawed health care system.
More of the positives of the hapless status quo defenders, who really have no solutions to offer other than keeping the Chief and supporting Lung Resistance: The War To Keep Poisoning Non-Smokers.
Thank you for realizing that we embryos are just as human as yourself, RSW. In fact, even though we don't even have brains yet, we are probably smarter than about 51% of the 2004 electorate. After we embryos succeed in stifling those uppity paraplegics, our next battle is to get the Census to start counting us. We're people too, you know!
Dear Embryo,
Your post is so lacking in critical thinking I believe you must be a lawyer. Why don't you cite for us some of the cures coming down the road from embryonic stem cell research? And tell us how the federal government's refusal to fund one highly speculative form of research equates to children not walking? Your post sounds like the closing argument of a party who has neither the facts nor the law on his side, though you do have Nancy Reagan in your corner, which also means the awesome power of astrology is at work for you.
Whenever I feel beleaguered for my belief in God and the sanctity of human life, and I start thinking, "Where is my faith getting me?," I stop and think about the faith people like you have in the raw, unsubstantiated prognostication of scientists (if only they could get their hands on a reliable supply of immature human beings to experiment with) and I realize that with you as my model, I can have faith out the wazoo with some more effort.
John
Saying this position values all life is ridiculous. I guess the people with untreatable diseases just deserve to die. Complete nonsense.
Everyone will die, whether they "deserve" it is not for us to decide. However, I would hardly expect to have the "right" to cannibalize embryos to extend my life.
Yeah.. conservatives have no solution for the "death" problem, that's true.
"They are just going to be thrown away anyway"
That argument sounds appealing, until you realize that if this research is successful, then there could be huge demand for embyros, beyond what is "just going to be thrown away anyway". Shall we then allow women to sell their eggs, force them to, or should we just go to cloning at that point?
Heck, think of all the wonderful uses there could be for babies aborted in the 8th month of pregnancy - nothing like creating demand for such an easily obtained "product", huh?
Yeah, the people with research grants are going to jump on the chance to risk those to "cannibalize" embryos that are going to be thrown out or to have women sell their eggs. Wait, they do that already. Yeah, that's where those embryos come from! I knew they had to come from someplace.
More of the tortured logic of the hapless status quo defenders. Dance, Chief, dance! Smoke, populace, smoke! Breathe, non-smokers, breathe! If you have a problem with any of that, it's just you.
Julie you know that some of those embryo's that you said would only be thrown in the garbage have been adopted and were present at President Bush's last press conference on this subject they seemed to be talking embryos wow modern medicine.
John, allow me to explain the difference between science and faith since you've conflated them:
Science exists in the real world and is based on palpable observation. When I claim that stem cell research has curing potential, that can be investigated and either proven or disproven. (In this case, proven.)
Faith is make-believe. If you have faith that "God" or Santa or a unicorn exists, and I have faith that he doesn't, which one of us is right? Seeing that there is no earthly way to prove or disprove faith, how does the dispute over whose faith is correct get settled without one of us killing the other? See, e.g. human history.
John Bramfeld insults Nancy Reagan, former First Lady, widow of the greatest president of the 20th century.
What a freakin slimeball.
Speaking of respect for human life, the supposedly "greatest president of the 20th century" didn't even speak the word "AIDS" until 1986, well after tens of thousands had died and many more infected. As long as it was only homos, he just didn't care.
While I'm not in favor of the Federal government spending any money on medical research, that issue has been decided for years.
If they are determined to spend money on medical research, I'm OK with them spending money on stem cell research, as long as they don't use embryonic stem cells. There are lots of other options (including adult stem cells) that could at least give scientists an indication of whether such research will actually bear fruit - which nobody knows yet.
That said, I'd rather his first veto had been McCain-Feingold. And there have been numerous opportunities to veto wasteful spending bills in the last six years.
And if the GOP were smart, they would follow this up with a bill to authorize Federal funding of non-embryonic stem cell research, and pass it overwhelmingly.
"And if the GOP were smart, they would follow this up with a bill to authorize Federal funding of non-embryonic stem cell research, and pass it overwhelmingly."
They actually attempted to do that, and it did not pass - see http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGE1Zjc4YjljYTc2YjI2ZTQzOGQ4YmI1ZGYzZGE3ZWM=
seems Representatives Mike Castle and Diane DeGette campaigned against such a bill in the House, and it didn't get a 2/3 majority it needed to pass a procedural hurdle
Finding out if they will bear fruit is best done with embryonic stem cells.
Rejecting this argument, and those similar to it, is simple ignorance. Legislating by ignorance is flat-out wrong.
Gordy makes a good point. Adult stem cells should probably be given a shot first, because why risk the moral implications on potential at this point in th game. Try adult cells, if they provide fodder for using embryonic, then push that legislation across the table.
I also agree if they were smart they would counter with a sort of compromising, yet worthwhile initiative.
wenalway, I don't think gordy is suggesting "legislating by ignorance", but merely a "meet in the middle" approach.
If you want to learn more about Stem Cell research and some of the possible/theoretical applications, you may want to take a look at this report from the NIH (National Institutes of Health.)
http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/scireport/
I think the subject of stem cell has become highly politicized due to the question of when "life" begins ( is it at conception, vialbility, or even birth...) and that is unfortunate. As Gordy points out, Adult Stem Cells show some promise for possible cures for things like Spinal Cord Injuries, Parkinsons, and maybe even Congestive Heart Failure. (If you know me personally, you will immediately understand why stem cell application in CHF treatment is of major interest.)
It is my understanding that ADULT stem cell research will also be impacted by this bill's passage/veto. The NIH is funded with Federal money. THIS is who will be impacted by this type of bill. as will the CDC.
Regards.
Laura
If adult stem cell research is being affected by this veto, then it's clearly rejection by ignorance because the facts are being obscured by the "pro-life" bleating.
But then, that's what we should expect from the status quo defenders, along with a dancing Indian mascot, smoke-filled bars and a failing health care system. Because change is bad. The status quo is good; it just needs some tinkering.
"Finding out if they will bear fruit is best done with embryonic stem cells."
Why don't we first find out everything we can with the stem cells that everyone can agree that it's moral and ethical to use?
Adult stem cell research should be funded first because it has had some real success and results. The reason adult stems cells have had more success is that the cells come from the person who is being treated so the body does not reject them. Also they use the cells from the part of the body that they are trying to make healthy so there is not a concern that the cells themselves will miss form. Embryonic stem cells can turn into any type of cell which could be positive because you can make any kind of cell. The problem is no one has figured out how to regulate the cells to make them turn into what they want. So the cells turn into useless blobs.
Wenal, the only bleating going on is coming from whiners like you. If the MSM would inform the public properly people would find out we are wasting allot of time and money on embroyonic stem cell research. when we could be focusing on Adult stem cell research which has worked and really be helping people who are ill.
Nothing will be funded first if the veto is not overridden.
Studies show 70 percent of the populace favors stem cell research. Funny how the majority is discarded in this case, but when it comes to the Chief, our dancing mascot, we're supposed to pay attention to the majority. Same with the smoking ban.
All goes back to clinging tightly to the status quo. Dance, Chief, dance! Smoke, C-U, smoke! Die, disease-ridden folks, die!
Wenal, just as you missed directed by saying "stem cell" and not stating the difference between Adult and Embroynic stem cells. shows how useless and miss leading that poll is which type were the people answering the poll saying they accepted or both. I am for stem cell research Adult stem cell research.
Yeah, the poll has to be misleading. Yes, I see how it works.
Still, 70 percent support the research. Yet the bill is being vetoed.
Viva, Lung Resistance! Viva, status quo!
Since the pro-lifers concern seems to be that the embryonic cells in the petri dish is life, and since those in favor of embryonic stem cell research say the embryonic cells are just cells that would otherwise be tossed out, I have a solution.
Toss out the embryonic cells. Then get them back out of the waste recepticle.
Or, those against embryonic stem cell research can have the embryonic cells, and raise them themselves.
Anon, You don't know much about this subject do you. You do know that people have adopted the extra embryo's and there are children alive today from those extra embryo's. So what you are calling garbage is a human life. Does it not have a right to live and grow to be a person?
"Studies show 70 percent of the populace favors stem cell research. Funny how the majority is discarded in this case, but when it comes to the Chief, our dancing mascot, we're supposed to pay attention to the majority. Same with the smoking ban.
All goes back to clinging tightly to the status quo. Dance, Chief, dance! Smoke, C-U, smoke! Die, disease-ridden folks, die! "
That's a really strange argument.
What percentage support embryonic stem cell research versus adult stem cell research, and why do you feel that both must be lumped together?
Everyone should be mad that the liberal's hold up Adult stem cell research which has worked because they can't get money for embryonic stem cell research. That is a real example of stopping research that could have an impact on disease. They of course want another issue to run on.
"Does it not have a right to live and grow to be a person?"
only if implanted
are you volunteering, run4cvrlib?
What you can't tell by my name I am a male, there are hundred's of thousands of people that can't have children if they had the chance I am sure would take it.
"Toss out the embryonic cells. Then get them back out of the waste recepticle.
Or, those against embryonic stem cell research can have the embryonic cells, and raise them themselves."
Do you know what snowflake babies are? The children as a result of allowing the embryos to develop. There are thousands of couples were would love to have these kids.
interesting tidbit from another article:
"Bush said he was disappointed that Congress failed to pass a third bill that would encourage adult stem cell research. Opponents said it would have given lawmakers political cover for opposing the embryonic stem cell bill. But Bush said it would fund vital and ethical research, and he would direct his administration to pursue this kind of science."
Here's the full article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060720/ap_on_go_pr_wh/stem_cells
Saying people will/would adopt these embryos is a complete non-sequitur argument. First of all, you can't really adopt an embryo. It has to be implanted.
Second, and most important, THESE EMBRYOS WOULD BE DISCARDED. It doesn't make a speck of difference to the stem cell research argument.
Please, status quo defenders, try to contain yourselves to the argument. I know it's really, really hard for you, especially when you have to balance your hypocrisy about the majority ruling, etc.
You have any number of other areas to inflict with your fear of change: the dancing mascot, the quest to nullify the smoking ban in all areas above sea level, the push to keep Big Medicine thriving and advertising constantly on our TV channels.
This area involves vital research that could aid many people WHO ARE ALREADY ALIVE. Please try to keep looking at the facts and not focusing on the misinformation.
Wenal, we don't know what we are talking about? you funny. The argument that it's ok to us this embryo's for research has been that they are excess and are going to be thrown away anyway. Well people do adopt them and yes they have to be adopted because they are human life and they have parents with rights. Then they are implanted into a woman and finish their growth into a child. Bush had many of these children from those adoptions at his press conference. I didn't see that on the MSM. All that vital research is being done with Adult stem cell we just don't have to kill something to get them. I asure you I am not in the minority.
Why wouldn't greedy big medicine want to develop expensive super cures for all these diseases? Why do they wait for the federal government to fund the research? If Wenalway is sure of the wonderful benefits of this research, why isn't "big medicine"?
Since Wenalway wants to stay on the topic... let's remember that embryonic stem cell research is not illegal, it's just that the federal government won't fund it unless you use one of the lines that was already made.
So when you look at the reality of the situation, you have one side saying, "Some people don't agree with the morals and ethics of this research, so the federal government won't force them to fund it with their tax dollars, but researchers are free to do the research." The other side is saying, "Dance, Chief, dance! Smoke, C-U, smoke! Die, disease-ridden folks, die!"
run4cvrlib,
if two people offered to create a cryogenic embryo for the express purpose of creating a line for stem cell research, and for it to never be implanted, then wouldn't that make a difference?
anon, I personally find that repulsive. You can change the name but it's still a living human life. Our country's sense of right and wrong sure has changed it's really sad that we are willing to hide behind the term "cryogenic embryo" so they won't have to face the fact their killing a child for their own self centered purposes. Especially since it's not even necessary to do so as long as they have more success with adult stem cell research. If you must do this do it with out my money or our nations stamp of approval it's bad enough the U. S. Congress lowered itself to this point.
A little "slippery slope" argument from an irrational pro-lifer at NRO:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODJiNTI0Y2FiZTI0YTljYWFmNzdmNjEwNjQ3ZGFiYjU=
"Saying people will/would adopt these embryos is a complete non-sequitur argument. First of all, you can't really adopt an embryo. It has to be implanted.
Second, and most important, THESE EMBRYOS WOULD BE DISCARDED. It doesn't make a speck of difference to the stem cell research argument.
Please, status quo defenders, try to contain yourselves to the argument. I know it's really, really hard for you, especially when you have to balance your hypocrisy about the majority ruling, etc.
You have any number of other areas to inflict with your fear of change: the dancing mascot, the quest to nullify the smoking ban in all areas above sea level, the push to keep Big Medicine thriving and advertising constantly on our TV channels.
This area involves vital research that could aid many people WHO ARE ALREADY ALIVE. Please try to keep looking at the facts and not focusing on the misinformation. "
Wenalway,
I think you're getting just a bit over-the-top. But if you want to be a provacatuer (sp?), I'm OK with that. But it's hard to take your arguments seriously when you do so.
I've asked you some basic questions several times, and you just keep responding that I'm a "status quo defender," whatever the hell that is.
It's funny Gordy when you ask them some basic questions their like Cocka Roacha's in the light they ignore the question and run away.
Yes, I know if I don't spend every minute here responding, that means I'm hiding.
Gordy, contrary to your belief, I don't have too much control over how the surveys are done or how the media chooses to frame its questions. I believe I have made quite clear how little cred I give to the media now that I've seen how poorly it functions.
What I know is this: Surveys showed majority support for stem cell research. Yet the majority's wish is rejected.
Funny how that's OK here, but it's such a terrible thing when it involves the dancing halftime Indian.
As far as Big Medicine, those thieves grab for every nickel they can. They want government to pay the freight. Then they use their pit bulls, the benefit administratots, to harass and harangue people.
That's like GW's first election, eh? Majority's wish was rejected.
Wenal, just as you missed directed by saying “stem cell” and not stating the difference between Adult and Embroynic stem cells. shows how useless and miss leading that poll is which type were the people answering the poll saying they accepted or both.
Well, how about this poll by today's news-gazette:
"Do you support President Bush's veto of a bill to provide expanded federal research on stem cells obtained from embryos?"
The results?
79% NO
16% yes
4% undecided
610 votes total
While obviously not scientific, this is a large number of votes for a NG poll, and the results are overwhelming. It's at least one look at what people think about this.
Run4cvrlib -
I suppose you'd object to growing mold in a petri dish for the express purpose of harvesting some sort of medicinal goo from it.
As far as Big Medicine, those thieves grab for every nickel they can. They want government to pay the freight. Then they use their pit bulls, the benefit administratots, to harass and harangue people.
So... shouldn't you be happy that W is standing up to big medicine, telling them to spend their own research dollars? Why are you fighting for more tax dollars to be given to big medicine?
Regarding the whole "make an embryo for science" thing... go ahead.. just don't make taxpayers pay for it. Isn't that reasonable? Why should others have to fund your ethically questionable science experiment?
So that's were all of you were at the NG poll.
"What I know is this: Surveys showed majority support for stem cell research. Yet the majority's wish is rejected."
And you can't recognize that there's more nuance to the question than that?
Do you think there was a reason the questions are worded that vaguely?
Would you be satisfied with Federal funding for non-embryonic stem cell research as a way of gauging its potential? Or does it have to be embryos? If so, why?
I don't see what the problem is with doing research on embryos that will (all together now) BE DISCARDED ANYWAY.
Wenalay, read the article I linked to at 11:12 - tell me what you think.
I think it's a hodgepodge without a point. When he lapsed into some futuristic scenario, he may as well have stopped writing.
but these people aren't really living, and they are just going to die anyway?
Um, who/what are you talking about? Are you calling the embryos people?
Because if you are saying the people with diseases/spinal injuries aren't really living, and they are just going to die anyway, then something is really wrong.
no, the alzheimer's patients in the "futuristic scenario" - why not use their organs while you still can? (they aren't really "living" anyway)
I have no interest in debating futuristic scenarios, only facts.
And the facts are the embryos that WOULD BE DISCARDED could be used potentially to come up with treatments for any number of diseases. The status quo defenders reject this.
Jump, Chief, jump! Puff, bar patrons, puff! Hoard, Big Medicine, Hoard! The forces of status quo and Lung Resistance are behind you!
Wen, lets try a few facts you say the embryos are going to be discarded you says they have to be but thats not true. At Bushs press conference their were 24 of them that were now children. Why can't the other be allowed to be adopted and grow into adults.
So because 24 were adopted, they all can be adopted?
I'm only talking about the embryos that would be discarded. Not the ones that are unusable for any purpose. Not the ones that were implanted. Only the ones THAT WOULD BE DISCARDED anyway.
Yes, they can there are hundreds of thousands of people in this country that can't have children why do you think these people are creating the embryo's in the first place. Many can't afford the process now it would be half done for them.
The argument is that we shouldn't have to disgard them so here is a way to use them that doesn't destroy them.
I think the key phrase is `Federal funding'. I don't think there is enough evidence that this would provide the necessary positives to make this a worthwhile endeavor. So, why should we even broach the general public, many of which have moral objection to this process, and rub salt in the wound by asking them to pay for it too!
Many of them don't, though. Seventy percent of them favor stem cell research.
I'm about to bow out of this argument, simply because we keep going around the same circle of misinformation that led to this bill being vetoed.
Embryos cause global warming.
Wen, you my as well bow out because you never really got into this argument.
Yeah, run, we have to protect the embryos THAT WILL BE DISCARDED ANYWAY. I can't possibly make it any more clear.
I'm done here. This has shown me, though, that a slice of the electorate needs to do a far better job of educating itself about the issues. The public supports this research, and as I've now said, the embryos would (all together now, SQDs) BE DISCARDED ANYWAY.
No good reason at all to support this veto. None. Nada.
wenalway, run4cvrlib is a foam at the mouth pro-lifer named Jim, very very strident, unreasonable, ignorant to any other point of view, won't listen, and it's a waste of time talking to him
If 99.9999% of the people, if Jesus himself told run to change his tune, run would call Jesus a foreign Jew, and have him deported.
Don't excite any more electrons with him, it's pointless
Anon, I think your statement speaks more about you then me. I gave many reasons for why government should not fund embryonic stem cell research and rebutted any in return I am not the unreasonable or ignorant. While I have no foam on my mouth and I have been successful in the Pro-Life area. I would say that most people on both sides of the isle do not find me hard to get along with and we respect each others opinions. I am willing to stand up and work for what I believe you seem to be just willing to make attacks from behind an "anon" that's much easier I guess.
I have a question for run4cvrlib.
Is any abortion ever acceptable, or is never acceptable under any circumstances?
"I have no interest in debating futuristic scenarios, only facts."
That would be short sighted, Wenalway. There are logical extensions of theory made all the time, and responsible citizens should consider the future implications of current actions.
If it is ok to kill human life "because it is going to be thrown away later anyway", how firm a line do we have protecting other kinds of human life? The Nazis experimented on prisoners - they were just going to kill them later anyway. We have all these aborted fetuses at various stages of development - ok to use any and all of their parts?
As long we're going off the rhetorical deep end, Wenalway, isn't every human being going to die someday anyway?
Anon, Why should I answer a question from you?
that's it, run away and hide.
Anon, there is no reason to discuss an issue with you. When you can't answer a question or are losing the argument you just personally attack the person you are discussing the issue with. You may think that is a strategy to win a debate and prove your point it's not it is just abusive. As I said before you don't know me well enough to attack me the way you have or others.
run4cvrlib, I have never attacked you.
Maybe I should have chosen a different name.
Is "anon" a problem?
OK, I will answer the one question from Gordy.
Saying "we'll all just die anyway" is simply ignorance of the highest caliber. It serves as a prime justification for not trying to use available means to improve quality of life.
These shortcomings pervade Big Medicine. People in chronic pain can't get the treatment they need, even when it's readily available, because of the loopholes and harassment they have to endure from Big Medicine, its attack dogs who inhabit the file areas and the administrative pit bulls.
If I wanted to, I guess I could use the same logic: If we're all going to die anyway, what's wrong with using the embryos THAT WILL BE DISCARDED ANYWAY for research?
But I think I'll just keep saying: The embryos WILL BE DISCARDED ANYWAY. No need to throw tortured logic into it. Basic logic usually does fine, although the hapless status quo defenders have a hard time with it.
Kick, dancing Indian, kick! Inhale, C-U, inhale! Hoard, Big Medicine, hoard!
Anon, you should read all of the other anon posts then that may help you to understand.
Wen, "embryos THAT WILL BE DISCARDED ANYWAY for research?"---Are we trying to take out the garbage or fund research that will have an impact on disease? There is a limit to how much we can spend on research and some say this research should be left to private business. If you are interested in doing research you should do the research that has the greatest possibility for success and embryonic stem cell research has had none. Adult Stem cell research has had many including treatments for Parkinson's. Status quo must mean you because you're stuck on using embryonic stem cells try something new that works Adult and cord stem cell research.
"Kick, dancing Indian, kick! Inhale, C-U, inhale! Hoard, Big Medicine, hoard!"
And yet you would be all to happy to see "Big Medicine" get a handout for doing research on embryonic stem cells? (and I am sure applaud Gov. Blago for doing the same) curious, very curious indeed.
Run: Sorry, you've lost the right to much of a response from me. You say the same thing over and over, even though it makes no sense and has no bearing on the discussion. The veto on the bill also cancels out funding for adult stem cell research. I've said this; you've ignored it. So I'll just ignore you.
RSW: You seem to be missing the point about Big Medicine. When Big Medicine uses its clout to deny treatments, advertise the same drugs relentlessly, harass people, etc., then I have a problem. If it's researching a cure for many currently untreatable diseases, then I have no problem.
Funny how that works, huh?
Wenal, How did I get so lucky?
For the others this makes allot of sense--Since we can't have money for Embryonic stem cell research which we say we must have to save lives (but has not saved one) we won't allow adult stem cell funding to pass(which has had real success) I guess those poor sick people only when I get my way. Sounds like the status quo.
Nonsensical drivel. Write a coherent point or two, please.
do you sell crack too?
un4cvrlib, I want to ask you some basic questions about morality. It may help me, and others, to understand your point of view. Feel free to ignore the questions, but I would like to know where you are coming from, especially about your position regarding abortion and embryonic stem cell research.
Is morality man made, or God made? Or a combination?
If God made, from where do we get it (source), and is it unchangeable?
If man made, is it changeable, and how and when does it change?
If it is a combination, how do we sort out which is God made and which is man made?
If God made, is it universal, or does it apply only to those who believe in God, and or only to those who believe in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God?
Thanks for answering, if you choose to answer.
Anon, I fail to see what my personal beliefs on morality have to do with the comments I have made so far on the issue of stem cell research. I have not made moral arguments in this debate. I have said that we should spend our money on the type of stem cell research that has proven to work. We should not waste time on research when as everyone has said people's health and lives are in danger. Embryonic stem cell research has not proven to show any results and private industry has not wanted to fund the research.
So if you want to respond to those comments go ahead no one seems to have an answer for those questions. Maybe they don't have a good answer because we should not be funding embryonic stem cell research.
I would also like to know why if so many people's health and lives are in danger as has been the reason to funding embryonic stem cell research and if Adult stem cell research works why it has not been just as important for the Left to push for funding for Adult stem cell research.
The reason I ask about your moral construct, especially about how you come to your political positions, is so we may engage in discussion.
I am under the impression that your opposition to embryonic stem cell research is morality based, as opposed to science based. I may be wrong.
I enjoy discussion. I am open to re-examination of my ideas, as I would hope most would be. That re-examination sometimes convinces me I am wrong, and sometimes convinces me I am right. Sometimes, often in fact, I moderate my ideas.
If you do not want to engage in discussion, fine. That's up to you.
I think if you would like to engage in a discussion you should try responding to the questions already on the table. I think George Bush has already dealt with your question. I think my comments address the need for Adult stem cell research funding so we can address the health issues people have discussed. It seems odd to me that if the research was so important that we are not now moving forward with funding of Adult Stem cell research funding. Especially since Adult stem cell research has had so much more success. My moral beliefs won't change the answers to these questions. It's seems to me you shouldn't question my motives but those that now are not interested in funding Adult stem cell research when they were so concerned before. Some just seem to want a political issue.
The reason I asked, run4cvrlib, is that President Bush himself said, "it crosses a moral boundary".
I was just trying to engage you in a discussion about the moral underpinnings of the law.
Adult stem cell research seems like a good idea to me, but has a whole different moral basis. I was just asking about embryonic stem cell research.
But, I understand that you do not want to discuss it. So be it.